Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Listening Point - General Discussion
      BWCA may become a grassland by 2100     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

JClimacus
member (5)member
 
04/16/2018 10:49AM
Has anyone read this yet? It strikes me as an extreme prediction, but then again, I'm not an expert in this matter. Any ecologists who can chime in?

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/04/16/climate-change-boundary-waters-grassland
 
Reply    Reply with Quote    Print Top Bottom Previous Next
Soledad
distinguished member(1715)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 11:00AM
Yes, I have been to a couple of presentations from Lee Frelich over the last 10 years about how everything is sort of moving north as the climate warms.

Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)
treehorn
distinguished member (147)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 11:08AM
That's depressing.

All I can say is I hope he's wrong!
Stumpy
distinguished member(1487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 11:11AM
LOL !
nofish
distinguished member(2586)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 11:11AM
At least this should make bushwhacking easier.
schweady
distinguished member(6599)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/16/2018 12:02PM
Gadfly
distinguished member (236)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 12:14PM
"If you know where to look, you can already see the Boundary Waters transforming from a lush forest into a desolate grassland"

I haven't seen all of the BWCA but I can't think of any areas that I would currently describe as desolate grassland.
inspector13
distinguished member(3863)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 01:01PM

And I have trainable sea monkeys for sale...

treehorn
distinguished member (147)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 01:05PM
Gadfly: ""If you know where to look, you can already see the Boundary Waters transforming from a lush forest into a desolate grassland"


I haven't see all of the BWCA but I can't think of any areas that I would currently describe as desolate grassland. "


I had kind of the same reaction to that sentence. I would love to see him specify what/where he's referring to.
sedges
distinguished member (214)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 02:07PM
I don't think "grassland" is the right term. The Canadian Shield country doesn't have the right soils for prairie grasses. I t may get a more open canopy forest that would favor heath species. Blueberry can be ground cover in those situations. It all depends on frequency of disturbances that create fuels for big fires, which recently has been wind. Frequent return of fire over the same landscape retards the development of forest cover. There may be areas in the BWCA that lose the forest, but I don't think they are going to look much like the prairies.
inspector13
distinguished member(3863)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 02:59PM
sedges: "I don't think "grassland" is the right term. The Canadian Shield country doesn't have the right soils for prairie grasses. I t may get a more open canopy forest that would favor heath species...
There may be areas in the BWCA that lose the forest, but I don't think they are going to look much like the prairies."

Shhh. You are going to expose the great and powerful Oz.

04/16/2018 03:20PM
sedges: "I don't think "grassland" is the right term. The Canadian Shield country doesn't have the right soils for prairie grasses. I t may get a more open canopy forest that would favor heath species. Blueberry can be ground cover in those situations. It all depends on frequency of disturbances that create fuels for big fires, which recently has been wind. Frequent return of fire over the same landscape retards the development of forest cover. There may be areas in the BWCA that lose the forest, but I don't think they are going to look much like the prairies."

And, of course, there will still be sedges... but perhaps more of the open, dry ground species.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/16/2018 03:31PM
Soledad: .
Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)"


The weight of science in the late 1800's had the north pole as open temperate waters caused by steam vents surrounded by a belt of ice. Many of the most educated and knowledgeable men of that time thought the earth might be hollow and contain an entirely different set of flora and fauna.

So that "factual science stuff" is not always so factual nor is it impervious to skepticism.

Funny how the climatologists can't get next year right but they can tell us whats going to happen 50 years down the road. When I was a kid they told me it was going to be an ice age about now.........then it went to global warming.........when that didn't pan out as per the computer projections they changed it to "Climate Change" (as if the climate isn't ALWAYS changing) so now if its cold OR hot its our fault.

Not buying it and certainly not going down the path of crying to the government to.......... "save us" (Sure, we can help, but we will need your liberty and your labors $$)

04/16/2018 03:45PM
mastertangler: "Soledad: .
Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)"



The weight of science in the late 1800's had the north pole as open temperate waters caused by steam vents surrounded by a belt of ice. Many of the most educated and knowledgeable men of that time thought the earth might be hollow and contain an entirely different set of flora and fauna.


So that "factual science stuff" is not always so factual nor is it impervious to skepticism.


Funny how the climatologists can't get next year right but they can tell us whats going to happen 50 years down the road. When I was a kid they told me it was going to be an ice age about now.........then it went to global warming.........when that didn't pan out as per the computer projections they changed it to "Climate Change" (as if the climate isn't ALWAYS changing) so now if its cold OR hot its our fault.

"
What you are describing is Climate vs Weather. Big difference
Unas10
distinguished member(1499)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 04:58PM
Grasslands are okay, it was not that long ago, geologically speaking, that the area was covered by ice.
Unas10
distinguished member(1499)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 05:08PM
Blatz: "mastertangler: "Soledad: .
Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)"




The weight of science in the late 1800's had the north pole as open temperate waters caused by steam vents surrounded by a belt of ice. Many of the most educated and knowledgeable men of that time thought the earth might be hollow and contain an entirely different set of flora and fauna.



So that "factual science stuff" is not always so factual nor is it impervious to skepticism.



Funny how the climatologists can't get next year right but they can tell us whats going to happen 50 years down the road. When I was a kid they told me it was going to be an ice age about now.........then it went to global warming.........when that didn't pan out as per the computer projections they changed it to "Climate Change" (as if the climate isn't ALWAYS changing) so now if its cold OR hot its our fault.


"
What you are describing is Climate vs Weather. Big difference"


This has always confused me. (I know, sometimes it does not take much) Please define climate without using weather related terms.
fadersup
distinguished member (498)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 05:13PM
mastertangler: "Soledad: .
Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)"



The weight of science in the late 1800's had the north pole as open temperate waters caused by steam vents surrounded by a belt of ice. Many of the most educated and knowledgeable men of that time thought the earth might be hollow and contain an entirely different set of flora and fauna.


So that "factual science stuff" is not always so factual nor is it impervious to skepticism.


Funny how the climatologists can't get next year right but they can tell us whats going to happen 50 years down the road. When I was a kid they told me it was going to be an ice age about now.........then it went to global warming.........when that didn't pan out as per the computer projections they changed it to "Climate Change" (as if the climate isn't ALWAYS changing) so now if its cold OR hot its our fault.

Not buying it and certainly not going down the path of crying to the government to.......... "save us" (Sure, we can help, but we will need your liberty and your labors $$)

"


Shell and Exxon have understood human impacts on climate for 30 years. Interesting what they did with their own scientific findings.
Stumpy
distinguished member(1487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 05:26PM
mastertangler: "Soledad: .
Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)"



The weight of science in the late 1800's had the north pole as open temperate waters caused by steam vents surrounded by a belt of ice. Many of the most educated and knowledgeable men of that time thought the earth might be hollow and contain an entirely different set of flora and fauna.


So that "factual science stuff" is not always so factual nor is it impervious to skepticism.


Funny how the climatologists can't get next year right but they can tell us whats going to happen 50 years down the road. When I was a kid they told me it was going to be an ice age about now.........then it went to global warming.........when that didn't pan out as per the computer projections they changed it to "Climate Change" (as if the climate isn't ALWAYS changing) so now if its cold OR hot its our fault.

Not buying it and certainly not going down the path of crying to the government to.......... "save us" (Sure, we can help, but we will need your liberty and your labors $$)

"


Agree
murphylakejim
distinguished member(549)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 05:43PM
BWCA may become my private property by 2100.

BWCA may become the battleground of the USA Canadian war by 2100.

BWCA may become a parking lot by 2100.

BWCA may become an impact crater by 2100.

BWCA may become a perfectly sealed off snowglobe by 2100.

Any more creative ideas guys? Ahhhhhh just kidding jeeeeez
JClimacus
member (5)member
 
04/16/2018 06:27PM
I suppose I was wondering whether anyone knew if these claims have been corroborated. I get the idea that a warming climate will bring dramatic environmental changes but how strong is the evidence that all of this will happen by 2100?
KarlBAndersen1
distinguished member(779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 06:51PM
None of this really matters.
The Yellowstone Volcano is due to erupt anyway. There goes Mankind.
Until then - go canoeing!!
04/16/2018 06:56PM
Unas10: "Blatz: "mastertangler: "Soledad: .
Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)"




The weight of science in the late 1800's had the north pole as open temperate waters caused by steam vents surrounded by a belt of ice. Many of the most educated and knowledgeable men of that time thought the earth might be hollow and contain an entirely different set of flora and fauna.



So that "factual science stuff" is not always so factual nor is it impervious to skepticism.



Funny how the climatologists can't get next year right but they can tell us whats going to happen 50 years down the road. When I was a kid they told me it was going to be an ice age about now.........then it went to global warming.........when that didn't pan out as per the computer projections they changed it to "Climate Change" (as if the climate isn't ALWAYS changing) so now if its cold OR hot its our fault.



"
What you are describing is Climate vs Weather. Big difference"



This has always confused me. (I know, sometimes it does not take much) Please define climate without using weather related terms."
Weather is short term like days and weeks. Climate is an average usually over many many decades
marsonite
distinguished member(2124)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 07:03PM
mastertangler: "Soledad: .
Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)"



The weight of science in the late 1800's had the north pole as open temperate waters caused by steam vents surrounded by a belt of ice. Many of the most educated and knowledgeable men of that time thought the earth might be hollow and contain an entirely different set of flora and fauna.


So that "factual science stuff" is not always so factual nor is it impervious to skepticism.


Funny how the climatologists can't get next year right but they can tell us whats going to happen 50 years down the road. When I was a kid they told me it was going to be an ice age about now.........then it went to global warming.........when that didn't pan out as per the computer projections they changed it to "Climate Change" (as if the climate isn't ALWAYS changing) so now if its cold OR hot its our fault.

Not buying it and certainly not going down the path of crying to the government to.......... "save us" (Sure, we can help, but we will need your liberty and your labors $$)

"


1. Prediction of an ice age back in the 70's was largely driven by the media. Few climatologists back then were predicting a cooling climate.

2. Remember, we are talking about global warming. Imagine yourself on the moon, pointing back at the earth. That orb there is going to be warming. Climatologists have a hard time predicting the weather in any given region, but the computer models actually have been pretty good at predicting average global temperature.

Carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas. Period. We burn oil and coal like crazy, which is carbon that was trapped millions of years ago. The concentration in the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm in pre industrial times to about 407 ppm currently. At the same time look at what has happened to arctic sea ice extent. I guess you think that fact that the arctic is melting is just a coincidence unrelated to the rise in carbon dioxide. Mighty strange coincidence if you ask me.

Mocha
distinguished member(7106)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/16/2018 07:11PM
i applaud Lee Frelich as a scientist. he is not afraid to speak to his research. i heard him present this information back in the 80's during an Elderhostel program. at that time i had only lived up north for about 5 years so wasn't totally sold on his science. after living there 30 years i realized what he presented was happening, very slowly, but happening.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/16/2018 08:05PM
Gadfly: ""If you know where to look, you can already see the Boundary Waters transforming from a lush forest into a desolate grassland"


I haven't seen all of the BWCA but I can't think of any areas that I would currently describe as desolate grassland. "


No, what he is referring to is visible changes to the BWCA that reflect a changing climate.

These would include increasing numbers of red maples, later average lake freeze-up dates, earlier ice outs. Increasing frequencies of heavy rains and blowdown storms.

Frelich is a top scientist in his field, and while predicting the future out 80 years is a tall order, numbers and the Laws of Physics do matter. If your doctor says you have cancer and that it will kill you if you don't treat it, you probably should heed his advice...

That said, if the climate does indeed change enough by the end of this century to turn the BWCA into anything like a savanna, the BWCA will be the LAST thing on people's minds, because the world's agricultural lands will be unable to produce food for the teaming masses (10-12 billion) due to the same increased temperatures and unpredictable rainfall. Imagine the amount of human migration, terrorism, and wars over resources...

mooseplums
distinguished member(10419)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
04/16/2018 08:27PM
Then they can introduce bison to the area...... ;)
Canoearoo
distinguished member(2072)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/16/2018 08:31PM
Im ok with that, nature will do what is needed. Just google sand dune state forest. The dnr wants it to be a grass land but it keeps growing those darn trees. So now they are spraying and buring the trees to be rid of them despite protests from the county and farmers.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/16/2018 08:40PM
Canoearoo: "Im ok with that, nature will do what is needed. Just google sand dune state forest. The dnr wants it to be a grass land but it keeps growing those darn trees. So now they are spraying and buring the trees to be rid of them despite protests from the county and farmers. "

I know that area well--or at least did back in the 70s before it became part of suburbia. That area was originally oak savanna, with some tree groves and prairie. Historically, fire and dry soils kept it from becoming forest. Last time I was there there was a helluva lot of buckthorn invading (and wrecking) it----not to mention housing developments because the state never bothered to consolidate its holdings.
OCDave
senior member (80)senior membersenior member
 
04/16/2018 09:05PM
mastertangler: "Soledad: .
Sort of depressing if you believe that factual science stuff ;)"



The weight of science in the late 1800's had the north pole as open temperate waters caused by steam vents surrounded by a belt of ice. Many of the most educated and knowledgeable men of that time thought the earth might be hollow and contain an entirely different set of flora and fauna.


So that "factual science stuff" is not always so factual nor is it impervious to skepticism.


Funny how the climatologists can't get next year right but they can tell us whats going to happen 50 years down the road. When I was a kid they told me it was going to be an ice age about now.........then it went to global warming.........when that didn't pan out as per the computer projections they changed it to "Climate Change" (as if the climate isn't ALWAYS changing) so now if its cold OR hot its our fault.

Not buying it and certainly not going down the path of crying to the government to.......... "save us" (Sure, we can help, but we will need your liberty and your labors $$)

"


We can hope these predictions are wrong and do nothing but hope (fingers crossed). Alternatively, we can hope they are wrong but, be willing to adopt practices which might alter an undesirable path.

