Earth day

Hansel,

What are your key reasons for distrusting the scientists coming to the conclusion we aren't causing global warming?

john b wrote: They didn't buy the "we also have fewer horses and bayonets" argument either.

John, I am sure you could get a good return on your investment in horse and buggy's if Obama decided to take OUR money to subsidize both the producers AND the purchasers of buggy's while simultaneously regulating the alternatives out of existence. Like now we would still all end up paying more for products that could not compete on their own merit in the market place.

OverMyHead wrote: Hansel wrote: Try getting your information from peer-reviewed scientific literature Jamin,did you read the article on the 120 computer generated gibberish papers that had to be pulled from peer reviewed publications? I was hoping you would share your thoughts on what went wrong there.

I had read about that before you posted it here. People went wrong. It happened, it got caught. It was mostly in China. It is a bit of a PR disaster, and I am the first to say that the scientific literature has its problems, but computer generated non-peer reviewed conference papers is not one of them. Don't get all worked up, this is the tip of no iceberg. It is just a little piece of floating ice.

This could be part of a long conversation about what scientific literature is, and I am happy to have that, but it probably isn't worth the space on this forum to do so unless a lot of folks really want to know. Otherwise we can talk about it next time we see each other.

Hi Andy,

I enjoyed your garden and hunting threads; two activities that I have an interest in, if not experience, plus as a “bug guy” I was loving the Praying Mantis. I want to make it clear that what I say in this thread is not really aimed at you personally, you just happen to be the one under my skin at the moment. And I mean that in the nicest way since I can tell you are a good man, and well meaning.

I want these threads to die and go away, but even more so, I want others who might be reading to think about how they create and curate their belief systems.

You asked...

Okie Boarder wrote: Hansel, What are your key reasons for distrusting the scientists coming to the conclusion we aren't causing global warming?

Put simply, I am not “distrusting” anybody. The scientists that come to the conclusion that we aren't causing global warming are so few that it cannot be credibly described as a “debate” or “controversy.” You only think that it is a debate because when the Sunday news shows cover the issue they invite one “denier” and one “believer” who banter for a few minutes, the host says “Well, this has been very interesting. The debate rages on...” and everybody goes on with their lives. What should really happen is the host should get the 100 most prominent climate scientists to come on the show and simply ask them to raise their hands if they disagreed with the latest IPCC report (2013). When only two or three (if that) hands would go up and people saw first hand what a fringe idea it is that man made climate change isn't happening I think there would be far fewer skeptics. If I were a betting man (which I am not) I would simply say that I am going to go with the 90+% of expert scientists who agree that humans are very probably warming with the planet.

If you want to know where I get these numbers from go back in the thread where we covered this. There is published scientific literature that consistently shows that vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC.

If you want to know more, I am happy to help point you in the right direction. But that is going to require you to risk some, and perhaps many, of your current notions.

Don't worry about offending me or me feeling like I am being attacked. I have thick skin and understand that a debate is not personal, just a discussion of stances. But, I appreciate the disclaimer and comments.

Like I said earlier, from what I've read, it seems like the information presented regarding MMGW is being challenged left and right. Also, I've read how scientists are dissenting at a greater rate, rather than the other way around. You may not distrust those that are skeptical and challenging the MMGW conclusion, but I certainly distrust those on the flip side. As I've looked into the issue, I've found that money and greed have driven this issue, many times on both sides.

I don't think we need to go round and round...seems like this thread has already run that course. I will say that I have dug in and read a lot of information about the issue and I'm not convinced we are causing warming, nor is warming happening. I have come to the conclusion that the data is being manipulated to promote the agenda of MMGW in order for a small group to prosper from the solutions.

Hansel wrote:    Just who is this small group exactly? And how are they benefiting?

The Democrat party, and their cronie capitalist friends. They want more and more control over lives. They got Healthcare. Now they want to control what we drive, how we heat our homes, the types of light bulbs we use, the types of fuels we use.

