That global warming will really get after ya.

[awesome guy]

Have I denounced either side as the loonier (could be 'more loony', but I'm not looking it up)? No. I haven't. I've said, it's an unwinnable argument that allows both sides to make wild speculation and/or state conclusively that they KNOW something they don't. By the time we know who is right, we will all be worm food probably.

Well, that's what talking out of one's ass will get a person. Not. Enough. Data.

Where did I blame anyone for anything? I don't think there's enough data to go on for either side to be sure of anything, much less state outright that they have THE answer. I see a lot of use of single date points from both sides to make faulty predictions and bold statements with no facts to back them up.

We're alive now and on dry land after 20 years of being told right now would be a time of record heat and extinct ice bergs. You can't blame the right for this.

We know for fact the chicken littles of the last 20 years were wrong because thier predictions for right now are wildly off. The nay sayers have proven right, the sky didn't fall.

Right, and that's the IPCC and other legit GW groups. The loony zealots are the "legitimate" scientists, not some fringe group.

Why do we need to wait 100 years to know if the IPCC and AGW were wrong in 84, 94, 04, etc? We can see the results of past predictions now and know they were wildly off.

[Once]

Simple two word answer to your question: We don't.
That said, why would we not study the effects of industrialization on our planet's health given that it's a relatively new addition to man's activities on the planet? The effects of pollution to groundwater, soil, and air quality are measurable. The hinky part is when scientists use what is relatively maybe a palm full of data (given the age of the earth - and no, I'm not going to get into the biblical claim that it's 6,000+ years discussion) to proclaim certain doom while the other side refuses to even consider that there may be impacts despite those measurements. Note that both these groups I'm referring to are the absolute zealots of the spectrum. The people in the middle who would rather the data be robust, the study complete and dispassionate, and the conclusions based on verifiable evidence seem to be shrinking because people as a general rule would rather be perceived as 'right' rather than the conclusion be 'right'.

Have I denounced either side as the loonier (could be 'more loony', but I'm not looking it up)? No. I haven't. I've said, it's an unwinnable argument that allows both sides to make wild speculation and/or state conclusively that they KNOW something they don't. By the time we know who is right, we will all be worm food probably.

Why do we need to wait 100 years to know if the IPCC and AGW were wrong in 84, 94, 04, etc? We can see the results of past predictions now and know they were wildly off.

[awesome guy]

Simple two word answer to your question: We don't.
That said, why would we not study the effects of industrialization on our planet's health given that it's a relatively new addition to man's activities on the planet? The effects of pollution to groundwater, soil, and air quality are measurable. The hinky part is when scientists use what is relatively maybe a palm full of data (given the age of the earth - and no, I'm not going to get into the biblical claim that it's 6,000+ years discussion) to proclaim certain doom while the other side refuses to even consider that there may be impacts despite those measurements. Note that both these groups I'm referring to are the absolute zealots of the spectrum. The people in the middle who would rather the data be robust, the study complete and dispassionate, and the conclusions based on verifiable evidence seem to be shrinking because people as a general rule would rather be perceived as 'right' rather than the conclusion be 'right'.

Have I denounced either side as the loonier (could be 'more loony', but I'm not looking it up)? No. I haven't. I've said, it's an unwinnable argument that allows both sides to make wild speculation and/or state conclusively that they KNOW something they don't. By the time we know who is right, we will all be worm food probably.

Why do we need to wait 100 years to know if the IPCC and AGW were wrong in 84, 94, 04, etc? We can see the results of past predictions now and know they were wildly off.

Those people have never existed in the AGW crowd. It's been the earth first fruits wanting to take thier "data" and drive us to socialized government, replacing incandescent light bulbs with mercury based ones, stop all economic growth, etc. That's why thier rebuke has been harsh, for the destruction caused by thier Trojan horse of environmental concerns filled with centralized planning and a powerful, centralized government. And that's the way nuts should be responded to, they should be forced out of a position of power. I see it more as a backlash to the idiots leading the green charge.

[Once]

If that's how you see it, okay. I see it differently. Shocking I know.

Simple two word answer to your question: We don't.
That said, why would we not study the effects of industrialization on our planet's health given that it's a relatively new addition to man's activities on the planet? The effects of pollution to groundwater, soil, and air quality are measurable. The hinky part is when scientists use what is relatively maybe a palm full of data (given the age of the earth - and no, I'm not going to get into the biblical claim that it's 6,000+ years discussion) to proclaim certain doom while the other side refuses to even consider that there may be impacts despite those measurements. Note that both these groups I'm referring to are the absolute zealots of the spectrum. The people in the middle who would rather the data be robust, the study complete and dispassionate, and the conclusions based on verifiable evidence seem to be shrinking because people as a general rule would rather be perceived as 'right' rather than the conclusion be 'right'.