If it turns out the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence is correct and global climate change make the planet less hospitable to our species, few of us will be the ones paying the price for our apathy. Our children and grandchildren will bear the burden of our sins against the planet.

Earth Day is Sunday 4/22 this year. Consider your acts of environmental kindness a gift to your heirs.

TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/16/2018 10:41PM
Predicting the future is tricky business. It’s easy to be wrong by a wide margin. I hope scientists are wrong about the negative effects of climate change, but the argument that thet don’t know what they’re talking about because they’ve been wrong before is not compelling. A lot has happened in the sciences in 50 years and there are endless examples of how much scientists do know. There is a widely accepted consensus among experts that humans cause climate change. The oil industry agrees. Why don’t you? I wish I understood the answer. My pop thinks people have to see it to believe it, but man it seems to be everywhere I look.

From my vantage point we’re way beyond hosed. Too much momentum. Too little leadership. Too many people. Big deep lakes are slower to warm up and lose ice. The earth takes about 30 years to warm. Our path is largely set in stone.

Catastrophic weather events have become more common and more intense. How much worse can it get? When will people start migrating to find greener pastures? These are issues we face right now. It’s not just something our kids will have to deal with.
mjmkjun
distinguished member(1913)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 04:15AM

"Yup. The end of a way of life. Too bad. It's a good way. Wagons forward! Yo!"
– John Wayne
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/17/2018 06:41AM
I merely look at the scientific history of the planet and extrapolate from that.

*Krakatoa spewed more into the atmosphere than mankind ever could darkening skies 1/2 around the globe. And yet we are still here.

*There were several warmer periods lasting hundreds of years than what we are experiencing now and that without any fossil fuel usage.

*And of course we have had several real ice ages

*The global warming computer projections upon which this is largely based have not been accurate (thus the language change from Global Warming to Climate Change)

*The famed hockey stick graph which showed dramatic change and caused much alarm was shown to be "bad math" by several renown Swiss mathematicians.

*Climatgate in which we had climatologists via email stating how they would have to falsify data to make certain it fit the politically correct narrative.

*The originator of the theory of greenhouse gases (Richard Reville, Berkley professor) largely recanted and was shocked that he spawned a global movement and said more study needed to be done before ceding the government control over industry (so much for "the debate is over")

*There is billions of dollars (billions with a "B") of grant money out there all to show how climate change is for real. When your getting paid to prove something what result will you get? For example a scientist might point to increases in pollen counts as proof of global warming and yet the skeptical mind might suggest increases in agricultural production as the real cause for increased pollen counts. See how things can be spun to fit a narrative?

*And what is the solution which is clamored for? Ah, now we get to the real motive.........carbon credits of course! Empowering government to have authority over the means of production and over every aspect of our economy and our lives. Sound like a good idea to you? People who have never operated a popsicle stand telling everyone else what to do? Insanity.........

I am all for less gunk in the air and water.........count me in on that. But that can be accomplished without making us poor and miserable and being serfs to a ruling class which is what will happen if we cede control of our means of production to bureaucrats.

The only sure thing about the climate is it is going to change.........do you think that if mankind was off the planet completely that there would not still be hurricanes, droughts and floods?



missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/17/2018 07:31AM
Predicting the grassland will reach Thunder Bay by 2100 seems hasty. Tap roots can be 20 feet deep.

"Literally it could be rainier but drier," Frelich said.

Okay, I get that, but it takes enormous heat to dry soil 20 feet down.

However, the BWWCA is the Canadian Shield, scraped of topsoil, so many trees might not have deep tap roots.

Lastly, it's wildfires more than drought that kills the trees of the savanna, for fire kills the vascular tissue of trees, but not grasses. Savanna grasses love fire, for fire makes more soil. So, if the BWWCA dries and fires ignite, it could be the flames that snuff the trees and the tap roots would be about as protective as Etch-a-Sketch and the transformation could happen quickly. Thankfully, I'm old.

TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/17/2018 08:07AM
MT. I hear you and there are many people that have your perspective. It’s helpful to hear it spelled out. The one thing I suggest you think more about is the claim that scientists are politically motivated and compelled to lie for personal gain.

Science is done by a bunch of nerdy professors that are endlessly interested in their craft and dedicate themselves to it wholly. Like you and fishing. It’s not a bunch of money grabbing fanatics. I don’t understand how people came to have this opinion. In reality the whole discipline depends desperately on credibility and there is an extreme level of ethical self policing. People very quickly and routinely lose their jobs for misrepresenting reality. There is a very acute awareness that science will crumble if liars are not removed.

The other point that i can’t convince you of in a comment like this is the robustness of the data that went into the hockey stick curve, and historical records in general. The attempts to discredit this information were not successful except in the sense that they’ve misled the public. If you accept the fact that the majority of scientists believe these data then you’re left claiming that scientists are willing to lie for personal gain. See point #1 above.

Knowing you this will strike a chord, but please understand that I value your perspective and I hope you feel the same.
Alan Gage
distinguished member(1161)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 09:10AM
The global warming computer projections upon which this is largely based have not been accurate (thus the language change from Global Warming to Climate Change)

I read a book about some scientist fellow whose name I can't recall that was written in the late 80's, a few years after the term "global warming" had taken hold. Already at that time he was bemoaning the use of the word and blaming its spread and widening use on the media because it sounded catchy.

He said climate change was the correct term, and the one used by scientists, because we didn't know for sure what the effects would be and that they would likely be different in some areas than others. So when I hear the term "climate change" rather than thinking the scientists changed their tune I think that the media finally beat it to death until no one cared anymore so they went looking for another term, and this time got he right one.

Alan
04/17/2018 09:44AM
TheGreatIndoors: "MT. I hear you and there are many people that have your perspective. It’s helpful to hear it spelled out. The one thing I suggest you think more about is the claim that scientists are politically motivated and compelled to lie for personal gain.


Science is done by a bunch of nerdy professors that are endlessly interested in their craft and dedicate themselves to it wholly. Like you and fishing. It’s not a bunch of money grabbing fanatics. I don’t understand how people came to have this opinion. In reality the whole discipline depends desperately on credibility and there is an extreme level of ethical self policing. People very quickly and routinely lose their jobs for misrepresenting reality. There is a very acute awareness that science will crumble if liars are not removed.


The other point that i can’t convince you of in a comment like this is the robustness of the data that went into the hockey stick curve, and historical records in general. The attempts to discredit this information were not successful except in the sense that they’ve misled the public. If you accept the fact that the majority of scientists believe these data then you’re left claiming that scientists are willing to lie for personal gain. See point #1 above.


Knowing you this will strike a chord, but please understand that I value your perspective and I hope you feel the same. "


I agree with this view as to what tends to motivate most scientists. Their findings can make them unpopular with various groups at different times. Case in point might be James Hansen: his assessments about climate forcing were not popular with the public relations people at NASA, and he departed that position in the first decade of this century. Recently I heard him voice support for safe nuclear energy as the best route for high population centers, which probably makes him unpopular with some environmental groups... but I don't doubt his integrity, and his focus on future generations such as his grandchildren.
AmarilloJim
distinguished member(1062)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 10:14AM
OCDave:

We can hope these predictions are wrong and do nothing but hope (fingers crossed). Alternatively, we can hope they are wrong but, be willing to adopt practices which might alter an undesirable path.


If it turns out the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence is correct and global climate change make the planet less hospitable to our species, few of us will be the ones paying the price for our apathy. Our children and grandchildren will bear the burden of our sins against the planet.

Why is there such an abundance of fossil fuels? At one point the planet was much warmer and life flourished.


Why would global climate change make the planet less hospitable for humans? It would be different and surely force us to adapt, but the biggest problem I see for humanity is the growing size of humanity itself!
Why is there such an abundance of fossil fuels? At one point in time our planet was much warmer and life flourished.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/17/2018 11:40AM
GreatIndoors you merely have to google the detractors of the Hockey stick graph and have an intellectually open mind. Obviously there is much lacking in a consensus and many very brilliant people consider the graph as dishonest, misleading and faulty. This graph was used in Al Gores movie "An inconvenient truth" to persuade millions.........what else was misleading about Mr Gore's movie?

There is probably no polite way to suggest that you are being naive if you do not understand that political correctness puts pressures on people from all walks of life including scientists.

Who gives the grants? Who decides if your work is published? Those are questions you need to consider long and hard. Go against the politically correct mantra as a scientist and there is a very great likelihood that you will be ostracized, punished and made an example of. This has been true, in varying degrees, throughout mankind's history and is particularly true today.

While there are some scientists who are so established as to beyond reach the majority are subject to "higher powers" (there are relatively few people who hold the keys to the kingdom and those people decide if scientists get grants or their work gets published). Scientists are people to and I don't buy into the nerdy noble stereotype BTW. They want what everyone else wants........to be successful in their chosen field and to support their family. If that means not voicing your reservations about the quantum leaps in molecular biology which must accompany evolution or stating publicly that your dubious about man caused Global Warming then so be it........not worth sacrificing your career.

In case you haven't noticed it there is a political movement afoot which is very intolerant of dissent and seeks not to have open and honest debate but rather demands the silencing of those who question the veracity of the politically correct narrative. That is why the radical environmental left insists that "the debate is over" (doesn't sound very scientific to me).

This was written some time ago but because of political correctness it never sees the light of day. It is from MIT and is by a man who believes in man caused global warming..........but the point is the same. Frenzied political correct narratives will obscure truth and woe to the one who breaks ranks. If you read the article you will find that the scientists who discovered the flaws were rejected from getting their findings published. The game is played a certain way and we need to understand that.

MIT Technology review
OCDave
senior member (80)senior membersenior member
 
04/17/2018 11:56AM
AmarilloJim: "OCDave:


We can hope these predictions are wrong and do nothing but hope (fingers crossed). Alternatively, we can hope they are wrong but, be willing to adopt practices which might alter an undesirable path.



If it turns out the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence is correct and global climate change make the planet less hospitable to our species, few of us will be the ones paying the price for our apathy. Our children and grandchildren will bear the burden of our sins against the planet.

Why is there such an abundance of fossil fuels? At one point the planet was much warmer and life flourished.



Why would global climate change make the planet less hospitable for humans? It would be different and surely force us to adapt, but the biggest problem I see for humanity is the growing size of humanity itself!
Why is there such an abundance of fossil fuels? At one point in time our planet was much warmer and life flourished."


Yes, life flourished with a fraction of the current human population. Can a hotter planet support a population at current levels? Even at a Zero growth rate, it seems unlikely the planet will be able to sustain the current number of humans.

Less hospitable in the sense that a hotter planet will affect food production/availabilty.

Parts of the planet may become too hot to inhabit.

Rising ocean levels are drowning inhabited islands

and costal communities her in the US

The vastness of water on our planet has acted as a buffer, but clearly the vitality of our oceans has been affected, therefore, less food.

So...I am not saying that humans will become extict, but "less hospitable" is a reasonable description. Also, I am not saying that the sky has fallen and we are doomed. I am saying, for anyone with a vision beyond the next 20-50 years that they will inhabit this planet, there is clearly enough cause to warrant consideration of how that fate can be altered.

I won't live to see the BWCA savannah but, I have kids. I am responsible to care for their future including the enviorment they will inherit.

DrBobDg
distinguished member(782)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 12:20PM
so far everyone is being nice...
time for the water to start getting soft...
:-)
dr bob
shock
distinguished member(3327)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 12:34PM
mastertangler: "GreatIndoors you merely have to google the detractors of the Hockey stick graph and have an intellectually open mind. Obviously there is much lacking in a consensus and many very brilliant people consider the graph as dishonest, misleading and faulty. This graph was used in Al Gores movie "An inconvenient truth" to persuade millions.........what else was misleading about Mr Gore's movie?

i do remember Al Gore saying in 2008 that New York would be underwater by the year 2016
What an outlandish statement , that never happened , i feel the same way about the BW turning into a grassland by the year 2100
if these type of things were going to happen it would take 1,000's of years not a decade or two or even a 100 years.
and the Snow storm that just happened in minnesota also happened in 1983 , 35 years ago. and (we) have only been recording weather history for a little over a 100 years and how old is the earth ?
and a lot of weather research is funded by our government. if they find no problems/issues the funding will go away ,,,, i think ? LOL
People should be more worried about all the garbage that goes into our oceans on a daily basis ,
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/17/2018 12:41PM
mastertangler: "... political correctness puts pressures on people from all walks of life including scientists.

This was written some time ago but because of political correctness it never sees the light of day. It is from MIT and is by a man who believes in man caused global warming..........but the point is the same. Frenzied political correct narratives will obscure truth and woe to the one who breaks ranks.
MIT Technology review "


An interesting thing about the sciences regarding the first point above: Career success is usually defined by someone that effectively "breaks ranks" and shows that something is not understood or wrong. There is a lot of scrutiny and skepticism by the people who accept the old theory and are reluctant to give it up. However, good scientific "proof" is hard to argue with. There is typically a race to be the first to verify, disprove, or build upon new theories as scientists see it as an exciting opportunity to be recognized as an originator of a new idea.

That is what happened following the clam that "the hockey stick is flawed" argument the MIT review paper refers to. You can read about what followed in the Wikipedia article on the Hockey Stick Controversy . Here is a quote from the last page of the intro.

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."
Gadfly
distinguished member (236)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 12:46PM
AmarilloJim: "
the biggest problem I see for humanity is the growing size of humanity itself!
."


+1
Stumpy
distinguished member(1487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 01:50PM
The climate is in God's hands, not ours.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/17/2018 02:00PM
Stumpy: "The climate is in God's hands, not ours."

A nice hypothesis with ZERO basis in fact. That's why there is no universal religion.
Guest Paddler
 
04/17/2018 02:01PM
Yawn... dig me up around 2095 and tell me all about it.
I’m glad I don’t know everything. That’s too much typing.
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/17/2018 02:09PM
: "Yawn... dig me up around 2095 and tell me all about it.
I’m glad I don’t know everything. That’s too much typing."


