It's healthy to seek opposite points of view when fact finding.

 

But then, if your mind is made up you can feel free to continue to ignore such facts.

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Again I have no idea about the science...


But finding ways of utilising sustainable energy instead of burning all the planets resources makes too much sense from a long term view...

---

Again I have no idea about the science...


But finding ways of utilising sustainable energy instead of burning all the planets resources makes too much sense from a long term view...

 

I don't think anyone really disagrees with you, the issue is cost v benefit in the near term and the use of apocalyptic rhetoric to describe the current situation for personal gain.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The price mechanism has always been more efficent than government fiat

---

Climate change as a national security threat:


http://fusion.net/story/269668/water-ine...news/feed/

---

This analogy was too good so I'm stealing it straight from the comment section from the reddit link to the above article:


From 'moduspwns' responding to another commenter's analogy that the current public policy/debate is akin to a college student procrastinating until the night before the due date:


"The real problem is that it's not really like a term paper. An unfinished term paper doesn't get worse the longer you wait. Waiting until you're closer to the due date doesn't increase the time it takes to write the paper or the penalty to your grade of not writing it in time.

Climate change isn't like that. We're not slowly warming the planet, we're slowing increasing the rate at which the planet is warming. Even if we just stopped contributing to climate change completely, it would take quite a while for the warming to stop increasing, much less to start decreasing. We're not increasing the temperature, we're increasing the rate of change in the temperature. We're not moving toward disaster, we're accelerating toward disaster.

It's more like we're holding our foot on the gas pedal heading toward a brick wall that nearly every map says is just ahead.

And we're waiting to see the wall before we take our foot off the accelerator.

And the car doesn't have any brakes.

And a good portion of the passengers are insisting that the maps must be wrong because they can't see the wall yet.

And an even larger portion of the passengers are insisting that we shouldn't let off on the gas pedal because slowing down isn't worth it if someone figures out a way to go through the wall before we reach it."

---

This analogy was too good so I'm stealing it straight from the comment section from the reddit link to the above article:


From 'moduspwns' responding to another commenter's analogy that the current public policy/debate is akin to a college student procrastinating until the night before the due date:


"The real problem is that it's not really like a term paper. An unfinished term paper doesn't get worse the longer you wait. Waiting until you're closer to the due date doesn't increase the time it takes to write the paper or the penalty to your grade of not writing it in time.

Climate change isn't like that. We're not slowly warming the planet, we're slowing increasing the rate at which the planet is warming. Even if we just stopped contributing to climate change completely, it would take quite a while for the warming to stop increasing, much less to start decreasing. We're not increasing the temperature, we're increasing the rate of change in the temperature. We're not moving toward disaster, we're accelerating toward disaster.

It's more like we're holding our foot on the gas pedal heading toward a brick wall that nearly every map says is just ahead.

And we're waiting to see the wall before we take our foot off the accelerator.

And the car doesn't have any brakes.

And a good portion of the passengers are insisting that the maps must be wrong because they can't see the wall yet.

And an even larger portion of the passengers are insisting that we shouldn't let off on the gas pedal because slowing down isn't worth it if someone figures out a way to go through the wall before we reach it."

 

Except that it's entirely wrong. The rate of change of global temperature is not accelerating. If anything, it has stopped. For the last 15 years the global temperature has not increased.


 

And spending money now on expensive and non-viable alternate energy drains wealth from the future, when there will probably be viable alternatives to fossil fuel. The idea of eliminating CO2 release today is akin to banning horses in 1870.


 

Of course we have a viable CO2-free alternative right now, nuclear power. The only explanation as to why it's not at the top of the believers' list is that the environmental movement is actually about drastically reducing population.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Except that it's entirely wrong. The rate of change of global temperature is not accelerating. If anything, it has stopped. For the last 15 years the global temperature has not increased.


And spending money now on expensive and non-viable alternate energy drains wealth from the future, when there will probably be viable alternatives to fossil fuel. The idea of eliminating CO2 release today is akin to banning horses in 1870.