Have I denounced either side as the loonier (could be 'more loony', but I'm not looking it up)? No. I haven't. I've said, it's an unwinnable argument that allows both sides to make wild speculation and/or state conclusively that they KNOW something they don't. By the time we know who is right, we will all be worm food probably.

Why do we need to wait 100 years to know if the IPCC and AGW were wrong in 84, 94, 04, etc? We can see the results of past predictions now and know they were wildly off.

Those people have never existed in the AGW crowd. It's been the earth first fruits wanting to take thier "data" and drive us to socialized government, replacing incandescent light bulbs with mercury based ones, stop all economic growth, etc. That's why thier rebuke has been harsh, for the destruction caused by thier Trojan horse of environmental concerns filled with centralized planning and a powerful, centralized government. And that's the way nuts should be responded to, they should be forced out of a position of power. I see it more as a backlash to the idiots leading the green charge.

[Major Kong]

Funniest parody blog diary ever!

Guest blog by Dr Alexander Ladislav Mrdelka

As a member of the Czech Globe, an EU excellence institute proving that the Earth is dying, I was honored to have been the only Czech researcher who participated on the Antarctic mission. Our goal was to demonstrate that the last ice in Antarctica is melting away. Due to the unsustainable crime against Nature known as the "economic growth", Florida and other states and countries will soon be submerged.

We were intrigued by the photographs from the previous expedition that investigated the impact of global warming on Antarctica.

Also, I wanted to get some suntan. In December, it's summer in the Antarctica. If you combine "summer" with "global warming", you get some pleasant temperatures. The Antarctica may already be the last inhabitable place on the planet; everything else is melting away and burning.

Since the end of November 2013, I was so excited! 80 years ago, an explorer went there and the place was already ice-free. If you're not a contrarian, it must be self-evident to you that the place must resemble the Californian beaches these days, after 80 years of global warming.

On November 27th, I and my fellow warriors against climate disruption boarded the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy. We sailed from a port in New Zealand to the South. And the "South", as all the people familiar with the scientific consensus know, means "warmer". Too bad that so many people are climate skeptics and they don't realize how wonderfully balmy the Antarctic weather is!

On the following day, our guru Chris Turney, a professor of climate change who also puts his money where his mouth is so he is earning millions from their Carbonscape Holdings Ltd company, energized all of us by stating the ice was melting. It was so exciting! He's one of the most enthusiastic experts in climate disruption. I was pleased to hear that our ship wasn't using any fossil fuels; instead, it was run by hydrinos, one of the renewable energy sources.

Chris represents the perfect harmony of a researcher. His company – well, he and his relatives own 18% of the company, 36 times more than even the famous superguru Tim Flannery – is earning the money from the fact that the Earth is being killed by carbon emissions, and his research is creating proofs that the Earth is being killed by the carbon emissions. In this way, his research directly produces wealth – without any carbon emissions! It is so clever and so sustainable. His company itself is a great proof that the deniers are wrong when they say that the economy can't work without fossil fuels.

On December 3rd, we got into polar bear rescue drills. The climate change has moved the habitats around so that the penguins now live in the Antarctica. We would be soon swimming in the warm Antarctic Ocean along with our friends polar bears, yay!

December 18th: The air-conditioning is out-of-control. Even though it must be balmy outside, they are cooling down the interior of the ship to something like the freezing point. If I had known that, I would have taken a sweater and gloves instead of the three swimming suits!

December 22nd: We see some floating ice around the ship. It must be the last pieces of ice that broke from the Antarctica and are going to melt. It's so fascinating to be a witness.

December 24th: When we woke up, the ship was stopped. We are surrounded by ice. Chris Turney assured us that the ice couldn't have possibly frozen in recent days because the climate is so warm outside. Instead, we are in the middle of some very old ice that has existed for the whole 6,000 years – from the beginning of the world to the present, the final days when the last ice melts.

My Indian friend Shralok Mlha who is sometimes producing some controversial ideas has asked how our ship could have gotten into the middle of the old ice. What an interesting question! I didn't think of that. So the smartest participants of the expedition were trying to find the answer. Finally, everyone agreed: it was done by the Koch brothers! They transported our ship to the middle of the ice when we were not looking.

