Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7221 - 7240 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 4, 2013 - 05:23pm PT
Excuse me gents, i can't let this go without correcting the record somewhat. The narrative you guys are advancing is as disconnected from reality as the precious climate models you worship.

DMT is right in that The Chief, Ron and i hit you repeatedly with the old 1-2-3, over and over again.

The Chief presented graph, after graph, after graph highlighting the disconnect between the numerous models and observed reality. He offered up article after article, by some of the most respected scientists in the world refuting much of the CAGW hypothesis.He revealed the huge quantity of capital behind this climate change inustry and the ones who will ultimately pay the costs-us.

Ron showed in study after study that the flora and fauna of planet Earth is not suffering as a consequence of increased CO2. He pointed to the real causes of devastating wilfires, which is mainly because of an overreaction to clear cutting forests of the past resulting in overzealous and wrongheaded extreme enviromentalism. He also shredded the idea of the extinction of the Polar Bear-the poster child of the CAGW overreactionaries.

I presented numerous papers ( not just the one Ed claims) by many highly respected scientists offering alternative natural processes that correlate well with observations. These ran the gamut from oceanic cycles, to numerous causes and effects of solar variability, to extra solar effects from cosmic rays etc.

At one point a 1000 or 1500 posts ago both Base and Ed conceded that the Anthropogenic contribution and effects will likely be less than all the modeling. From memory- Ed " the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to natural variability", Base "the effects will likely be more an inconvenience than an extinction and will require adaptation"- These are not exact quotes but are accurate as to their meaning.

Now some of you guys say we deny any anthropogenic contribution towards the cause of the 20th century's modest heat increase of 0.7 c. This is not true, all of us agreed that man has a minor degree of contribution to this increase. What we don't agree to, is that it is a disaster, or a reason to panic.

Ed stated in his last post that i consider the consensus policy to be " a threat to the welfare of humans around the globe", and i ,"align with those who advocate a do nothing policy". The first of his statements is absolutely true- many people do think the carbon taxing scheme that he frequently advocates is a real threat. The second is also true-any one would align with those who advocate doing nothing, before happily agreeing to pay vastly more taxes, to promote more governance at the expense of their welfare, all for an unproven disaster that may occur (according to a minority of scientists)many decades in the future.

Ed had a good illustration in his last post. The grey area on the right showed the loss to inefficiency- don't most of you think that improving efficiency is a worthy goal of science and government policy-i do. It also showed how much coal is used in power generation (coal use is the single largest polutant and releases approx, 50% more CO2 than combustion of natural gas). It also showed how pathetically little energy is produced by wind and solar despite hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies and the use of thousands of square miles of public property. It just can't, at this point, totally replace coal and petroleum. But the combination of increased natural gas usage, construction of more modern nuclear plants, increased efficiency, and funding of R&D on viable alternatives can.This can all be done without a carbon tax. It can be done environmentally safely. It can start to be done now.


Boulder climber
Jul 4, 2013 - 05:56pm PT
"Further observations and analysis are needed to confidently
attribute the causes of these changes (jet streams) to anthropogenic
climate change, natural variability, or some combination of
the two"

OK. Thanks.

. . . combination of increased natural gas usage, construction of more modern nuclear plants . . .

Sounds good.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jul 4, 2013 - 06:03pm PT
Excuse me gents...

You wallow in your own willful ignorance and refuse to learn the basics of the science you try to refute. There is no excuse for you.

Ice climber
the ghost
Jul 4, 2013 - 06:14pm PT
PS: an 1800 lb car getting 275 mpg and requiring 12 seconds to get up to speed would be blown off I-25 into the path of an 18-wheeler here on the high prairie.
And I can't safely ride my bicycle in the middle of the main drag.
But I still get around.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jul 4, 2013 - 06:35pm PT
Look at Malemute... pretending these fools are not impervious to reason.

It is ALL or NOTHING... if you live ANYWHERE it snows you better drive a big SUV at all times, even to pick up your groceries in July... you just never know. And if you have ever driven on a windy highway fuel efficient vehicles for around town (where most fuel is consumed) will NEVER work.

And NO, driving 50 miles to do a 100 mile road ride does not make you a "biker" it makes you an idiot who rides bikes.

Boulder climber
Jul 4, 2013 - 06:58pm PT
Knew my PS would generate some flak!


Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jul 4, 2013 - 10:37pm PT
Dr. Christ...Even if you live where it doesn't snow , you should have a large 4WD SUV just in case your neighbors were thinking about one-upping you...RJ
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jul 4, 2013 - 11:56pm PT
Was riding a scooter stalled just after getting started out of an intersection and I got rear ended. All is well, managed to stay upright left rear lights got taken out....but I got their right headlight! I'm going to rate it 5.12D.
Jebus H Bomz

Peavine Basecamp
Jul 5, 2013 - 12:05am PT
Did you get clipped by The Chief?

Social climber
Jul 5, 2013 - 12:05am PT
I look at this from a personal perspective here in Pueblo West, a middle class community 10 miles from Pueblo, on the high S. Colorado prairie. There is no central business area out here, but a number of strip malls and individual business buildings. I have observed small business after small business vanish starting just after the Great Recession began. Recently that trend seems to have accelerated, leaving a large number of empty spaces. Also, in my extended family there are significant unemployment problems among several younger members who were well-trained for their work. One is a very competent driller whose job vanished with the downturn in precious metals' values.

When someone recommends taxing imports from China, etc. if they do not follow the lead of the US, I think Yes, and then those in my family skirting near the edge of financial disaster will have to pay 12$ for an item at Walmart previously listed as 10$. Who ends up paying the price? And, yes, import fees might increase US production, but that's a dangerous path.