You apparently didn't see Chuck Schumer(sp), Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid and the gang in the Senate pulling the all nighter this week telling anyone that would listen that climate change is ABSOLUTELY real and is by far the worst situation we face as a society.

It is a religion to them, and they are pushing it hard, and if they had the power in Congress, I am sure we would see MUCH more aggressive laws pertaining to climate change. However, nobody is really buying this one anymore.

They will only take my stash of 75 watt incandsecent light bulbs when they pull them from my cold, dead hands.   

I too can follow the money and it doesn't seem to lead to folks who can't get things through Congress.

Earth Day News
First a story about our political elite who are doing there best to make us do what they say, not what they do!


From PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)

EPA’S CLUELESS EARTH DAY CELEBRATION

Administrator’s Jet-Fueled Climate Change Tour Only Produces Carbon Pollution

Posted on Apr 21, 2014 | Tags: EPA

Washington, DC — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s idea to jet its Administrator on a multi-city Earth Day-themed tour to “ask Americans to act on climate change through simple actions to reduce carbon pollution in their daily lives” is unclear on the concept. The greenhouse gases generated by Ms. McCarthy and her entourage will far exceed any concrete climate action from their travels, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

Last week, EPA issued a press release announcing that Administrator Gina McCarthy will undertake a week-long five-city tour to “participate in various events to...focus on responsible steps to cut carbon pollution to slow the effects of climate change….” Readers are encouraged to visit the agency’s Earth Day web-center to learn how to conserve and “commute without polluting” as steps to cut carbon emissions.

Air travel, however, is one of the most carbon-intensive activities. A cross-country plane trip can create a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. To put this into perspective, the average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide a year; the average European, only 10. Though air travel emissions now account for only about 5% of total carbon pollution, that is projected to rise sharply as air traffic is growing much faster than gains in air-fleet fuel efficiency. To address this rising source of carbon pollution, the European Union is trying to bring aviation into its carbon emissions control plan. By contrast, reducing air travel emissions does not appear to be on EPA’s radar.

“Frenetically jetting around the country appears to undercut EPA’s message to ordinary Americans that they should conserve, consume less and reduce transportation pollution,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that as Administrator, McCarthy is a frequent air traveler and has been criticized for commuting weekly back to her home in Boston. “Hasn’t EPA heard of Skype?”

Some events on McCarthy’s itinerary have a somewhat tenuous tie-in to promoting climate action. For example this Tuesday, Administrator McCarthy and Energy Secretary Moniz will throw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Red Sox vs. Yankees baseball game at Boston’s Fenway Park.

“EPA touts this tour as meaningful but this agency’s effectiveness in public education is not measurable. While Ms. McCarthy is an engaging individual she is hardly a charismatic figure whose mere presence galvanizes public action,” Ruch added, suggested that top EPA officials could convey a more powerful message by practicing the conservation measures they are preaching. “If EPA really wants to combat climate change, it should finalize its long-stalled carbon controls on power plants.”



And a scientific study, its science so it must be true.

Gasoline greener than biofuels?
Biofuels produced from waste products left from harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline in terms of carbon emissions, according to a $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The study said biofuels made with corn residue release seven percent more greenhouse gases than traditional gasoline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rayola Dougher from the American Petroleum Institute called that an eye opener for the green energy crowd. "You know, what are we doing? If that's so, then we're going down the wrong path here,” Dougher told Fox News in an interview. “We have to give ourselves at least press the pause button and look at what we're trying to accomplish and look at the science, and look at it very carefully."

The study contradicts the Obama administration's narrative that biofuels are a much cleaner alternative, while also receiving more than a billion dollars in federal support.

Phil Flynn, an oil trader and senior market analyst with The Price Futures Group, said the promises made were too good to be true. "Celluosic biofuels was going to be our future. It wouldn't impact our food. We could use the leftovers, and it would help greenhouse gas emissions and it would be the answer to all our problems. But what we're finding out is that's not the case," said Flynn.