We've been out for one month and I still haven't enjoyed the bathing in the warm Antarctic Ocean.

On December 29th, we were promised to swim with some young Australian or Chinese female activists. I couldn't agree but when I was offered a flight with a helicopter by Chris as well, I agreed. A great fact about these expeditions is that they don't cost anything. At most, the expenses are shared by carbon-emissions-producing countries such as China and Australia. But we can always say that they are those who have destroyed the planet so they must pay for that.

January 2nd: the flight with the helicopter was OK but no swimming. Perhaps, it will be better next year. The expedition has strengthened my belief in global warming. Even if you see lots of ice, you may be sure that it is just an illusion, a stunt by the Koch brothers. We saw more ice than almost anyone else – yet, none of it was real. None of it had anything to do with the climate. All this ice was floating in a hot ocean, the Antarctic Ocean, as the scientific consensus implies and the photograph at the top proves. It's a lesson you must remember when they show you another snowstorm as a "proof" that the Earth isn't burning. All snow is just a publicity stunt by the Koch brothers. In the real world, there is no snow.

I can't feel my fingers and toes right now. It will probably reduce my carbon footprint because I won't be able to fully push the accelerator pedal on my hybrid Porsche. I urge everyone who is not a climate denier to reduce his carbon footprint by going to the same Antarctic expedition and freezing his fingers and toes in this Koch brothers' ice. In this way, we may collectively save the Earth!

http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-an ... diary.html

[Once]

Haha!

Funniest parody blog diary ever!

Guest blog by Dr Alexander Ladislav Mrdelka

As a member of the Czech Globe, an EU excellence institute proving that the Earth is dying, I was honored to have been the only Czech researcher who participated on the Antarctic mission. Our goal was to demonstrate that the last ice in Antarctica is melting away. Due to the unsustainable crime against Nature known as the "economic growth", Florida and other states and countries will soon be submerged.

We were intrigued by the photographs from the previous expedition that investigated the impact of global warming on Antarctica.

Also, I wanted to get some suntan. In December, it's summer in the Antarctica. If you combine "summer" with "global warming", you get some pleasant temperatures. The Antarctica may already be the last inhabitable place on the planet; everything else is melting away and burning.

Since the end of November 2013, I was so excited! 80 years ago, an explorer went there and the place was already ice-free. If you're not a contrarian, it must be self-evident to you that the place must resemble the Californian beaches these days, after 80 years of global warming.

On November 27th, I and my fellow warriors against climate disruption boarded the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy. We sailed from a port in New Zealand to the South. And the "South", as all the people familiar with the scientific consensus know, means "warmer". Too bad that so many people are climate skeptics and they don't realize how wonderfully balmy the Antarctic weather is!

On the following day, our guru Chris Turney, a professor of climate change who also puts his money where his mouth is so he is earning millions from their Carbonscape Holdings Ltd company, energized all of us by stating the ice was melting. It was so exciting! He's one of the most enthusiastic experts in climate disruption. I was pleased to hear that our ship wasn't using any fossil fuels; instead, it was run by hydrinos, one of the renewable energy sources.

Chris represents the perfect harmony of a researcher. His company – well, he and his relatives own 18% of the company, 36 times more than even the famous superguru Tim Flannery – is earning the money from the fact that the Earth is being killed by carbon emissions, and his research is creating proofs that the Earth is being killed by the carbon emissions. In this way, his research directly produces wealth – without any carbon emissions! It is so clever and so sustainable. His company itself is a great proof that the deniers are wrong when they say that the economy can't work without fossil fuels.

On December 3rd, we got into polar bear rescue drills. The climate change has moved the habitats around so that the penguins now live in the Antarctica. We would be soon swimming in the warm Antarctic Ocean along with our friends polar bears, yay!

December 18th: The air-conditioning is out-of-control. Even though it must be balmy outside, they are cooling down the interior of the ship to something like the freezing point. If I had known that, I would have taken a sweater and gloves instead of the three swimming suits!

December 22nd: We see some floating ice around the ship. It must be the last pieces of ice that broke from the Antarctica and are going to melt. It's so fascinating to be a witness.

December 24th: When we woke up, the ship was stopped. We are surrounded by ice. Chris Turney assured us that the ice couldn't have possibly frozen in recent days because the climate is so warm outside. Instead, we are in the middle of some very old ice that has existed for the whole 6,000 years – from the beginning of the world to the present, the final days when the last ice melts.

