I'm not entirely certain why people are so skeptical about the idea of the earth heating up...I mean really people. There is evidence all around the globe of the earth going through many different climate shifts in history, the idea is perfectly plausible. I think it's just people being caught up in a moment in time, global warming has now been brought into politics. It also has the misfortunate of being brought into the public consciousness during a time where the prophet archetypes rules the world with their scorched earth, fire and brimstone political rhetoric. I find the way we are handling this situation very frightening. Either we deal with the idea and prepare ourselves for it, or the entire human race is annihilated from planet earth. I think that's a valid enough reason to at least consider the scientific and objective observations and studies of climate science. I'd just like to point out that the actual theory has existed for nearly a century, so how can it not have any merit whatsoever?

Originally Posted by Odin

JESUS F*CKING CHRIST!!! That is beyond wrong, that is SACRILEGE!

"Earth First. We'll strip-mine the other planets later." [Bumper sticker of the 80s.]

Originally Posted by Felix5

I'm not entirely certain why people are so skeptical about the idea of the earth heating up...I mean really people. There is evidence all around the globe of the earth going through many different climate shifts in history, the idea is perfectly plausible. I think it's just people being caught up in a moment in time, global warming has now been brought into politics. It also has the misfortunate of being brought into the public consciousness during a time where the prophet archetypes rules the world with their scorched earth, fire and brimstone political rhetoric. I find the way we are handling this situation very frightening. Either we deal with the idea and prepare ourselves for it, or the entire human race is annihilated from planet earth. I think that's a valid enough reason to at least consider the scientific and objective observations and studies of climate science. I'd just like to point out that the actual theory has existed for nearly a century, so how can it not have any merit whatsoever?

Because, as a friend of mine put it, if it were true, correcting it would demand a command-and-control regime, and that is horrible. And if it were true, and we did something, it would crash the economy, and that would be horrible.

And even deeper than that -- what if we had to give up our industrial society, or at least the consumer society,which we now equate with "The American Dream" and "The American Way of Life"? Unthinkable!

So it can't possibly be true.

Analogies to getting a cancer diagnosis come to mind.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I'd just like to point out that the actual theory has existed for nearly a century, so how can it not have any merit whatsoever?

During much of that century, there were valid seeming reasons to discard the theory. One experiment messed things up for decades. They did a laboratory experiment on the greenhouse effect, looking at what frequencies of IR light are blocked by the atmosphere. Thing is, they did it at surface level temperatures and pressures, and extrapolated assuming the upper atmosphere acted much the same. This was at a time before they understood quantum mechanics, that the frequencies of light being absorbed were associated with specific types of atoms in the atmosphere. At lower temperatures up in the high atmosphere, the atoms aren't moving very fast, so the frequencies being blocked are very narrow, very close to the energy levels between orbitals. Down at surface levels, more temperature means more movement, more random doppler effect, so the bands of blocked frequencies were considerably wider. Thus, just due to a lack of knowledge of quantum mechanics, they had an entirely wrong idea of how the greenhouse effect was working.

It wasn't very many decades back that there was more concern of a returning ice age than warming. There are lots of reasons to take modern climate science seriously, but the current understanding isn't a century old.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And even deeper than that -- what if we had to give up our industrial society, or at least the consumer society,which we now equate with "The American Dream" and "The American Way of Life"? Unthinkable!

So it can't possibly be true.

Analogies to getting a cancer diagnosis come to mind.

Yep. First stage of grief would be denial and isolation.

Because, as a friend of mine put it, if it were true, correcting it would demand a command-and-control regime, and that is horrible. And if it were true, and we did something, it would crash the economy, and that would be horrible.

In the current world we're living in, it would inevitably turn into that. The Boomers, or rather prophet archetypes, don't know how to execute an order without becoming crazy and authoritarian about it. Just look at our airports...was that a proper response to 9/11? Really, we all have to be frisked, strip searched, and interrogated to ride on a plane that has a higher chance of crashing than being flown into a building by a terrorist? However the crisis period presents us with an interesting opportunity to create a new world order in which it simply becomes a part of our life. Having gas stations that allow us to charge electric cars or creating new houses with built in solar panels, something along those lines (especially considering the oil rich middle east will inevitably be involved in the next crisis war.) How is this Orwellian? An idea is never Orwellian until it is ordered upon the people with terror and interrogation. The prophet archetype is the exact type of archetype that fuels itself on these methods. Global warming or not, every agenda and policy has been scared into our minds, rather than logically debated.

And even deeper than that -- what if we had to give up our industrial society, or at least the consumer society,which we now equate with "The American Dream" and "The American Way of Life"? Unthinkable!

So it can't possibly be true.

Analogies to getting a cancer diagnosis come to mind.


lol exactly. The symbol of an oil drum should be on the dollar bill and white house of course, people focus too much on petty symbolism these days. None of it means anything. When people were nationalistic after WW2, it was for an actual reason. Now it just seems like a manipulative perverted scheme to try and pit people against each other. (not that generations didn't do that before, but it's really the only thing patriotic symbols are used for these days.) Do you feel any sense of pride when you look at a flag? because i certainly don't.

People never want to admit reality until it hits them smack dab in the face. Global Warming won't be true until the ice caps have literally melted from the face of the earth. And then, I firmly believe it will be my generation, generation Y, who will take the blame for this. Sadly, in the end, the blame really doesn't matter, it's the outcome that literally matters.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I'm not entirely certain why people are so skeptical about the idea of the earth heating up...I mean really people. There is evidence all around the globe of the earth going through many different climate shifts in history, the idea is perfectly plausible. I think it's just people being caught up in a moment in time, global warming has now been brought into politics. It also has the misfortunate of being brought into the public consciousness during a time where the prophet archetypes rules the world with their scorched earth, fire and brimstone political rhetoric. I find the way we are handling this situation very frightening. Either we deal with the idea and prepare ourselves for it, or the entire human race is annihilated from planet earth. I think that's a valid enough reason to at least consider the scientific and objective observations and studies of climate science. I'd just like to point out that the actual theory has existed for nearly a century, so how can it not have any merit whatsoever?

I've noticed with a lot of people it's because of faulty thinking: "I don't like the implications of Global Warming because the solutions to it violate my ideology, so it's wrong". In many people that faulty thinking has blown up into outright conspiracy theories.

I've noticed with a lot of people it's because of faulty thinking: "I don't like the implications of Global Warming because the solutions to it violate my ideology, so it's wrong". In many people that faulty thinking has blown up into outright conspiracy theories.

Prophet archetypes are the type who would rather ignore a problem, kick the can down the road, or at least reap the benefits of it before it goes down. That's what happened during the Great Depression and the new housing crisis. A lot of Boomer managers sat by and watched while their destructive Xer workers created elaborate ponzi schemes, either looking the other way as they got richer or having absolutely no idea of what was actually going on. Usually they had some idea that things were a little off, but chose not to admit the reality. They have selective thinking, which is very truthful of Boomers today. They choose not to acknowledge a problem because it makes them feel better. Ask Silents, Jonesers, Xers, Yers, and all of them will express some concern for the various problems we're facing. Ask a Boomer and you'll get, "everything's going to be fine" in a sunny and confident manner. (how can anyone be that confident?) The only ones who aren't, are the true visionaries of their group or people who have probably stumbled onto this theory. You also have younger and older groups who are simply ignorant due to lack of education, when it comes to the young and very old, this is excusable and understandable. When it comes to functional adults, that is just pathetic and a waste of the knowledge western society has bestowed upon us.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I've noticed with a lot of people it's because of faulty thinking: "I don't like the implications of Global Warming because the solutions to it violate my ideology, so it's wrong". In many people that faulty thinking has blown up into outright conspiracy theories.

Prophet archetypes are the type who would rather ignore a problem, kick the can down the road, or at least reap the benefits of it before it goes down. That's what happened during the Great Depression and the new housing crisis. A lot of Boomer managers sat by and watched while their destructive Xer workers created elaborate ponzi schemes, either looking the other way as they got richer or having absolutely no idea of what was actually going on. Usually they had some idea that things were a little off, but chose not to admit the reality. They have selective thinking, which is very truthful of Boomers today. They choose not to acknowledge a problem because it makes them feel better. Ask Silents, Jonesers, Xers, Yers, and all of them will express some concern for the various problems we're facing. Ask a Boomer and you'll get, "everything's going to be fine" in a sunny and confident manner. (how can anyone be that confident?) The only ones who aren't, are the true visionaries of their group or people who have probably stumbled onto this theory. You also have younger and older groups who are simply ignorant due to lack of education, when it comes to the young and very old, this is excusable and understandable. When it comes to functional adults, that is just pathetic and a waste of the knowledge western society has bestowed upon us.