LOL
Stumpy
distinguished member(1487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 03:31PM
arctic: "Stumpy: "The climate is in God's hands, not ours."


A nice hypothesis with ZERO basis in fact. That's why there is no universal religion."


It's not a hypothesis, it's faith.
OCDave
senior member (80)senior membersenior member
 
04/17/2018 03:35PM
Stumpy: "The climate is in God's hands, not ours."

Per my Grandma's words of wisdom "God helps those who help themselves."

mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/17/2018 04:37PM
Greatindoors obviously we are on opposite sides of the equation. People will believe what they want to I guess, what fits their world view. I like you, you are a bit idealistic but optimistic nonetheless..........not such a bad thing in general. Scientists are nerdy and noble and could care less about the powers which be causes me a wry smile. If it were only so in the great debate which is climate change. There is way to much money and disparate powerful forces involved which are completely intolerant of dissent. To even suggest one is dubious of man caused climate change is to be instantly called a "flat earther" and a "Climate change denier" regardless of the arguments brought forth.

As per left leaning Wikipedia refereeing the Hockey stick controversy I am again in admiration of your steadfast belief in "the cause". Noble indeed, but misguided IMHO. Lots of folks have looked at the math including several notable Swiss Mathematicians and have come to the same conclusion, bad math, bad methods.

But, lets grant you the high ground. Lets say you have convinced the populace that BWCA will be grasslands, the seas are going to rise, deserts expand, temps rise, etc, etc,...........and your solution is? (This is the good part ;-)
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/17/2018 04:54PM
OCDave: "Stumpy: "The climate is in God's hands, not ours."


Per my Grandma's words of wisdom "God helps those who help themselves."


"


They may be words to live by but God never said them (not in scripture). Actually whats so awesome about God is He helps those who cannot help themselves.
OCDave
senior member (80)senior membersenior member
 
04/17/2018 06:57PM
mastertangler: "OCDave: "Stumpy: "The climate is in God's hands, not ours."



Per my Grandma's words of wisdom "God helps those who help themselves."



"



They may be words to live by but God never said them (not in scripture). Actually whats so awesome about God is He helps those who cannot help themselves. "


.. and those who will not ;)
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 09:15PM
mastertangler: "*Krakatoa spewed more into the atmosphere than mankind ever could darkening skies 1/2 around the globe. And yet we are still here.

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

The myth that a single volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind to date, let alone 10,000 times more, is one of the most pervasive as well as one of the most demonstrably false climatological claims out there. It stems, ultimately, from a geologist named Ian Plimer, infamous for writing a widely discredited book titled Heaven and Earth, which attempted to argue that humans have had an insignificant effect on global climate.


*There were several warmer periods lasting hundreds of years than what we are experiencing now and that without any fossil fuel usage.

Try warm periods of millions of years. Nobody is disputing that the Earth's climate has changed over time. What is alarming is the fact that we are pumping incredible amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and simultaneously observing rapid increases in temperature. The problem is not going back to the temperatures of the Eocene, but rather the rapid rate of change wreaking havoc on the plants and animals (including humans) of our planet.


*And of course we have had several real ice ages

Again, nobody is disputing that.

*The global warming computer projections upon which this is largely based have not been accurate (thus the language change from Global Warming to Climate Change) The central idea of global climate change is not based on any computer projections. We are pumping known greenhouse gases into the air at an alarming rate. The idea that greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation is not disputed by anybody that I know of. That is basic chemistry. Please address that basic issue before ranting about any computer models.

"Climate change" is the preferred term now instead of "global warming" because some areas of the world will see cooling trends, while the entire Earth is warming. Also, people conflate weather and climate, and therefore think that global warming is not occurring whenever a cold stretch of weather shows up. "Global warming" is not inaccurate though, and you can feel free to still use it.

*The famed hockey stick graph which showed dramatic change and caused much alarm was shown to be "bad math" by several renown Swiss mathematicians.
But the iconic graph engendered attacks, including calls for into the validity and veracity of the research. Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid. Mann is quick to point out that there are two entirely distinct debates taking place when it comes to climate change research. One is the legitimate scientific challenging of research results that is part of the give and take of the scientific method all done in good faith to help advance the forefront of our knowledge. The other consists of bad faith attacks on scientists and the science, intended to advance some agenda -- political, religious or economic.

*Climatgate in which we had climatologists via email stating how they would have to falsify data to make certain it fit the politically correct narrative.
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

*The originator of the theory of greenhouse gases (Richard Reville, Berkley professor) largely recanted and was shocked that he spawned a global movement and said more study needed to be done before ceding the government control over industry (so much for "the debate is over") Ugh. His name is still ROGER REVELLE, as I have corrected you before. Also, he only did a year of graduate work at Berkeley, and is generally linked to where he did most of his work--Scripps and UCSD. Greenhouse gases were known to trap radiation a century before he was even born, and Revelle's "controversial" statement was that, "We're clearly going to have a rise in temperature in the next 100 years because of ... greenhouse gasses ... {but} we don't know how big it is going to be," Revelle said in a videotaped interview with University of California at San Diego biologist Paul Saltman in December 1990. "We can't say whether the temperature rise will be 2 or 10 degrees." Revelle was NEVER a climate change denier.

*There is billions of dollars (billions with a "B") of grant money out there all to show how climate change is for real. When your getting paid to prove something what result will you get? For example a scientist might point to increases in pollen counts as proof of global warming and yet the skeptical mind might suggest increases in agricultural production as the real cause for increased pollen counts. See how things can be spun to fit a narrative? You clearly do not understand how science works. Scientists get paid to do an investigation. The results may or may not support what they thought would happen, but they still get paid. As long as their methodology, analysis, and conclusion are sound, they are very likely to get published. In fact, they are more likely to get published, receive attention, and secure additional funding if their research runs counter to generally accepted ideas. However, that is only if said research was sound and can stand up to peer review.

The idea that you would bring up money as a motive is incredible. As a whole, scientists do not make that much money. They are not usually rolling around in luxury vehicles and jetting off to vacation destinations of the rich and famous. In fact, I know numerous scientists who work at large institutions who make embarrassingly small amounts of money. Contrast that with industry, where revenues in only the United States for just the petroleum and natural industry stand in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and an individual CEO can make hundreds of millions of dollars. But sure, let's pretend that scientists are the ones who are getting rich. I'm beginning to doubt you even actually know any scientists.
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/17/2018 10:04PM
mastertangler: "...........and your solution is? (This is the good part ;-) "

Full electrification as soon as possible. Renewables like solar and wind require a significant overhaul of our electrical grid and transportation methods. What a great opportunity for the American worker. I don't understand why politicians haven't latched onto this idea.

Electrification is already underway, but the pace of change in the US is slow. Thankfully, China is investing heavily in the industries of the future. American companies are playing catch up in many cases, a recent example of which is the auto industry, where the Chinese government is aggressively pushing the electric vehicle. I've read that recent announcements by the major automakers in the US and Europe regarding electric vehicles is in response to this policy in China.

A friend of mine works for a company that finances the construction of utilities, including coal fired power plants and wind farms. He is very excited and optimistic about the evolution to renewables. He sees a reasonable path to complete electrification in my lifetime. He also said that coal and nuclear are sputtering their last breaths while solar is gaining momentum fast. One reason is that the Chinese have driven the price of solar down to a point where it has begun to out compete other sources in terms of price; an exception being natural gas in some areas of the US. Despite all the talk about coal, the American solar industry employs nearly 3x the number of people than the American coal industry . That difference will only continue to grow, despite the efforts of the current administration.
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/17/2018 10:40PM
OSLO: "I'm beginning to doubt you even actually know any scientists."

Take it easy man! You can't expect people to listen to you if you shout.
Portage99
distinguished member (110)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/17/2018 11:33PM


WhiteWolf
distinguished member(4963)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 03:27AM
Here is one for ya-- how many of you (on either side) actually are a professional in the field of climate science or weather in general ?? Shouldn't that make a difference? It does on resumes for me getting a job. 20+ years in the field. Many of you are spouting off on stuff you "just read about" etc. I know Arctic takes obs via the COOP network and I highly respect his thoughts and observations. We use his and others COOP's obs every day in trying to make better forecasts on the learning aspect. He has many excellent points on the climate. Though you can say I'am not "Climate" because I'am a meteorologist- I will say again that forecasters as myself use climate ALL THE TIME in making forecasts. ( at least from reputable sources) Climate is the main forecast (in the forecast) past 4-5 days for those that don't know. Especially in longer range.

What most outside the field ( lots of a math in this stuff) don't understand is the energy involved in seriously changing stuff. It's a long story and I can answer questions,-- Atmosphere physics as far as heat energy( temp) being "accurately" measured is not an exact science- especially on the ground and in remote places. Very far from it. I understand fully those who say we cannot wait and need to make changes and that we as humans make "the" difference, but a fine line is needed when you get down to it. SO many variables in this stuff. One cannot say the recent cold spell with likely record late ice out is any more different than the record warm of the past many years. In FACT- the world has been warming. This is truth. But I (and many of my colleagues) think it's cyclical and has little to do with AGW but primarily due to the Oceans --( increased water vapor in the tropics runs the show- not water vapor in the Arctic as the mixing ratios (heat energy) in the tropics is like 100 times that of the Arctic regions) ie. (LONG STORY) holding and distributing heat for as long as 30 years and it will change in the next cycle. I'am NOT dogmatic on this topic, just work in the field and see it from the "other side", especially from other issues that are too technical for this thread. I understand many will say the glaciers are melting, the climate in N.MN is changing et, all , but that imo-- too many variables are involved to point it at only one source. Human induced CO2 is increasing, but the sun changes intensity, (Sun spots) the earth's magnetic field changes, volcanic eruptions -- more so then deposits in the atmosphere- affect the stratosphere ( look up QBO ,quasi-biennial oscillation-- even the moon affects this stuff among a myriad of other things.... It's just awesome to make a living in this field and to witness the awe of Mother Nature in it's changes.

These other issues that are not brought up mainstream - work to both sides of this issue. Sadly, politics plays into this. And what you hear for the laymen that are not in the field. A good read , though from one side, that many don't see is below. Please do not disparage the messenger. I tend to lean towards the following- but am not totally convinced. 20 years forecasting// weather field FWIW. A near infinite amount of variability is involved.






we have an influence- but not much
04/18/2018 06:41AM
Good article WW... Brings out points I've always thought.
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/18/2018 06:49AM
TheGreatIndoors: "OSLO: "I'm beginning to doubt you even actually know any scientists."


Take it easy man! You can't expect people to listen to you if you shout."

Who is shouting? Based on what he wrote, and a myriad of other posts he has made about scientists in the past, I have a hard time believing that he actually personally knows any scientists. Who knows though, maybe he does and they just don't talk much about their profession with him.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 07:14AM
OSLO: "TheGreatIndoors: "OSLO: "I'm beginning to doubt you even actually know any scientists."



Take it easy man! You can't expect people to listen to you if you shout."

Who is shouting? Based on what he wrote, and a myriad of other posts he has made about scientists in the past, I have a hard time believing that he actually personally knows any scientists. Who knows though, maybe he does and they just don't talk much about their profession with him."


With all due respect Oslo one does not have to have personal acquaintance with anyone in any particular field to become knowledgable on a subject. One needs only to delve into some research and become well read. I wouldn't have to have known anyone in the American civil war to become an authority on the subject. Would you concede that as truth? Of course it is.

While I don't make a blanket inditement concerning all scientists being beholden to outside influences concerning the results of their work........... but if you believe it doesn't happen you are dreaming. I became aware of the obvious (yes its obvious that such is the case > it has happened throughout history and of course it is happening now) via Jim Tour one of the top chemists in the world in his field where he has personally witnessed other scientists being punished for their views and explains just how few people hold the keys to wether scientists get grants or their work gets published. As a professor at Rice University he often advises his students not to be free thinkers when opposing their liberal professors views if they value their grade.

Jim Tour personal statement

This is an interesting read from a Christian scientist with an open mind. Fascinating read overall but he clearly exposes the price which is paid if you don't follow the politically correct narratives of the day. While this may be about the acceptance of evolution the same principle may easily be applied, and probably more so, concerning Climate Change. The simple fact of the matter is if your a scientist which opposes man caused Climate Change your going to get smeared and if possible, destroyed. Thats the way the game is being played, not very scientific if you ask me.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 07:16AM
OSLO: "TheGreatIndoors: "OSLO: "I'm beginning to doubt you even actually know any scientists."



Take it easy man! You can't expect people to listen to you if you shout."

Who is shouting? Based on what he wrote, and a myriad of other posts he has made about scientists in the past, I have a hard time believing that he actually personally knows any scientists. Who knows though, maybe he does and they just don't talk much about their profession with him."


OSLO, I sure appreciate your posts. I skip some people's posts and skim others, but yours always deserve a careful reading.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 07:36AM
TheGreatIndoors: "OSLO: "I'm beginning to doubt you even actually know any scientists."


Take it easy man! You can't expect people to listen to you if you shout."


No sweat Greatindoors.........I am not so thin skinned.

As per your electrification advocacy.........great! I am all for it! But just one little teeny tiny caveat. If you seek to empower government in order to impose, to force, to demand that the civil society live as you require (hey, after all we have been told we are going to save the planet!) then all bets are off and I will oppose you. This would be the pathway to poverty and misery.

But, if free market principles come into play, and the government doesn't artificially drive up the cost of fossil fuels in order for green energies to be completive, then I am with you completely (as any reasonable person would). So far Green energies cannot compete on a level playing field and that is absurdly obvious. Just ask the many companies which the past administration which played venture capitalist (with taxpayer dollars >think Solyndra etc. etc. ) and are now gone. None of those companies made a go of it even with generous handouts.

