The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 15 of 54 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 540

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #141
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    No, I can't because I haven't bought into the HOAX!

    I thought those of you who lament the dangers of man made global warming would share what steps you have taken to save the planet.

    Sort of like "walking the walk!!"

    We all have heard (read) you "talking the talk."

    Just trying to learn from you all..........
    Stan, I am not "lamenting". However, I am siding against the characterization of scientists being dishonest on the subject. As for what's happening, I know about as much as the rest of the posters on this thread, which is next to nothing, except for what I actually see in the field. As for the ins and outs of climate change, I'll heed more to what the PhD's who specialize in the field have to say, rather than the blathering of politicians.

    I don't have time to give you a list of what I have done over the years. Going to Mondovi for the FT. If you can assure me your interest is genuine, I'll be glad to send you a lengthy PM on Monday or so, when I get back.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  2. #142
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    Stan, I am not "lamenting". However, I am siding against the characterization of scientists being dishonest on the subject. As for what's happening, I know about as much as the rest of the posters on this thread, which is next to nothing, except for what I actually see in the field. As for the ins and outs of climate change, I'll heed more to what the PhD's who specialize in the field have to say, rather than the blathering of politicians.

    I don't have time to give you a list of what I have done over the years. Going to Mondovi for the FT. If you can assure me your interest is genuine, I'll be glad to send you a lengthy PM on Monday or so, when I get back.
    Best of luck in Mondovi!!

    I am a conservationist.
    When I leave the field, I try to leave it cleaner than I found it.
    I keep my motorized vehicles tuned, K&N filters clean and aim to minimize trash/garbage.

    Having said that, I am doubtful that has any effect on the climat what soever.

    I am curious though what the true believers do.
    Or is it just another liberal "do as I say, not as I do?"


    Again, as HW says "pick 'em up clean!!"


    RK

  3. #143
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,963

    Default

    Sacrificing for the planet:
    I'd say that all of us make some sacrifice by paying $3.50 to $4.50/gal of gasoline (depending on where we live). More spent for gasoline, means less disposable income for other things. The lower one's income, the more that impacts.

    Most of us are also paying more for heating fuels and electricity.

    I heat with an electric heat pump with thermal storage backup. By tweaking the system, and my thermostat, my electric usage in 2012 was 1/3 less than it was in 2007.

    Now, we could compare that to the sacrifices being made by the people who are making the laws and proposing the regulations that make these basic commodities cost more. Has any member of Congress had a change in their standard of living due to the increased cost of gasoline, heating fuel, or electricity? Do any of them even know how much their rate for electricity has changed in that same 5-year period? Obama is installing solar panels on the WH, but he's not paying for that; we are. Has Obama curtailed the use of his jets at all? Has Al Gore? As long as the lawmakers live in an insulated bubble, they can not relate to the consequences of their lawmaking. The whining over Congress and staff having to join the "exchanges" for O-care is a perfect example of what happens when those laws invade their comfort zone.

    Try turning the thermostat down in Congress in winter; or turning it up in summer and watch them howl. Yet many working people have done just that to adapt to the actions of govt on energy costs.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #144
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    Just a brief reply, Stan

    Recently I had the power company do an audit of the house. They went through it and put new seals on the doors and changed the lighting. They also changed the shower heads. They put in a programmable thermostat. Charge: $60 but expected recovery time is 3 yrs., but the wife says it looks like less than 2 at the rate its going.

    Put in a new super efficient air conditioner 4 years ago. Lot easier on the wallet and uses less electricity.

    Our vehicles have also been purchased with the more economical engines for the vehicle type. I generally drive 5 or 10 under the speed limit on open roads. It lets the Roger Ramjets go by with a lot less maneuvering in and out. The gas consumption is noticeably lower at 60-65 than at 70-75. The difference is money in my pocket and it is good for the environment.

    You don't have to live like a monk to make a difference and it often ends up with cash in your pocket.
    Last edited by zeus3925; 08-23-2013 at 12:58 PM.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  5. #145
    Senior Member Golddogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    No, I can't because I haven't bought into the HOAX!

    I thought those of you who lament the dangers of man made global warming would share what steps you have taken to save the planet.

    Sort of like "walking the walk!!"

    We all have heard (read) you "talking the talk."

    Just trying to learn from you all..........
    Stan, I have been diving for over 30 yrs. In that time I have seen coral reefs die because of a temp increase in the water. Coral is sort of the oceans "Canary in th coal mine". Lakes in our state and yours are warming and causing a decline in Wallye production and survival. Warm species fish are thiriving. ( Smallmouth )

    The northern pine forests are developing blights and other deseases caused by an increase in temp. Hardwoods are moving further north.. Our Moose population is in decline and they believe the biggest factor is an increase in temp. Over all weather patterns are totally screwed up.

