The nub of the climate change thing problem

[Ibanez]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume all of the chemicals and pollutants humans put into the environment aren't going to have some sort of adverse effect.

Going from "some sort of adverse effect" to "catastrophic consequences" is quite the leap.

Please post where I said, "catastrophic consequences". I'll wait. I'll assume you must have thought I wrote that since you used quotation marks. I'll be over here waiting-------------->

[Ibanez]

Maybe you don't understand how to quote. Yeah, that must be it.

[Ibanez]

Before you rabid Republicans (JSO, AZ) try to pigeon hole me i'll explain something real clear. Common sense suggest that polluting our atmosphere, water, soil, et al.. will have a negative effect. Is that effect Global Warming? I don't know. It's hard to take seriously any government report. There is naturally a bias. Also, the people that were trying to prove climate change in the mid 00's were found to have fudged the numbers. So, it's untrustworthy at best.

Having said all that, the Earth goes through cycles. Approx. 2000 years ago, Britain was a different world and capable of growing grapes for wine, etc.. Today, it's different. The Earth has had natural periods of warming and cooling. So maybe that is what's happening and any damage done by pollutants in the air are exacerbating that. I don't know, i'm not a scientist and I don't stay at Holiday Inns.

Spoiler: show

And before you correct me, I know you'll claim to be Libertarians. However, that is suspect. Especially in JSOs case.

[AZGrizFan]

Before you rabid Republicans (JSO, AZ) try to pigeon hole me i'll explain something real clear. Common sense suggest that polluting our atmosphere, water, soil, et al.. will have a negative effect. Is that effect Global Warming? I don't know. It's hard to take seriously any government report. There is naturally a bias. Also, the people that were trying to prove climate change in the mid 00's were found to have fudged the numbers. So, it's untrustworthy at best.

Having said all that, the Earth goes through cycles. Approx. 2000 years ago, Britain was a different world and capable of growing grapes for wine, etc.. Today, it's different. The Earth has had natural periods of warming and cooling. So maybe that is what's happening and any damage done by pollutants in the air are exacerbating that. I don't know, i'm not a scientist and I don't stay at Holiday Inns.

Spoiler: show

And before you correct me, I know you'll claim to be Libertarians. However, that is suspect. Especially in JSOs case.

Hey, jackass: nobody here is claiming that pollution doesn't have a "negative" effect. The argument is THIS:



Alarmism based on faulty, biased science. CATASTROPHIC RESULTS.

Get it now?

[CID1990]

^^^^ This right here


You are absolutely correct. You WOULD think that

and it is certainly being explored from many angles

but the problem many people have is that 'ridiculous assumptions' have nothing to do with the scientific method


cue Houndawg to say something cute and unrelated

I'm not talking about the methods or research involved in climate science. I'm talking about what seems to be common sense. Are you suggesting 150+ years of industry has had little to no effect on our environment, regardless of the scale (local vs global)?

No, I am not.

I am suggesting that as reasonable as it sounds to you and I, it is not a hard fact until it is supported unequivocally by science.

That was my point- neither emotion nor "what sounds right or reasonable" have a place in the scientific pursuit of answers as to the anthropogenic effects on our climate.

[Ibanez]

I'm not talking about the methods or research involved in climate science. I'm talking about what seems to be common sense. Are you suggesting 150+ years of industry has had little to no effect on our environment, regardless of the scale (local vs global)?

No, I am not.

I am suggesting that as reasonable as it sounds to you and I, it is not a hard fact until it is supported unequivocally by science.

That was my point- neither emotion nor "what sounds right or reasonable" have a place in the scientific pursuit of answers as to the anthropogenic effects on our climate.

I agree. It's hard for people to remove emotion in certain scientific pursuits.

[Ibanez]

Before you rabid Republicans (JSO, AZ) try to pigeon hole me i'll explain something real clear. Common sense suggest that polluting our atmosphere, water, soil, et al.. will have a negative effect. Is that effect Global Warming? I don't know. It's hard to take seriously any government report. There is naturally a bias. Also, the people that were trying to prove climate change in the mid 00's were found to have fudged the numbers. So, it's untrustworthy at best.

Having said all that, the Earth goes through cycles. Approx. 2000 years ago, Britain was a different world and capable of growing grapes for wine, etc.. Today, it's different. The Earth has had natural periods of warming and cooling. So maybe that is what's happening and any damage done by pollutants in the air are exacerbating that. I don't know, i'm not a scientist and I don't stay at Holiday Inns.

Spoiler: show

And before you correct me, I know you'll claim to be Libertarians. However, that is suspect. Especially in JSOs case.

Hey, jackass: nobody here is claiming that pollution doesn't have a "negative" effect. The argument is THIS:



Alarmism based on faulty, biased science. CATASTROPHIC RESULTS.

Get it now?

If you agree with my quote then why the smart ass comment and " "?

Jackass.

Or was your comment misconstrued because you used emoticons instead of words, and it wasn't clear if you were directing a negative comment at me or agreeing with me. If that's the case, I apologize. Let's use our words.