Is it a waste of the "knowledge" that western society has bestowed on us, or because of the way of of think inflicted on us by western society?

Originally Posted by Felix5

Prophet archetypes are the type who would rather ignore a problem, kick the can down the road, or at least reap the benefits of it before it goes down. That's what happened during the Great Depression and the new housing crisis. A lot of Boomer managers sat by and watched while their destructive Xer workers created elaborate ponzi schemes, either looking the other way as they got richer or having absolutely no idea of what was actually going on. Usually they had some idea that things were a little off, but chose not to admit the reality. They have selective thinking, which is very truthful of Boomers today. They choose not to acknowledge a problem because it makes them feel better. Ask Silents, Jonesers, Xers, Yers, and all of them will express some concern for the various problems we're facing. Ask a Boomer and you'll get, "everything's going to be fine" in a sunny and confident manner.

I disagree that these are inherent traits of prophets or Boomers.

Maybe "a lot of Boomer managers sat by..." Or maybe they were Silents or Xers. I don't have the birthdays of all these managers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe "a lot of Boomer managers sat by..." Or maybe they were Silents or Xers. I don't have the birthdays of all these managers.

Xer managers probably own the business or are a family member in a family-owned businessess. For most of the rest of us, the "promotion pipeline" is clogged with Boomers who can't/won't retire.

I disagree that these are inherent traits of prophets or Boomers.

Maybe "a lot of Boomer managers sat by..." Or maybe they were Silents or Xers. I don't have the birthdays of all these managers.


Obviously not everyone on planet earth, but clearly enough for this problem to occur in the first place. Go back to the era of the 1920s and the Great Depression, and you find the same situation. The masses born during the prophet archetype birth years, were predominately in management positions.

If you disagree, take it up with S&H, I'm really just summarizing a lot of the things they've written about the prophet archetype. I just finished reading Generations a few weeks ago and I'm in the middle of the fourth turning.

Originally Posted by Felix5

[I]
If you disagree, take it up with S&H, I'm really just summarizing a lot of the things they've written about the prophet archetype. I just finished reading Generations a few weeks ago and I'm in the middle of the fourth turning.

I don't think they would make the statements that you make about them. Particularly about who sat by and allowed what during the 00s, since T4T came out in 1997.

A recent NASA study has blown a hole in the global warming alarmists theory by showing that MUCH less heat is being trapped than the Alarmists models predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

Oh yeah...this WAS peer reviewed....

Originally Posted by Odin

I've noticed with a lot of people it's because of faulty thinking: "I don't like the implications of Global Warming because the solutions to it violate my ideology, so it's wrong"...

-More likely, the Global Climate Change Bedwetters like the implications of Global Warming because it validates their ideology, so they think it's right.

IOW, it's an excuse, as proven by the fact that, 30 years ago, they were screaming just as loudly that the government had to control everything because the climate was about to get cooler, and we were about to go into an Ice Age...

"Never let a crisis go to waste."

Originally Posted by Weave

A recent NASA study has blown a hole in the global warming alarmists theory by showing that MUCH less heat is being trapped than the Alarmists models predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

...

-Don't worry. They'll come up with a different pretext.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-More likely, the Global Climate Change Bedwetters like the implications of Global Warming because it validates their ideology, so they think it's right.

IOW, it's an excuse, as proven by the fact that, 30 years ago, they were screaming just as loudly that the government had to control everything because the climate was about to get cooler, and we were about to go into an Ice Age...

"Never let a crisis go to waste."



-Don't worry. They'll come up with a different pretext.

More likely they'll move on to a new "crisis" that demands we give up capitalism and insititute socialism....Since Global Warming in now on its way to be totally defrocked....

and of course the drive-by media will be espousing every word of it without ever apoligizing for misleading the world the last 20 years about global warming.....Pathetic

Originally Posted by Weave

More likely they'll move on to a new "crisis" that demands we give up capitalism and insititute socialism....Since Global Warming in now on its way to be totally defrocked....

I'll bet you a thousand bucks that global warming will still be a major issue, and still be the consensus position of the climate science community, and in fact be even more so than it is today, by this time next year. Take the bet?