    My opinion is we have accelerated climate change by pouring emissions into the air. The shrinking ice pack is not a myth.

    We do waht we can to lessen our impact. Conserve as best we can. Been outdoors all my life, and I have and am seeing changes that I believe a large part of are caused by man.

    I have also seen great positive changes in our out doors because of restrictions and controle we have put in place. Haven't heard of any major rivers catching fire in some time.

    So we all will make our choices. We all will choose what data to believe. I hope we choose to err on the conservitive side and make positive choices for the future generations, much like Teddy R did with the Natl Park service. Without men like him and Muir, much of what we take for granted could be paved over or a toxic waste site.

    Leave it better than you found it Regards
    Never trust a dog to watch your food!

  6. #146
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golddogs View Post
    Stan, I have been diving for over 30 yrs. In that time I have seen coral reefs die because of a temp increase in the water. Coral is sort of the oceans "Canary in th coal mine". Lakes in our state and yours are warming and causing a decline in Wallye production and survival. Warm species fish are thiriving. ( Smallmouth )

    The northern pine forests are developing blights and other deseases caused by an increase in temp. Hardwoods are moving further north.. Our Moose population is in decline and they believe the biggest factor is an increase in temp. Over all weather patterns are totally screwed up.

    My opinion is we have accelerated climate change by pouring emissions into the air. The shrinking ice pack is not a myth.

    We do waht we can to lessen our impact. Conserve as best we can. Been outdoors all my life, and I have and am seeing changes that I believe a large part of are caused by man.

    I have also seen great positive changes in our out doors because of restrictions and controle we have put in place. Haven't heard of any major rivers catching fire in some time.

    So we all will make our choices. We all will choose what data to believe. I hope we choose to err on the conservitive side and make positive choices for the future generations, much like Teddy R did with the Natl Park service. Without men like him and Muir, much of what we take for granted could be paved over or a toxic waste site.

    Leave it better than you found it Regards
    I too have been diving for many years and the only coral damage I have seen is following hurricanes where sand a debris have choked it and from divers who cannot control themselves underwater or choose to tear up the coral. As for trees...... My son has an advanced degree in hardwood forestry and after years of studying both hardwood and softwood forests he is absolutely convinced that not only is man not causing climate change that is damaging trees but Professional Foresters have dramatically increased the number of trees and overall health of the trees over the last 50+ years (one notable exception are exotic woods in South America, which have been damaged by man tearing them up or harvesting to many).....facts from my perspective do not support the popular spin....

  7. #147
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    Stan, I am not "lamenting". However, I am siding against the characterization of scientists being dishonest on the subject.
    .
    Oh? OK... Read this...


    FORBES

    James Taylor, Contributor
    I write about energy and environment issues.
    OP/ED | 5/30/2013 @ 8:00AM |20,016 views
    Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

    Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

    Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

    As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

    Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

    Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

    Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

    When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

    “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

    “What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

    Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1įC).”

    “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

    To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

    Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

    Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

    “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

    “I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

    Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

    Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

    These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
    Bill Davis

  8. #148
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golddogs View Post
    Stan, I have been diving for over 30 yrs. In that time I have seen coral reefs die because of a temp increase in the water. Coral is sort of the oceans "Canary in th coal mine". Lakes in our state and yours are warming and causing a decline in Wallye production and survival. Warm species fish are thiriving. ( Smallmouth )

    The northern pine forests are developing blights and other deseases caused by an increase in temp. Hardwoods are moving further north.. Our Moose population is in decline and they believe the biggest factor is an increase in temp. Over all weather patterns are totally screwed up.

    My opinion is we have accelerated climate change by pouring emissions into the air. The shrinking ice pack is not a myth.

    We do waht we can to lessen our impact. Conserve as best we can. Been outdoors all my life, and I have and am seeing changes that I believe a large part of are caused by man.

    I have also seen great positive changes in our out doors because of restrictions and controle we have put in place. Haven't heard of any major rivers catching fire in some time.

    So we all will make our choices. We all will choose what data to believe. I hope we choose to err on the conservitive side and make positive choices for the future generations, much like Teddy R did with the Natl Park service. Without men like him and Muir, much of what we take for granted could be paved over or a toxic waste site.

    Leave it better than you found it Regards
    Things change... The world began way before we got here... Who are we to say it should stay exactly as we are looking at it? It was covered with oceans at one time... Covered with ice at another... Should it have stayed that way for all time? What made it change? Who screwed it up then? Our lifetime is a blip on the graph of time and insignificant in the evolution of the earth... One volcano in some areas will put out more pollutants than all the cars in the US... On the other hand, some volcanic ash is good for crop growth, depending on the minerals in the ash...

