Warming up

Stevie, . . . oh, never mind. Wear sunscreen and have a nice day. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

More dodges instead of investigation? Truth or ANYTHING meaningful besides deflection would go a long way when you are proven so wrong! Yet you post none of it, COF

OK Stevie, so it's a huge problem to have 7 billion people on earth. What are your suggestions? It seems to me that the currently proposed solutions will be lining some people's pockets and once that comes into play, I automatically stop supporting their "cause". Originally Posted by icuminpeace

The flimsiest excuse for not saving the planet is that you are jealous or indignant that someone might make a profit helping to save it.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THE POLLUTERS ARE DOING KILLING THE PLANET BY DUCKING AND BREAKING REGULATIONS AND CREATING FALSE SCIENCE TO SELL THE STATUS QUO?

God, it hurts my brain to converse with such morons. No wonder Lush Bimbo is paid so handsomely to lead the stupid off point !

I have explained all this before, to people who want to understand. I'm not going through it again for you. You don't want to know the truth, or even try to understand an opposing opinion.

Trust me on the sunscreen.

I have explained all this before, Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Humor me, you lying asswipe! Explain to me why letting BP use untested blowout preventers is better than making them prove they work!

You SAY you explained things. When have you EVER told the truth?

Eyesight..huh...you better back the fuck up bitch... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Are you his fucking son? Who the fuck do you think you are?
Big shit on a hooker board? Very impressive.
You talk big. Like a good ol boy redneck should.
You're not scaring anybody with those aggressive keystrokes.
Eat me.

What the Main Stream Media don't tell you about the climate models is that they don't actually model climate.

By this statement, I mean that NONE of the existing models can be started from some known point in the past, allowed to run forward in time, and arrive at another known point in the more recent past. Nor can any of them be run backwards, starting from known conditions in the now, and working backwards to the climate at a known point in the past.

In every other field, this is the Gold Standard Acid Test of a model. Does it match known reality? If it cannot be made to match known reality, then it is, by definition, Garbage.

Note: High-energy physics includes models that must be "renormalized", scaled to fit experimental data. Those models include a factor that is the exponential of an unknown quantity. Renormalization amounts to finding a value for that unknown quantity that allows the model to generate results that match the experimental data. Now, when you have an exponential factor like that, you are saying that you might be multiplying by ANYTHING, from infinitesimally small to astronomically large. This is still acceptable, because you CAN get the model to match the real world. The climate models can't even do it under those conditions.

Yet the Global Warming, uhhh, excuse me, Climate Change crowd (the change happened when they figured out that some areas were COOLING) tell us that we must immediately spend skyzillions of dollars because their models say so.

And that's BEFORE they tell us how they arrive at one number to describe the temperature of the entire planet, so they can say that the entire planet is warming... Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Very informative take. Thank you for an impressive post. I will definitely re read and consider the info. Very heady.

What the hell does that have to do with global warming? You're losing it, Stevie.

When have I ever endorsed using inadequate technology? Your president is the one who let BP off the hook for a bargain price. If I'd had my way, they'd be out of business. The only reason they remain in business is because Obama ran interference for them.

Your guy is no friend of the environment. Not by any stretch. But he does love giving tax money to "green" companies, so the owners can line their pockets before the company goes belly up.

I have explained all this before, to people who want to understand. I'm not going through it again for you. You don't want to know the truth, or even try to understand an opposing opinion.

Trust me on the sunscreen. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do we recommend SPF 1000 to Stevie?

It's not. Its just a model and not a long term model at that. By your thinking all the people playing Farmville should be millionaires.


What fact is that? That climate changes over the millennia? That people using supercomputers can predict that 100 year flood areas are going to get big floods every so often? A model is not a fact. Laughable. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Humans do in fact affect the environment in a negative way.

I understand that climate change is normal and cyclical. And that over millennia the climate has changed dramatically. That's a given.

What I do assert is ....
We as a human race aren't doing mother earth any favors.
Can we agree on that?

Humans do in fact affect the environment in a negative way.
I understand that climate change is normal and cyclical.

We as a human race aren't doing mother earth any favors.
Can we agree on that? Originally Posted by UB9IB6

I agree on that. What I don't agree is to assume that the world is going to end based on a model that is fed with data that is not truly representative of the age of the earth and all the cycles of warming and cooling it has gone through the ages. A model is just a model until it is proven, and the data used to create the model is just data based on available data. How strong/weak the model is, depends on the quality of data it's fed.

I'm definitely on the "let's save the earth crowd", but don't bully me to believe the crap that is being sold today in order to generate a profit. If the people that are promoting our reduction in CO2 were doing it for the sake of doing it, I would be on board, but once you start profiting, I'm done. We have enough profiting with the polluters, I don't want to be a pawn in this game. For now, I'll continue to do my part reducing, reusing, recycling, and driving my smaller vehicles for every day purposes while storing my gas guzzler and use it just when I really need to haul something.

