Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ian Forbes]

There is not a good God damn thing any of us can do about the situation, so why keep trying to prove something that can't be proved by what ever science the present governments currently use? All we can do is stay somewhat informed about our own back yard and try to be environmentally conscious. To me that is the one thing that the "global warming" got across to the general public... CLEAN UP YOUR OWN DAMN MESS!

I've been around longer than most of you and I've heard all the dire predictions over the past 55 years when I first started paying attention to those things. Not ONE scientific prediction came true in all that time. But, in each case it DID make the public more aware of what was happening around them. I remember back in the 1950s when Canada was predicted to have a population of over 300 million people by the year 2000. Didn't happen. Then there was the AIDS scare where most of us were going to be dead by the year 2000. I sure see a lot of lively dead people walking around. We were supposed to run out of petrol by 2014, but I still see people buying fuel guzzling big trucks. I take all scientific studies with a grain of salt.

[fyrslyer]

There is not a good God damn thing any of us can do about the situation, so why keep trying to prove something that can't be proved by what ever science the present governments currently use? All we can do is stay somewhat informed about our own back yard and try to be environmentally conscious. To me that is the one thing that the "global warming" got across to the general public... CLEAN UP YOUR OWN DAMN MESS!

I've been around longer than most of you and I've heard all the dire predictions over the past 55 years when I first started paying attention to those things. Not ONE scientific prediction came true in all that time. But, in each case it DID make the public more aware of what was happening around them. I remember back in the 1950s when Canada was predicted to have a population of over 300 million people by the year 2000. Didn't happen. Then there was the AIDS scare where most of us were going to be dead by the year 2000. I sure see a lot of lively dead people walking around. We were supposed to run out of petrol by 2014, but I still see people buying fuel guzzling big trucks. I take all scientific studies with a grain of salt.

X2

[Sandman]

There is not a good God damn thing any of us can do about the situation, so why keep trying to prove something that can't be proved by what ever science the present governments currently use? All we can do is stay somewhat informed about our own back yard and try to be environmentally conscious. To me that is the one thing that the "global warming" got across to the general public... CLEAN UP YOUR OWN DAMN MESS!

I've been around longer than most of you and I've heard all the dire predictions over the past 55 years when I first started paying attention to those things. Not ONE scientific prediction came true in all that time. But, in each case it DID make the public more aware of what was happening around them. I remember back in the 1950s when Canada was predicted to have a population of over 300 million people by the year 2000. Didn't happen. Then there was the AIDS scare where most of us were going to be dead by the year 2000. I sure see a lot of lively dead people walking around. We were supposed to run out of petrol by 2014, but I still see people buying fuel guzzling big trucks. I take all scientific studies with a grain of salt.

Sorry, Ian, but I must disagree with your first statement, and will point out that it contradicts your last one in that first paragraph.  There is not a thing we cannot do about, we just need the collective will to act.  One of the reasons why many of the prediction  you speak of don't come true is because we acted to do something about it. The reason why we did not all die of AIDs is because we educated people about it, we started screening our blood supplies for it, and we studied it to better understand it and treat it.  Fear is a powerful motivator.  It stopped an entire generation from having frequent unprotected sex.  While I am sure Trogan made a killing on their increased condom sales since the  80s, I do not for a moment believe they engineered the AIDs scare to increase profits.  The epidemic happened (is still happening in many countries where education is not as prevalent), and we did something about it.  Burying our heads in the sand is not going make our problems go away, and however much that might seem the easier way to go.  We also live in a democracy where you not only have the power to choose your government, you have a responsibility to act and choose a government that is going to act in your best interest.  There is a reason why forest companies stopped clear-cut logging right to the banks of salmon streams, even though that was more profitable.  It was because people acted and did something about it.  Apathy is never an answer.  It is the reason why we are going to have to fight those same battles again.  People lose sight of the fact that we gain from others making difficult choices and making a difference.  We look around us and go "Oh, things are not as bad as they predicted so they must have been wrong, I guess I can go on taking the easy road and everything will be fine."  Tell your grandkids to go back to your swinging lifestyle of the 70s an see how long they last before contracting AIDs.  We can do something about these problems, we have already stopped many predictions from coming true, but we must Act to do so.  We have responsibility to do so.  Doing nothing is not an option, and changing your own behaviour is only the beginning.  We must move from "me" to "we" if we are ever going to make real change.  Be the change you want to see in world.