Of course we have a viable CO2-free alternative right now, nuclear power. The only explanation as to why it's not at the top of the believers' list is that the environmental movement is actually about drastically reducing population.

You can deny it all you want, friend, but your green text just doesn't hold water. It's not true just cause you want it to be. It's not true because you get paid to type that. It's not true because you are a troll. It's not true because it's not what is actually happening now in the real world. If it was, you could prove it. You can't. Here's what the truth really looks like:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/'>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/</a>

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comm...anuel_and/


Current 'ask me anything' on reddit right now


Get over there and give em hell, Malabar!

---

You can deny it all you want, friend, but your green text just doesn't hold water. It's not true just cause you want it to be. It's not true because you get paid to type that. It's not true because you are a troll. It's not true because it's not what is actually happening now in the real world. If it was, you could prove it. You can't. Here's what the truth really looks like:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/'>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/</a>

 

You need to read your own links. First off, the article does not describe actual measurements, just computer models, the same models that have failed so spectacularly this century.


Secondly, the graph from your very own link labelled "No Significant Change in Trend Since 1998" shows what the title says, there has been no increase in the trend. Even using the most alarmist, heavily adjusted set of measurements they could find, the rate of warming is not increasing. With every other set of measurements the rate has decreased, and the satellite measurements, which are the only actual global measurements, show zero warming trend this century, which is a significant rate decrease.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You need to read your own links. First off, the article does not describe actual measurements, just computer models, the same models that have failed so spectacularly this century.


Secondly, the graph from your very own link labelled "No Significant Change in Trend Since 1998" shows what the title says, there has been no increase in the trend. Even using the most alarmist, heavily adjusted set of measurements they could find, the rate of warming is not increasing. With every other set of measurements the rate has decreased, and the satellite measurements, which are the only actual global measurements, show zero warming trend this century, which is a significant rate decrease.

Lol yea I'm not surprised that's what you got out of that. But are you being genuine? Let's take a look:


We know 1998 was a red letter year. It was the hottest year on record until 2014 (and now 2015). The inclusion of that graph was to demonstrate that there was no pause as was eagerly reported in February. But you knew all that already.


From the article:


"New research from a major national lab projects that the rate of climate change, which has risen sharply in recent decades, will soar by the 2020s. This worrisome projection — which has implications for extreme weather, sea level rise, and permafrost melt — is consistent with several recent studies."


That was the very first paragraph! Did you skip that part?


They go on:


"The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” finds that by 2020, human-caused warming will move the Earth’s climate system “into a regime in terms of multi-decadal rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years.”"


"...rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1000 years" - that sounds wonderful


Here's the graph you should have made mention of:

---

Lol yea I'm not surprised that's what you got out of that. But are you being genuine? Let's take a look:


We know 1998 was a red letter year. It was the hottest year on record until 2014 (and now 2015). The inclusion of that graph was to demonstrate that there was no pause as was eagerly reported in February. But you knew all that already.


From the article:


"New research from a major national lab projects that the rate of climate change, which has risen sharply in recent decades, will soar by the 2020s. This worrisome projection — which has implications for extreme weather, sea level rise, and permafrost melt — is consistent with several recent studies."


That was the very first paragraph! Did you skip that part?


They go on:


"The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” finds that by 2020, human-caused warming will move the Earth’s climate system “into a regime in terms of multi-decadal rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years.”"


"...rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1000 years" - that sounds wonderful


Here's the graph you should have made mention of:

 

Do you even know what a projection is? It's not "truth," it's a computer model (in this case) as to what will happen based on the beliefs of the programmer. You might as well read a horoscope and based on it decide to give away all your worldly possessions tomorrow.


 

Look at the figure you pasted. Your figure! The projection is the heavy black line in the dark blue. The "truth" is the thin black line in the bottom of the light blue. And look at how wide they had to make their range of projections just to get the actual data into the bottom edge.


 

Press releases aren't "truth." Projections aren't "truth." The actual data is the only truth.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

oface's fantasies have effectively been blown out of the water by my previous link.  So sorry, game over.

 

The price mechanism has always been more efficent than government fiat

 

Completely agree.

 

The free market entrepreneurs have proven to be able to provide necessary solutions, providing the best product at the lowest price.

 

As long as supply is high and price is low enough, there's no problem to artificially "fix."

 

Otherwise, your product will cost more and be less effective.

 

Which is what we see today.

 

When there's incentive to change, we will.  And quickly, to something equally or less expensive, with better quality.

 

But then, there's always resistance from nimbys who oppose nuclear, etc... funny how those are the same who falsely call themselves "progressives"...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

oface's fantasies have effectively been blown out of the water by my previous link. So sorry, game over.



Completely agree.


The free market entrepreneurs have proven to be able to provide necessary solutions, providing the best product at the lowest price.


As long as supply is high and price is low enough, there's no problem to artificially "fix."


Otherwise, your product will cost more and be less effective.


Which is what we see today.


When there's incentive to change, we will. And quickly, to something equally or less expensive, with better quality.


But then, there's always resistance from nimbys who oppose nuclear, etc... funny how those are the same who falsely call themselves "progressives"...

Article from today

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://fusion.net/story/271327/2015-solar-capacity-report/'>http://fusion.net/story/271327/2015-solar-capacity-report/</a>

---

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/c...-1.3458142

 

Stupid Canucks, not believing in AGCC and such.

 

And typical researchers, always modifying the data when the results aren't to their liking.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener...&tid=ss_tw


More conspiracy theory^^

---

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/22/seas-are-now-rising-faster-than-they-have-in-2800-years-scientists-say/?postshare=2741456178146399&tid=ss_tw'>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/22/seas-are-now-rising-faster-than-they-have-in-2800-years-scientists-say/?postshare=2741456178146399&tid=ss_tw</a>


More conspiracy theory^^

But I was told that we were looking back on the Immaculation of Obama as the day the seas began to recede. I wish they'd make you their minds.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener...&tid=ss_tw


More conspiracy theory^^

 

Once again, read the actual science rather than the media misinterpretation.


If you look at the figures from the actual paper (below) rather than the WaPo spin, you can see that the rate of sea level rise started around 1800, the end of the little ice age. There was no anthropogenic factor back then. Since 1800 the rate of sea level rise has been nearly constant.


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/0....large.jpg

If you look at the tide gauges (NOAA has a large selection) you can see clearly that the rate of sea level rise has been fairly steady for the last 100 years. There has been no change since 1950 due to CO2. Here are the first two I looked up, but feel free to check out many others. 

 

Mayport:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrend...id=8720218

 

San Diego:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrend...id=9410170

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Once again, read the actual science rather than the media misinterpretation.


If you look at the figures from the actual paper (below) rather than the WaPo spin, you can see that the rate of sea level rise started around 1800, the end of the little ice age. There was no anthropogenic factor back then. Since 1800 the rate of sea level rise has been nearly constant.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113/F3.large.jpg'>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113/F3.large.jpg</a>


If you look at the tide gauges (NOAA has a large selection) you can see clearly that the rate of sea level rise has been fairly steady for the last 100 years. There has been no change since 1950 due to CO2. Here are the first two I looked up, but feel free to check out many others.

Mayport:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8720218'>http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8720218</a>

San Diego:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410170'>http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410170</a>

Do you live close to the coast, Malabar? I would assume you do if you live in Malabar. I wonder what the elevation is there. Do you own your property? Do you have kids?

---

You can deny it all you want, friend, but your green text just doesn't hold water. It's not true just cause you want it to be. It's not true because you get paid to type that. It's not true because you are a troll. It's not true because it's not what is actually happening now in the real world. If it was, you could prove it. You can't. Here's what the truth really looks like:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/'>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/</a>

You serious with this stuff? Similar predictions have been made in the past that were already supposed to have occured, but never did. Throw enough stuff against the wall and eventually something will stick.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"