My Indian friend Shralok Mlha who is sometimes producing some controversial ideas has asked how our ship could have gotten into the middle of the old ice. What an interesting question! I didn't think of that. So the smartest participants of the expedition were trying to find the answer. Finally, everyone agreed: it was done by the Koch brothers! They transported our ship to the middle of the ice when we were not looking.

We've been out for one month and I still haven't enjoyed the bathing in the warm Antarctic Ocean.

On December 29th, we were promised to swim with some young Australian or Chinese female activists. I couldn't agree but when I was offered a flight with a helicopter by Chris as well, I agreed. A great fact about these expeditions is that they don't cost anything. At most, the expenses are shared by carbon-emissions-producing countries such as China and Australia. But we can always say that they are those who have destroyed the planet so they must pay for that.

January 2nd: the flight with the helicopter was OK but no swimming. Perhaps, it will be better next year. The expedition has strengthened my belief in global warming. Even if you see lots of ice, you may be sure that it is just an illusion, a stunt by the Koch brothers. We saw more ice than almost anyone else – yet, none of it was real. None of it had anything to do with the climate. All this ice was floating in a hot ocean, the Antarctic Ocean, as the scientific consensus implies and the photograph at the top proves. It's a lesson you must remember when they show you another snowstorm as a "proof" that the Earth isn't burning. All snow is just a publicity stunt by the Koch brothers. In the real world, there is no snow.

I can't feel my fingers and toes right now. It will probably reduce my carbon footprint because I won't be able to fully push the accelerator pedal on my hybrid Porsche. I urge everyone who is not a climate denier to reduce his carbon footprint by going to the same Antarctic expedition and freezing his fingers and toes in this Koch brothers' ice. In this way, we may collectively save the Earth!

http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-an ... diary.html

[awesome guy]

If that's how you see it, okay. I see it differently. Shocking I know.

I honestly don't see how you could given what you've said already of the moonbats undermining the science. It's without a doubt been part of politics, economics, and even used to establish one world government. It's the ultimate lever for central planners seeking global control. You even said the science has been undermined by these people. They're the ones the AGW "deniers" have alarmed by. Al Gore is the poster child and he was a US Senator and Vice President who was within 800 hanging chads of being the president. The threat from the alarmists is real.

All that said, I do agree it's something worth studying. I'm also aboard with some measures to limit pollution, cleaner air, and cleaner water. We can measure and understand the impact of that now and it's undeniable. AGW on the other hand belongs more in the realm of bigfooting, Matt Moneymaker may prove himself and his practices of hollowing in the wind and pretending trees cracking are bigfoot speaking back. But the responsibility is on him. Given how dishonest the AGW crowd has already been with faked findings such as the hockey stick graph and their culture of suppressing conflicting evidence, everything that comes out of that community needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt. They have proven themselves dishonest and at best, crippled by group think. So they have no credibility. They also overlook the obvious, the current record snow and cold is coinciding with a 100 year low in solar output. They seem to overlook the obvious impact of the sun on global temperatures.

[UpstateSCHokie]

I put AGW and peak oil in the same conspiracy theory categories. Both are designed to diminish the quality of life, and to shame Americans into giving up more of their freedoms and tax dollars.

Ive said many times that I believe "global climate change" is real, and its been real since the earth began, but man's contribution to it is trivial.

If that's how you see it, okay. I see it differently. Shocking I know.

I honestly don't see how you could given what you've said already of the moonbats undermining the science. It's without a doubt been part of politics, economics, and even used to establish one world government. It's the ultimate lever for central planners seeking global control. You even said the science has been undermined by these people. They're the ones the AGW "deniers" have alarmed by. Al Gore is the poster child and he was a US Senator and Vice President who was within 800 hanging chads of being the president. The threat from the alarmists is real.

All that said, I do agree it's something worth studying. I'm also aboard with some measures to limit pollution, cleaner air, and cleaner water. We can measure and understand the impact of that now and it's undeniable. AGW on the other hand belongs more in the realm of bigfooting, Matt Moneymaker may prove himself and his practices of hollowing in the wind and pretending trees cracking are bigfoot speaking back. But the responsibility is on him. Given how dishonest the AGW crowd has already been with faked findings such as the hockey stick graph and their culture of suppressing conflicting evidence, everything that comes out of that community needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt. They have proven themselves dishonest and at best, crippled by group think. So they have no credibility. They also overlook the obvious, the current record snow and cold is coinciding with a 100 year low in solar output. They seem to overlook the obvious impact of the sun on global temperatures.

[Once]

I look at the motives of each extreme end of the spectrum. For both these groups, there are some real tangible effects of being "right" on the face of things as opposed to actually right. If you're a US senator from hippy dippy California where your financial backing is green energy and the like, you have a very real dog in the fight to back junk science and skewed interpretations (i.e. False conclusions, scare tactics) of data to suit your constituents/financial backers. Same holds true for the politicians who are backed by corporate manufacturing industries that would have to dip into their profits to adhere to changes/increased requirements in environmental regulations. A universal statement for both groups: money and job security are powerful motivators.

I'd like to see the dispassionate independent study of the "problem" (if it even is a problem). That's pretty tough to achieve though when money and influence are involved. Even if we were able to strip those two out of the issue, and we look at it from a human nature standpoint: it's human nature to fight over a proverbial piece of sh!t. "I don't really wants the turd, but I'm going to ensure YOU don't get it just in case it's got a purpose I can't see you using it for right this minute. I've got my PRIDE for God's sake..."

As for your second sentence, I just don't know if that's true or not. I have no problem saying I don't know. It's not like you or I are going to be around to puff up and yell, "Ha! Loser!! In your face with your wrong self!!" I include myself in the hypothetical in your face scenario because I've learned that here on UWS, it matters not one whit that I've repeatedly and clearly explained here and in multiple threads that I don't know what the deal is with climate change. Some goofball will read this and assume I'm proclaiming it settled science, a fait accompli, and a proud member of the chicken little crowd just because I didn't jump up and declare the whole issue a trumped up concern of mythical proportions that we need never even think about let alone study.

I put AGW and peak oil in the same conspiracy theory categories. Both are designed to diminish the quality of life, and to shame Americans into giving up more of their freedoms and tax dollars.

Ive said many times that I believe "global climate change" is real, and its been real since the earth began, but man's contribution to it is trivial.

If that's how you see it, okay. I see it differently. Shocking I know.

I honestly don't see how you could given what you've said already of the moonbats undermining the science. It's without a doubt been part of politics, economics, and even used to establish one world government. It's the ultimate lever for central planners seeking global control. You even said the science has been undermined by these people. They're the ones the AGW "deniers" have alarmed by. Al Gore is the poster child and he was a US Senator and Vice President who was within 800 hanging chads of being the president. The threat from the alarmists is real.

All that said, I do agree it's something worth studying. I'm also aboard with some measures to limit pollution, cleaner air, and cleaner water. We can measure and understand the impact of that now and it's undeniable. AGW on the other hand belongs more in the realm of bigfooting, Matt Moneymaker may prove himself and his practices of hollowing in the wind and pretending trees cracking are bigfoot speaking back. But the responsibility is on him. Given how dishonest the AGW crowd has already been with faked findings such as the hockey stick graph and their culture of suppressing conflicting evidence, everything that comes out of that community needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt. They have proven themselves dishonest and at best, crippled by group think. So they have no credibility. They also overlook the obvious, the current record snow and cold is coinciding with a 100 year low in solar output. They seem to overlook the obvious impact of the sun on global temperatures.

[Major Kong]

Way to many years in the field fighting some of the silliest issues imaginable has hardened me to truly and totally as possible look at both sides of the coin, weed through the chaff and reach a decision.

All to often I've been confronted by environmeddling nutz or anti-environmeddling nutz whose only true axiom is don't confuse me with no damn facts, my mind is made up.

[Once]

I once was paid by the Marine Corps to complete an EA. The proposes action was to construct a skateboard park on an enclosed existing asphalt parking lot that happened to be 300 yards from the Pacific Ocean. Wooden structures only. No other uses for the property. No parking, no installation of utilities, nothing. What could have been solved by sending the Coastal Commission a courteous heads up letter cost them I forget how much (I suggested they try the letter first but they wanted the EA). The CC's comments on the EA were the polite version of "O.K.! Thanks for letting us know and wear your helmets!"

Way to many years in the field fighting some of the silliest issues imaginable has hardened me to truly and totally as possible look at both sides of the coin, weed through the chaff and reach a decision.

All to often I've been confronted by environmeddling nutz or anti-environmeddling nutz whose only true axiom is don't confuse me with no damn facts, my mind is made up.

