Weirdest Winter ever...

[bombastinator]

So.... if no one actually knows what will happen.... and these are "predictions" I really would prefer the focus be on environmental issues generally, and that the burden of that be placed on some of the larger players who are doing it.... And that we focus on more than just the weather....

And also we human beings are odd. The ones preaching about climate change initially were often the folks who use the MOST resources.... I don't fly on a special gold OR presidential plane.... I don't travel around to receive awards, etc. To be fair, I wouldn't enjoy a life without some of my electrical comforts, certainly.

With that said, the Amish I've met seem very happy. I bet if anyone survives, it could possibly be them. They seem to have a nice balance and sustainability.... and they really MUST be happy since they send their kids out into the "modern" world to check it out and many of them return....

And, Kirstie Alley... that movie... I forget who her romantic hero was, but I'm rooting for the Amish, they can get the job done.

Anna

That’s a lot of “ands” that I’m not sure I covered. The people with the most resources had the money to put into the science, therefore they’re the ones who found out first. As for the The biggest polluters they’re generally the biggest denyers because they’ll lose money. Look at the Koch brothers. They’re big in heavy transportation and coal. The USA is the biggest polluter by far and also the biggest (and only) climate change denyer nation. If climate change ruins the world it’s our fault. Attempting to avoid responsibility for it seems natural, if sleazy. that some of the poorest nations And poorest people are going to pay the biggest price is unfair and unfortunate. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though.

 

[VapieDan]

where is Al Gore when you need him

Al is toasty warm in his huge mansion devouring lots of fossil fuel to get it cozy warm.

 

[stols001]

Doesn't mean it will happen, either. I consulted my magic 8 ball, my higher power, and all I get for the future are "maybes". Like I said, I think it would probably be wise to consider pollution generally, and I'm all for it, I mean we do know that there are very polluted areas NOW and IMO focusing on what is REAL not a prediction makes more sense to me.

I just don't much care for the rhetoric and logic of the "theorists" (and they are) concerning Climate change, and even if it WERE 100% accurate, I still think we have plenty of things we can work on NOW rather than making a globalist agenda concerning "climate change."

I'm not sure we entirely disagree as far as the US being the worst polluter and that poverty-stricken countries MAY have a harder time (although again, I'm not 100% on that). They may actually have an easier time as they aren't as industrialized if things really go south depending on where they live and how the "climate" "changes" (if it does).

I forget the scientist who did a study and found that higher temps are actually times of prosperity and growth rather than necessarily doomsaying or whatnot but politics pushes studies, I see it non-stop all the time....

I just think pollution cleanup needs to happen, certainly, but focusing on "We are doomed" to "climate change" is entirely necessary and since I'm not off my meds and hence cannot (accurately) prophesy the future, I choose not to sign on. I do recycle, turn off lights, put thought into my purchases and have volunteered at times cleaning up specific areas that have been polluted in the past, so just because I don't have a huge investment in "climate change" and think it's heavily politicized, doesn't mean that I don't care about the environment....

I think we are probably more in agreement than disagreement, possibly, but this has gone so off topic I think it will be my last on the subject.

I will say that I am glad when I pull up to a red light and it is heavily polluted with cigarette butts, I'm glad I'm not contributing to THAT problem any more...

Anna

 

[AzPlumber]

That’s a lot of “ands” that I’m not sure I covered. The people with the most resources had the money to put into the science, therefore they’re the ones who found out first. As for the The biggest polluters they’re generally the biggest denyers because they’ll lose money. Look at the Koch brothers. They’re big in heavy transportation and coal. The USA is the biggest polluter by far and also the biggest (and only) climate change denyer nation. If climate change ruins the world it’s our fault. Attempting to avoid responsibility for it seems natural, if sleazy. that some of the poorest nations And poorest people are going to pay the biggest price is unfair and unfortunate. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though.

I believe China's carbon dioxide emissions are double the U.S.

 

[dc99]

Doesn't mean it will happen, either. I consulted my magic 8 ball, my higher power, and all I get for the future are "maybes". Like I said, I think it would probably be wise to consider pollution generally, and I'm all for it, I mean we do know that there are very polluted areas NOW and IMO focusing on what is REAL not a prediction makes more sense to me.

I just don't much care for the rhetoric and logic of the "theorists" (and they are) concerning Climate change, and even if it WERE 100% accurate, I still think we have plenty of things we can work on NOW rather than making a globalist agenda concerning "climate change."

I'm not sure we entirely disagree as far as the US being the worst polluter and that poverty-stricken countries MAY have a harder time (although again, I'm not 100% on that). They may actually have an easier time as they aren't as industrialized if things really go south depending on where they live and how the "climate" "changes" (if it does).

