Yes I know he's not a climate scientist. But that means guys like Torch will probably listen to him closer since, you know, they're all conspired together (in academia to boot even though they could make a lot more $$ in oil). Or whatever.

Owl, you ask me about my great grandkids. I do worry about future generations, primarily that we're doing irreversible damage to our climate the serious effects of which might not materialize until after my lifetime, and lead to food shortages for much increased populations (which in turn would cause famine and wars). I do worry about bringing kids into a world who will see these consequences in their lifetimes (this is where Torch hilariously tells me I won't have kids or directs me not to have kids if I'm so worried). And no jokes about growing oranges in Alaska please. We all need to speak out against people with an agenda who try to muddy the waters and convince others there is a legitimate debate in the scientific community on global warming, when 95% of scientists and all peer reviewed scientific articles acknowledge it. Their goal is to create the illusion of a debate so they can hold off on taking action as long as possible. We can debate how big of a deal it is or how much the effects will be, but basically all the data and evidence clearly shows a warming trend correlation with increased CO2 levels and hey, we're all stuck on this rock together.


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/29...te-change/

Acknowledging Climate Change Doesn’t Make You A Liberal

by Paul Douglas, via neorenaissance

I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real.

I am a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment, and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters, I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up, long-term. It’s ironic.

The root of the word conservative is “conserve.” A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed.

Weather 2.0. “It’s A New Atmosphere Floating Overhead.”
These are the Dog Days of March. Ham Weather reports 6,895 records in the last week – some towns 30 to 45 degrees warmer than average; off-the-scale, freakishly warm. 13,393 daily records for heat since March 1 – 16 times more warm records than cold records. The scope, intensity and duration of this early heat wave are historic and unprecedented.

And yes, climate change is probably spiking our weather.

“Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.” 129,404 weather records in one year? You can’t point to any one weather extreme and say “that’s climate change”. But a warmer atmosphere loads the dice, increasing the potential for historic spikes in temperature and more frequent and bizarre weather extremes. You can’t prove that any one of Barry Bond’s 762 home runs was sparked by (alleged) steroid use. But it did increase his “base state,” raising the overall odds of hitting a home run. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, more fuel for floods, while increased evaporation pushes other regions into drought.


Images courtesy of NOAA. Billion dollar disasters (upper). Percentage of USA in drought/flood (lower)
Here’s what I suspect: the patient is running a slight fever. Symptoms include violent tornado sneezes, severe sniffles of flooding and raging rashes of jaw-dropping warmth. It’s 85 in March. What will July bring? It’s as if Mother Nature seized the weather remote, put America’s seasons on fast-forward, and turned the volume on extreme weather up to a deafening 10. This isn’t even close to being “normal”. Weather Underground’s Dr. Jeff Masters put it best. “This is not the atmosphere I grew up with.”

Some TV meteorologists, professionals who are skilled at predicting short-term weather, are still in denial. Why? Some don’t like being upstaged by climate scientists; we’ve all been burned by weather models, and some (mistakenly) apply the same suspicion to climate models. Others haven’t taken the time to dig into the climate science. “It’s all political” one local TV weather-friend told me recently. No, it’s science. But we’ve turned it into a political football, a bizarre litmus test for conservatism. Weather and climate are flip-sides of the same coin; you can’t talk about one without understanding the other.

Acknowledging Climate Science Doesn’t Make You A Liberal
My climate epiphany wasn’t overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. In the mid-90s I noticed gradual changes in the weather patterns floating over Minnesota. Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change, along with 97% of published, peer-reviewed PhD’s, who link a 40% spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere.

Bill O’Reilly, whom I respect, talks of a “no-spin zone.” Yet today there’s a very concerted, well-funded effort to spin climate science. Some companies, institutes and think tanks are cherry-picking data, planting dubious seeds of doubt, arming professional deniers, scientists-for-hire and skeptical bloggers with the ammunition necessary to keep climate confusion alive. It’s the “you can’t prove smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer!” argument, times 100, with many of the same players. Amazing.