[Major Kong]

I once was paid by the Marine Corps to complete an EA. The proposes action was to construct a skateboard park on an enclosed existing asphalt parking lot that happened to be 300 yards from the Pacific Ocean. Wooden structures only. No other uses for the property. No parking, no installation of utilities, nothing. What could have been solved by sending the Coastal Commission a courteous heads up letter cost them I forget how much (I suggested they try the letter first but they wanted the EA). The CC's comments on the EA were the polite version of "O.K.! Thanks for letting us know and wear your helmets!"

Ya know I dealt day to day with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (it's how I got introduced to what NOAA actually does besides the weather) and they were actually good to deal with as long as they were in the loop from the onset...take 'em out of the loop and they weren't your friend...something my Canadian employers (of the triumvirate of my bosses) never grokked.

Their problem? They thought that 'mericans had lax environmental rules and regulations...that is what they learned from the news media and Hollywood. I'd like to have a C-note every time I heard "we don't have to do that in BC/Alberta." Shocking...whenever we got a new manager from Canada they would have to sit in on my 40hr. Welcome to the USA EPA/DEQ/NOAA/BLM/NPS/OSHA/MSHA course.

I have never dealt with VADEQ's Coastal Planning District Commissions...Arizona doesn't have one...yet.

[USN_Hokie]

I don't think that accurately frames the argument. Remember, the left likes to call this "settled science" even though their current doom models /hiking magazine articles can't even reasonably predict weather trends from the past. They love to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but that apparently doesn't matter when the extraordinary claim advocates leftist policy.

Your position is reasonable, imo.

Simple two word answer to your question: We don't.
That said, why would we not study the effects of industrialization on our planet's health given that it's a relatively new addition to man's activities on the planet? The effects of pollution to groundwater, soil, and air quality are measurable. The hinky part is when scientists use what is relatively maybe a palm full of data (given the age of the earth - and no, I'm not going to get into the biblical claim that it's 6,000+ years discussion) to proclaim certain doom while the other side refuses to even consider that there may be impacts despite those measurements. Note that both these groups I'm referring to are the absolute zealots of the spectrum. The people in the middle who would rather the data be robust, the study complete and dispassionate, and the conclusions based on verifiable evidence seem to be shrinking because people as a general rule would rather be perceived as 'right' rather than the conclusion be 'right'.

Have I denounced either side as the loonier (could be 'more loony', but I'm not looking it up)? No. I haven't. I've said, it's an unwinnable argument that allows both sides to make wild speculation and/or state conclusively that they KNOW something they don't. By the time we know who is right, we will all be worm food probably.

Why do we need to wait 100 years to know if the IPCC and AGW were wrong in 84, 94, 04, etc? We can see the results of past predictions now and know they were wildly off.

[HokieJoe]

I've always wondered too why some folks have such a difficult time with 'the long game' concept. The reason we cannot accurately measure the level of man's potential impact on climate change is the exact same reason why we cannot dismiss man's potential impact on climate change. Not enough data to go on. I don't see the utility of the constant rehash of an argument where anyone, Al Gore and conservatives both, say the facts are conclusive either way. Anyone saying they are gets dismissed in my head as someone hoping to be right rather than knowing anything. The beauty of the futile discussion is no one of us will be around to yell, "in your face!!" when the actual cause is revealed. That allows for a lot of posturing and bravado.

Chicago may have it's coldest high temperature in recorded history on Monday.

Can people stop using one day to prove or disprove global warming?

I've always maintained that the facts are inconclusive. My problem is with trying to use inconclusive facts to sway public opinion and enact legislation/EPA rules that don't support the facts on hand.

[USN_Hokie]

I once was paid by the Marine Corps to complete an EA. The proposes action was to construct a skateboard park on an enclosed existing asphalt parking lot that happened to be 300 yards from the Pacific Ocean. Wooden structures only. No other uses for the property. No parking, no installation of utilities, nothing. What could have been solved by sending the Coastal Commission a courteous heads up letter cost them I forget how much (I suggested they try the letter first but they wanted the EA). The CC's comments on the EA were the polite version of "O.K.! Thanks for letting us know and wear your helmets!"

Way to many years in the field fighting some of the silliest issues imaginable has hardened me to truly and totally as possible look at both sides of the coin, weed through the chaff and reach a decision.

All to often I've been confronted by environmeddling nutz or anti-environmeddling nutz whose only true axiom is don't confuse me with no damn facts, my mind is made up.

You should see the environmental assessments / precautions required prior to blowing up / sinking a ship at sea.

[Once]

I don't disagree with any of what you said. At all.

I don't think that accurately frames the argument. Remember, the left likes to call this "settled science" even though their current doom models /hiking magazine articles can't even reasonably predict weather trends from the past. They love to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but that apparently doesn't matter when the extraordinary claim advocates leftist policy.

Your position is reasonable, imo.

Simple two word answer to your question: We don't.
That said, why would we not study the effects of industrialization on our planet's health given that it's a relatively new addition to man's activities on the planet? The effects of pollution to groundwater, soil, and air quality are measurable. The hinky part is when scientists use what is relatively maybe a palm full of data (given the age of the earth - and no, I'm not going to get into the biblical claim that it's 6,000+ years discussion) to proclaim certain doom while the other side refuses to even consider that there may be impacts despite those measurements. Note that both these groups I'm referring to are the absolute zealots of the spectrum. The people in the middle who would rather the data be robust, the study complete and dispassionate, and the conclusions based on verifiable evidence seem to be shrinking because people as a general rule would rather be perceived as 'right' rather than the conclusion be 'right'.

Have I denounced either side as the loonier (could be 'more loony', but I'm not looking it up)? No. I haven't. I've said, it's an unwinnable argument that allows both sides to make wild speculation and/or state conclusively that they KNOW something they don't. By the time we know who is right, we will all be worm food probably.

Why do we need to wait 100 years to know if the IPCC and AGW were wrong in 84, 94, 04, etc? We can see the results of past predictions now and know they were wildly off.

[Major Kong]

You should see the environmental assessments / precautions required prior to blowing up / sinking a ship at sea.

Meh try getting one for a 1000 sq. mile mining plan.

[Once]

Yes, and the requirements may vary just a bit depending on whether it's being sunk as part of an exercise or as artificial reefing. Either way, I guess RCRA and TSCA would be biggies (the Major's strong suit - not mine). I've never been involved in rendering one inactive or decommissioning, but I'd hazard a guess that the regs associated with dismantling/securing/disposing of the various hazardous substances/components alone would be subject to tons of regs.

I once was paid by the Marine Corps to complete an EA. The proposes action was to construct a skateboard park on an enclosed existing asphalt parking lot that happened to be 300 yards from the Pacific Ocean. Wooden structures only. No other uses for the property. No parking, no installation of utilities, nothing. What could have been solved by sending the Coastal Commission a courteous heads up letter cost them I forget how much (I suggested they try the letter first but they wanted the EA). The CC's comments on the EA were the polite version of "O.K.! Thanks for letting us know and wear your helmets!"

Way to many years in the field fighting some of the silliest issues imaginable has hardened me to truly and totally as possible look at both sides of the coin, weed through the chaff and reach a decision.

All to often I've been confronted by environmeddling nutz or anti-environmeddling nutz whose only true axiom is don't confuse me with no damn facts, my mind is made up.

You should see the environmental assessments / precautions required prior to blowing up / sinking a ship at sea.

[Major Kong]

Yes, and the requirements may vary just a bit depending on whether it's being sunk as part of an exercise or as artificial reefing. Either way, I guess RCRA and TSCA would be biggies (the Major's strong suit - not mine). I've never been involved in rendering one inactive or decommissioning, but I'd hazard a guess that the regs associated with dismantling/securing/disposing of the various hazardous substances/components alone would be subject to tons of regs.

I've never sunk anything except for a couple thousand $$$ in Vegas.

But yeah RCRA & TSCA (I hate TSCA) are great guesses...I leave the rest to NOAA and the Coastal Zone folks.

[Once]

Maybe Marine mammals nat. res. folks too if what ever they are doing is a true detonation (BOOM!).

Yes, and the requirements may vary just a bit depending on whether it's being sunk as part of an exercise or as artificial reefing. Either way, I guess RCRA and TSCA would be biggies (the Major's strong suit - not mine). I've never been involved in rendering one inactive or decommissioning, but I'd hazard a guess that the regs associated with dismantling/securing/disposing of the various hazardous substances/components alone would be subject to tons of regs.

I've never sunk anything except for a couple thousand $$$ in Vegas.

But yeah RCRA & TSCA (I hate TSCA) are great guesses...I leave the rest to NOAA and the Coastal Zone folks.