I forget the scientist who did a study and found that higher temps are actually times of prosperity and growth rather than necessarily doomsaying or whatnot but politics pushes studies, I see it non-stop all the time....

I just think pollution cleanup needs to happen, certainly, but focusing on "We are doomed" to "climate change" is entirely necessary and since I'm not off my meds and hence cannot (accurately) prophesy the future, I choose not to sign on. I do recycle, turn off lights, put thought into my purchases and have volunteered at times cleaning up specific areas that have been polluted in the past, so just because I don't have a huge investment in "climate change" and think it's heavily politicized, doesn't mean that I don't care about the environment....

I think we are probably more in agreement than disagreement, possibly, but this has gone so off topic I think it will be my last on the subject.

I will say that I am glad when I pull up to a red light and it is heavily polluted with cigarette butts, I'm glad I'm not contributing to THAT problem any more...

Anna

I agree with you. I personally dont believe it either. I think it was invented by a bunch of researchers and scientist that like those 20million dollar grants to study it. (if you admit its false you have no job). DUH.

 

[bombastinator]

I believe China's carbon dioxide emissions are double the U.S.

that could be true

 

[bombastinator]

Al is toasty warm in his huge mansion devouring lots of fossil fuel to get it cozy warm.

According to wikipaedia he lives in Tennessee. Not sure how cold it is there atm

 

[SteveS45]

I had to clear this out just to get to my truck to go plowing the other day.

 

[SteveS45]

Officially only 15 inches of snow fell??

 

[bombastinator]

I agree with you. I personally dont believe it either. I think it was invented by a bunch of researchers and scientist that like those 20million dollar grants to study it. (if you admit its false you have no job). DUH.

Except you don’t. That’s not how academia works except on TV. It’s not like they get to keep that 20 million. They have to spend and account for every penny of it. What they get to keep is the recognition. There is orders of more fame to be gained (fame = money in these circles) by proving an accepted theory untrue. If even one of them could do it they’d be all over it. In fact they have been. That’s the whole point.

Basic philosophy of science: science cannot prove truth, it can only prove untruth.

Theories become accepted when everybody and their mom Attempts to prove them untrue and fails. This is what has happened. This is how science works. Everyone with any skill at it has already attempted to prove global warming to be untrue and failed miserably.

 

[AzPlumber]

Except you don’t. That’s not how academia works except on TV. It’s not like they get to keep that 20 million. They have to spend and account for every penny of it. What they get to keep is the recognition. There is orders of more fame to be gained (fame = money in these circles) by proving an accepted theory untrue. If even one of them could do it they’d be all over it. In fact they have been. That’s the whole point.

Basic philosophy of science: science cannot prove truth, it can only prove untruth.

Theories become accepted when everybody and their mom Attempts to prove them untrue and fails. This is what has happened. This is how science works. Everyone with any skill at it has already attempted to prove global warming to be untrue and failed miserably.

They can't disprove global warming because the earth IS in a warming cycle. It has been for about 12,000 years, starting long before the industrial revolution. What science can't prove, by your own admission, that man is responsible for this natural warming cycle.

 

[BackDoc]

Except you don’t. That’s not how academia works except on TV. It’s not like they get to keep that 20 million. They have to spend and account for every penny of it. What they get to keep is the recognition. There is orders of more fame to be gained (fame = money in these circles) by proving an accepted theory untrue. If even one of them could do it they’d be all over it. In fact they have been. That’s the whole point.

Basic philosophy of science: science cannot prove truth, it can only prove untruth.

Theories become accepted when everybody and their mom Attempts to prove them untrue and fails. This is what has happened. This is how science works. Everyone with any skill at it has already attempted to prove global warming to be untrue and failed miserably.

I really fail to see where you get your facts , or Logic for that matter?

 

[bombastinator]

They can't disprove global warming because the earth IS in a warming cycle. It has been for about 12,000 years, starting long before the industrial revolution. What science can't prove, by your own admission, that man is responsible for this natural warming cycle.

“My own admission?” You mean the philosophy of science bit? They’re not trying to. They’re trying to prove that humans didn’t. And they failed.
Why is it I’m having to start every one of these with some version of “no That s not what I said”?

 

[bombastinator]

I really fail to see where you get your facts , or Logic for that matter?

Which part(s)? be specific please

 

[bombastinator]

They can't disprove global warming because the earth IS in a warming cycle. It has been for about 12,000 years, starting long before the industrial revolution. What science can't prove, by your own admission, that man is responsible for this natural warming cycle.

Unless that has already been disproved. I don’t keep up enough to comment one way or another

 

[Darrel Bernard]

What's that white stuff all over the cars?

Minnesota dandruff.