Earth day

Speaking of earth day, why is it that world CO2 emissions have risen 30% since 1998 but temperatures have not increased at all in that same time period? I thought CO2 was the root of all evil. Did somebody fib?

Don't worry, they'll refine the message to explain everything a little better before too long. I'm sure they' can find a more average description to explain why everything is not average, just give them some time.

First year we were going to run out of flood and have an ice age in the 80's, next we were going to cook. That didn't work so we moved to climate change which can go either way and CO2 which gets produced from by dam near everything that doesn't used it for food.   I think for the most part they can't remember the current message since its a little tot close to 4/20.

There is another term for erratic weather temps, "weather".

I was listening to a radio talk show yesterday. A lady calls in and told her story about how, when she was a young girl in 1970 (when Earth Day started), she was really scared by it. The people that sponsored it were telling of gloom and doom...plants wouldn't grow, and people would freeze. She said she was went to her dad crying, and asking how he was was going to be able to provide heat for their house, food for the family, etc, etc.

Fast forward to today. Weren't school kids being forced to watch ALGORE's "global warming/climate change/erratic weather" video a few years back, back when some people still believed. Same reaction.....kids come home scared to death that the world is coming to an end as they know it. I call that a soft form of indoctrination. Get 'em believing in the cause when they are young, and you have 'em for life to help promote the agenda.

Today, when I hear a politician talk bout needing higher taxes, or new laws, to reduce global warming, I think to myself how cute it is they still believe and are trying to get the rest of us to believe too. But, apparently, some still do.

Didn't Mt. St. Helens release more Carbon into the atomsphere than all vehicles on earth combined since the introduction of internal combustion?

Nuff said.

We need to just ban global warming or pass "common sense" laws that will only allow the earth to warm a few degrees at a time.

If you want to see something interesting about global warming check out "chasing ice" on you tube or tv. I don't have much of an opinion on this stuff but this documentary is very interesting. Check it out. Bones.

We all wish we could change mother natures behavior but we can't. She has been doing her own thing since the beginning of time. With that said....I want winter to go away and let summer begin. I have boats that need to get used.

OverMyHead wrote: Jamin, you seem to have your mind made up and dont want to be bothered with any additional in formation that might change it. That is not a good mindset for a scientist. If your only allowed conclusion is climate change is real, that is the only one you can ever each. Open your mind, science is about proof, not a consensus.

Hi Dave,

I don't have time to rehash an old conversation, or go back and forth on who says what and why.

Look, when it comes to science you've got it completely backwards. I know because I do science for a living.

Science isn't about "proof" at all, and in fact is largely based on consensus. It is true that at times individuals or small groups have bucked the consensus. If their arguments were persuasive and backed repeatedly by good data in the form of observation and experimentation the consensus has changed. That is the beauty and power of science; its ability to take in new information and shift a consensus. It is happening all the time.

I suspect you actually know very little about how science, and by extension academia, truly works. Do you know any professional scientists? Have you ever visited a university research lab? Do you read peer-reviewed literature on climate change? I live these things everyday. Do you? Please correct me if I am wrong.

I do have an open mind and have changed by beliefs in the face of real challenges to established paradigms. The problem is that the issues you and others point to ("climategate", volcanoes, sun spots, long-term natural cycles in climate, a UN conspiracy) have all been investigated at length and they have not been able to change the consensus. The evidence for climate change comes from a wealth of data from all over the world over many decades of research. It is supremely robust.

With all due respect Dave, you don't know what you are talking about. There isn't a thing you can teach a climate scientist about climate or science that they don't already know. Stop sowing doubt about science and scientists until you know something about it. You are confusing yourself, and worst of all, other people.

Peace, I'm out. I've got stuff to do and the dock/boat/lift is going in on Monday!

The Dustbowl is a lesson in man playing with nature causing unintended consequences. Caused by natural weather and human activity.

There is your precedent.

Hansel wrote: Hi Dave, I don't have time to rehash an old conversation, or go back and forth on who says what and why. Look, when it comes to science you've got it completely backwards. I know because I do science for a living. Science isn't about "proof" at all, and in fact is largely based on consensus.

Wow, that scares the crap out of me if that is what the scientific community now believes. Theory is about consensus but when it comes to studies and hypotheses it is about proof. Look back to Galileo, and he had to agree with the consensus to save his life despite his research proving the earth moved around the sun. There is no proof that man has a significant effect on climate change. We are legislating based on unproven theory, causing our society hardships, and impacting Our countries ability to compete in a global market. The studies are worth while, but action should be based on proven science. A huge red flag for me that the movement is political is the fact that fellow scientists label others "deniers" in an attempt to discredit them rather than evaluating the merits of their research.

Hansel wrote: I suspect you actually know very little about how science, and by extension academia, truly works. Do you know any professional scientists? Have you ever visited a university research lab? Do you read peer-reviewed literature on climate change? I live these things everyday. Do you? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Hansel wrote: With all due respect Dave, you don't know what you are talking about. There isn't a thing you can teach a climate scientist about climate or science that they don't already know. Stop sowing doubt about science and scientists until you know something about it. You are confusing yourself, and worst of all, other people.