I am all for less gunk in the air.........we all have a vested interest in that. And actually the United States has made great strides in that regard. But the radical environmental left seeks to impose its intolerant perspectives via legislation on the civil society. And that all based on science which is far from settled.........the debate is not over.
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/18/2018 07:57AM
WhiteWolf: "Here is one for ya...
we have an influence- but not much "


The author of this article has no clue what he's talking about. The premise of his argument completely misses the point that the changes in the climate are driven by how much energy from the sun is absorbed. Not as he says: "But do humans really generate enough energy to melt significant amounts of ice?"
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/18/2018 08:07AM
mastertangler: "...one does not have to have personal acquaintance with anyone in any particular field to become knowledgable on a subject. One needs only to delve into some research and become well read."

MT, this is not my experience with scientific topics directly in my field of study. Straightforward examples are found in physics where you need to understand a lot of mathematics to grasp the ideas. Another challenge: Can you figure out how BWCA.com works? How about the computer that displays it for you? These are not topics that one can casually approach on their own and neither is climate science.

This idea helps explain why the vast majority of scientist accept the perspective of leading experts. It appears that this perspective is not widely held among folks that "deny" climate change is caused by humans. Americans have a very admirable willingness to buck the trend, do it our own way, to have their own ideas, and to resist authority. We are pioneers. But this perspective can get blown out of proportion.

I was told that Leibniz (who invented calculus) was said to be the last person that knew everything. Kind of a cool idea! Today people at the forefront of most any scientific topic know way more about it than anyone else, including other scientists in the same area.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 08:08AM
TheGreatIndoors: "WhiteWolf: "Here is one for ya...
we have an influence- but not much "



This guy has no clue what he's talking about. The premise of his position completely misses the point that the changes in the climate are driven by how much energy from the sun is absorbed. Not as he says: "But do humans really generate enough energy to melt significant amounts of ice?" Not impressed, Whitewolf!"


Easy Lad, keep it light and lively or we will get the hook and our fun will be over. "This guy" can easily be misconstrued as to be referring to Whitewolf (who is quite popular in these parts) instead of the author of the material he linked to. So clean it up........clarity is key.
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5496)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 08:25AM
First it was "Global Warming", and that didn't seem to work out well, so they renamed it "Climate Change!"
In baseball they call this "widening the strike zone!" :)

missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 08:34AM
The Great Outdoors: "First it was "Global Warming", and that didn't seem to work out well, so they renamed it "Climate Change!"
In baseball they call this "widening the strike zone!" :)


"


Does that feel like a "Gotcha!" to you, TGO, your Columbo moment? "Global warming" only noted temperature, but whereas temperature is the driver, much more is in play, thus the more enveloping "Climate Change."
WHendrix
distinguished member (341)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/18/2018 09:51AM
NOVA Tonight at 7:00 on PBS
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 10:26AM
The Great Outdoors: "First it was "Global Warming", and that didn't seem to work out well, so they renamed it "Climate Change!"
In baseball they call this "widening the strike zone!" :)


"


This distinction is notable despite the critics which insist that the renaming was merely to more accurately describe the phenomenon.

While Climate Change has broad appeal to those who sole concern is environmental, there is a huge ulterior globalist movement which sees Climate Change as the vehicle to "bring the peoples of the world together to solve an imminent crisis". Sounds good in theory until one but scratches beneath the surface.

If we accept the premise that man caused Climate Change is caused by industrialized countries then a drought in the Sudan or a flood in Tibet is the responsibility of the offending countries and reparations must be provided. It was largely why President Trump opted out of the Paris Climate treaty which would of put the American taxpayer on the hook for billions to other less developed countries. Simply put, Climate Change will be used by globalists for a redistribution of wealth on a world wide scale.

And that is another reason why there is billions of dollars in play to convince the peoples of the world to empower governments to "save them". It has little do with the environment and even less to do with science, rather it is about the accumulation of power and why those who question the science are slapped down so hard.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 10:56AM
mastertangler: "
If we accept the premise that man caused Climate Change is caused by industrialized countries then a drought in the Sudan or a flood in Tibet is the responsibility of the offending countries and reparations must be provided. "


So, if that is the case, then who is responsible for compensation? How about the displacement of tens of millions of people by sea level rise in Bangladesh? Are you willing to allow them to migrate to the US?

What would Jesus do?
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 11:12AM
As per Roger Reville he was chastised by the Climate Change advocates who claim that he was becoming senile. This is an interesting piece via John Coleman.

Roger Reville vs Al Gore
SammyN
distinguished member (174)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/18/2018 11:51AM
Could someone be so kind as to post a graph, based upon glacier core samples (which gives is access to ancient climate), where CO2 preceded an increase in global warming?
I can't seem to find it.

Thanks!
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 03:41PM
arctic: "mastertangler: "
If we accept the premise that man caused Climate Change is caused by industrialized countries then a drought in the Sudan or a flood in Tibet is the responsibility of the offending countries and reparations must be provided. "



So, if that is the case, then who is responsible for compensation? How about the displacement of tens of millions of people by sea level rise in Bangladesh? Are you willing to allow them to migrate to the US?


What would Jesus do?"


Sure, the more the merrier ;-)

But thats only if we accept the premise of man caused global climate change. So far count me as a skeptic. Sea level rise? Didn't they find sea life fossils in some of the Himalayan Mountain ranges? Want to talk about sea level rise, whew, now thats some sea level rise. But what are we talking nowadays? How much in the last 50 years have the seas risen? I know they rise and fall twice a day in varying amounts around the globe.

Didn't they do a documentary about that with Kevin Costner?

Ice cap melting documentary
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 05:26PM
mastertangler: "arctic: "mastertangler: "
If we accept the premise that man caused Climate Change is caused by industrialized countries then a drought in the Sudan or a flood in Tibet is the responsibility of the offending countries and reparations must be provided. "




So, if that is the case, then who is responsible for compensation? How about the displacement of tens of millions of people by sea level rise in Bangladesh? Are you willing to allow them to migrate to the US?



What would Jesus do?"



Sure, the more the merrier ;-)

But thats only if we accept the premise of man caused global climate change. So far count me as a skeptic. Sea level rise? Didn't they find sea life fossils in some of the Himalayan Mountain ranges? Want to talk about sea level rise, whew, now thats some sea level rise. But what are we talking nowadays? How much in the last 50 years have the seas risen? I know they rise and fall twice a day in varying amounts around the globe.


Didn't they do a documentary about that with Kevin Costner?

Ice cap melting documentary "


Pre-folding and faulting, that land wasn't high. Did you imagine 30,000 feet of water atop current sea level? Do you think that there is more and less water over time, that it's destroyed and recreated?
Dances with Sheep
distinguished member (258)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/18/2018 07:18PM
missmolly: " Do you think that there is more and less water over time, that it's destroyed and recreated? " water lost
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 07:25PM
Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: " Do you think that there is more and less water over time, that it's destroyed and recreated? " water lost "

Are you also suggesting that an additional 30,000 feet of water once existed?
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/18/2018 07:31PM
missmolly: "mastertangler:
But thats only if we accept the premise of man caused global climate change. So far count me as a skeptic. Sea level rise? Didn't they find sea life fossils in some of the Himalayan Mountain ranges? Want to talk about sea level rise, whew, now thats some sea level rise. But what are we talking nowadays? How much in the last 50 years have the seas risen? I know they rise and fall twice a day in varying amounts around the globe.



Didn't they do a documentary about that with Kevin Costner?


Ice cap melting documentary "



Pre-folding and faulting, that land wasn't high. Did you imagine 30,000 feet of water atop current sea level? Do you think that there is more and less water over time, that it's destroyed and recreated? "
I was just about to post the same thing.

MT, as missmolly noted, the Himalayas are a result of tectonic plate movement. To be specific, the Indian Plate began careening towards the Eurasian Plate millions of years ago. Between the two was the Tethys Sea, which slowly disappeared as the plates converged. Most of the seabed was subducted, but some began to rise as the plates steadily pushed into each other. Over time, that same land rose high up into the mountains we know today. I have read a number of your posts describing how you think scientists routinely engage in vast conspiracies to suppress information and silence critics, so perhaps you also do not trust the work of geologists with the theory of plate tectonics.
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/18/2018 07:47PM
So, I am kind of tapping out of this discussion, but I would like to take a moment to give MT some kudos for his enthusiasm.
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/18/2018 07:48PM
Also, I think Jim Tour is a very good scientist.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/18/2018 08:07PM
OSLO, you seem to know a lot about a lot, whereas I know a little about a lot. What's your background?
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/18/2018 08:11PM
missmolly: "OSLO, you seem to know a lot about a lot, whereas I know a little about a lot. What's your background? " I have unintentionally deceived you then, because I also know a little about a lot. I usually restrict my posts to subjects that I feel more confident about, and the other ones I just read and do not add my two cents. :) As far as my background goes, I have a couple of degrees in the sciences, and one in education.
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/18/2018 08:45PM
TheGreatIndoors: "WhiteWolf: "Here is one for ya...
we have an influence- but not much "



The author of this article has no clue what he's talking about. The premise of his argument completely misses the point that the changes in the climate are driven by how much energy from the sun is absorbed. Not as he says: "But do humans really generate enough energy to melt significant amounts of ice?" "

Your assessment is spot on. The article is baffling and irrelevant in a discussion about climate change. The energy from the sun absolutely dwarfs everything that humans produce. I think that I heard that the solar energy that strikes our planet in a couple of hours is greater than all of the energy humans produce in a year. Trapping even a small percentage more of that solar energy with greenhouse gases will have enormous consequences for the planet.
Chilly
distinguished member(1945)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/18/2018 11:20PM
If you're fishing for suckers, try click bait in chartreuse.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 05:17AM
OSLO: "missmolly: "OSLO, you seem to know a lot about a lot, whereas I know a little about a lot. What's your background? " I have unintentionally deceived you then, because I also know a little about a lot. I usually restrict my posts to subjects that I feel more confident about, and the other ones I just read and do not add my two cents. :) As far as my background goes, I have a couple of degrees in the sciences, and one in education."

I describe my knowledge as like the Okefenokee Swamp. I'm 438,000 acres of shallow knowledge, mostly muck. You, on the other hand, might not be Lake Baikal, but you're at least the Everglades and more likely Lake Erie, relatively shallow, but no swamp like me.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 07:00AM
TheGreatIndoors: "Also, I think Jim Tour is a very good scientist. "

Do you have to go so soon? Your my kind of opponent........thoughtful, reasonable and intellectually honest without feeling the need to denigrate in order to make your points. I do believe we could have some very entertaining and enlightening discussions.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 07:07AM
Oslo I never said that there was a vast conspiracy of scientists to suppress information. That is a mischaracterization of everything I have stated. Other than Climategate where climatologists did indeed falsify data to help substantiate a narrative I do not know of any other example.

What I am saying is that Climate Change has become a political movement with very powerful individuals and groups seeking to use Climate Change as a vehicle to gain power. These Statists (Utopian statist who believe if they could just have enough control they could provide a utopian world) are the ones who are suppressing any and all skepticism and that includes scientists particularly.

Because that is their fundamental argument.........i.e. that all scientists agree on man made global warming. If a certain percentage of scientists disagree or are dubious, then it casts doubt on the entire narrative. Thus the intolerance for disagreement.

The conspiracy isn't with the scientist, its rather with those who would punish the detractors, including scientists, who get out of line of what is politically correct. A simple example is the non publishing of what appears to be very credible work from several notable mathematicians concerning the faulty math with the Hockey stick graph. Why wasn't that at least open to peer review? Hardly a peep in the media as well. Now why is that?

The simple fact of the matter is to go against the politically correct mantras as a scientist (acceptance of evolution, Climate change etc) is to risk advancement in your career. You will be singled out and punished by the select few which hold the decisions on wether you get grants or get published.

Politics and science (or lack thereof) has always been intermingled throughout the history of mankind. To suggest otherwise is absurd. Men of science have lost their lives and their livelihood by proclaiming that which was against the grain of the current political framework of that era. That is fact, not opinion. Today the current political framework is the accumulation of power through Climate Change........go against it and be punished, its that simple.

For in order to "save the planet" the people must be convinced to empower government to have authority over their liberty and labors and that willingly. Convince them of certain destruction and they will beg to be serfs. From my perspective the government/s has created the illusion of a crisis, all so they can step in and solve it. It is the road to serfdom.
Dances with Sheep
distinguished member (258)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 07:41AM
missmolly: "Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: " Do you think that there is more and less water over time, that it's destroyed and recreated? " water lost "


Are you also suggesting that an additional 30,000 feet of water once existed? "


I am not stating that. I am merely addressing the portion of your posting that I quoted. There HAS been more and less water over time.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 07:55AM
Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: "Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: " Do you think that there is more and less water over time, that it's destroyed and recreated? " water lost "



Are you also suggesting that an additional 30,000 feet of water once existed? "



I am not stating that. I am merely addressing the portion of your posting that I quoted. There HAS been more and less water over time."


Here's what confused me: Lost to space isn't "destroyed" or "recreated." An H2O molecule is pretty sturdy, hard and dangerous to assemble and quick to change form rather than split.
inspector13
distinguished member(3863)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 08:10AM
Dances with Sheep: " water lost "
So maybe the critters that caused Earth’s first mass extinction actually saved the planet from becoming another Mars.

04/19/2018 08:24AM
JClimacus: "Has anyone read this yet? It strikes me as an extreme prediction, but then again, I'm not an expert in this matter. Any ecologists who can chime in?

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/04/16/climate-change-boundary-waters-grassland"


I think it is extreme, only time will tell and I won’t be here to tell him he was wrong or right.

I will say It seems he applies global warming predictions in a linear pattern to an area...Northern Minnesota...that has wildly fluctuating weather patterns. What I am saying is he doesn’t account for just plain weather. Since he wrote his paper 10years ago we have had 2-3 of the coldest summers on record and 2 of the latest ice out in history. That doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening but by not taking weather changes makes his predictions most likely extreme. Each long winter or cold summer can set back plant or animal migrations/changes several years.