Your argument could turned on its head.

No one yet knows how hard global climate change will hit us.

But the people hardest hit will be those living in locations where the climate is hot and dry, marginal for agriculture already. Southeast Colorado would fit into that category.

Among the other, non-human forcings and variables, currently the human-caused element is feeble. But even this feeble effect has, seemingly, wrecked agriculture and ruined ranchers and farmers in southeast Colorado and into Oklahoma.

So, any tax that serves to stall climate change will benefit places like southeast Colorado and Oklahoma and New Mexico far more than Vermont or Pennsylvania.

So, by this logic, the people of Pueblo should be the most enthusiastic supporters of carbon taxes and the like.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jul 5, 2013 - 12:20am PT
Did you get clipped by The Chief?

No, he's shot at me before though. It's time to get an SUV......with armored windows and side walls!

Boulder climber
Jul 5, 2013 - 12:39am PT
So, any tax that serves to stall climate change . . .

Good luck with that.

I don't think the majority of people of Pueblo would rush to support such a tax. Ervaz Steel Mill (formerly CF&I) modernized, removing old coal burning furnaces a number of years ago, replaced by electric furnaces fueled by the Commanche (coal) Power Plant nearby. Additional taxations would injure the economy - we are not primarily an agricultural or ranching community. However, SE Colorado is and you might find a little support there, but I doubt it, as families out there are concerned about where their next meals will come from and the "promise" of "possibly stalling climate change" is pretty nebulous.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jul 5, 2013 - 12:46am PT
We should just wait and see if it gets bad enough to do anything about, like Rick says. But, we could tax chalk too. Chalk is getting off easy.

Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2013 - 11:50am PT
jgill, it is an interesting problem you spotlight. How do we, on a micro level, deal with a problem that is macro in nature?

Because the economy is directly tied to energy and its cost, any bump to the energy supply will resonate with the economies of the world.

As you say, the latest recession is still bouncing off the walls, and while the DOW just hit its all-time high, the under-structure is rotten to the core. People with skills can't find work and people without skills are in a worse way.

And now, we're hit with some crazy problem with our energy source?

Yeah, we are.

DMT, 123,123,123. I loved that--Brilliant!
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jul 5, 2013 - 12:06pm PT
all for an unproven disaster that may occur (according to a minority of scientists)many decades in the future.

And here is the lie, in all it's glory.

I AM a member of the scientific community. I personally meet climate scientists.

"according to a minority of scientists" is bald-faced rubbish. You can find a very small number of climate deniers among climate scientists, but those consist almost exclusively of those on the payrolls of industry, earning their bucks.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jul 5, 2013 - 12:17pm PT

If I might take a stab at your question:

The old adage in hiking might apply: If you take care of the oz, the lbs take care of themselves.

An example might be the Kyoto treaty, which the US has not signed. My city, Los Angeles, HAS signed the treaty.....and HAS met the established goals of the have a number of cities.

LA has a plan to be off all coal-fired electricity, and it is making it's way in that direction at breakneck speed...we'll be off in 12 years.

Ironic the way the Mayor describes it:

“I believe the only way to get the goal is to set aggressive timetables,” Villaraigosa said. “Climbing mountains that have never been climbed before [isn't] easy.”

LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa initially set twin goals, to achieve 20 percent renewable energy in the city’s mix by 2010, and to get LA off of coal by 2020.

The city has reached the 20 percent renewables goal.

The Sierra Club’s Evan Gillespie likes that quitting coal will bring L.A.’s greenhouse gas emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels.

Boulder climber
Jul 5, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
The most obvious thing to do is get Pueblo off of that coal fired power

My first glimpse of Pueblo occurred 51 years ago when my first wife and I drove south on the new I-25. Smoke was billowing from the furnaces of CF&I that early evening drifting to the south along the freeway, in a leisurely fashion - 90 miles to Trinidad. I was impressed, but back then the paper mill on the Black Warrior was still emitting a far more lethal product, so I wasn't shocked.

About 10 years later I moved to Pueblo, and the air seemed a little cleaner. Then, some years later, the steel mill went electric, and suddenly Pueblo had amazingly clean air, far better than Aspen, Colorado Springs, Denver, or Fort Collins. Back in Tuscaloosa the paper mill shut down and air quality improved enormously.

Those of you who are younger perhaps have not lived through such remarkable advances and your baselines are quite high from my perspective. I'm not being critical, but only mentioning this so you might recognize that older people sometimes see things a bit differently.

The Commanche (coal) plant is actually pretty clean these days. I would not recommend advocating its closure or conversion anytime soon. Although, from the distant reaches of Canada you might be safe doing so.

McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jul 5, 2013 - 02:12pm PT

LA has a plan to be off all coal-fired electricity, and it is making it's way in that direction at breakneck speed...we'll be off in 12 years.

Amazing news - good to see!'s just a conversion to natural gas.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jul 5, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
The WEAKEST stuff ever..

OF COURSE warmer temps mean harder burning fires.. But a a degree or so diff ISNT going to make or break ANYTHING in wildifires.

It is THE FUEL MOISTURES that are lacking in many areas.. The same areas where a hundred years of build up of fuels also exist.

So yeah,, ANY "scientist" can claim climate change is affecting wildfire. But that is as smart as saying they dont happen in the dead of winters.

Wildfires have been "explosive" at times sine they were recorded in the 1800s. Mann Gulch fire of the 1940s was every bit as explosive as the Yarnell burn just the other day.

command error

Trad climber
Jul 5, 2013 - 02:35pm PT
Aerosols from wildfires and volcano's and my burned chicken wings are all
helping to cool the climate.
Messages 7221 - 7240 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews