interesting read on climate change...

[mrplunkey]

It happens "every" single administration. When the people who's money you used to get into office come knocking, they get their cut. That's how washington works and has "ALWAYS" worked. The sudden indignation about this from the right is laughable. All the fuss is about is "who" gets the right to pick our pockets. It doesn't matter how big or small the govt "appears" to be. They will pick us blind no matter what. It's in the very nature of our economic and monetary system which please rest assured, NO ONE up there has any plans to change anything. Why would they it's a whole shit ton of free cyber money which flows in.

That's an excellent point. Both sides will inevitably funnel money to whoever helps them win (and secure) their office.

Given that, would you agree that the only answer is make government smaller thus insuring there is less to steal?

 

[Headholio]

. I've pointed a few friends who were Green believers and Global Warming sheep to some factual reading materials, and they actually felt silly and changed positions .

Charles

You should give some of that reading material to PhD physicist Richard Muller.
He was one of the last credible global warming skeptics, paid by the Koch brothers to cast doubt on already proven climate science. Finally, even he could not keep up the charade, and changed his mind. A Koch brothers funded study (to disprove climate science) backfired on them and the study ended up concluding that if anything, current climate models are underestimating the impact of green house gas emmisions.

How a global warming skeptic came to change his mind – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

 

[mrplunkey]

That would be way cool if the models matched what was actually happening.

 

[Headholio]

I'll get to the bottom line. I can provide tons of real scientific (not Fox News) articles later but I don't have time right now.

There is no debate on climate change. It is real, and it is man made, and there is not a controversy about it. The fake controversy is a political invention not a scientific one.

The first 12 years of this century have all been in the top 14 hottest years in recorded history. 2012 was the hottest year in the united States ever, and 9th hottest ever for the earth.

As for the OP article, it is obviously anti-AGW, but all it is talking about is variations in the slope of a ever increasing sloped line. It's misleading the same way Sean Hannity scoffs at AGW every frickin time it snows. Bino's article if you read it, says nothing to disprove climate change theory. And don't misread it. Heating more slowly is not the same as cooling.

The upward slope of the earths temperatures is a jagged line, but the trend is clear. Anyone with any knowledge of trend analysis knows that you can't cherry pick a couple of data points out of thousands to disprove the conclusions of the whole set of data.

The models are pretty good right now, but not good enough to predict every variation. The anti AGW phonies will continue to point to every effort at improving the models as evidence that AGW must be wrong.

CO2 has increased 35% in our atmosphere in this industrial age, and there has never been anyone who could come up with a model that accounts for a 35% increase in CO2 without a rise in temperature. There is no contradictory model. The only science is AGW science, the deniers have no science.

 

[Headholio]

Anyone who truly believes in man-made climate change should support the idea of retarding the development of India and China as much as possible.

Exactly how many Chevy Volts do we need to buy to offset a billion low-end, fuel-inefficient cars?

We could "retard their development", or we could just kill them all, which would be an even bigger benefit to the environment. But do you consider either one to be a practical idea?

 

[mrplunkey]

We could "retard their development", or we could just kill them all, which would be an even bigger benefit to the environment. But do you consider either one to be a practical idea?

Obviously not. But I don't consider Solyndra, wind farms in the middle of nowhere or any of the other enviro-whacko ideas practical either.

How the same people who brought you the postal service think they'll reinvent the energy industry is laughable.

 

[Headholio]

Obviously not. But I don't consider Solyndra, wind farms in the middle of nowhere or any of the other enviro-whacko ideas practical either.

How the same people who brought you the postal service think they'll reinvent the energy industry is laughable.

The government will reinvent the energy industry, as it has many times thoughout history. Who do you think created hydroelectric power in this country? Who built Hoover dam for you and me? What private enterprise just decided to create the catalytic converter to clean up our air? Not only can the government do it, it is pretty much not going to happen without government initiative.

 

[mrplunkey]

The government will reinvent the energy industry, as it has many times thoughout history. Who do you think created hydroelectric power in this country? Who built Hoover dam for you and me? What private enterprise just decided to create the catalytic converter to clean up our air? Not only can the government do it, it is pretty much not going to happen without government initiative.

I'm just thankful that government invested those hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to develop hydraulic fracturing and create one of the best opportunities we've ever had to gain energy independence.

 

[wootoom]

Fracturing is something that benefits me, I'm not complaining up in Canada

 

[-SD-]

Can you find Dryland with fracturing?