To the general discussion that got generated about climate change...I think some of the biggest advocates of climate change, of which I believe the evidence supports, are it worst enemies. I would focus on what we can agree on...that renewable energy benefits the world and specifically the United States both economically and strategically and that we all benefit from less energy waste. There seems to be to much “right fighting”.

T

SammyN
distinguished member (174)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 08:27AM
SammyN: "Could someone be so kind as to post a graph, based upon glacier core samples (which gives is access to ancient climate), where CO2 preceded an increase in global warming?
I can't seem to find it.


Thanks!"


This seems to have been lost in the conversation.

Can someone please post a graph were increasing CO2 concentrations has lead to increased temps?

missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 08:52AM
timatkn: "JClimacus: "Has anyone read this yet? It strikes me as an extreme prediction, but then again, I'm not an expert in this matter. Any ecologists who can chime in?


https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/04/16/climate-change-boundary-waters-grassland"



I think it is extreme, only time will tell and I won’t be here to tell him he was wrong or right.


I will say It seems he applies global warming predictions in a linear pattern to an area...Northern Minnesota...that has wildly fluctuating weather patterns. What I am saying is he doesn’t account for just plain weather. Since he wrote his paper 10years ago we have had 2-3 of the coldest summers on record and 2 of the latest ice out in history. That doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening but by not taking weather changes makes his predictions most likely extreme. Each long winter or cold summer can set back plant or animal migrations/changes several years.


To the general discussion that got generated about climate change...I think some of the biggest advocates of climate change, of which I believe the evidence supports, are it worst enemies. I would focus on what we can agree on...that renewable energy benefits the world and specifically the United States both economically and strategically and that we all benefit from less energy waste. There seems to be to much “right fighting”.


T


"


I had a professor in a leadership class who used to draw unlabeled Venn diagrams, which confused us, but he eventually explained that leadership is seeing the overlap and getting disparate groups to begin the work there. Yep, I think most Americans can agree with this: "...renewable energy benefits the world and specifically the United States both economically and strategically and that we all benefit from less energy waste."
Dances with Sheep
distinguished member (258)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 08:54AM
missmolly: "Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: "Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: " Do you think that there is more and less water over time, that it's destroyed and recreated? " water lost "



Are you also suggesting that an additional 30,000 feet of water once existed? "




I am not stating that. I am merely addressing the portion of your posting that I quoted. There HAS been more and less water over time."



Here's what confused me: Lost to space isn't "destroyed" or "recreated." An H2O molecule is pretty sturdy, hard and dangerous to assemble and quick to change form rather than split. "


I'm drifting off topic so I'll leave you with this suggestion, review photosynthesis and combustion.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 08:55AM
inspector13: "Dances with Sheep: " water lost "
So maybe the critters that caused Earth’s first mass extinction actually saved the planet from becoming another Mars.

"


Thanks for the link. Good stuff!
TheGreatIndoors
senior member (54)senior membersenior member
 
04/19/2018 09:00AM
SammyN:
Can someone please post a graph were increasing CO2 concentrations has lead to increased temps?
"



Temps and CO2 graph
murphylakejim
distinguished member(549)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 09:09AM
TheGreatIndoors: "SammyN:
Can someone please post a graph were increasing CO2 concentrations has lead to increased temps?
"




Temps and CO2 graph "


cant really tell which is leading and which is following from a zoomed out perspective like that.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 10:05AM
Timatkn renewables are indeed a wonderful alternative and should have a broader application in the civil society IMO. Right now, however, they make up about 2% of the worlds energy needs (used more in developed countries).

And there are huge problems associated with renewable and Green energies. Take electric cars for example........the carbon footprint for their initial manufacturing rivals that of vehicles powered by fossil fuels. And over their lifetime, the amount of energy required from power plants to run them often surpasses emissions put out by conventional automobiles. Electric cars are often labeled "Coal powered cars" and rightfully so. Throw in the enormous subsidies that the taxpayer throws in (often $7500 or more) only to save some $35 worth of carbon and it is not so smart.

And of course who wants a wind farm to look at in their backyard? Some of the most unsightly things I have ever seen. Atrocious and responsible for numerous bird kills. And they are very expensive........expensive to manufacture, and expensive to maintain.

I like the idea of incorporating solar into new construction if at all feasible. The more they are used the more economical they will become.

I don't know of those on the conservative side opposing renewables as long as it is not the government imposing its will and either driving up the cost of fossil fuels to make renewables more competitive or passing laws requiring their usage.

arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 10:53AM
Thousands of farmers are more than happy to have wind turbines on their properties, because they provide a steady, excellent income.

It is now cheaper to produce electricity from the wind than it is from coal---hence, there are few new coal burning plants being built.

Conservatives tend to support at least as many subsidies as liberals do Crop insurance, flood insurance, crop subsidies, government funded irrigation projects, coal subsidies, etc, etc.
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 11:06AM
mastertangler: "Oslo I never said that there was a vast conspiracy of scientists to suppress information. That is a mischaracterization of everything I have stated. Other than Climategate where climatologists did indeed falsify data to help substantiate a narrative I do not know of any other example.

What I am saying is that Climate Change has become a political movement with very powerful individuals and groups seeking to use Climate Change as a vehicle to gain power. These Statists (Utopian statist who believe if they could just have enough control they could provide a utopian world) are the ones who are suppressing any and all skepticism and that includes scientists particularly.

Because that is their fundamental argument.........i.e. that all scientists agree on man made global warming. If a certain percentage of scientists disagree or are dubious, then it casts doubt on the entire narrative. Thus the intolerance for disagreement.

The conspiracy isn't with the scientist, its rather with those who would punish the detractors, including scientists, who get out of line of what is politically correct. A simple example is the non publishing of what appears to be very credible work from several notable mathematicians concerning the faulty math with the Hockey stick graph. Why wasn't that at least open to peer review? Hardly a peep in the media as well. Now why is that? "

I still don't understand your argument. When you are at a university and submit a paper for publication, you do not submit it to the government for review. You submit the paper to journals, and the editors then send those papers out for peer review. During peer review, other scientists working in your field review the paper and make recommendations about whether to publish. Each field has numerous journals which you can choose to try and publish in. So you see, for your conspiracy theory to actually work, all of the editors at all of the journals (who are scientists), and the peer reviewers (also other scientists), would have to be working together in a concerted effort to suppress information. To make matters even more difficult for your conspiracy theory, those editors and peer reviewers change, so even more people would have to be in on this cover-up. If something is not published in numerous journals, the reason is unlikely a massive cover-up, and instead is probably because the study had serious problems which made it unsuitable for publication. From what I have read, a critique of the hockey stick graph was published, but that paper focused on the methodology that Mann used. Numerous other independent studies by different scientists using methods Mann did not utilize have also produced a general hockey stick shaped curve though, so the graph is still used and actually has gained evidence to support it.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 12:15PM
Oslo could it be possible that the science of Global warming / Climate Change has been hijacked by an ideology which seeks to create a utopian society? People whose chief goal and ambition is to orchestrate society via legislation into a model that they envision?

And that this movement, the people who adhere to this ideology, believe that the ends justifies the means and therefore are quite willing NOT to engage in open and honest debate but are rather intolerant of dissent. And they seek to use the "crisis" of Climate Change to gain control of industry via carbon credits and the general public by creating a perception of dependance on a benovolent government (we will save you).

I would not want to be a scientist, in this day and age, and stand up and publicly state that I have very serious reservations about the Climate Change model. Not if I valued my career.

As I have already stated there has always been, to varying degrees, a political and scientific nexus throughout history. They are often intertwined. We are living in an age of intolerance, where the "wrong" views are punished and often severely so. This is nothing new and is rather more the norm than not.

I am not a scientist but rather a lover of history and a student of human nature. Climatologists were not so very long ago not at the forefront in terms of relevancy. But now, thanks to mass grants and profitable speaking engagements every word that they utter is now highly respected and sought after. Would it be likely, knowing human nature, that the inclination would be to continue on the pathway of personal success both financially and socially? It would be very easy, particularly knowing the consequences which await should one have dissenting or skeptical views, to continue along the path of the politically correct narrative? I say yes, yes it would and why we needs be very careful and continue the science without political intervention.

I do not agree that the "debate is over" and I suspect that a great many scientists may believe in global warming but are all over the map as to what extent mankind has in creating it. There are far to many variables involved for anyone to conclusively state with any authority what is the cause. It is just as likely to be sunspot activity from the sun which is creating warming.

missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 12:45PM
"Electric cars are often labeled "Coal powered cars" and rightfully so."

Natural gas produces more electricity in the U.S. than coal.

Nuclear produces 20% of our electricity and renewables 17%.

Find the people who calls them coal-powered cars and correct them, please.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 12:58PM
missmolly: ""Electric cars are often labeled "Coal powered cars" and rightfully so."


Natural gas produces more electricity in the U.S. than coal.


Nuclear produces 20% of our electricity and renewables 17%.


Find the people who calls them coal-powered cars and correct them, please. "


Yes I am glad that natural gas has become much more prevalent than it used to be. Is that because of fracking?

Anyway........I will present this and we can toss it around some.

Electric cars
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 02:04PM
mastertangler: "missmolly: ""Electric cars are often labeled "Coal powered cars" and rightfully so."



Natural gas produces more electricity in the U.S. than coal.



Nuclear produces 20% of our electricity and renewables 17%.



Find the people who calls them coal-powered cars and correct them, please. "



Yes I am glad that natural gas has become much more prevalent than it used to be. Is that because of fracking?


Anyway........I will present this and we can toss it around some.


Electric cars "


Ahh, so it's cartoon people who call them "coal-powered cars." ;-)
dele
distinguished member (105)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 02:17PM
mastertangler: "


I don't know of those on the conservative side opposing renewables as long as it is not the government imposing its will and either driving up the cost of fossil fuels to make renewables more competitive or passing laws requiring their usage.


"


This is an interesting point, MT, and one I have seen you make multiple times in this thread. I understand and appreciate your preference for the government not being the thing to determine which energy sources we use.

What would you think if it turned out that for most of the past century or so the U.S. government has in fact been doing everything it can to make the production and consumption of fossil fuels cheaper? Oil companies receive enormous subsidies and tax breaks. Regular people like you and me pay for much of the cost of their drilling when they drill in publicly owned areas. We also invest heavily in infrastructure that favors automobiles, and much less in infrastructure that favors mass transit. By favoring infrastructure that heavily favors private cars, the government creates a much larger market for oil than might otherwise exist, which basically guarantees oil companies a return on their most expensive investments. Because of public policies that favor private cars over bus and rail transit, millions and millions of people have no choice but to drive to work every day instead of taking a bus or train. That guarantees a huge market for gasoline that might not be there if it weren't for the government's support of the infrastructure underlying it. Take a look at the history of Twin City transit - the old Minneapolis streetcar system - for an example.

Would oil companies be drilling hundreds of miles out to seas if they didn't have a guaranteed huge market for their products? And if that market was created by the government's explicit choices to invest in car infrastructure more than mass transit infrastructure, well then isn't the government now propping up the oil industry in much the same way as you say it shouldn't prop up renewables?

I completely understand your preference that the government not be the agent that decides which energy sources get used. But in applying this perspective, I'd encourage you to apply the same scrutiny to the past and current dominance of fossil fuel sources as you do to the potential future investment in renewables.

mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 05:10PM
Americans have been given a choice since its inception........mass transit or personal transportation. They have overwhelmingly decided in favor of personal transportation. I get to decide when and where I will go. Thats just reality and in a free society there is little one can do to change that preference. Certainly there are times and places where mass transit makes sense and a free people are free to choose it.........the commute from downtown Chicago to the northern suburbs for example via electric train. I have ridden it numerous times, convenient indeed. What I would be loathe to accept however, is government imposing its will and declaring that we MUST use mass transit........that we MUST use solar power.......etc. etc. This would be the work of the micro managers, the Utopian Statists who believe they can better manage our lives than we can.

I am with you on government providing tax breaks (they arent subsidies BTW). I understand the motivation behind these tax breaks........the government is trying to level the playing field for smaller companies to be able to compete. I get that, but thats not governments job. Let the chips fall where they may. Laws which prevent monopolies are good however but preferential treatment is not so good. Since the bottom 50% of Americans pay little or no Federal income tax let us not be so quick to despise big oil which pays many $$$ in taxes every year and provides us with fuel to power our autos and does so in an amazingly safe and convenient way. I happen to like the oil companies and think they do a fine job.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 05:29PM
missmolly: "mastertangler: "missmolly: ""Electric cars are often labeled "Coal powered cars" and rightfully so."



Natural gas produces more electricity in the U.S. than coal.



Nuclear produces 20% of our electricity and renewables 17%.



Find the people who calls them coal-powered cars and correct them, please. "




Yes I am glad that natural gas has become much more prevalent than it used to be. Is that because of fracking?



Anyway........I will present this and we can toss it around some.



Electric cars "



Ahh, so it's cartoon people who call them "coal-powered cars." ;-)"


How did I guess you would mock what was put forward? Some things never change. How about some more cartoons for your viewing pleasure? Just close your eyes and then perhaps we can discuss in an intellectually honest way what you disagree with and where the presenter is mistaken. As always, I am open minded and intellectually curious.



Wind and solar
Atb
distinguished member (190)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 06:21PM
This just in...scientists subject to human nature too:

primitiveguy
senior member (69)senior membersenior member
 
04/19/2018 06:26PM
mastertangler: "Oslo could it be possible that the science of Global warming / Climate Change has been hijacked by an ideology which seeks to create a utopian society? People whose chief goal and ambition is to orchestrate society via legislation into a model that they envision?


And that this movement, the people who adhere to this ideology, believe that the ends justifies the means and therefore are quite willing NOT to engage in open and honest debate but are rather intolerant of dissent. And they seek to use the "crisis" of Climate Change to gain control of industry via carbon credits and the general public by creating a perception of dependance on a benovolent government (we will save you).


I would not want to be a scientist, in this day and age, and stand up and publicly state that I have very serious reservations about the Climate Change model. Not if I valued my career.


As I have already stated there has always been, to varying degrees, a political and scientific nexus throughout history. They are often intertwined. We are living in an age of intolerance, where the "wrong" views are punished and often severely so. This is nothing new and is rather more the norm than not.


I am not a scientist but rather a lover of history and a student of human nature. Climatologists were not so very long ago not at the forefront in terms of relevancy. But now, thanks to mass grants and profitable speaking engagements every word that they utter is now highly respected and sought after. Would it be likely, knowing human nature, that the inclination would be to continue on the pathway of personal success both financially and socially? It would be very easy, particularly knowing the consequences which await should one have dissenting or skeptical views, to continue along the path of the politically correct narrative? I say yes, yes it would and why we needs be very careful and continue the science without political intervention.


I do not agree that the "debate is over" and I suspect that a great many scientists may believe in global warming but are all over the map as to what extent mankind has in creating it. There are far to many variables involved for anyone to conclusively state with any authority what is the cause. It is just as likely to be sunspot activity from the sun which is creating warming.


"

Ah, no.
dele
distinguished member (105)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 06:29PM
mastertangler: "Americans have been given a choice since its inception........mass transit or personal transportation. They have overwhelmingly decided in favor of personal transportation. I get to decide when and where I will go. Thats just reality and in a free society there is little one can do to change that preference. Certainly there are times and places where mass transit makes sense and a free people are free to choose it.........the commute from downtown Chicago to the northern suburbs for example via electric train. I have ridden it numerous times, convenient indeed. What I would be loathe to accept however, is government imposing its will and declaring that we MUST use mass transit........that we MUST use solar power.......etc. etc. This would be the work of the micro managers, the Utopian Statists who believe they can better manage our lives than we can.


I am with you on government providing tax breaks (they arent subsidies BTW). I understand the motivation behind these tax breaks........the government is trying to level the playing field for smaller companies to be able to compete. I get that, but thats not governments job. Let the chips fall where they may. Laws which prevent monopolies are good however but preferential treatment is not so good. Since the bottom 50% of Americans pay little or no Federal income tax let us not be so quick to despise big oil which pays many $$$ in taxes every year and provides us with fuel to power our autos and does so in an amazingly safe and convenient way. I happen to like the oil companies and think they do a fine job. "


I agree with you to a point here, but I think there are two important caveats.

1. I don't think the cars v. transit choice is as much a choice for everybody as you do. We've systematically invested in infrastructure that makes it easier to drive than do anything else. I agree that fifty, sixty years ago, when the freeways were being built, people made that choice. But those were choices based on different underlying conditions. A smaller population, less crowded roads, and, importantly, no knowledge of WHAT our choice to drive meant for the environment. These days we have more people than our freeway system can accommodate, at least in large cities. And people believe - I would say that they know, but I respect your opinion that they could be wrong - that their choice to drive is contributing to the long term deterioration of our planet and its atmosphere.

People like me today are making a choice, but doing so on a slanted playing field because earlier generations made it almost impossible for many people to choose other modes of transport than personal automobiles. I choose to take the bus/train to and from work. I know lots of other people who wish they could make that choice, but can't - because we have invested in freeways instead of mass transit, and because gas taxes are so low that they incentivize driving compared to other choices. Driving is artificially cheap because drivers aren't paying the true social and environmental costs that come with having billions of people burning gasoline to transport themselves most places they need to go (including not only road maintenance, but also environmental cleanup, etc.)

2. Oil companies do a good job of bringing us oil, but they are also lobbying heavily against government investments in renewables and mass transit that would even out the playing field for those projects. Check out the article linked below. I'll fully admit it's written by a liberal that you may deem to be biased, but the facts and logic are convincing to me.

https://thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd

I think that reinvestment in transit and in renewables to level out the playing field on which people make their personal choices is warranted, given the above.
ellahallely
distinguished member (350)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 06:43PM
missmolly: ""Electric cars are often labeled "Coal powered cars" and rightfully so."


Natural gas produces more electricity in the U.S. than coal.


Nuclear produces 20% of our electricity and renewables 17%.


Find the people who calls them coal-powered cars and correct them, please. "


Not in Minnesota we are a coal burning state. 44% coal, 21% nuclear, 13% natural gas, 21% renewables. However we really like to think we are a green state.
scat
distinguished member(523)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 07:01PM
I will be 139 years old in 2100. Should I really give a rat’s red rectum? First find me the fountain of youth, then I’ll start panicking.
I must have missed that electric train from Chicago to the north suburbs. Funny, because I’ve lived here for 56 years and haven’t seen it yet. There is a third rail network in the city and out to O’Hare airport, so you were not that far off I guess. Just got it a tad misconstrued perhaps. Maybe it’s a direction thing. North, west, ah what the heck, I know it’s there somewhere. If it works for my argument I’ll throw it in there just for kicks. It’s the new scientific method if I say so.
Discussions like this make me want to put my tongue on the middle rail and fry my brain once and for all. Talk about getting off the track. Round and around in a circle like my Lionel electric train. Work on that fountain of youth thing and get back to me. Preciate it. Cheers.
04/19/2018 07:18PM
arctic: "Thousands of farmers are more than happy to have wind turbines on their properties, because they provide a steady, excellent income.

."


I know a lot of farmers that no longer think this and are now telling their neighbors to not sign up. It is a steady income but they take up more land and reduce yields more than what was promised. The problem is in the contracts is that each turbine needs it own road that the farmer cannot legally use and easements on farmers reduces their rights to farm the land. Since the turbines are subsidized by the government the farmers seem to have little recourse. You also have to consider you are taking prime farm land and essentially taking it out of food production——can we afford to do that in the future?



Why some farmers hate wind turbines

The one in this back ground the farmer jokingly offered us exclusive rights if we could destroy it :)
mutz
distinguished member(1266)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 08:38PM
Henny-penny the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 08:40PM
ellahallely: "Not in Minnesota we are a coal burning state. 44% coal, 21% nuclear, 13% natural gas, 21% renewables. However we really like to think we are a green state."

What was it 20 years ago? Times are a changing. Cars didn't replace horses in a couple of years, and it was DECADES after the first flight at Kitty Hawk until the public was flying at any frequency.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 08:43PM
timatkn: "arctic: "Thousands of farmers are more than happy to have wind turbines on their properties, because they provide a steady, excellent income.


."



I know a lot of farmers that no longer think this and are now telling their neighbors to not sign up. It is a steady income but they take up more land and reduce yields more than what was promised. The problem is in the contracts is that each turbine needs it own road that the farmer cannot legally use and easements on farmers reduces their rights to farm the land. Since the turbines are subsidized by the government the farmers seem to have little recourse. You also have to consider you are taking prime farm land and essentially taking it out of food production——can we afford to do that in the future?



Why some farmers hate wind turbines


The one in this back ground the farmer jokingly offered us exclusive rights if we could destroy it :)"


I would like to see the percentages. Also, what would the demand for income from wind turbines be if the government was not subsidizing corn and soybeans, as well as crop insurance?
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 08:54PM
mastertangler: "Oslo could it be possible that the science of Global warming / Climate Change has been hijacked by an ideology which seeks to create a utopian society? People whose chief goal and ambition is to orchestrate society via legislation into a model that they envision? "

So, you really think the ENTIRE WORLD has been hijacked by utopians? Give me a break!
It has been my experience that the VAST majority of people who reject climate science are the same ones who reject evolution, but DO subscribe to some sort of unverifiable religious mythology (take your pick: there are several main beliefs, and thousands of minor ones), but offer ZERO evidence to support those beliefs. Kinda weird, and as they say "a mind is a terrible thing to waste"!
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 09:02PM
mastertangler: "Oslo could it be possible that the science of Global warming / Climate Change has been hijacked by an ideology which seeks to create a utopian society? People whose chief goal and ambition is to orchestrate society via legislation into a model that they envision? Well anything is possible, but that doesn't mean such an idea is probable, rational, or supported by evidence.

And that this movement, the people who adhere to this ideology, believe that the ends justifies the means and therefore are quite willing NOT to engage in open and honest debate but are rather intolerant of dissent. And they seek to use the "crisis" of Climate Change to gain control of industry via carbon credits and the general public by creating a perception of dependance on a benovolent government (we will save you). Again, who are these boogeymen you keep talking about? Politicians? Scientists? You never did address my post above. You keep talking about how a massive conspiracy is leading to climate scientists not being allowed to publish studies critical of climate change, but then you don't address how you think that is actually happening. On top of all of that, you deny that you are accusing scientists of being part of a conspiracy, despite the fact that they are the ones who are the editors and peer reviewers for professional journals. Can you please clarify how exactly you think this supposed suppression of certain scientists is happening?

I would not want to be a scientist, in this day and age, and stand up and publicly state that I have very serious reservations about the Climate Change model. Not if I valued my career. I would have absolutely no reservations about doing so if I had compelling evidence to support myself. If I was just throwing out unsupported claims that ran counter to the body of evidence in the literature, then yes, that would be a really poor career move.

I am not a scientist but rather a lover of history and a student of human nature. Climatologists were not so very long ago not at the forefront in terms of relevancy. But now, thanks to mass grants and profitable speaking engagements every word that they utter is now highly respected and sought after. Would it be likely, knowing human nature, that the inclination would be to continue on the pathway of personal success both financially and socially? It would be very easy, particularly knowing the consequences which await should one have dissenting or skeptical views, to continue along the path of the politically correct narrative? I say yes, yes it would and why we needs be very careful and continue the science without political intervention. Seriously? First, scientists are somehow involved in some sort of cabal of "Utopian Statists" who have manufactured a false crisis to further their agenda. Now, the narrative seems to be that climatologists are getting rich off of the massive scam of climate change, so they are willing to be completely unethical and just maintain the status quo regardless of what the evidence really supports. That seems like a lot of work and risk, particularly when climate scientists aren't even close to being the highest paid in the field of science. Who owns that title? Many lists that I have seen have given that honor to mining and petroleum engineers and scientists.
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 09:07PM
arctic: "ellahallely: "Not in Minnesota we are a coal burning state. 44% coal, 21% nuclear, 13% natural gas, 21% renewables. However we really like to think we are a green state."


What was it 20 years ago? Times are a changing. Cars didn't replace horses in a couple of years, and it was DECADES after the first flight at Kitty Hawk until the public was flying at any frequency."
The most recent data I could find are 39.6% coal, 21.7% nuclear, 11.8% natural gas, 26.3% renewables. I know that plans to shut down some more coal plants in MN are in the works too.
scat
distinguished member(523)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/19/2018 09:31PM
Say, next time you talk to your friend God, can you ask him to tone down those pesky sunspots a tad. Damn things is messin up the scenery.
TomT
distinguished member(5009)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/19/2018 09:54PM
I'm half expecting Alex Jones to chime in on this thread. Oh wait... here he is now.

Climate Change

04/20/2018 12:44AM
arctic: "timatkn: "arctic: "Thousands of farmers are more than happy to have wind turbines on their properties, because they provide a steady, excellent income.



."




I know a lot of farmers that no longer think this and are now telling their neighbors to not sign up. It is a steady income but they take up more land and reduce yields more than what was promised. The problem is in the contracts is that each turbine needs it own road that the farmer cannot legally use and easements on farmers reduces their rights to farm the land. Since the turbines are subsidized by the government the farmers seem to have little recourse. You also have to consider you are taking prime farm land and essentially taking it out of food production——can we afford to do that in the future?




Why some farmers hate wind turbines



The one in this back ground the farmer jokingly offered us exclusive rights if we could destroy it :)"



I would like to see the percentages. Also, what would the demand for income from wind turbines be if the government was not subsidizing corn and soybeans, as well as crop insurance?"


All I can say is I was shocked by farmer responses. I only had positive thoughts on turbines...as did everyone in the area...now it is very mixed. Everyone in Franklin county was all excited and positive about Turbines and the promises when they first came through with contracts....now everyone I know wants out but can’t get out of them. Small sample size but Franklin county is one of the highest density turbine areas. As far as your question goes...apples to oranges but nice deflection :)
Yellowbird
distinguished member (105)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/20/2018 06:14AM
arctic: . . . but DO subscribe to some sort of unverifiable religious mythology
You mean of the "sort" that life originated out of lifeless elements? It's off topic, but agreed, you make a valid point.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 07:22AM
Scat perhaps I assumed the train was electric since lots of electrical lines hang overhead........but if you missed the train to the northern suburbs what can I say? The tracks are right next to the Dan Ryan and serve the north shore.

Oslo your not alone. Most of our society cannot wrap their head around an ideology which is opposed to our Constitution (it limits them) and the traditions and principles of a free people. This ideology seeks complete control via government and are a throwback to days of long ago (centralized bureaucracy). This ideology believes that they can provide a Utopian Society if they could but have complete control over the citizens. This is not new and more the norm throughout human history than the exception. The United States, an experiment in the government serving at the behest of the people, is a shining exception.

The "people" I speak of are the ones I have already mentioned. Who decides to give grants? Who are they and do they have an agenda? And the people who get to decide if your work gets published? Think it is an open minded process based entirely on merit? Or is it a relively few in power who decide if "they like you"? All of this decision making is behind closed doors.......we can only infer what is going on due to the complaints of those effected.

Arctic the mythology you seem to disregard is the primary motivating factor on this planet. Certainly for western culture. Our time is based on it (AD / BC), our laws are largely based on it as well as the structuring of the civil society. The Bible is the best selling book in human history and has effected more people's lives than any other philosophy. And in fact, if the teachings of Christ were followed (love your neighbor as yourself) the world would be a paradise. Mythologies don't heal scars before your eyes, rather it is the power of God. One has only to look outside to recognize that there is a designer and therefore will be without excuse.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 07:38AM
ellahallely: "missmolly: ""Electric cars are often labeled "Coal powered cars" and rightfully so."



Natural gas produces more electricity in the U.S. than coal.



Nuclear produces 20% of our electricity and renewables 17%.



Find the people who calls them coal-powered cars and correct them, please. "



Not in Minnesota we are a coal burning state. 44% coal, 21% nuclear, 13% natural gas, 21% renewables. However we really like to think we are a green state."


Here's the trend in Minnesota: "About 39% of utility-scale electricity generation in Minnesota came from coal-fired electric power plants in 2017, down from 49% in 2014."
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 07:40AM
"I would not want to be a scientist, in this day and age, and stand up and publicly state that I have very serious reservations about the Climate Change model. Not if I valued my career."

That's not how science works. You think you enter a conundrum with your explanation pre-decided. You follow the data.
ellahallely
distinguished member (350)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/20/2018 07:41AM
Here's the trend in Minnesota: "About 39% of utility-scale electricity generation in Minnesota came from coal-fired electric power plants in 2017, down from 49% in 2014."

...and that's a good thing. I hope we all agree. Sure wish we could get more hydro with all the water in this state.
inspector13
distinguished member(3863)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/20/2018 07:48AM
dele: "...Take a look at the history of Twin City transit - the old Minneapolis streetcar system - for an example..."
Not to skate the tangent totally into oblivion, but:

Speaking of conspiracy theories. Although shenanigans went on, the demise of the street car system in the Twin Cities (which was a private company by the way) was about cost and convenience. Just like most services. By the time they were replaced, the system was old and decrepit. The public didn’t like the streetcars blocking their way when they stopped to pick up or drop off passengers either, since they ran down the middle of the roads.

I think Fred Heywood did a great job in designing the new bus routes in the 1950s. He even has a building named after him. But then again, he was my mom’s best friend’s (still to this day) father.

mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 07:49AM
missmolly: ""I would not want to be a scientist, in this day and age, and stand up and publicly state that I have very serious reservations about the Climate Change model. Not if I valued my career."


That's not how science works. You think you enter a conundrum with your explanation pre-decided. You follow the data. "


So we will be at loggerheads. Those who want to believe that science is as pure as the wind driven snow and completely free from outside influences and pressures, both social and economic. That is the land of theory, how you wish things are.

And then there is reality. A reality which has been proven true throughout history, that science is often usurped by politics and can be corrupted. That scientists can lose not only their careers but their lives by going against the politics of the era.

I by no means claim that all of science is subject to the whims of politics or powerful people. Some scientists are beyond reproach and can say whatsoever they desire. But there are certain politically correct causes, like climate change, which has literally billions of dollars in play convincing the peoples of the world of imminent destruction. A scientist can dissent at their own risk. Punishment is most certain to follow and they will be smeared, slandered or if possible destroyed. This power grab is intolerant of dissent and they understand that they have a very limited time frame to consolidate their gains and goal since eventually Climate Change will only cause a yawn from the populace as they understand that no cataclysmic event is upon them.
dele
distinguished member (105)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/20/2018 07:50AM
mastertangler: "Oslo your not alone. Most of our society cannot wrap their head around an ideology which is opposed to our Constitution (it limits them) and the traditions and principles of a free people. This ideology seeks complete control via government and are a throwback to days of long ago (centralized bureaucracy). This ideology believes that they can provide a Utopian Society if they could but have complete control over the citizens. This is not new and more the norm throughout human history than the exception. The United States, an experiment in the government serving at the behest of the people, is a shining exception.


The "people" I speak of are the ones I have already mentioned. Who decides to give grants? Who are they and do they have an agenda? And the people who get to decide if your work gets published? Think it is an open minded process based entirely on merit? Or is it a relively few in power who decide if "they like you"? All of this decision making is behind closed doors.......we can only infer what is going on due to the complaints of those effected.
"


With all due respect, what you are saying here is deeply unfounded at best. You are suggesting that most scientists are part of a vast anti-American conspiracy that the rest of us can't even wrap our heads around because it is so wildly contradictory to American values, and that some secret society of "utopian statists" are responsible for deciding which scientists get funded and published.

To support this view you have presented precisely zero evidence. If you are going to accuse an entire profession of being part of an anti-American conspiracy, the least you could do is explain how you think it works. As Oslo asked - can you please explain how you think the conspiracy actually happens. Do you think a bunch of scientists got together in a dark room and decided to take over the editorial positions of the top journals and agree not to publish any studies contrary to what they think?

Scientific publication decisions are made by respected professionals typically elected by their peers through professional organizations. To reach decision on publishing a research report they consult experts in the specific area of research being conducted. These peer reviewers advise the editors on whether the research was conducted via sound scientific method and whether the conclusions the authors state are actually supported by the work that was done. If an author thinks that their work was rejected for illegitimate reasons - such as ideological bias - they can usually appeal. If one journal decides not to publish a piece, the author can send it to another journal, and if it's good science, it will be published. Journals compete for readership and they are not interested in turning down pieces that will gain attention - as long as they are based on good science. If a young scientist wanted to set him/herself up for a great career, one of the surest ways to do that would be to publish a well-founded critique of a widely accepted theory. In the case of climate change, that would be very hard to do. Not because of ideological objection by the gatekeepers, but because it would be hard to develop sound scientific evidence that the prevailing theory is wrong.

The idea that these people are part of some deep conspiracy is pretty offensive. I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm not going to presume to know enough about it to accuse you and your colleagues as being anti-American conspirators. Please afford me and mine the same respect.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 08:12AM
OSLO, sorry for the redundancy. I hadn't read to the end of the thread before my two prior posts and I basically repeated what you'd already said, not having yet read your latest posts.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 08:58AM
ellahallely: " Here's the trend in Minnesota: "About 39% of utility-scale electricity generation in Minnesota came from coal-fired electric power plants in 2017, down from 49% in 2014."

...and that's a good thing. I hope we all agree. Sure wish we could get more hydro with all the water in this state."


Well, you and I sure agree. I don't know about Arctic, though. I'm guessing that guy thinks Minnesota should burn old tires.
inspector13
distinguished member(3863)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/20/2018 09:20AM
ellahallely: "Sure wish we could get more hydro with all the water in this state."
Didn’t you see this year’s 10 most endangered rivers list? Two, the Mississippi and Kinnickinnic, are on it because of dams...

missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 09:27AM
"Those who want to believe that science is as pure as the wind driven snow and completely free from outside influences and pressures, both social and economic. That is the land of theory, how you wish things are."

This doesn't describe me. I've told you several times that I don't think in absolutes. I see gray. I see goodness and evil, sloth and intellectual rigor, in most disciplines. Again, I'm no zealot and I don't bandy in reductive thinking.

However, I am generally impressed by scientists. I've interviewed scores of them and chatted with others. They are a cautious lot and caution impresses me. Methodical too, which is the cherry atop their caution.

You ascribe financial gain to global warming. Okay, follow the money. Rex Tillerson was paid $180,000,000 by Exxon when he left. His predecessor, Lee Raymond, was paid $400,000,000. Burning carbon and denying climate change is where the money is.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 10:46AM
missmolly: "ellahallely: " Here's the trend in Minnesota: "About 39% of utility-scale electricity generation in Minnesota came from coal-fired electric power plants in 2017, down from 49% in 2014."


...and that's a good thing. I hope we all agree. Sure wish we could get more hydro with all the water in this state."



Well, you and I sure agree. I don't know about Arctic, though. I'm guessing that guy thinks Minnesota should burn old tires. "


Just tires? How about green-treated lumber, old computers, railroad ties, and fast-food grease?
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 10:49AM
mastertangler: "And in fact, if the teachings of Christ were followed (love your neighbor as yourself) the world would be a paradise. Mythologies don't heal scars before your eyes, rather it is the power of God. One has only to look outside to recognize that there is a designer and therefore will be without excuse. "

Listen, I have no problem with Christ, but knowing how Christianity was shaped in the centuries after his death, I've yet to see ANY evidence of the supernatural. And, as I've said before, the rules stated in the Ten Commandments are fairly universal across cultures and religions. Certainly, they are far older.

Nearly everyone will seek science to cure their medical problems (cancer, heart disease, etc), because prayer and wishful thinking ain't gonna do it.

Now, I'm sure you are going to say the God works through science, but that would be saying that people today are more valuable and worthy than those who lived before the scientific age. The knowledge and skills accrued through science have ended an immense amount of human suffering.

A person cured of cancer today would have been left to suffer a horrific, painful death in past centuries--with NO supernatural interference from a "loving God". Sad facts.

mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 11:25AM
Arrrrgh! Dele I am not saying there is a conspiracy of scientist to mislead the public.

What I am saying, as per Climate Change, is there are outside pressures for scientists to A) either arrive at politically correct narratives or, B) suppression of dissenting voices.

As per scenario A) when the government is supplying hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of grants (as well as other sources) to study global warming and climate change there is considerable pressure brought to bear to find affirmative and conclusive results.

B ) As per pressure brought to bear on not only scientists, but politicians, professors and ordinary folks who are skeptical of climate change is unrelenting and intolerant. The movement is completely intolerant of dissenting voices. It seeks to silence those who are skeptical and in particular are the scientists on whose affirmation the entire Climate Change scenario is hanging upon. They particularly, have a target painted on them should they decide to publicly espouse their doubts. I applaud those scientists whose first allegiance is to the science and are able to bear up to the slings and arrows cast their way. There is actually a movement afoot to silence "climate deniers" and treat is as a crime. Hows that for open minded tolerance?

Climate change deniers should be a crime
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 11:30AM
arctic: "missmolly: "ellahallely: " Here's the trend in Minnesota: "About 39% of utility-scale electricity generation in Minnesota came from coal-fired electric power plants in 2017, down from 49% in 2014."



...and that's a good thing. I hope we all agree. Sure wish we could get more hydro with all the water in this state."




Well, you and I sure agree. I don't know about Arctic, though. I'm guessing that guy thinks Minnesota should burn old tires. "



Just tires? How about green-treated lumber, old computers, railroad ties, and fast-food grease? "


LOL...really!
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 11:31AM
arctic: "mastertangler: "And in fact, if the teachings of Christ were followed (love your neighbor as yourself) the world would be a paradise. Mythologies don't heal scars before your eyes, rather it is the power of God. One has only to look outside to recognize that there is a designer and therefore will be without excuse. "


Listen, I have no problem with Christ, but knowing how Christianity was shaped in the centuries after his death, I've yet to see ANY evidence of the supernatural. And, as I've said before, the rules stated in the Ten Commandments are fairly universal across cultures and religions. Certainly, they are far older.


Nearly everyone will seek science to cure their medical problems (cancer, heart disease, etc), because prayer and wishful thinking ain't gonna do it.


Now, I'm sure you are going to say the God works through science, but that would be saying that people today are more valuable and worthy than those who lived before the scientific age. The knowledge and skills accrued through science have ended an immense amount of human suffering.


A person cured of cancer today would have been left to suffer a horrific, painful death in past centuries--with NO supernatural interference from a "loving God". Sad facts.


"


Keep up the clarity and cogency and I'll be worshiping you soon, my cyber-friend.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 12:01PM
Arctic I would argue that the inclusion of God into the life of humanity, both on a societal as well as personal level, brings forth knowledge and wisdom. It is not by happenstance that the civilizations influenced by Christian thought (and imbued by the very presence of God) have reached far greater heights in almost every cultural and scientific aspect than those without. Politically incorrect statement to be sure but true nonetheless. The advancement of mankind was pretty much flat lined until the coming of Christ. Then it has shot up exponentially and as the Bible foretold "in the latter days there will be an increase in knowledge and many will go to and fro".

Humanity has the unique opportunity to have the Holy spirit, the Spirit of Reality, to have residence within their being. How would it not benefit a person to have the creative and imaginative powers of the one who knows everything, all mysteries, to act as "a helper"? Christian thought is not one which denies science but rather embraces it as it is in simpatico with the creator of this planet and all therein.

I have no problem with those who seek doctors. But to suggest that prayer and faith in the supernatural is futile is simply false. The reason Christianity gained such an immediate acknowledgement was that Jesus (the Christ), and later his followers, would go about doing that which by any human reasoning was simply impossible. And it still happens to this day..........that is the laying on of hands and healing of the sick. That is common knowledge. I have experienced healings several times including the disappearance of scar tissue which had left both of my legs (along the top of the shin bones) rough, bumpy, unsightly and red. Two Holy Spirit filled women (one my grandmother) prayed over me and a very great peace overwhelmed me and in about 15 minutes my flesh was like new. Such experiences are a dime a dozen........so you are simply wrong to suggest that the Bible is a myth and healing through prayer is futile.
dele
distinguished member (105)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/20/2018 12:08PM
mastertangler: "There is actually a movement afoot to silence "climate deniers" and treat is as a crime. Hows that for open minded tolerance?

Climate change deniers should be a crime "


You are grabbing something way, way outside the mainstream and treating it as though it defined everyone who studies climate change.

There are some very very fringe Christians who believe that women who have an abortion should be hanged, and that gay people should be killed. You defining the entire community of scientists working on this issue by that one article would be like me defining all who call themselves Christians by the antics of Westboro Baptist Church (the people in Kansas who believe that 9/11 was God's punishment of the US for tolerating homosexuality).

Yes, there are fringe whackos on every issue. That they exist on climate change, like on anything else, doesn't mean that the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong, or that dissenting views are systematically being suppressed.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 12:18PM
It is not fringe Dele. There is intolerance for dissent, period. That is not in question. I have been oft attacked, smeared and slandered for suggesting that "the debate is not over" and the real science does not show the kind of alarmism which should cause the civil society to allow government control over our means of production (which is what the climate change advocates want).

President Obama stated worldwide that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity.......not nuclear proliferation, not islamic fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction but climate change, and then went on to talk about "climate change deniers" making an obvious link with holocaust deniers. Not a pretty picture.