Schopenhauer said “All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident.” We are now well into Stage 2. It’s getting bloody out there. Climate scientists are receiving death threats and many Americans don’t know what to believe. Some turn to talk radio or denial-blogs for their climate information. No wonder they’re confused.








“Actions Have Consequences.”
Trust your gut – and real experts. We should listen to peer-reviewed climate scientists, who are very competitive by nature. This is not about “insuring more fat government research grants.” I have yet to find a climate scientist in the “1 Percent”, driving a midlife-crisis-red Ferrari into the lab. I truly hope these scientists turn out to be wrong, but I see no sound, scientific evidence to support that position today. What I keep coming back to is this: all those dire (alarmist!) warnings from climate scientists 30 years ago? They’re coming true, one after another – and faster than supercomputer models predicted. Data shows 37 years/row of above-average temperatures, worldwide. My state has warmed by at least 3 degrees F. Climate change is either “The Mother of All Coincidences” – or the trends are real.

My father, a devout Republican, who escaped a communist regime in East Germany, always taught me to never take my freedom for granted, and “actions have consequences.” Carbon that took billions of years to form has been released in a geological blink of an eye. Human emissions have grown significantly over the past 200 years, and now exceed 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide, annually. To pretend this isn’t having any effect on the 12-mile thin atmosphere overhead is to throw all logic and common sense out the window. It is to believe in scientific superstitions and political fairy tales, about a world where actions have no consequences – where colorless, odorless gases, the effluence of success and growth, can be waved away with a nod and a smirk. No harm, no foul. Keep drilling.

In 2008, before it became fashionable to bash climate science, I had the honor of welcoming Iraqi war veterans back to Minnesota for a banquet. The keynote speaker was my hero, Senator John McCain. At dinner I asked him point blank “is it possible this warm, freakish weather is all one great big, cosmic coincidence?” He rolled his eyes, smiled and said “Paul, I just returned from the Yukon. The Chief Elder of a local village presented me with a 4,000 year old tomahawk that had just melted from the permafrost. The short answer? No.” How did we get from there – to here, with an entire party in perpetual denial? Is it still Al Gore? Fear of a government land-grab? My party needs to step up and become part of the solution, which, this century, will generate far more jobs and GDP than legacy, carbon-based industries.

“You’re obsessing,” my wife of 28 years complained recently. “People don’t like having this rammed down their throats.” Fair enough. I’m genuinely concerned, because I’m in touch with America’s leading climate scientists. They are beyond concerned; bordering on apoplectic. We fiddle while Rome burns.

Biblical Scripture: “We Are Here to Manage God’s Property”
I’m a Christian, and I can’t understand how people who profess to love and follow God roll their eyes when the subject of climate change comes up. Actions have consequences. Were we really put here to plunder the Earth, no questions asked? Isn’t that the definition of greed? In the Bible, Luke 16:2 says, “Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship.” Future generations will hold us responsible for today’s decisions.

I understand this: capitalism requires growth. Growth requires energy. Anything that gets in the way of insuring an uninterrupted flow of (carbon-based) energy must be inherently evil. My fellow Republicans have an allergic reaction to regulation, but do we really want to go back to the 60s, a time of choking smog and combustible rivers? There’s a palpable fear that Big Government will ultimately prevent the energy industry from extracting (and burning) trillions of dollars of carbon still in the ground; the fuel we think we need to keep America competitive, growing and healthy.

U.S. reserves of carbon based fuels are 586 GtCO2, according to the Congressional Research Service. Think Progress’s Brad Johnson estimates U.S. energy companies have roughly $10 trillion worth of carbon resources still left in the ground (coal, gas and oil). “A cap on carbon emissions designed to limit warming to 2 degrees C. will mean sovereign states and public corporations must strand 80% of their $27 trillion of proven (global) reserves and related assets, a loss exceeding $20 trillion” he said. This is what the fight is about. Big Energy wants to keep us addicted to carbon-based fuels indefinitely; shareholders want to keep the money-spigot flowing, and lock in future profits. Surprised? Me neither. But in business, as in life, you hedge your bets. We can slowly, methodically, wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels, while investing in carbon-clean alternatives. That doesn’t mean government picks winners. That’s anathema to free enterprise.

Climate Change: The Ultimate Test for Capitalism. Let The Markets Work
I’m an entrepreneur. The eight Minnesota companies I’ve created ultimately employed hundreds of professionals. Where others see chronic problems I see opportunity. One of my companies is Smart Energy, with a new level of wind forecast accuracy for global wind farms. Last summer, in response to the most severe two years since 1816, my partners and I launched a new, national cable weather channel (“WeatherNation Television”) – to keep Americans updated with 24/7 storm reports. “Global Weirding” has arrived. Why bother? Because it’s the right thing to do. And because going green will generate green. As in profits. We won’t drill our way out of this challenge; we’ll innovate our way into a new, lower-carbon energy paradigm. Something we’re pretty good at. Professional skeptics will hold up Solyndra as a reason why this will never work. For the sake of our nation’s future – don’t believe them.

Every Day Is April Fool’s Day In Washington D.C.
Amazingly, America already has the technology and creative minds necessary to ensure future growth and more jobs, without treating Earth like a battered ATM card. We can tackle this problem, like we’ve tackled every other problem in our nation’s history. But do we have the political will? Our political system is broken, utterly incapable of dealing with long-term threats. Compromise is seen as weakness; our natural resources put at risk by political paralysis. Will getting serious about climate change require a third political party: a pro-jobs, pro-clean-energy Common Sense Moderate Middle – to prove that America can move forward and thrive, without trashing the land and air we value? Perhaps.




The climate is warming. The weather is morphing. It’s not your grandfather’s weather anymore. The trends are undeniable. If you don’t want to believe thousands of climate scientists – at least believe your own eyes: winters are warmer & shorter, summers more humid, more extreme weather events, with a 1-in-500 year flood every 2-3 years. For evidence of climate change don’t look at your back yard thermometer. That’s weather. Take another, longer look at your yard. Look at the new flowers, trees, birds, insects and pests showing up outside your kitchen window that weren’t there a generation ago.

This is a moral issue. Because the countries least responsible will bear the brunt of rising seas, spreading drought and climate refugees. Because someday your grandkids will ask what did you know…when…and what did you do to help? We’ve been binging on carbon for 200 years, and now the inevitable hangover is setting in. Curing our addiction to carbon won’t happen overnight. But creative capitalism can deal with climate change. I’m no fan of big government or over-regulation. Set the bar high. Then stand back and let the markets work. Let Americans do what they do best: innovate.

“The Mother of All Opportunities”: Turning America Into The Silicon Valley of Energy
We can figure this out. Frankly, we won’t have a choice. But I’m a naïve optimist. We can reinvent America, leaving us more competitive in the 21st century, launching thousands of new, carbon-free energy companies – supplementing, and someday surpassing anything we can expeditiously suck out of the ground and burn, accelerating an already-warming planet. We don’t have to bury our heads in Saudi sand – we’ll never “frack” our way to a sustainable future. It’s time for a New Energy Paradigm. There’s no silver bullet. But there’s plenty of (green) buckshot, if we aim high and point America in the right direction. We need real leadership, and a viable, bipartisan blueprint for inevitable energy independence from President Obama and Congress. Yes, healthcare is important. So is the long-term health of our air, land and water.

There are steps all of us can take today. I own one hybrid, another on order. I bought a home a mile away from my office, to reduce my carbon footprint (and preserve some sense of sanity). But there’s much more I can do. Let’s challenge ourselves to reinvent our own energy ecosystems.