[Sandman]

There is big difference between Weather(local conditions) which are very difficult to forecast and Climate (long term patterns in weather).  We need to stop using these terms as though they are interchangeable.

[TNAngler]

the Arctic Ice Cap and the Antarctic cap are different in that one is sea ice the other is continental ice. Also in what hemisphere are the  highest amount of GW gases emitted?


for those who wish to know more your can look at:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing.html

You're 2nd sentence comes close to paranoia. Do you really think Government's want to create a myth of global warming? What do you suppose they want to accomplish? That scientists are so easy to manipulate with money explains why the Harper government is so keen to control what they say in public.  You do realize most of these scientists are tenured university professors and so fairly removed from political influence. Governments also do not directly dole out money to scientists there are usually various funds boards and so on that control such funds not all of which, perhaps not even more than 50% that come from government.

You should also provide full disclosure on your involvement in modeling just to be sure you are not misrepresenting something you do at home  with your stock portfolio as a professional expertise,

Corporations exist for one purpose, to make money for their owner/shareholders.  Only corporations that are vested in the outcome of the climate change debate can really put any money into that type of research.  Obama last year requested $2.6 billion for the US Global Change Research Program.  That is just one program.  If you think anybody from that agency came out and said "Nope, we don't really have much of an effect and there is not much we can do" that the people getting that 2.6 billion to research would be happy?  And where do the universities get the money?  A tenured professor earns most of his money through research.  A lot of that is government grants too.  Sure, it might go through some channels to get there.

Also, gov't isn't there to protect you.  That is their stated goal, sure.  How do they protect you though?  By believing you are too stupid to take care of yourself and protect yourself so they have to protect you from yourself.  Why do you have to wear seatbelts?  It isn't because they are worried you might hurt someone else.  It is to protect you from your own stupidity.  They protect you through controlling you.  If that is fine with you, well good for you, but I can take care of myself.

Modeling is my job and I get paid well to do it.  I model insurance assets, reserves, premium, policy count, expenses, anything that goes into an insurance policy's profit or cash flows.  I started this year's models with about 8.4 billion in starting assets.  I project them out somewhere between 30 and 50 years.  This information gets reviewed by multiple states, the Federal Reserve, AM Best and any other rating agency.  I would be willing to bet that I know more about modeling than you do.  Modeling out as far into the future requires that they have a very good handle on all of the assumptions.  Small miscalculations can cause results just 5 years out to be completely unreliable.

Let me give you an example I am very familiar with.  When Long Term Care insurance (to pay for nursing home stays) when it first came out companies weren't sure on the assumptions.  Most of the assumptions they got right but one assumption, lapses (people cancelling their insurance) they missed on.  The projected it would start at 8% and grade down over 10-15 years to 3% and stayed there.  With that, the companies were projected to make a bunch of money.  The rates didn't stop at 3%, they kept dropping down to 1.5% or 1% or even lower for some companies.  This product that was going to be a huge profit machine for companies with just that one change in assumption caused many insurance companies to almost have to close down.  They lost so much money.  This one assumption starting 10-15 years out turned billions of dollars in profit to billions in losses.

The climate model has to have a lot more moving parts.  You are sure that their assumptions 15 to 20 to 100 years from now are accurate and they aren't missing any interactions?  And they just in the last couple months figured out how vents in the ocean bottom affect currents or something major to their models.  That was a huge piece they couldn't figure out.  Their models also assume no major shocks to the system.  They might assume the same basic pattern of volcano eruptions that we have seen over the last 100 years or so but what happens when another major eruption happens?  Another Mt Pinatubo (sp?).

We have fewer assumptions than the climate models need and we realize our results 10+ years out are very unlikely to happen.  If they believe with more assumptions and still many unknowns that their models are accurate out 10-100 years, they are either arrogant beyond reason or stupid.