[Uprising]

Simple two word answer to your question: We don't.
That said, why would we not study the effects of industrialization on our planet's health given that it's a relatively new addition to man's activities on the planet? The effects of pollution to groundwater, soil, and air quality are measurable. The hinky part is when scientists use what is relatively maybe a palm full of data (given the age of the earth - and no, I'm not going to get into the biblical claim that it's 6,000+ years discussion) to proclaim certain doom while the other side refuses to even consider that there may be impacts despite those measurements. Note that both these groups I'm referring to are the absolute zealots of the spectrum. The people in the middle who would rather the data be robust, the study complete and dispassionate, and the conclusions based on verifiable evidence seem to be shrinking because people as a general rule would rather be perceived as 'right' rather than the conclusion be 'right'.

Have I denounced either side as the loonier (could be 'more loony', but I'm not looking it up)? No. I haven't. I've said, it's an unwinnable argument that allows both sides to make wild speculation and/or state conclusively that they KNOW something they don't. By the time we know who is right, we will all be worm food probably.

Why do we need to wait 100 years to know if the IPCC and AGW were wrong in 84, 94, 04, etc? We can see the results of past predictions now and know they were wildly off.

This is a false equivalency. First, how do you complete a study like this? What amount of data is robust enough? Should we leave it up to politicians to decide? I'm sure I'm guilty of speaking in absolutes on this board when it comes to climate change and other topics. But the people that actually matter in this conversation, the climate scientist, don't speak in absolutes. They talk of probabilities. And even in this time of supposed leveling off, their level of certainty has gone up, their data has been strengthened, and their models have been proven accurate (despite what AG says).

Is this really the attitude we should be taking? Should we give Robert Kennedy Jr. equal credence when it comes to vaccines? How about the discovery institute when it comes to evolution? The problem is that one side is doing the science, and the other side is using rhetoric and straw men to misrepresent the others' work so that it fits their narrative.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[oaktonhokie]

Good news for the libs and wrong Emmanuel. The murder rate will be way down this month.

Anyone seen algore?

Chicago may have it's coldest high temperature in recorded history on Monday.

Hell has frozen over...

[awesome guy]

Simple two word answer to your question: We don't.
That said, why would we not study the effects of industrialization on our planet's health given that it's a relatively new addition to man's activities on the planet? The effects of pollution to groundwater, soil, and air quality are measurable. The hinky part is when scientists use what is relatively maybe a palm full of data (given the age of the earth - and no, I'm not going to get into the biblical claim that it's 6,000+ years discussion) to proclaim certain doom while the other side refuses to even consider that there may be impacts despite those measurements. Note that both these groups I'm referring to are the absolute zealots of the spectrum. The people in the middle who would rather the data be robust, the study complete and dispassionate, and the conclusions based on verifiable evidence seem to be shrinking because people as a general rule would rather be perceived as 'right' rather than the conclusion be 'right'.

Have I denounced either side as the loonier (could be 'more loony', but I'm not looking it up)? No. I haven't. I've said, it's an unwinnable argument that allows both sides to make wild speculation and/or state conclusively that they KNOW something they don't. By the time we know who is right, we will all be worm food probably.

Why do we need to wait 100 years to know if the IPCC and AGW were wrong in 84, 94, 04, etc? We can see the results of past predictions now and know they were wildly off.

This is a false equivalency. First, how do you complete a study like this? What amount of data is robust enough? Should we leave it up to politicians to decide? I'm sure I'm guilty of speaking in absolutes on this board when it comes to climate change and other topics. But the people that actually matter in this conversation, the climate scientist, don't speak in absolutes. They talk of probabilities. And even in this time of supposed leveling off, their level of certainty has gone up, their data has been strengthened, and their models have been proven accurate (despite what AG says).

Is this really the attitude we should be taking? Should we give Robert Kennedy Jr. equal credence when it comes to vaccines? How about the discovery institute when it comes to evolution? The problem is that one side is doing the science, and the other side is using rhetoric and straw men to misrepresent the others' work so that it fits their narrative.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Despite what you say, the IPCC and the so called legitimate scientist have been way outside even their worst case predictions. They've been completely wrong. This is irrefutable as evidenced by the new marketing term "climate change" instead of the global warming that didn't happen.

[nolanvt]

This thread is hilarious. It reads like a PFTCommenter (parody account based on the moronic commenters on the Pro Football Talk blog) tweet:

https://twitter.com/PFTCommenter/status ... 3204652032

[awesome guy]

This thread is hilarious. It reads like a PFTCommenter (parody account based on the moronic commenters on the Pro Football Talk blog) tweet:

https://twitter.com/PFTCommenter/status ... 3204652032

OK