That is demeaning and dismissive, but I understand the theory of discrediting the arguer if you cannot discredit their argument. I do not question climate change based on ignorance, but on experience. I like science and am amazed at what we have accomplished with it. I have a college degree (I graduated with a 3.91 GPA so I even paid attention). In the University of Minnesota system I took biology, botany, zoology, multiple geology classes (I can still recite the geologic time scale after having to memorize it in 1981), I learned anatomy in the med schools cadaver lab. As a paramedic I learned cellular physiology,chemistry and pharmacology. For my business management degree I studied research techniques and statistics. I may not be a "scientist" but I am not a stranger to the field. My sister worked on the Joides resolution research ship Staffed by Texas A&M researchers. They drilled core samples around the globe analyzing age and magnetic orientation to "prove" the "theory" of plate tectonics, which is no longer considered theory. (very cool) I have read Peer reviewed studies. I understand their place in academia, and they are a great source for very specific information, but a very inefficient way to consume volumes of information, having to get through ten pages of @$$ kissing and covering to find half a page of useful data. I prefer journals for the level of information I seek.

Hansel wrote: I do have an open mind and have changed by beliefs in the face of real challenges to established paradigms. The problem is that the issues you and others point to ("climategate", volcanoes, sun spots, long-term natural cycles in climate, a UN conspiracy) have all been investigated at length and they have not been able to change the consensus. The evidence for climate change comes from a wealth of data from all over the world over many decades of research. It is supremely robust.

Climate gate was huge, but was widely ignored because of the consensus, and their media accomplices. It showed collusion to misrepresent/manipulate hard data, and obstruct anyone wanting to investigate further. Duplication of results is a cornerstone of science but the climate scientist would not share the raw data pools. That is a smoking gun. The decades of research have mostly shared the very same manipulated data as their source material. Another corner stone is correlation. There is far greater correlation with the earths temperature and solar changes than there is with CO2 in the atmosphere. I would like to hear a convincing argument that the UN is not a corrupt US hating organization that would happily use doctored science to break US economic dominance.

Hansel wrote: With all due respect Dave, you don't know what you are talking about. There isn't a thing you can teach a climate scientist about climate or science that they don't already know. Stop sowing doubt about science and scientists until you know something about it. You are confusing yourself, and worst of all, other people.

I don't claim to be able to teach anything to a climate scientist, only to have the education and experience to have good grasp on the situation. I will give you some slack for being young and naive. You have learned what the system has taught you and bought into the possible snake oil hype. Human nature drives us to believe in what we do. As a paramedic I spent years pumping sodium bicarb into cardiac arrest patients, and saw anecdotal evidence that it worked. While giving some short term results studies reveled that there was long term alkalosis consequences post cardiac arrest. I remember the struggle with accepting that what the consensus had us all doing for decades was harming the patients in my care. It was science and consensus that came up with the theory of using bicarb. It was real studies that proved the theory wrong and dangerous. Prior to being convinced of bicarbs dangers I would have preached its benefits till I was blue in the face. It turns out I had been sold snake oil and bought into it.

I have learned a few things over the years from my snake oil purchases. One is to be wary of a product that claims to grow hair on a bald head, but stop ear hair growth, improve liver function, stop gout, make the tall shorter, the short taller, the blind to see and the deaf to hear. Nothing does everything. When I hear climate change makes more rain or less rain, higher temperatures or lower temperatures, more storms or fewer storms....... I suspect a snake oil salesman, and will approach them with healthy skepticism. Especially when they first claimed cold only, then hot only, but found neither theory sustainable.

My original correlation question has still gone unaddressed.

Hansel wrote: Peace, I'm out. I've got stuff to do and the dock/boat/lift is going in on Monday!

Glad to here you are moving into the summer season. Our lakes are still frozen, so I am waiting for the climate to change. I may get out to at least do my terrorist check on Saturday.

Haha, Chris. I love that you posted just now. Dave often posts late too. What is up with CCFans being night owls?

I've never been there, but looking at Green Lake on a map I'd say it is often choppy because it is longest in the east-west direction and most wind in this part of the world comes from the west. Not sure about the wind farms, but there is a lot of flat, open land in that area (I have driven through the area in the winter) so I suppose that would explain things.

I hope to make it in July! As davidg suspected I am a graduate student, but am wrapping things up and looking for a job. It is hard to say what will happen but as I've mentioned before Green Lake has been on the "to-do" list for a long time. I was always working far away during the summer so I could never make it in the past (as long as I have known about CCFan). If I do make it, we better share a few beers. I've also often entertained joining the Chicago crew for beers, but being a typical Madison hippie I don't own a car and I don't think I would make it there in time on my bike.

Whether you "believe" in climate change or not, I know we'd get along Chris because I am a disciple of the kneeboard when it comes to long line footin'.

The only thing real about Global Warming is the fact that people are exploiting the non-event to get rich.

The left loves a manufactured crisis. Look at all of the trillions of dollars that have been completely wasted on green initiatives? It's a scam, of the highest order.

OverMyHead wrote:

I didn't realize ALGORE was that jaundice...