So Little Stevie - thanks for the bullying tactics, they certainly work - to deter people from your cause.

And Little Stevie - Don't include me in the Rush Limbaugh crowd. I don't like the guy.

It's people like Stevie why I'm neither a conservative or a liberal, a republican or a democrat, I'm just a guy that stays informed regardless of political leaning. Some times I'll side with the righties, sometimes I'll side with the lefties - extremes are not healthy and are actually conducive to non-productive behavior - that's why our congress sucks.

Geez, I'm glad we don't land on Mars every night. The weirdos come out.

However, UB, I totally agree with you that we aren't helping the planet out, at all. I think it is insane, with all the technological advances over the last century, that we are still relying on oil and coal for our primary sources of energy. That is 19th century fuel, and this is the 21st century.

I think solar, wind, and other resources we probably haven't heard of are, or could be, very affordable and efficient, were it not for the oil lobbies in Congress, and their monopolistic control of the energy market.

If alternate sources did become feasible, the oil companies would go ballistic, and do all they could to stop the technology.

I agree on that. What I don't agree is to assume that the world is going to end based on a model that is fed with data that is not truly representative of the age of the earth and all the cycles of warming and cooling it has gone through the ages. A model is just a model until it is proven, and the data used to create the model is just data based on available data. How strong/weak the model is, depends on the quality of data it's fed.

I'm definitely on the "let's save the earth crowd", but don't bully me to believe the crap that is being sold today in order to generate a profit. If the people that are promoting our reduction in CO2 were doing it for the sake of doing it, I would be on board, but once you start profiting, I'm done. We have enough profiting with the polluters, I don't want to be a pawn in this game. For now, I'll continue to do my part reducing, reusing, recycling, and driving my smaller vehicles for every day purposes while storing my gas guzzler and use it just when I really need to haul something.

So Little Stevie - thanks for the bullying tactics, they certainly work - to deter people from your cause. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

I can't believe the actual reasoning going on here.
I agree that greedy people will try to profit in nefarious
Ways.. Even if it's a good cause. And that sucks.
We can only do the best we can to reduce consumption
and waste. The propaganda around carbon credits and various
conservation measures have muddied the waters and distracted
From the original point. Which to me is to reduce pollution and respect
This fragile home we have. And although politics an business get in the way,
The mission to preserve our planet is a worthy one... Just ask our great great
Grand kids .

Geez, I'm glad we don't land on Mars every night. The weirdos come out.

However, UB, I totally agree with you that we aren't helping the planet out, at all. I think it is insane, with all the technological advances over the last century, that we are still relying on oil and coal for our primary sources of energy. That is 19th century fuel, and this is the 21st century.


Thanks and I couldn't agree more. It's only reasonable thy we don't have the technology because gov and big energy don't want it that way.
More on that below.

I think solar, wind, and other resources we probably haven't heard of are, or could be, very affordable and efficient, were it not for the oil lobbies in Congress, and their monopolistic control of the energy market.


Yep. In the uk they have employed wave generators .
More reliable than any other medium. I'll try to find a link.

If alternate sources did become feasible, the oil companies would go ballistic, and do all they could to stop the technology. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Funny thing is ... They don't want technology released until
They are poised to run the show. Exxon is one of the largest investors in renewable tech. Kind of contradicting themselves... Or are they? Hmmmm;/

It is all a big game for the powerful . I didn't get the invite either

I can't believe the actual reasoning going on here.
I agree that greedy people will try to profit in nefarious
Ways.. Even if it's a good cause. And that sucks.
We can only do the best we can to reduce consumption
and waste. The propaganda around carbon credits and various
conservation measures have muddied the waters and distracted
From the original point. Which to me is to reduce pollution and respect
This fragile home we have. And although politics an business get in the way,
The mission to preserve our planet is a worthy one... Just ask our great great
Grand kids . Originally Posted by UB9IB6

I don't think I said the mission wasn't worthy, and I even stated that I do my part to conserve the earth. What I don't believe and support is what's currently being sold to us because I think the science is flawed and is being used to manipulate us to believing that there is only one way to do this (while making a buck).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

Funny thing is ... They don't want technology released until
They are poised to run the show. Exxon is one of the largest investors in renewable tech. Kind of contradicting themselves... Or are they? Hmmmm;/

It is all a big game for the powerful . I didn't get the invite either Originally Posted by UB9IB6

Energy companies know that once they run out of oil and natural gas, they're done. They have to invest in renewable energy or they will be the equivalent of the steam locomotives at the turn of the 20th century - obsolete.