The Obama administration and those in alternative energy ripped the research, claiming it was flawed.

"This paper is based on a hypothetical assumption that 100 percent of corn stover in a field is harvested; an extremely unlikely scenario that is inconsistent with recommended agricultural practices,” an EPA spokesperson told Fox.

Jon Doggett from the National Corn Growers Association said he can point to other relevant research with opposing findings. "Well, we have one study that says one thing and we have about four or five other studies: we have the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, we have the Argonne labs, we have the University of Illinois all saying something else."

But those in more traditional energy say this should be a wakeup call to policymakers to figure out if alternatives are really working. "And make policy based on science, real true facts," Dougher said.





Happy Earth Day to all and to all a good night!

Reading for earth day, a few days late, sorry. This is actually from 2009 but still relevant.

Earth day predictions of 1970(The first Earth Day)


For the next 24 hours, the media will assault us with tales of imminent disaster that always accompany the annual Earth Day Doom & Gloom Extravaganza.

Ignore them. They’ll be wrong. We’re confident in saying that because they’ve always been wrong. And always will be.

Need proof? Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist




“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Keep these predictions in mind when you hear the same predictions made today. They’ve been making the same predictions for 39 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.

Just getting in touch with my liberal roots.

Had a neighbor as a kid in the Indianapolis area who was a partner in a design/advertising firm who designed the first EPA symbol. He still lives in the neighborhood. The EPA was born just after the first Earth Day in 1970. Lovely bunch, the EPA these days! Will post the link on the history of the symbol from a different computer.





With warmest regards;

A Resolute Denier

Just heard on the news today that April was much cooler than normal. Something like 51 Deg. vs. normal of 54 Deg. I thought the earth was warming?!?

Of course I believe and support the "Federal" report. I wouldn't want to jeopardize my government funding or job and have the IRS investigate me!

john b wrote: 250 scientists, 850 pages, peer review, how much more do you want?

How about 15 or 20 solid years of the alarmists predictions coming somewhere close to actual observations. That would certainly boost their credibility.

john b wrote: 250 scientists, 850 pages, peer review, how much more do you want?

Well, I guess it's all settled then. 250 left leaning "scientists" and their esteemed "peers" say its "settled science". The only thing better would be if the report were 1000 pages. 850 does not seem like enough. Otherwise, I am in!!

Have you sold all your carbon burning toys John? Are you now burning buffalo dung in your furnace in the winter?

Can't believe the buy in from so many people in this country to what I consider a false religion/science. It's not about the climate, it's about control of the population, and the scare tactics being used to achieve it.

John....you must be on the good side of the regime. When they come for my '68 F250 running a 390 that gets 8 smiles per gallon, they will probably leave your toys alone because you have bought in.   

Well, I guess it's all settled then. 250 left leaning "scientists" and their esteemed "peers" say its "settled science". The only thing better would be if the report were 1000 pages. 850 does not seem like enough. Otherwise, I am in!!

Response
I guess we are controlling the "left leaning scientists" in China, Russia, Europe, Africa, and even Iran who agree that global warming is real. The whole world has been duped by these lefties.

Have you sold all your carbon burning toys John? Are you now burning buffalo dung in your furnace in the winter?

Response
Why would I sell them? I just use energy as responsibly as my conscience/ finances allow.

Can't believe the buy in from so many people in this country to what I consider a false religion/science. It's not about the climate, it's about control of the population, and the scare tactics being used to achieve it.

Response
What are you scared of? Are those "bad scientists" out to get you? Don't worry, you're not paranoid, they are watching you.

John....you must be on the good side of the regime. When they come for my '68 F250 running a 390 that gets 8 smiles per gallon, they will probably leave your toys alone because you have bought in.   

Response
I am on the good side. I believe in science.
BTW, it is amazing that your 68 390 burns fuel at a rate of 8 MPG to make all of 255hp when a new ford 5.8 liter (351) makes 662HP and gets 24MPG. Damn scientists and engineers messing with the engines.