[YoUDeeMan]

Hey, jackass: nobody here is claiming that pollution doesn't have a "negative" effect. The argument is THIS:



Alarmism based on faulty, biased science. CATASTROPHIC RESULTS.

Get it now?

If you agree with my quote then why the smart ass comment and " "?

Jackass.

Or was your comment misconstrued because you used emoticons instead of words, and it wasn't clear if you were directing a negative comment at me or agreeing with me. If that's the case, I apologize. Let's use our words.

I think you got your panties in a bunch...again.

Are you sure you are on the East Coast?

[Ibanez]

If you agree with my quote then why the smart ass comment and " "?

Jackass.

Or was your comment misconstrued because you used emoticons instead of words, and it wasn't clear if you were directing a negative comment at me or agreeing with me. If that's the case, I apologize. Let's use our words.

I think you got your panties in a bunch...again.

Are you sure you are on the East Coast?

I might have, but only because somebody failed to communicate his idea. We shouldn't substitute important ideas/comments for " " That's just my opinion.

[89Hen]

Weather has a huge impact on my business and NOAA forecasts are amazingly accurate for both the 7 day and the 6-10 and 8-14 day climate predictions. They're pretty fucking good at it these days.

Maybe in Washington, but not in Washington, DC. Weather has a huge impact on my golf and my kids sports schedules and the forecasts change even faster than the weather. We had ZERO percent chance of rain yesterday as of even Tuesday. Rained all afternoon. The past 12-18 months have been the most fluctuating and inaccurate forecasts I've seen in my life. To be fair, we live in a very difficult area to predict. We are very often right on the rain/snow line and storms are very small and spotty and can pop up on this side of the Apps.

[Ibanez]

Weather has a huge impact on my business and NOAA forecasts are amazingly accurate for both the 7 day and the 6-10 and 8-14 day climate predictions. They're pretty fucking good at it these days.

Maybe in Washington, but not in Washington, DC. Weather has a huge impact on my golf and my kids sports schedules and the forecasts change even faster than the weather. We had ZERO percent chance of rain yesterday as of even Tuesday. Rained all afternoon. The past 12-18 months have been the most fluctuating and inaccurate forecasts I've seen in my life. To be fair, we live in a very difficult area to predict. We are very often right on the rain/snow line and storms are very small and spotty and can pop up on this side of the Apps.

Same here. The forecast can be for 0% chance of rain and it'll rain for 5 hours. I think it's the heat coming off 95 that causes so many problems.

[YoUDeeMan]

Wanna' have some fun?

Record the 5-7 day forecast of your local station...and then see how accurate they are.

But, wait...this global theory is MUCH more accurate.



All you need to know about Climate Change is to watch the TV azz clowns talk about how bad things have gotten lately. More tornadoes, and stronger ones, due to Global Warming...with zero credible science behind it.

Rich people running around using up tons of resources and telling other people to stop using resources. You can't make this up.

Weather has a huge impact on my business and NOAA forecasts are amazingly accurate for both the 7 day and the 6-10 and 8-14 day climate predictions. They're pretty fucking good at it these days.

You're in a dessert...a barren waste land, on the left side of the continent.

If you were on the East Coast, with an ever growing ocean (the Pack-a-fic, past it's prime, is waning as we speak), mountains, the Gulf, a couple Great Lakes, the Gulf Stream, heat islands every 30-50 miles, two large bays, Cowtown Rodeo, and people from New Jersey constantly opening up their mouths, you'd find that it is much harder to predict the weather in this area on this side of the continent.

You also did not post your 5-7 day forecast.

Here's ours:

"Detailed Forecast
Today Mostly cloudy, with a high near 73. Calm wind becoming northeast around 5 mph in the afternoon.
Tonight A chance of showers, with thunderstorms also possible after 2am. Patchy fog after 1am. Otherwise, mostly cloudy, with a low around 58. East wind 5 to 7 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%. New rainfall amounts of less than a tenth of an inch, except higher amounts possible in thunderstorms.
Friday Mostly cloudy, with a high near 73. Light east wind becoming southeast 5 to 9 mph in the morning.
Friday Night A chance of showers and thunderstorms, mainly after 2am. Patchy fog after 2am. Otherwise, mostly cloudy, with a low around 61. Southeast wind 6 to 9 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%. New rainfall amounts of less than a tenth of an inch, except higher amounts possible in thunderstorms.
Saturday A chance of showers and thunderstorms. Patchy fog before 8am. Otherwise, cloudy, with a high near 75. Southwest wind 6 to 14 mph. Chance of precipitation is 50%. New rainfall amounts between a tenth and quarter of an inch, except higher amounts possible in thunderstorms.
Saturday Night Showers likely and possibly a thunderstorm before 1am, then a slight chance of showers and thunderstorms after 1am. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 59. Chance of precipitation is 60%. New rainfall amounts between a tenth and quarter of an inch, except higher amounts possible in thunderstorms.
Sunday Mostly sunny, with a high near 78.
Sunday Night Partly cloudy, with a low around 61.
Monday Partly sunny, with a high near 83.
Monday Night Mostly cloudy, with a low around 63.
Tuesday A chance of showers and thunderstorms. Partly sunny, with a high near 82. Chance of precipitation is 30%.
Tuesday Night Mostly cloudy, with a low around 62.
Wednesday Scattered showers and thunderstorms. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 77. Chance of precipitation is 50%."

