North pole to melt this year?
- Thread starter hornpharmd
- Start date
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
This is the problem with the whole climate change issue. It has become more a political issue than a science issue.
pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/
pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/
SH- If you are truly interested in a back and forth discussion on this then I would be interested in your response.
At this point in the debate the agw proponents have much, much, much more to lose than the fossil fuel companies in this debate.
First, lets address the fossil fuel companies. There is absolutely zero legislation now or being proposed that would diminish their business model in any of the lifetimes of the execs of those companies. Zero. Their financial incentive in this is meaningless. The only possible industry to get hit is dirty coal and they have been dying a slow death for decades and they make up a tiny fragment of the total picture. By far the most likely replacement for dirty coal is natural gas and the same companies have interests in both. They are going to win regardless.
Making comments about google and microsoft etc is also kind of silly. Those comapnies are in a very unique situation. They are sitting on mountains of cash for one, and they have a client base that WANTS them to invest in green technology. They do it prmarily because it protects their brand with their customers. The investments made so far by those tech companies in green energy should get all of their CIOs fired because the returns, from a purely financial standpoint, have been abysmal. But they dont really care at this point. It helps their other businesses by creating a bond with their customers.
Second, while "governments" dont have a financial interest in agw per se, they do provide vast sums of money for govt research. If agw is a hot poilitical button (and it still is) then dollars will go to research. The scientists that do this research are 100% dependent on those grants. It literally pays their salaries. The scientists have a much higher potential to fudge data because it literally saves their jobs. Think about it logically, who really has a higher financial incentive in this debate- ExxonMobil with earnins of around $30B annually or a scientist that shoved every chip he has into the pot betting on agw who will be back teaching high school chemistry if the funding dries up? it amazes me that fairly smart people will automatically assume a scientist funded by an energy company would fudge data in a heart beat but that the same scientist who is funded by the govt would never ever fudge data when his contniued existence is incumbent on his findings.
Lastly, the reason that their is so much distrust of the agw scientists is because they have drawn the line in the sand so deep that their very careers and reutations are staked to the results. No one is going to admit they were even partially wrong in this debate from the pro agw side because it would discredit their entire reputation and lifes work. As soon as they let the govt corrupt their message and actively joined them in the hype then they had no way of ever going back. They are committed.
I say all that not to insinuate that either side actually fudges data but that the incentive to do so rests much more with the supporters than deniers.
You had accredited scientists and modelers and really smart involved people making all sorts of claims 5-10 years ago and literally none of their predictions have come true.
They were presumably right about the underlying science but just dead wrong as to how to measure the actual affect.
At this point in the debate the agw proponents have much, much, much more to lose than the fossil fuel companies in this debate.
First, lets address the fossil fuel companies. There is absolutely zero legislation now or being proposed that would diminish their business model in any of the lifetimes of the execs of those companies. Zero. Their financial incentive in this is meaningless. The only possible industry to get hit is dirty coal and they have been dying a slow death for decades and they make up a tiny fragment of the total picture. By far the most likely replacement for dirty coal is natural gas and the same companies have interests in both. They are going to win regardless.
Making comments about google and microsoft etc is also kind of silly. Those comapnies are in a very unique situation. They are sitting on mountains of cash for one, and they have a client base that WANTS them to invest in green technology. They do it prmarily because it protects their brand with their customers. The investments made so far by those tech companies in green energy should get all of their CIOs fired because the returns, from a purely financial standpoint, have been abysmal. But they dont really care at this point. It helps their other businesses by creating a bond with their customers.
Second, while "governments" dont have a financial interest in agw per se, they do provide vast sums of money for govt research. If agw is a hot poilitical button (and it still is) then dollars will go to research. The scientists that do this research are 100% dependent on those grants. It literally pays their salaries. The scientists have a much higher potential to fudge data because it literally saves their jobs. Think about it logically, who really has a higher financial incentive in this debate- ExxonMobil with earnins of around $30B annually or a scientist that shoved every chip he has into the pot betting on agw who will be back teaching high school chemistry if the funding dries up? it amazes me that fairly smart people will automatically assume a scientist funded by an energy company would fudge data in a heart beat but that the same scientist who is funded by the govt would never ever fudge data when his contniued existence is incumbent on his findings.
Lastly, the reason that their is so much distrust of the agw scientists is because they have drawn the line in the sand so deep that their very careers and reutations are staked to the results. No one is going to admit they were even partially wrong in this debate from the pro agw side because it would discredit their entire reputation and lifes work. As soon as they let the govt corrupt their message and actively joined them in the hype then they had no way of ever going back. They are committed.
I say all that not to insinuate that either side actually fudges data but that the incentive to do so rests much more with the supporters than deniers.
You had accredited scientists and modelers and really smart involved people making all sorts of claims 5-10 years ago and literally none of their predictions have come true.
They were presumably right about the underlying science but just dead wrong as to how to measure the actual affect.
Battleship
25+ Posts
It is a shame to lose this thread when HF shuts down.
8 years....of one thread on sea ice, but during that time, the planet has not warmed one bit. funny stuff....especially since it had already been 8 years without warming when we started.
I wonder how many of our global warming alarmists would have bet big money that by the end of 2014 we would be experiencing fairly rapid warming since all of the models predicted as much.
I wonder how many of our global warming alarmists would have bet big money that by the end of 2014 we would be experiencing fairly rapid warming since all of the models predicted as much.
The north pole has not melted. I win, lock thread!
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
Mop, when HF shuts down, I think you should continue this thread via fax or post.
according to the RSS satellite feed, the global warming pause has now lasted 18 years and 2 months, which takes us back to October of 1996.
18 year pause...
I35
5,000+ Posts
Again, it's called the weather. If you think that it's suppose to be the same every year or every decade or even every century then then there is your problem right there. I don't give a **** about any stats you give. You can't prove those numbers wouldn't have been the same with the earth's population 75% smaller. Al Gore = Moron.
paso, RSS shows the longest pause at 18 years and 2 months. The ground based measurements show around 15 and 16 years and I believe the UAH shows like 12 years. NO matter how you slice it...we have been pausing for about twice as long as this thread has been in existence (which as you know has been a loooong time now). i find it rich that we have a thread about global warming going back to 2008 during which the globe has not warmed a bit. ; )
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
paso, what else do you call it when a measurement that was once rising now is no longer rising? Seems like a pause to me.
There is speculation about heat being trapped in the oceans but at this point it is only speculation based on the assumption that heating is still occurring somewhere on the earth. There are no measurements to fit the narrative though. It is truly a case of the AGW proponents denying science and offering up narrative.
There is speculation about heat being trapped in the oceans but at this point it is only speculation based on the assumption that heating is still occurring somewhere on the earth. There are no measurements to fit the narrative though. It is truly a case of the AGW proponents denying science and offering up narrative.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