    The ice fields recede, then they grow...

    Moose populations are declining everywhere because fruit loop bunny huggers keep transplanting wolves all over the country. Hell, even in Alaska there are areas where subsistence hunters can't find moose for all the wolves and bears...

    All of this sanctimonious save the earth crap would be funny if it weren't so annoying.
    Bill Davis

  9. #149
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,963

    Default

    Here's another reference to Shaviv's research WRT cosmic rays
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...igm_shift.html
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  10. #150
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    What of the fact that, if we go back to 1400 (or whatever) there are a whole lot more people now than there were then?
    So, I guess you have shifted this discussion from science to policy. Yes, there are more people now, but if you look at the CO2 graphs in the article you cited, we are well above any known levels for more than 3,000 years. There are a few bumps in the record but that is all. Nothing like what has happened the past 100+ years. Even if there was a big spike back then, there are other reasons CO2 could increase (e.g. volcanoes). All the evidence today clearly points toward the burning of hundreds of thousands of yearsí worth of stored carbon in the past century +.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    And there is more population in places like China and Africa than in developed countries like the US ... and those dense population areas are typically creating more CO2 by burning dirty coal or, even wood and dung, than the developed countries who are burning cleaner fuels.
    Gerry, no other nation over the past hundred years has consumed more fossil fuel based energy and emitted more CO2 than the US and it is not even close. China is now gaining or may have surpassed us on an annual basis because it is using a lot of coal (the dirtiest fuel because it is so energy dense).
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    So ... rather than bringing developed countries down to third-world economic levels through carbon taxing ... why not start with bringing cleaner fuels to those countries that are busily creating scads more CO2? Wouldn't there be greater impact on the CO2 levels by focusing on the places that are creating the most of it?
    Your assumption about third world countries being most affected is a stretch at best. Those that consume the most would pay the most. Third world countries do not consume anywhere near what developed countries do. Yes, the greater impact would be observed by focusing on developed countries that far and away produce the most CO2. The US has reduced its carbon emissions substantially by shifting to natural gas for a larger percentage of its energy. As you know this actually is due to market forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    As the price of heating oil and electricity has soared, there are a lot of people in suburban and rural areas that are now using wood stoves, coal stoves, and pellet stoves. I recall reading somewhere that the carbon tax law that had been proposed would have included "confiscaton" of all those alternative sources of heating.
    Heating oil prices have soared. It has nothing to do with a carbon tax but, instead, the market. Electricity prices have not soared based on any evidence I have seen. Natural gas prices have dropped substantially. There are a lot of people switching over to natural and LP gas too. I have not heard anything about a carbon tax and confiscation. Please send me a good article. I do know that many communities are placing restrictions on wood stoves, etc, because of the particulate matter (aka soot) and odor issues. The market based approach of cap and trade worked for reducing acid rain pollution and was a well-received approach, even by Republicans. It is interesting that this same market-based approach to controlling CO2 is now anathema to conservatives. Kind of like the individual mandate being a Republican idea and now it is an anathema to the same party.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    If we make the assumption that CO2 has some bearing on climate change, and we do what we think we can to limit CO2 levels, we also know that climate has a lot to do with sunspot activity. I don't think anyone has any ideas yet on how to do anything about controlling that.
    Many factors affect the climate. There are a whole suite of greenhouse gases. CO2 is just one of them. There is a lot of data out there on the sunís contribution to the earthís climate over history. Most of the studies out there suggest that sun activity is not the primary driver of the observed increase in global temperatures these days. You cannot control the sun, but scientists are certainly looking into ways to reduce the amount of atmospheric warming by taking actions to reduce the effect of the sun on our atmosphere (e.g. increasing reflection).
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    We also know (or believe we know) that stars, like our sun, ultimately burn themselves out. We can't control that. The only thing we can do about that is anticipate and adapt ... in the case of the ultimate demise of the sun, that would mean adapting by preparing to move. Adapting would mean locating a place to move to, and mastering transportation to that new location.
    What is your point? Since we canít control everything that may affect us, we should not do what we can related to those things that we can affect? Yes, thatís the American way, throw up our hands and say oh well, there is nothing we do about it. What a defeatist attitude. Then on the other hand, you suggest we can adapt to the sun burning out. Gerry, if the sun goes dark, where do you propose we move and how are we going to get there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Then, I stop to think ... if Iran gets its nuclear capability, they're just wacky enough to make this small talk about COs levels become a moot point.
    I am just as worried about the fate of the Pakistani nukes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •