AGW Theory - Discussion

Umm no. Your as bad as lordgrim

The push back isn't from "energy interests" afraid to lose some government money, which they don't actually get by the way. It's because every proposed legislation or policy is centered around giving complete power to those seeking to destroy those same companies. Most of the skepticism isn't even from the hydrocarbon industries, it's from regular people who refuse to drink the koolaid.

Let me guess you think it's actually "some evil dark organization trying to suppress this life saving miracle technology that will save the planet". Damn you guys are so naive.

You realize it is entirely possible to be "off the grid" while still "on the grid" right? While in Michigan I do not have this problem, I actually sell excess energy to the power company. Other ways of cutting your reliance on the grid exist.


It's actually working the other way. Global warming fear mongers are forcing a confrontation when no confrontation should even exist. Everyone and I mean Everyone thinks getting away from oil and coal is needed because it is getting more expensive and won't last forever.

Energy interests enjoy some serious monetary benefits; research funding, resource rights, subsidized fuel prices, etc. The federal fuel subsidies almost completely offset the road tax for christ's sake. If they lost those price adjustments, they'd either have to raise prices to compensate or eat the loss in profits. We're talking about 10's of billions of dollars a year. Even for big oil, that's not pocket change.

As for the rest of it... Energy lobbies are often the ones to write energy legislation. And, yes, a lot of clean energy policies are just plain bad. Do I believe there's some cabal of shrouded figures plotting like some kind of Bond movie? No. That's just a red herring for people to throw out while their brain catches up to whatever they just finished ranting about. Energy is big business, and they are always going to look out for the bottom line which is often a short-term strategy.

"There doesn't need to be a formal conspiracy when interests align."

Why is every single one of your posts a diatribe about "you people"?

Yes, I was just noting that in many places "off the grid" legally requires you still being literally on the grid. I've looked into producing electricity and using things like solar water heaters, but being in a planned community and northern climate, it's more feasible to just reduce usage. We do capture rain water for the garden and I've installed an on-demand water heater and exclusively high efficiency appliances and we have a high efficiency burst-fire furnace, etc. We do yearly average for utilities, but even in the winter our usages total about 60 bucks a month.



My thoughts on the environmental aspects of HC's is a whole other topic, but I advocate diversifying primarily because renewable sources are getting cheaper and oil is getting more expensive. Sooner or later, clean energy will need to outweigh fossil fuels if we hope to enjoy a high standard of living.

I cannot even imagine living in a planned community or city. Having an outdoor wood burner that also heats water, solar panels on the barn roof and wind turbines are probably all frowned upon.

It's kinda funny that the places where all the global warming people live are the places that won't allow you to be off the grid!


Couldn't agree more. It's even cheaper if you can build your own system.


I believe he is attacking the mindset of people that refuse to take in all the information available. The vast majority of global warming followers know nothing but the party line. A lot of what you say comes from that handbook.

Well, it's more of a appearance thing, solar panels don't meet the guidelines. I'd rather not live in a planned community, but we got a really good deal on the house and that's where it was.



I don't tow any party line, regardless of whether my views align with one or the other at times. Everything that comes out of some people is almost verbatim what a pundit said. I've seen people post word for word quotes from Rush's show that day. You won't see that out of me.

Exactly my point. Lets save the planet! Oh wait.. that's ugly! Blame the oil company's!


I'm extremely Conservative and hate Rush and Fox news.. However, I'd rather listen to Rush or Fox, than anything on CNN, CBS, NBC etc..etc.. It sucks having to get news from 10 different sources just to get a small picture of what is really going on.

This line of discussion is far less hostile than I thought it would be. Nice work.

As far as the solar panel thing is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised to see designer solar panels as the technology improves. It really sucks that the market is hindered simply because they don't look good.

If you find a single news source that you trust, you've lost the war, period.


There are actually more "sightly" panels available, but the cost makes them less feasible considering the area of our roof. 2100 sq/ft, but 3 floors, so the amount of juice we could generate makes it about a 20 year turnaround, and that's just not worth it to me.

Months in AH purgatory and this is all you can contribute. That's like entry-level denialism.

That's expert-level dissimulation.
More contribution has been conducted in the past page and a half than your total post count.

Some good news on the global warming front for a change.