America 2.0. The Best Way to Predict the Future? Invent It
I don’t pretend to have the answer key. But the same Tenacious, Fast-Forward, Can-Do American Spirit that built the transcontinental railroad, the Internet, lasers and the first artificial heart – sending men sent to the moon in a breathtakingly short period of time – will ultimately figure this out. My youngest son is graduating from the Naval Academy in May, then heading to Pensacola. He’ll be flying choppers or jets; F-18s that can already run on biofuels. The Navy is serious about renewables and alternative fuels. Because it’s the best way forward – protecting our troops, securing supply lines, creating economies of scale that will make biofuels more competitive, leaving the Navy less vulnerable to price shocks in the oil markets. Hedge your bets. Put fewer troops at risk. Think ahead. Only the paranoid survive. In the words of my Eagle Scout brethren “Be Prepared.” Go Navy. Beat Army.

We don’t have much time. Earth Day is April 22, but every day is Earth Day. Native Americans remind us of the sacred responsibility we have for all those who come next:

“We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors…we borrow it from our children.”

Paul Douglas is a nationally-respected meteorologist, with 32 years of broadcast television and 36 years of radio experience. He is the founder of several companies and author of two books, “Prairie Skies, the Minnesota Weather Book”, and “Restless Skies, the Ultimate Weather Book.”

So if a conservative says it is true then it is? Thanks Max. Were right you are wrong.

Thanks max, but weather isn't climate...remember?

Must suck being stupid.

(03-29-2012 05:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  We all need to speak out against people with an agenda who try to muddy the waters and convince others there is a legitimate debate in the scientific community on global warming, when 95% of scientists and all peer reviewed scientific articles acknowledge it. Their goal is to create the illusion of a debate so they can hold off on taking action as long as possible. We can debate how big of a deal it is or how much the effects will be, but basically all the data and evidence clearly shows a warming trend correlation with increased CO2 levels and hey, we're all stuck on this rock together.

Here's the problem. That 95% number? Totally legitimate, but for only half the argument. Most credible climate scientists agree that CO2 contributes to warming: About 0.5 to 1.0 degree C per 100 years. Bad? Sure. Needs fixing? You bet. But the Alarmists don't just say CO2=warming. They say there are amplifying effects that create hyper-warming (i.e. hockey stick). You will not find 95% of climate scientists that agree with that second Alarmist conclusion because that amplification isn't supported by anything but extremely complex models. But it's that position that is driving the economically unsustainable push for draconian changes NOW. We have a "green economy" that is driven by massive subsidies yet still isn't close to having the kind of infrastructure necessary to distribute most "green" energy. What we need are well thought out incentives for industry to create that alternative energy infrastructure and to improve the efficiency of green energy sources. It takes time, so in the mean time let's not shoot ourselves in the collective foot by cutting off energy sources that could help the economy when, let's face it, the economy could use a little more help.

La Niña.

Sunspot cycles.

We're in a time where the average temperature is supposed to rise early and fall late. Later on, people will realize this, but still stick to their idiotic laurels. Climatologists aren't kooks, but the outspoken ones are. And meteorologists have little business suggesting either direction: they study local events in short periods of time.

Try again, sir.

(Sulfuric gases produced by factories, vehicles, etc. cause the most significant short-term average temperature increases, but no corporation wants to hear that they are contributing to an unnecessary panic, they could lose money! )

Good article but I have to say, I am not at all surprised that these morons here slam it. I just wish these guys would first start learning how weahter works. Once they do that, do what the author did. Go look at the climate. They might just learn a thing or two. Well maybe not. I think these guys are hopeless.

A guy at work is a big global warming denier. He told me that he doesn't think anything man does can hurt the Earth so he doesn't care about how many plastic bags go in the landfill etc. How do you talk rationally with someone like that? I don't think you can. Of course, the one lady at work really didn't help matters by saying her source for her global warming info was Michael Jackson and Nostradamus.

(03-29-2012 05:22 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Here's the problem. That 95% number? Totally legitimate, but for only half the argument. Most credible climate scientists agree that CO2 contributes to warming: About 0.5 to 1.0 degree C per 100 years. Bad? Sure. Needs fixing? You bet. But the Alarmists don't just say CO2=warming. They say there are amplifying effects that create hyper-warming (i.e. hockey stick). You will not find 95% of climate scientists that agree with that second Alarmist conclusion because that amplification isn't supported by anything but extremely complex models. But it's that position that is driving the economically unsustainable push for draconian changes NOW. We have a "green economy" that is driven by massive subsidies yet still isn't close to having the kind of infrastructure necessary to distribute most "green" energy. What we need are well thought out incentives for industry to create that alternative energy infrastructure and to improve the efficiency of green energy sources. It takes time, so in the mean time let's not shoot ourselves in the collective foot by cutting off energy sources that could help the economy when, let's face it, the economy could use a little more help.

Amen.

My very first sentence was "I know he's not a climate scientist." But since Torch already dismisses all the climate scientists as in cahoots with Big Academia I figured I'd bring in a meteorologist who looks at whether patterns, which is probably the next best expertise.

Quote:Here's the problem. That 95% number? Totally legitimate, but for only half the argument. Most credible climate scientists agree that CO2 contributes to warming: About 0.5 to 1.0 degree C per 100 years. Bad? Sure. Needs fixing? You bet. But the Alarmists don't just say CO2=warming. They say there are amplifying effects that create hyper-warming (i.e. hockey stick). You will not find 95% of climate scientists that agree with that second Alarmist conclusion because that amplification isn't supported by anything but extremely complex models. But it's that position that is driving the economically unsustainable push for draconian changes NOW. We have a "green economy" that is driven by massive subsidies yet still isn't close to having the kind of infrastructure necessary to distribute most "green" energy. What we need are well thought out incentives for industry to create that alternative energy infrastructure and to improve the efficiency of green energy sources. It takes time, so in the mean time let's not shoot ourselves in the collective foot by cutting off energy sources that could help the economy when, let's face it, the economy could use a little more help.

Dude I'm not disagreeing with you. That's basically what I said ("We can debate how big of a deal it is or how much the effects will be, but basically all the data and evidence clearly shows a warming trend correlation with increased CO2 levels and hey, we're all stuck on this rock together"). Debate amplifying effects? Ok. Reexamine allocation of green subsidies and infrastructure? Fair enough. The basic first point though ("increased CO2 levels have an effect") is still being disputed though and because of that we can't move on to the second debate, and this becomes a partisan issue and quite frankly that means when we libs win the more extreme elements in the party get their way and maybe they go overboard. Certainly we should be careful not to go overboard and kill our economy for minimal gain but the debate can't start until the deniers give up their schtick.

(03-30-2012 11:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  My very first sentence was "I know he's not a climate scientist." But since Torch already dismisses all the climate scientists as in cahoots with Big Academia I figured I'd bring in a meteorologist who looks at whether patterns, which is probably the next best expertise.

Quote:Here's the problem. That 95% number? Totally legitimate, but for only half the argument. Most credible climate scientists agree that CO2 contributes to warming: About 0.5 to 1.0 degree C per 100 years. Bad? Sure. Needs fixing? You bet. But the Alarmists don't just say CO2=warming. They say there are amplifying effects that create hyper-warming (i.e. hockey stick). You will not find 95% of climate scientists that agree with that second Alarmist conclusion because that amplification isn't supported by anything but extremely complex models. But it's that position that is driving the economically unsustainable push for draconian changes NOW. We have a "green economy" that is driven by massive subsidies yet still isn't close to having the kind of infrastructure necessary to distribute most "green" energy. What we need are well thought out incentives for industry to create that alternative energy infrastructure and to improve the efficiency of green energy sources. It takes time, so in the mean time let's not shoot ourselves in the collective foot by cutting off energy sources that could help the economy when, let's face it, the economy could use a little more help.

Dude I'm not disagreeing with you. That's basically what I said ("We can debate how big of a deal it is or how much the effects will be, but basically all the data and evidence clearly shows a warming trend correlation with increased CO2 levels and hey, we're all stuck on this rock together"). Debate amplifying effects? Ok. Reexamine allocation of green subsidies and infrastructure? Fair enough. The basic first point though ("increased CO2 levels have an effect") is still being disputed though and because of that we can't move on to the second debate, and this becomes a partisan issue and quite frankly that means when we libs win the more extreme elements in the party get their way and maybe they go overboard. Certainly we should be careful not to go overboard and kill our economy for minimal gain but the debate can't start until the deniers give up their schtick.

The thing is, one must know weather in order to understand climate. Problem is the posters don't understand weather so they certainly can't understand climate. They listen to people who have little undertanding of either to decide for them.

(03-30-2012 11:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The basic first point though ("increased CO2 levels have an effect") is still being disputed though and because of that we can't move on to the second debate, and this becomes a partisan issue and quite frankly that means when we libs win the more extreme elements in the party get their way and maybe they go overboard. Certainly we should be careful not to go overboard and kill our economy for minimal gain but the debate can't start until the deniers give up their schtick.

It's just a guess, but I think this debate would go smoother if the Alarmist position (amplifying effects) was relegated to a back, back, back, back seat and we started the discussion on what to do about the 0.5-1.0 degree increase. Sure, there are going to be partisans reluctant to give up the ghost but I suspect a lot of the current skeptics would be willing to have a productive and reasonable discussion about how to address the issue most of us DO actually agree on.

On the other hand, I just said "productive and reasonable." What the hell am I thinking?

Quote: winters are warmer & shorter, summers more humid,

Except when they're not, like last year?

Quote:more extreme weather events, with a 1-in-500 year flood every 2-3 years.

Except when they're not, like this year?

*****

Quote:Last year (Paul Douglas) sold his wireless weather-information provider Digital Cyclone to Garmin Ltd., an international (weather) communications-devices corporation, for $45 million. A story on the transaction in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal ran with the headline, "World's Richest Weatherman?"

Wonder how much evil !Caaaaarbon! was released in that transaction?



I'm familiar with Paul Douglas. He's a weather player up here. But this message isn't an argument, it's a contradiction. And this coming from a conservative (me!) with rather impressive green credentials; I grow much of my own food, I compost all my organic waste, I collect water in rain barrels, I grow native plants except for a few roses, and I continue to drive an old car with good MPG. I live in an old house, in a walkable community that I support by buying local and walking to get my groceries. If I can't fix the float in my old ass' carbourated gas lawn mower this weekend, I am moving to a reel mower. Contrast this with Paul Douglas and his global travel (Carbon emmissions) new hybrids (polluting through the manufacturing process and the mining of minerals to make the batteries) and his new McMansion outside the Cities (paid for by gullible Greenies who continue to purchase products from his new weather company - rather convienient for Paul, eh?) Who has the smaller "footprint?"

Let me know when the Green creed stops dictating that all species are equal to humans so we can damn well get on to making real chage. He's another Greenie "do as I say, not as I do" AGW hypocrite. Because as long as the green's concern for a tiny frog or worm trumps a needed project like a dam, an irrigation canal, an oil well, or a mine — all designed to alleviate human suffering, he count me out.

I'm not going to live in a yurt so Paul Douglas and Al Gore can continue to sell companies and type tisk-tisk missives on a petroleum based computer, powered by coal fired electricty. I've have a responsible life to live.