[TNAngler]

There is big difference between Weather(local conditions) which are very difficult to forecast and Climate (long term patterns in weather).  We need to stop using these terms as though they are interchangeable.

Your post makes it seem like long term weather patterns are easier to predict than short term local conditions.  Sure there is variability, but there is variability in long term conditions too.

[RalphH]

Corporations exist for one purpose, to make money for their owner/shareholders.

not true and I fail to see how this is relevant

Only corporations that are vested in the outcome of the climate change debate can really put any money into that type of research.  Obama last year requested $2.6 billion for the US Global Change Research Program.  That is just one program.  If you think anybody from that agency came out and said "Nope, we don't really have much of an effect and there is not much we can do" that the people getting that 2.6 billion to research would be happy?  And where do the universities get the money?  A tenured professor earns most of his money through research.  A lot of that is government grants too.  Sure, it might go through some channels to get there.

what corporations have a vested interest in the climate change debate? Certainly not the oil interests etc (sarcasm). Obama requested 2.6 billion. Did he get it? What did he get? What was that as a % of the US Federal Budget? This and the rest goes nowhere close to your assertions

[TNAngler]

not true and I fail to see how this is relevant

what corporations have a vested interest in the climate change debate? Certainly not the oil interests etc (sarcasm). Obama requested 2.6 billion. Did he get it? What did he get? What was that as a % of the US Federal Budget? This and the rest goes nowhere close to your assertions

Yes, obviously the oil companies have a vested interested.  2.6 billion for one project.  A quick search provided this link

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf

I trust that the CBO (for those who don't know, that is the United States Congressional Budget Office, a supposedly non-partisan entity) is a sufficiently reliable source.

From 98 to 09, about 99 billion spent by the US.  More than a third of that was spent in 09.  For those with difficulty with math, that is over 33 billion in 1 year for just the US.  You can read the whole report if you wish.  That includes money for technology (ie wind farms and stuff).  If climate change wasn't a worry, 33 billion a year could be removed from the US budget, gas companies could spend less.  How many people are employed because of that 33 billion figure?  How many of them want to lose their jobs because the theory their work supports (that man is causing a majority of the climate change) is not true?

[TheFishingLad]

TNA Believes seatbelts are forced to protect you from your own stupidity. Never mind people hitting you, or when hit that the non seatbelt wearing people will projectile into others killing vehicle occupants.

There are some sound minds here, but holy Fin jumping monkey balls are some if you out to lunch.

[Sandman]

Your post makes it seem like long term weather patterns are easier to predict than short term local conditions.  Sure there is variability, but there is variability in long term conditions too.

It is, in the sense that it is easier to predict what the climate in the lower mainland will be like on February 10th 2015 than it is to predict what the weather will be like on February 10th 2014.

[blaydRnr]

Corporations exist for one purpose, to make money for their owner/shareholders.  Only corporations that are vested in the outcome of the climate change debate can really put any money into that type of research.  Obama last year requested $2.6 billion for the US Global Change Research Program.  That is just one program.  If you think anybody from that agency came out and said "Nope, we don't really have much of an effect and there is not much we can do" that the people getting that 2.6 billion to research would be happy?  And where do the universities get the money?  A tenured professor earns most of his money through research.  A lot of that is government grants too.  Sure, it might go through some channels to get there.

Also, gov't isn't there to protect you.  That is their stated goal, sure.  How do they protect you though?  By believing you are too stupid to take care of yourself and protect yourself so they have to protect you from yourself.  Why do you have to wear seatbelts?  It isn't because they are worried you might hurt someone else.  It is to protect you from your own stupidity.  They protect you through controlling you.  If that is fine with you, well good for you, but I can take care of myself.

Modeling is my job and I get paid well to do it.  I model insurance assets, reserves, premium, policy count, expenses, anything that goes into an insurance policy's profit or cash flows.  I started this year's models with about 8.4 billion in starting assets.  I project them out somewhere between 30 and 50 years.  This information gets reviewed by multiple states, the Federal Reserve, AM Best and any other rating agency.  I would be willing to bet that I know more about modeling than you do.  Modeling out as far into the future requires that they have a very good handle on all of the assumptions.  Small miscalculations can cause results just 5 years out to be completely unreliable.

Let me give you an example I am very familiar with.  When Long Term Care insurance (to pay for nursing home stays) when it first came out companies weren't sure on the assumptions.  Most of the assumptions they got right but one assumption, lapses (people cancelling their insurance) they missed on.  The projected it would start at 8% and grade down over 10-15 years to 3% and stayed there.  With that, the companies were projected to make a bunch of money.  The rates didn't stop at 3%, they kept dropping down to 1.5% or 1% or even lower for some companies.  This product that was going to be a huge profit machine for companies with just that one change in assumption caused many insurance companies to almost have to close down.  They lost so much money.  This one assumption starting 10-15 years out turned billions of dollars in profit to billions in losses.

The climate model has to have a lot more moving parts.  You are sure that their assumptions 15 to 20 to 100 years from now are accurate and they aren't missing any interactions?  And they just in the last couple months figured out how vents in the ocean bottom affect currents or something major to their models.  That was a huge piece they couldn't figure out.  Their models also assume no major shocks to the system.  They might assume the same basic pattern of volcano eruptions that we have seen over the last 100 years or so but what happens when another major eruption happens?  Another Mt Pinatubo (sp?).

We have fewer assumptions than the climate models need and we realize our results 10+ years out are very unlikely to happen.  If they believe with more assumptions and still many unknowns that their models are accurate out 10-100 years, they are either arrogant beyond reason or stupid.

in my line of work what you speak of refers to projection not assumption...educated and calculated forecast based on history with formulated adjustments to account to the demographics  and needs of a population...in layman's term supply and demand.

the problem with your theory is you base everything on a linear model where patterns allow for natural occurrences, but you fail to incorporate occurrences created by humans...variances that get thrown into the mix and have created havoc in our overall climate scheme... chernobyl, hiroshima, nagasaki, 9/ll, gulf war and the burning of 600 kuwait oil wells, exxon valdez spill, fukushima,...etc, etc... and we're not even talking the many world wide incinerators and fossil fuel burning factories and vehicle emissions that create gases that get into the atmosphere...forget the conspiracy theory and just open your eyes.

[obie1fish]

Definite warming trend on this thread!!!

I may have missed it, but did anyone consider the possibility that we are still coming out of the previous ice age? Many of the global temperature charts I've seen usually start at the bottom of a temperature dip, whether it be from the Little Ice Age ( low point during the 1600s), the last Big One 22000 y.a., or some other.

A good explanation and visual can also be found on http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

Another thing to consider: are not the oceans the Earth's major source of global weather patterns, oxygen, biomass, and water? It's a little difficult to affect the huge currents, which run both shallow, then deep, and back again unless the continents are drastically shifted.

Just sayin'.

[blaydRnr]

it's not just about weather pattern in general...it's what's in it and how it affects the balance of ecology...we're talking long term consequences...biology 101...google photosynthesis/acid rain/and ph balance of soil then factor in all the variables.

it's not enough to say it's a natural cycle we're in when thousands of years ago pollution didn't play a role in the equation.



 

[salmonlover]

the only thing man made about global warming, is the idea. its settled no more arguments. there is only real proof in math, in the real physical word no such thing exists. theories can never be proven, people just put confidence in them.

[TheFishingLad]

Definite warming trend on this thread!!!

I may have missed it, but did anyone consider the possibility that we are still coming out of the previous ice age? Many of the global temperature charts I've seen usually start at the bottom of a temperature dip, whether it be from the Little Ice Age ( low point during the 1600s), the last Big One 22000 y.a., or some other.

A good explanation and visual can also be found on http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

Another thing to consider: are not the oceans the Earth's major source of global weather patterns, oxygen, biomass, and water? It's a little difficult to affect the huge currents, which run both shallow, then deep, and back again unless the continents are drastically shifted.

Just sayin'.

Sigh. Too many deniers here posting links with no credible resources claiming them as fact.

Let the scientists that dedicate their lives for ONE specific thing to publish research papers of their findings. These are called experts. Anyone else INCLUDING YOU PEOPLE are spreading a disease of misinformation.

Next up we'll have the Anti Vaxxers here with the flat earths