Increase in Antarctic snow is greater than losses: NASA
Zeenews, India (no idea why this source was the one that google news picked)

That's not news, we know it years ago. It was one of the interesting discussions because the data was there but the AGW scare crowd was only looking at ice loss and not ice gain. If you dig deep enough I even have a comment where I said that the while the west Antarctic was shrinking, the east Antarctic was growing.

The news is that there is sea level rise that they can't account for currently.

Again you're just making ***up. This is news. It was just published. I'm not sure how the dissemination of scientific research falls into your conspiracy theories though. Is NASA in on it too? Lol

Your previous comments again conflate land ice with sea ice - a typical lie told by the denier crowd to confuse the conversation.

US Ceding sovereignty to U.N. bureaucracy.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/u-n-tribunal-to-judge-u-s-for-climate-debt/


I seem to remember talks of treason then as well.


Gee I wonder why..

Preach it!

Dear ***...

WND. Was the link not up on infowars yet?

Looked on cnn, cbs, etc, etc. Surprisingly nothing. /sigh

Did you check The Onion?

I prefer not to use your sources.

Most national news stations and media sources have an agenda. They'll present information that furthers that agenda.

Read from the sources. If you REALLY care about an opinion, read publications, magazines, or articles from the scientists producing the research that is bastardized by media outlets.

Sometimes, even research has an agenda. If you read enough, you'll have a good idea of "what's legitimate" and "what's funded by involved third parties".

And in this case, climate change is almost a consensus in the scientific community. It's kind of embarrassing that this is still a topic for debate.

Except it's not. Seriously it's not even remotely agreed upon. Most of of the opinion that "we need more information as we don't understand planetary climate sufficiently to accurately model or predict". Over my time here I've provided more then enough information to back this claim.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "consensus" in science, never was, never will be. Science is not a democracy, scientists don't vote on the speed of light, the strength of gravity, nor the strong nuclear force. "Science" is nothing but a process of discovery, it's a thinking system that involves questioning everything, then coming up with analytical methods to sift out the mechanics that govern our universe.

Anyone who use's the world "consensus" with science doesn't understand science.

Was on a good run, I was rooting for you to win and everything. But then you tripped over that last paragraph and fell into the propaganda machine.

For a guy who talks about questioning everything, you sure eat up a lot of *** from fringe websites.

There absolutely is consensus in science.

First of all, "science" does refer to a process, but also colloquially refers to the coupling of the process, culture, and information of scientific disciplines. The latter is what I was describing.

Consensus isn't sitting in a room and voting on accuracy of results. Consensus is when enough people have demonstrated some results and thus the conditions are accepted as fact, until those results are overturned by some later research. (Emphasis on the latter clause -- consensus doesn't mean that findings are "set in stone")

Remember that researchers are, in a sense, a community. There are conferences, workshops, and meetings where people present their findings to each other.

Consensus isn't a complete agreement -- it's an acceptance by the majority of the field of some principles.
Physicists agree on gravity. Chemists agree on the composition of certain compounds. Someone proposed these ideas and then they were rigorously examined through reproduction of the original experiments in addition of brand new experiments.

You can say that climate change isn't a consensus, and it's not entirely -- as you say, there are a number of questions left unsolved. The fact is, though, that the volume of research supporting the notion of man-accelerated climate change is much higher than that opposing it. The questions that we're unsure of are, "how much are we contributing?" and "how dangerous is this?"

-A (mathematical) scientist

EDIT: Admittedly, "consensus" is a qualitative assessment. Most people would call Evolution a consensus, but there's no real way to measure that. But to say that specific scientific fields don't (generally) internally agree on anything is going a bit far.

They understand politics though.

I'm willing to accept that climate change is wrong, and since I'm not an environmental scientist, I'm not aware of any seminal works on the opposition.

But it's more than just reading a few articles to prove that it's false. It's the synthesis of these articles with each other and of the opposition, alongside an analysis of "why the other research in support of the notion of climate change." A lot of the arguments I've seen remind me of that one CollegeHumor video with "If Google Was a Guy" or something, where the lady cherrypicks the one example of literature supporting the "autism and vaccinations" connection.

EDIT: Additionally, this topic is politically-charged, so it's possible that certain publications aren't well-publicized for that reason.

Again, had a good start but ultimately failed to finish.