BTW, there was a study that demonstrated low accuracy in forecasts more than three days out. In fact, they said that forecasts beyond 7 days are basically guesswork. When I find time, I'll post the link.

[kalm]

Weather has a huge impact on my business and NOAA forecasts are amazingly accurate for both the 7 day and the 6-10 and 8-14 day climate predictions. They're pretty fucking good at it these days.

Maybe in Washington, but not in Washington, DC. Weather has a huge impact on my golf and my kids sports schedules and the forecasts change even faster than the weather. We had ZERO percent chance of rain yesterday as of even Tuesday. Rained all afternoon. The past 12-18 months have been the most fluctuating and inaccurate forecasts I've seen in my life. To be fair, we live in a very difficult area to predict. We are very often right on the rain/snow line and storms are very small and spotty and can pop up on this side of the Apps.

Have you used NOAA?

[89Hen]

I just pulled up our 10 day. As of Tuesday, we weren't expecting rain through Tuesday of next week. I was watching it because I'm on our member guest tournament committee and the tourney is today through Saturday. Was supposed to be 10 bell weather, barely even a cloud. Now we've got 30% chance of rain tomorrow and a 60% chance Saturday.

I have an outing next Friday. Forecast right now is 71, partly cloudy with a 10% chance of rain. Let's see what it turns out. I can't lose either way.

[89Hen]

Have you used NOAA?

I use both (NWS and NOAA). I actually have gotten pretty good at combining the two forecasts into one, more accurate one.

[OL FU]

No, I am not.

I am suggesting that as reasonable as it sounds to you and I, it is not a hard fact until it is supported unequivocally by science.

That was my point- neither emotion nor "what sounds right or reasonable" have a place in the scientific pursuit of answers as to the anthropogenic effects on our climate.

I agree. It's hard for people to remove emotion in certain scientific pursuits.

It is difficult for people to remove the motivation for making money in certain scientific pursuits

[YoUDeeMan]

I think you got your panties in a bunch...again.

Are you sure you are on the East Coast?

I might have, but only because somebody failed to communicate his idea. We shouldn't substitute important ideas/comments for " " That's just my opinion.

When you point a finger at someone, you are pointing 3 more at yourself.

[kalm]

I agree. It's hard for people to remove emotion in certain scientific pursuits.

It is difficult for people to remove the motivation for making money in certain scientific pursuits

Like oil and gas exploration engineering?

[OL FU]

It is difficult for people to remove the motivation for making money in certain scientific pursuits

Like oil and gas exploration engineering?

Any of them.
the only difference is that oil and gas don't pretend that making money isn't the objective.


Here is my problem with the climate change proclaimers. I think the idea of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere warming the climate makes absolute sense. But the largest pushers of the issue are their own worse enemies and it makes it difficult to take them serious. You can't predict calamity in the next five to ten years every year. After about 20 years it starts seeming laughable. You can't pretend that you are saving the world while profiting immensely from your efforts. You can't constantly ignore they fact that the models don't work in the shorter term (10,20 years) while proclaiming your absolute certainty that your models are correct. and last but not least you can't be the loudest voice in the climate change debate while living in a 10,000 square foot house, riding in limos and flying in private planes and saying it's ok I buy carbon offsets

[Ibanez]

I might have, but only because somebody failed to communicate his idea. We shouldn't substitute important ideas/comments for " " That's just my opinion.

When you point a finger at someone, you are pointing 3 more at yourself.

Unless you're missing a few nubs .

[houndawg]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume all of the chemicals and pollutants humans put into the environment aren't going to have some sort of adverse effect.

^^^^ This right here


You are absolutely correct. You WOULD think that

and it is certainly being explored from many angles

but the problem many people have is that 'ridiculous assumptions' have nothing to do with the scientific method


cue Houndawg to say something cute and unrelated

You seem a mite peevish today, SQUID, did your deep anal visitor not show up last night?

[andy7171]

Damn, it's hot outside today.

Have you been to the top of the arch yet?

[AZGrizFan]

No, I am not.

I am suggesting that as reasonable as it sounds to you and I, it is not a hard fact until it is supported unequivocally by science.

That was my point- neither emotion nor "what sounds right or reasonable" have a place in the scientific pursuit of answers as to the anthropogenic effects on our climate.

I agree. It's hard for people to remove emotion in certain scientific pursuits.

And apparently it's even harder for some people to differentiate between "little to no effect" and the alarmist, catastrophic crap being foisted upon us by our government that's only doing what it does best: preying upon human fears to expand it's reach and control of your pocketbook.

[Chizzang]

Everybody posting on this thread will be dead soon... (relatively speaking, The End)


next...

[CID1990]

^^^^ This right here


You are absolutely correct. You WOULD think that

and it is certainly being explored from many angles

but the problem many people have is that 'ridiculous assumptions' have nothing to do with the scientific method


cue Houndawg to say something cute and unrelated

You seem a mite peevish today, SQUID, did your deep anal visitor not show up last night?

A little late, yet right on time