Deny man made Climate Change and you will be attacked its that simple. For some the attack may be very costly and it could cause you to be less successful in your chosen career and thus there would be considerable inducement to just go along to get along and leave it up to others to wether the storm.



Dances with Sheep
distinguished member (258)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/20/2018 12:38PM
Perhaps it is time to call it a day and move on from this discussion. It is clear that neither side is convincing the other. Most of the discusion has been civil (minus the anti-religous insults) but it feels like this has reached an impasse.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 01:27PM
mastertangler: " There is intolerance for dissent, period. That is not in question. I have been oft attacked, smeared and slandered for suggesting that "the debate is not over" and the real science does not show the kind of alarmism which should cause the civil society to allow government control over our means of production (which is what the climate change advocates want).
"


So, what kind of dissent should be tolerated? There are plenty of people who believe that black people are cognitively inferior to whites. There are plenty who still believe in the ideology of Adolf Hitler. Some folks believe the moon landings were faked, and that the 9-11 attacks were staged by the US government.

Should these people get equal time and consideration in the public arena?
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 01:32PM
mastertangler: "President Obama stated worldwide that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity.......not nuclear proliferation, not islamic fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction but climate change, and then went on to talk about "climate change deniers" making an obvious link with holocaust deniers. Not a pretty picture."

On a longer time scale he is absolutely right, because the impacts will be everywhere and affect everyone.

Terrorism and nuclear proliferation are clear threats in the near term and need to be addressed, but a greater threat is looming that will be very difficult to overcome without a united response.
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 01:45PM
Benny Hinn has people who filter who can approach him for "healing." There are never amputees. Maybe God hates amputees.
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/20/2018 03:58PM
mastertangler: "Arrrrgh! Dele I am not saying there is a conspiracy of scientist to mislead the public.

What I am saying, as per Climate Change, is there are outside pressures for scientists to A) either arrive at politically correct narratives or, B) suppression of dissenting voices.

As per scenario A) when the government is supplying hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of grants (as well as other sources) to study global warming and climate change there is considerable pressure brought to bear to find affirmative and conclusive results.

This still makes no sense to me. Our government supplies less than half of the funding for basic research in this country. The remainder comes from universities, non-profits, and industry. Even if the government supplied all of the grant money, administrations obviously do change. Not only that, but grants fund research, not fixed outcomes. Perhaps the biggest problem with this is that you are insinuating that scientists--professionals dedicated to researching and learning about the world--are fabricating and/or burying data on a large scale. Oh, and then there is the fact that science is a global endeavor, so all of those supposed pressures would have to be applied all over the Earth as well.

If you didn't catch that industry is a major source of funding for research, that is also worth noting. Even if the incredibly far-fetched scenario above was actually playing out, any scientist who felt pressured to support climate change could seek money in industry. I'm sure that certain companies would be absolutely throwing money at any legitimate researcher who approached them with compelling evidence that did not support climate change.

I see no mention of article publication in your post, but you have written about it in the past. Are you relenting on that issue, and admitting that blocking publication of anti-climate change articles solely on the basis of their conclusions would require a concerted global effort of scientists in that field to suppress such papers across all journals (in other words, a massive conspiracy)?
Basspro69
distinguished member(15049)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
04/20/2018 08:13PM
arctic:
Conservatives tend to support at least as many subsidies as liberals do Crop insurance, flood insurance, crop subsidies, government funded irrigation projects, coal subsidies, etc, etc."
Agree a million percent !!!
Basspro69
distinguished member(15049)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
04/20/2018 08:15PM
The one thing I know will happen by 2100 is that I will be dead, and my hope is that protection of the environment will at some point be as important as greed. Whether you believe in climate change or not can we all agree that we should be looking for and endorsing products that have as little impact on polluting the natural world as possible.
Basspro69
distinguished member(15049)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
04/20/2018 08:17PM
The great thing about believing in God is your free to choose to believe or not believe. I know he exists and I will never be able to prove to a non believer that he does, and that's ok.
arctic
distinguished member(4693)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 08:42PM
Basspro69: "The great thing about believing in God is your free to choose to believe or not believe. I know he exists and I will never be able to prove to a non believer that he does, and that's ok."

Religion and spirituality are deeply personal things. The details and beliefs are not universal. So, when someone wants to control, suppress, discriminate against another person--or justifies destroying the natural environment (which every soul depends on)--then I have a problem with it.
TomT
distinguished member(5009)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/20/2018 09:11PM
mastertangler: "
Deny man made Climate Change and you will be attacked its that simple. For some the attack may be very costly and it could cause you to be less successful in your chosen career and thus there would be considerable inducement to just go along to get along and leave it up to others to wether the storm.
"


MT, did you ever consider that there may be no conspiracies abbout climate change and that the scientists are simply telling the truth? And that yes, man is the cause and if we don't do something as a species to stop it that our grandchildren will be in deep doo doo?

This whole thing might someday be looked at similarly to when it was discovered that the sun did not revolve around the earth. And the time when a scientist discovered the earth was actually round and not flat. I wonder what conspiracy theories were floated around during those events?

I would love to know how history looks at this time period we are currently in. President Obama and 45's views on the subject couldn't be farther apart. Time will tell but if I'm a betting man my money is on the Scientists.



Basspro69
distinguished member(15049)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
04/20/2018 09:24PM
arctic: "Basspro69: "The great thing about believing in God is your free to choose to believe or not believe. I know he exists and I will never be able to prove to a non believer that he does, and that's ok."


Religion and spirituality are deeply personal things. The details and beliefs are not universal. So, when someone wants to control, suppress, discriminate against another person--or justifies destroying the natural environment (which every soul depends on)--then I have a problem with it."
Couldn't agree more, I endorse everyones right to believe what ever they want to believe . The true test of any religion or belief is that it allows other religions and beliefs to exist, and your free to choose or not choose anyone you want to believe.
Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(12825)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
04/20/2018 10:17PM
Can someone remind me just what the topic here is...
TomT
distinguished member(5009)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/21/2018 05:20AM
Climate Change with a God chaser. :)
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/21/2018 06:17AM
TomT: "mastertangler: "
Deny man made Climate Change and you will be attacked its that simple. For some the attack may be very costly and it could cause you to be less successful in your chosen career and thus there would be considerable inducement to just go along to get along and leave it up to others to wether the storm.
"



MT, did you ever consider that there may be no conspiracies abbout climate change and that the scientists are simply telling the truth? And that yes, man is the cause and if we don't do something as a species to stop it that our grandchildren will be in deep doo doo?


This whole thing might someday be looked at similarly to when it was discovered that the sun did not revolve around the earth. And the time when a scientist discovered the earth was actually round and not flat. I wonder what conspiracy theories were floated around during those events?


I would love to know how history looks at this time period we are currently in. President Obama and 45's views on the subject couldn't be farther apart. Time will tell but if I'm a betting man my money is on the Scientists.



"


What I believe Tom about Climate Change are there are disparate and varying groups intersecting all at the same time but with differing agendas.

You have those who are sincere in their steadfast belief that man made climate change is for real and a threat to life on the planet. These include a significant number of scientists. That is fact and reality and I concede that (obviously).

But there are also what I term as Utopian Statists and globalists. Such fly a bit under the radar because if we really knew what their agenda is we would reject it. The Utopian Statists, commonly referred to as Progressives, seek to achieve a utopian society via absolute control of the civil society. They seek control over health care (thus control over the individual) and control over industry and the means of production. They see the control over industry as being achieved via Climate Change legislation. For of a truth the supporters of climate change seek willingly to cede control of industry to government via carbon credits and other authoritarian means.

Then there are the globalists and they see world wide acceptance of climate change as the holy grail of world control. Convince the peoples of the world of their imminent demise and you will be able to rally them to a common cause. The control would include redistribution of wealth on a world wide scale as a drought in the Sudan would of course be the fault of industrialized countries.

Oslo points out that only 1/2 the money in play comes from government grants and points to Universities.........they are even worse when it comes to tolerance of anything which deviates from the Utopian Statist model and are very quick to punish or silence those who step out of line.

I understand that many pooh pooh my perspective. That is fine. Not so many are engaged to the extent that I am concerning politics. The only thing that will beat the climate change movement is time. There are simply to many powerful forces in play and far to much money involved. Not one of us would even consider "Climate Change" had we not been told by others what to believe. We would go blithely along and be concerned about out local quality of life and our local and state environment (which is as it ought to be).

Fortunately climate change seems to be WAY down on the list of peoples concerns overall and hopefully we will not grant authority over our means of production to a handful of incompetent nitwits in Washington who keep reminding us they are the smartest people in the room but are largely bumbling boobs who could not survive in the real world and decided to become politicians. Exceptions exist of course but for the most part I am not impressed with the intellect and character of those I see in Washington. Why these people should be entrusted with things like health care and control over our industry is flabbergasting in the extreme sense of the word.

Lest i be perceived as promoting dirty air and dirty water (the statists always like to accuse) I am for less gunk in the air. What I am against is the ultimate goal of the climate changers, giving control over industry and our means of production over to bureaucrats. Such a tack would be catastrophic for a free people. We can all meet in the rice paddies (hey, then we would all be "equal" and there would be "fairness" ;-)
TomT
distinguished member(5009)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/21/2018 06:53AM
Don't you think we the people are strong enough to contain these supposed globalists? Couldn't we elect people who would "do the right thing"? It seems like you are content to ignore what scientists say by giving in to your fears. That's a very weak un-proactive situation where you sit. Basically letting our planet deteriorate instead of facing the problem head on. Look, we can kick these globalist's ass. Have faith in people.




mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/21/2018 06:58AM
TomT: "Don't you think we the people are strong enough to contain these supposed globalists? Couldn't we elect people who would "do the right thing"? It seems like you are content to ignore what scientists say by giving in to your fears. That's a very weak un-proactive situation where you sit. Basically letting our planet deteriorate instead of facing the problem head on. Look, we can kick these globalist's ass. Have faith in people.
"


One has to look at history Tom. The people don't always get it right, which is why politics is so very important. 1930's Germany got their politics wrong, the Russians got their politics wrong, Greece got their politics wrong, Venezuela, Cuba etc. etc.

What i am for is the science. And I believe that the science does not show what the Climate Changers allege. Surprising I know.........but that is my point, you are not hearing the dissenting voices because they are being tamped down and often viciously so. This tamping down is accomplished through those means I have already mentioned and aided via a media which ranks are filled with those who are in simpatico with the Utopian mindset.

We may be able to kick the globalists ass but we just barely escaped as per this last election. Had Donald Trump not been elected we would of definitely signed the Paris Climate Treaty and agreed to billions of dollars of reparations and accepted responsibility for a whole host of the worlds ills created by events which have transpired on this planet since the beginning. There have always been droughts, floods, Hurricanes and hot and cold cycles etc.

As if the United States doesn't do enough already for the peoples of this planet. Certainly the people of the U.S. have been the most generous and kindest people in the history of mankind and usually always the first to show up to aid those in great need. And of course we stand as a bulwark against oppression and totalitarianism having shed much blood in the process.

Here is an enlightening exchange which I found rather instrumental when talking about the "science" of Climate Change.




Climate change interaction
missmolly
distinguished member(7779)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/21/2018 07:21AM
MT, you keep mentioning money as the driver for global warming, as if you have no understanding of where the money is. I cited Exxon CEO salaries upthread and you didn't reply, as if you couldn't connect the dots. I'll make it more obvious. Here are the world's ten biggest companies, ten big dots in a nice column, ever so easy to connect, but I cliff noted it for you too:

Wal Mart: They sell stuff made of carbon.
State Grid: They burn a lot of carbon.
Sinopec Group They sell liquid carbon.
China National Petroleum Same.
Toyota Motor They build vehicles that run on carbon.
Volkswagen Same.
Royal Dutch Shell They sell liquid carbon.
Berkshire Hathaway It's quite diverse, but carbon is in play, as in its carbon burning trains.
Apple They sell stuff made of carbon.
Exxon Mobil They sell liquid carbon.



Non sequitur: Wal Mart and Apple are the ones that concern me. We need oil to make plastic. It's crazy to burn oil when it's used in so many other ways.
mastertangler
distinguished member(4576)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
04/21/2018 07:45AM
Its not about money Miss Molly but rather about power and control. The money is merely a tool which is employed, a means to an end. It can be used as a carrot or a stick. Grants are the carrot.......a diminishing of your career is the stick.

Naturally if power and control are acquired the money is there for the taking. How is it that so many go to Washington with rather average income and come out as multi millionaires?

What you describe above sounds a lot like free market capitalism of which I am a big fan. People entering into mutually beneficial financial arrangements which are mutually agreed upon. Sounds like a very moral economic system to me.
mjmkjun
distinguished member(1913)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/21/2018 08:28AM
Basspro69: "The one thing I know will happen by 2100 is that I will be dead, and my hope is that protection of the environment will at some point be as important as greed. Whether you believe in climate change or not can we all agree that we should be looking for and endorsing products that have as little impact on polluting the natural world as possible."

Bravo! We can intellectualize on the topic of Climate Change till we all turn blue but it remains questionable whether it's cyclic or of human causation.

Contaminates in our waters, food or air definitely point to mankind.

ellahallely
distinguished member (350)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
04/21/2018 09:21AM
When I hear 90% of scientist agree on something I am skeptical. In the early 1900's 99% of scientist Einstein thought was crazy. Well maybe he was a little, but his work was spot on. I pretty sure man has something to do with global warming, but how much. How do we explain the temperature changes before man played a part?



And those of you that thinks man plays a big part of global warming what have you done to help? Like giving up jet or car travel. Or others thing please list several. Seems most say population is the biggest factor. Should we quit having children? How many is to many? I have no children, small solar system, to name a few things I do to help. Hope that helps save the planet for your children and grandchildren.
OSLO
distinguished member (173)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member