Quote:Owl, you ask me about my great grandkids. I do worry about future generations, primarily that we're doing irreversible damage to our climate the serious effects of which might not materialize until after my lifetime, and lead to food shortages for much increased populations (which in turn would cause famine and wars). I do worry about bringing kids into a world who will see these consequences in their lifetimes (this is where Torch hilariously tells me I won't have kids or directs me not to have kids if I'm so worried).

Who cares? In the future, we're all dead.

(03-30-2012 01:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  It's just a guess, but I think this debate would go smoother if the Alarmist position (amplifying effects) was relegated to a back, back, back, back seat and we started the discussion on what to do about the 0.5-1.0 degree increase. Sure, there are going to be partisans reluctant to give up the ghost but I suspect a lot of the current skeptics would be willing to have a productive and reasonable discussion about how to address the issue most of us DO actually agree on.
On the other hand, I just said "productive and reasonable." What the hell am I thinking?

I guess this is my big problem with the whole global warming agenda is that proponents seem far more interested in building the hype than in actually doing anything to address it.

I think the vast majority of people, no matter where they stand, would be far more interested in productive and reasonable discussion about how best to proceed than in duelling hyperbole about whehter there is or is not man-made global warming, and if there is how big it is. But the global warming alarmists seem to have little or no interest in going there.

(03-30-2012 11:47 AM)RobertN Wrote:  The thing is, one must know weather in order to understand climate. Problem is the posters don't understand weather so they certainly can't understand climate. They listen to people who have little undertanding of either to decide for them.

Where'd you get your meteorology degree? Weather is not climate. I'm reasonably sure I understand weather much better than you do unless you are a meteorologist. But a meteorologist is not a climate scientist.

That screed was a bit too long for me to spend the time reading it all right now but when the author started in by praising Teddy Roosevelt, I began to wonder about him. While Teddy was a Republican, he had dallied in the Progressive party before it disintegrated. Anybody who feels kinship with TR, I will immediately be suspect of and will want to examine their voting record.

The author's opinion is no more or less important than that of any of us. He's not a scientist but apparently some scientist friends of his have gotten into his head.

I'm not a denier - just a skeptic. Big difference. While the Earth may be warming (over time), I tend to believe that it is mostly due to normal processes which the scientific community has yet to understand. They really don't want or like to broadcast that fact, though. Even scientists have egos.

If the temp is going to rise over the next century and there is anything we can do about this benefit to the planet and man, we should help it along.

(03-30-2012 03:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(03-30-2012 11:47 AM)RobertN Wrote:  The thing is, one must know weather in order to understand climate. Problem is the posters don't understand weather so they certainly can't understand climate. They listen to people who have little undertanding of either to decide for them.

Where'd you get your meteorology degree? Weather is not climate. I'm reasonably sure I understand weather much better than you do unless you are a meteorologist. But a meteorologist is not a climate scientist.

That screed was a bit too long for me to spend the time reading it all right now but when the author started in by praising Teddy Roosevelt, I began to wonder about him. While Teddy was a Republican, he had dallied in the Progressive party before it disintegrated. Anybody who feels kinship with TR, I will immediately be suspect of and will want to examine their voting record.

The author's opinion is no more or less important than that of any of us. He's not a scientist but apparently some scientist friends of his have gotten into his head.

I'm not a denier - just a skeptic. Big difference. While the Earth may be warming (over time), I tend to believe that it is mostly due to normal processes which the scientific community has yet to understand. They really don't want or like to broadcast that fact, though. Even scientists have egos.

I don't know how much you know about weather so I can't say if I know more than you or not. I am not sure how to write this so you would understand. I thought my post was fairly clear.

(03-30-2012 10:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  If the temp is going to rise over the next century and there is anything we can do about this benefit to the planet and man, we should help it along.

Who told you global warming would be a benefit?

Why do you believe it would be bad?

(03-31-2012 07:41 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Why do you believe it would be bad?

I think there are a lot of things that would be bad but have never said there aren't possibly a few positives. Now can you answer MY question. Where did you get that information that global warming is a good thing?

History.