Originally Posted by Weave

More likely they'll move on to a new "crisis" that demands we give up capitalism and insititute socialism....Since Global Warming in now on its way to be totally defrocked....

and of course the drive-by media will be espousing every word of it without ever apoligizing for misleading the world the last 20 years about global warming.....Pathetic

You fools are still pushing that conspiracy theory? ROFLMAO!!!

Originally Posted by Weave

A recent NASA study has blown a hole in the global warming alarmists theory by showing that MUCH less heat is being trapped than the Alarmists models predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

Oh yeah...this WAS peer reviewed....

From what I could get from reading the study (It's not that long, only 11 pages), it seems that scientists are finding it difficult to measure changes in temperature based on increases in CO2 (called radiative feedback) with changes in temperature from natural weather fluctuations resulting from El Nino, La Nina, and other natural atmospheric variations in climate (called radiative forcing) and that therefore, it is difficult to model changes in heat trapped using the modeling methods employed by the UN.

What Spencer has tried to prove is that the methodology for predicting climate used by the UN is inaccurate, not that the amount of heat being trapped when adjusted for radiative forcing will differ substantially when a more correct methodology is employed. If that turns out to be the case, then The Heartland Institute can have its field day.

Also FWIW, the model that Spencer used to measure temperature change with radiative feedback and forcing in the first place could also be considered suspect.

Originally Posted by Odin

You fools are still pushing that conspiracy theory? ROFLMAO!!!

Read the study yourself before you make knee jerk conclusions about it.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Read the study yourself before you make knee jerk conclusions about it.

I wasn't talking about the study, I was responding to Weave's "Global Warming is a lie and a conspiracy to impose TEH EVUL SOCIALISM on us!" line.

Originally Posted by Weave

More likely they'll move on to a new "crisis" that demands we give up capitalism and insititute socialism....Since Global Warming in now on its way to be totally defrocked....

and of course the drive-by media will be espousing every word of it without ever apoligizing for misleading the world the last 20 years about global warming.....Pathetic

Of course, any action by the government is called "socialism" by free market fanatics like you. So what?


From the Royal Society, a fellowship of the world's most eminent scientists, the oldest scientific academy in existence.

Aspects of climate change on which there is wide agreement:

The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September 2010 I 5

Changes in atmospheric composition

25. Global-average CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from levels of
around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-19th century to around 388 ppm by the
end of 2009. CO2 concentrations can be measured in “ancient air” trapped in bubbles in
ice, deep below the surface in Antarctica and Greenland; these show that present-day
concentrations are higher than any that have been observed in the past 800,000 years,
when CO2 varied between about 180 and 300 ppm. Various lines of evidence point
strongly to human activity being the main reason for the recent increase, mainly due to
the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) with smaller contributions from land-use
changes and cement manufacture. The evidence includes the consistency between
calculations of the emitted CO2 and that expected to have accumulated in the
atmosphere, the analysis of the proportions of different CO2 isotopes, and the amount
of oxygen in the air.
26. These observations show that about half of the CO2 emitted by human activity since the
industrial revolution has remained in the atmosphere. The remainder has been taken up
by the oceans, soils and plants although the exact amount going to each of these
individually is less well known.
27. Concentrations of many other greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of
methane has more than doubled in the past 150 years; this recent and rapid increase is
unprecedented in the 800,000 year record and evidence strongly suggests that it arises
mainly as a result of human activity.

http://royalsociety.org/climate-chan...ry-of-science/

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm

And more here:

http://www.acoolerclimate.com/causes-of-global-warming/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm

And more here:

http://www.acoolerclimate.com/causes-of-global-warming/

And apparently, according to the study, the CO2 isnt "trapping" the heat like the climate alarmists have been predicting.....

Originally Posted by Weave

And apparently, according to the study, the CO2 isnt "trapping" the heat like the climate alarmists have been predicting.....

So are you going to take my bet or not?

I am totally, absolutely, one hundred percent confident about the science here, so I know I'm risking nothing. If you are as confident as you pretend to be, here's your chance. Take the bet or not?

Originally Posted by Weave

And apparently, according to the study, the CO2 isnt "trapping" the heat like the climate alarmists have been predicting.....

You didn't read it, apparently. The very next paragraph says

CO2 traps heat

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

Try reading this time. You might get informed.
Wow, wait a minute; even Weave get informed? I wouldn't take that bet!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm