Quote from: Telmark on September 08, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
Ya, I'd forget about Alaska... Way too much welfare/drug/gang activity up there now.

As for CA, you should consider getting out now while you can. The Dem lawmaker majority in the state is very quickly making it unlivable for those who aren't sucking on the public tit.

That's exactly why I ruled out Alaska, that and the fact that 75% of the land is owned by the Govt, and has nearly as many agents as those that live near that land.
It's why I didn't buy land next to BLM or USFS land, makes it to easy for them to peak in and see what yo're dfoing, and God knows, we all break some stupid law daily.

When Ca kills off the Jarvis Ghann prop 13 initiative, that's the day I pack up and move.

This whole 60% more ice thing looks like one big astroturfing push by deniers, with tons of forum entries like this one, and blog posts without any data to back it up.

Here's a graph of actic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
There's a very clear downward trend there.

If you're looking at just 2013, we're currently around a seasonal minimum.  So I have no idea where this 60% is coming from right now.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

This sums it up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif

I really don't understand your complete rejection of science on this one.

Nearly every climate scientist and scientific organization accepts anthropogenic warming of the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Nearly every paper written on the subject over the past decade does too.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

I get rejecting the liberal plans to combat warming that would never work.  But the utter rejection that warming is even happening baffles me. 

I can't stand shit like this because it gives conservatives a bad name.  I'll be talking with more liberal minded friends, have a disagreement about something, and they'll respond with a, "Well what would you know, you guys are the ones who don't believe in climate change or evolution."  Quit looking like idiots.

Now go ahead.  Cherry pick your datasets & quasi-experts to fuel your disbelief.  Come up with crazy conspiracy theories.  And drink your confirmation bias filled kool-aid.

Nobody's rejecting warming and cooling cycles. They're saying it's been taking place for millions of years. We're on the end (probably) of the warming cycle after the last major Ice Age (thank God! or for John McCain, "allahu akbar!).  The planet was on a cooling cycle (due to the sun) in the 1970s. You guys were screaming that it was MAN'S fault.  That shifted to a warming cycle (due to the sun) and you guys are screaming "It's Man's fault!"

Forgive us if we laugh at you now.

Quote from: Yawn on September 08, 2013, 06:02:46 PM
Nobody's rejecting warming and cooling cycles. They're saying it's been taking place for millions of years. We're on the end (probably) of the warming cycle after the last major Ice Age (thank God! or for John McCain, "allahu akbar!).  The planet was on a cooling cycle (due to the sun) in the 1970s. You guys were screaming that it was MAN'S fault.  That shifted to a warming cycle (due to the sun) and you guys are screaming "It's Man's fault!"

How do you explain the vast scientific consensus that the current warming is most likely due to man and not the sun?

Quote from: mhughes on September 08, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
How do you explain the vast scientific consensus that the current warming is most likely due to man and not the sun?

Because the IPCC only wanted climate scientists that would work to prove their theory, it's really that simple.
Look at the data closely, you'll see a huge increase of ice over last year.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Also, somehow I forgot to include the link to the article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

Quote from: mhughes on September 08, 2013, 05:39:22 PM
This whole 60% more ice thing looks like one big astroturfing push by deniers, with tons of forum entries like this one, and blog posts without any data to back it up.

Here's a graph of actic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
There's a very clear downward trend there.

If you're looking at just 2013, we're currently around a seasonal minimum.  So I have no idea where this 60% is coming from right now.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

This sums it up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif

I really don't understand your complete rejection of science on this one.

Nearly every climate scientist and scientific organization accepts anthropogenic warming of the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Nearly every paper written on the subject over the past decade does too.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

I get rejecting the liberal plans to combat warming that would never work.  But the utter rejection that warming is even happening baffles me. 

I can't stand shit like this because it gives conservatives a bad name.  I'll be talking with more liberal minded friends, have a disagreement about something, and they'll respond with a, "Well what would you know, you guys are the ones who don't believe in climate change or evolution."  Quit looking like idiots.

Now go ahead.  Cherry pick your datasets & quasi-experts to fuel your disbelief.  Come up with crazy conspiracy theories.  And drink your confirmation bias filled kool-aid.

Lol

The latest the sun rises in the West when you're standing upsidedown-explanation is that the Pacific Ocean is in a cooling-cycle, acting as an 'air conditioner' to temporarily halt gorebull-warming for 20-ish years...

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/08/environment-scripps-global-warming-climate-change/

I'd like to express my opinion, but the 'science is proven'...  Further commenting invokes an EPA-lawsuit, an IRS-audit, and a UN-investigation. 

Quote from: Dr. Meh on September 08, 2013, 10:25:20 PM
Lol

My thoughts exactly.

Quote from: mhughes on September 08, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
How do you explain the vast scientific consensus that the current warming is most likely due to man and not the sun?

1. Climate is, and always has been, changing. This change can be derived from volcanic activity, meteorites, living organisms, and (perhaps most importantly) the precession of equinoxes.

http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

2. The "vast $cientific consensus" you mention has largely been cherry picked imo. This cherry picking of scientific evidence can usually be traced directly back to the Man Made Climate Change Taxation agenda (i.e. follow the money, government interference, and/or public recognition trails).

3. Other scientific evidence suggests that the planet experienced a "little ice age" due to a series of massive volcanic eruptions during the last part of the 13th century (this minor ice age lasted until the late 1800s). Simply put, the planet could very well be returning to more normal temps.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm

http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html

4. If "climate change" or "global warming" is truly man-made, then why have so many countries (including the US) allowed decades of massive and unchecked illegal immigration across their borders and shores? Surely these countries would do everything they can to reduce this human influx if climate change was, indeed, man-made (btw, Hispanic birth rates are nearly double that of non-Hispanic whites in this country).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm

5. Why aren't more of the scientists who proscribe to this so-called "man made" climate warming/change openly recommending zero global population growth?

6. If man made climate change is real, then why do so many Western countries (especially the U.S.) continue to handout their citizen's tax dollars to chronically dependent people and, in many cases, entire countries that do little but breed excessive numbers of dependent children? Why do these countries insist on perpetuating such chronic dependency while, at the same time, proscribing to the man made climate change theories?

Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
1. Climate is, and always has been, changing. This change can be derived from volcanic activity, meteorites, living organisms, and (perhaps most importantly) the precession of equinoxes.

http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

2. The "vast $cientific consensus" you mention has largely been cherry picked imo. This cherry picking of scientific evidence can usually be traced directly back to the Man Made Climate Change Taxation agenda (i.e. follow the money, government interference, and/or public recognition trails).

3. Other scientific evidence suggests that the planet experienced a "little ice age" due to a series of massive volcanic eruptions during the last part of the 13th century (this minor ice age lasted until the late 1800s). Simply put, the planet could very well be returning to more normal temps.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm

http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html

4. If "climate change" or "global warming" is truly man-made, then why have so many countries (including the US) allowed decades of massive and unchecked illegal immigration across their borders and shores? Surely these countries would do everything they can to reduce this human influx if climate change was, indeed, man-made (btw, Hispanic birth rates are nearly double that of non-Hispanic whites in this country).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm

5. Why aren't more of the scientists who proscribe to this so-called "man made" climate warming/change openly recommending zero global population growth?

6. If man made climate change is real, then why do so many Western countries (especially the U.S.) continue to handout their citizen's tax dollars to chronically dependent people and, in many cases, entire countries that do little but breed excessive numbers of dependent children? Why do these countries insist on perpetuating such chronic dependency while, at the same time, proscribing to the man made climate change theories?

All good points, and there's one more point in the equation that never gets addressed and that is, the temperature variation being a cycle phase that occurs regularly, yet life on earth never noticed the change, because it occurred over such a long span of time.
So why the urgency for change, when the cycle will reverse on it's own, a cycle man has absolutely no control over.

A 2 degree rise over a 100 year span will never be noticed, yet we're supposed to be in panic mode over this?
Wherein lies the real issue, why can't people step back and see this for what it really is, a scam, a means of control over energy production, which means total control over the people, as in Marxism...

It's like their claim the oceans will rise and cities will be flooded....ummm so what, it's not like they won't have a few generations to cope with the change, assuming one even occurs.
The same scenario would happen all over the earth, generations of man would never notice the change because of how slow a 2 degree rise would take, not to mention how crops will flourish, but the left focuses on an unrealistic doom and gloom scenario, one that will not only, not occur, but believe demands immediate and drastic change to our very way of life.

Now how silly is that?

Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
1. Climate is, and always has been, changing. This change can be derived from volcanic activity, meteorites, living organisms, and (perhaps most importantly) the precession of equinoxes.

http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

True.  It also can be caused by man.  And the vast scientific consensus is the current warming is man made.

Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
2. The "vast $cientific consensus" you mention has largely been cherry picked imo. This cherry picking of scientific evidence can usually be traced directly back to the Man Made Climate Change Taxation agenda (i.e. follow the money, government interference, and/or public recognition trails).

Did you look at the links I provided.  Three meta-studies looking at climate studies.  A survey of authors of those papers.  A huge list of international scientific organizations that have stated their belief in the consensus.

Give me similar lists saying the opposite.

Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
3. Other scientific evidence suggests that the planet experienced a "little ice age" due to a series of massive volcanic eruptions during the last part of the 13th century (this minor ice age lasted until the late 1800s). Simply put, the planet could very well be returning to more normal temps.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm

http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html

One of the main causes of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was increased solar activity.  In this case, temperatures very closely matched with sun output.  Unfortunately, since 1970, the sun output has generally been going down while temperatures have generally been going up, giving an indication that something else is impacting temperatures.

Quote
4. If "climate change" or "global warming" is truly man-made, then why have so many countries (including the US) allowed decades of massive and unchecked illegal immigration across their borders and shores? Surely these countries would do everything they can to reduce this human influx if climate change was, indeed, man-made (btw, Hispanic birth rates are nearly double that of non-Hispanic whites in this country).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm

Irrelevant to the scientific question of what is happening.  What does immigration policy have to do with climate change?  It's a global phenomenon.  It doesn't matter if you produce the CO2 in mexico or the U.S.   Also... there are more pressing issues to consider for immigration than climate change.

Quote
5. Why aren't more of the scientists who proscribe to this so-called "man made" climate warming/change openly recommending zero global population growth?

Irrelevant to the scientific question of what is happening.  The policy debate over what to do is what you're describing, and is what we should actually be having.  That's more of a political and less of a scientific question.

Quote
6. If man made climate change is real, then why do so many Western countries (especially the U.S.) continue to handout their citizen's tax dollars to chronically dependent people and, in many cases, entire countries that do little but breed excessive numbers of dependent children? Why do these countries insist on perpetuating such chronic dependency while, at the same time, proscribing to the man made climate change theories?

Irrelevant to the scientific question of what is happening.  There are other drivers of foreign aid that far outweigh climate change.

Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 05:39:23 AM
All good points, and there's one more point in the equation that never gets addressed and that is, the temperature variation being a cycle phase that occurs regularly, yet life on earth never noticed the change, because it occurred over such a long span of time.
So why the urgency for change, when the cycle will reverse on it's own, a cycle man has absolutely no control over.

A 2 degree rise over a 100 year span will never be noticed, yet we're supposed to be in panic mode over this?
Wherein lies the real issue, why can't people step back and see this for what it really is, a scam, a means of control over energy production, which means total control over the people, as in Marxism...

It's like their claim the oceans will rise and cities will be flooded....ummm so what, it's not like they won't have a few generations to cope with the change, assuming one even occurs.
The same scenario would happen all over the earth, generations of man would never notice the change because of how slow a 2 degree rise would take, not to mention how crops will flourish, but the left focuses on an unrealistic doom and gloom scenario, one that will not only, not occur, but believe demands immediate and drastic change to our very way of life.

Now how silly is that?

Great, I generally agree with your sentiment.  Accept the science and move on to that policy debate that we should be having instead of this silly side show.

Just because there is man made global warming, doesn't mean we should change everything.  We need to figure out the best way to deal with that.  Maybe it's doing nothing because it won't matter.  Maybe it's doing nothing because there are more important things to worry about right now.  Maybe it's building a bunch of dykes on our east coast.  Maybe it's causing volcanoes to erupt.  Maybe it's finding more efficient gasoline engines.  Maybe it's settling a new planet (joking...).

Point your wrath at the hippies with their zero emission 10hp recycled cardboard cars that want you to do the same with no evidence that it will help.



p.s. I notice nobody came up with evidence, backing data, or a source for this 60% ice thing.

Why is this so important to you and what do you propose we do about it? We are 5% of the population. How do you propose to exhert your will over 3 billion in China and India? Besides, the planet has been ice free for 85% of its existance. Why is yesterday better than the 85% of the time it has been tropical. How do we benefit from an ice planet?

Somehow, I missed this message.

Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2013, 08:12:35 PM
Because the IPCC only wanted climate scientists that would work to prove their theory, it's really that simple.

The consensus is much larger than the IPCC.  3 meta-studies.  A survey.  A big list of international scientific organizations.  Plus the IPCC.

Show me a similar list saying otherwise.

Quote
Look at the data closely, you'll see a huge increase of ice over last year.

A 1 year change in ice does not make for a trend.  Especially when it's going from the worst year on record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png

It's thinking like that, that has people making animations like this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif

Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 05:39:23 AM
A 2 degree rise over a 100 year span will never be noticed, yet we're supposed to be in panic mode over this?

Let's also keep in mind the relative accuracy of the instruments used during this 100 year span. Those that proscribe to man made global warming often refuse to question the accuracy of the instruments used to calculate global, or even regional, temperatures during this 100 span. To think that all of these instruments were relatively (or even remotely) accurate, let alone accurately calibrated world wide, shows a lack of critical thinking.

A modern case in point was during the early '80s when summer temps across much of the Western US Region were recorded as being abnormally high (if not record-breaking). I was attending a trade school in Phoenix during that time and remember temps that (supposedly) reached 120 degrees or more that summer. However, years later the "weather community" had to admit that their temperature calibrations were off 1 degree or more (positive) during that hot spell. That's right, all the so-called weather "experts" and "scientists" had calibrated their instruments to incorrectly adjusted National Weather Service instrumentation.