Jeff Engr asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 7 years ago

Data is piling up. How long before policy catches up with reality?

My guess is policy will lag quite some time until said policy starts to cost them too many elections. Polictical power is everything to them. More taxes = more power...

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-...

Update:

@Pegminer

Go to school. Learn Science and then read up on solar physics. I have told no lies. If you can not stand data contray to your beleif system then at least practice civility in your answers.

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Of course! Elites wanting to keep their power and status based on people's inability to think and act on their own.

    "Government-run Climate Science" arrogance is slapping them in the face!

    "Absolute" Global average temperature is (and always has been) an elusive scientific fact. That's why they have to base their science on anomalies instead of actual temperature readings. "Natural Climate Variability" has always foiled their scheme.

    pegminer - Your very own climate science arrogance is based on lies and is controlled by liberal thinking climate scientists. The UN IP CC is far from being a conservative think tank. It's own leader is a known Socialist (Pichauri). If you like Socialism so much, then I'm sure the IP CC could use your politically motivated expertise. You can sit right next to George Bush when Pichauri gives his speeches and talk about the days of Capitalism and how "Global Warming" alarmism tried to end it.

  • John
    Lv 4
    7 years ago

    Good grief, Jeff Engr! Right at the very top of the article you link, in bold letters, is the word "OPINION"! What is that you misunderstand about the word "opinion"? Is it your opinion that opinions are strong evidence on a subject???

    Who is Michael Fumento, the author of this opinion piece? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fumento

    What is he talking about in the article? Well, he starts off talking about how the 2013 hurricane season was below the climatological norm and then begins a brief rant against Al Gore. (For the uninformed among us, anyone that uses Al Gore, in a negative context, as their main talking point concerning climate change will automatically win the debate they have engaged in. This seems to be some unwritten law amongst those that hate Al Gore and Science or anything else they do not believe in.) Michael then forgets to mention that he is only talking about the Atlantic hurricane season. Those of us that know better are well aware that tropical cyclogenesis is not restricted to just the Atlantic basin. One of the strongest, if not the strongest, as a land falling tropical systems just devastated areas of the Philippines. ( Am I correct, Kano?) So, why does Michael only mention the Atlantic basin hurricane season? Here is another bit of trivia, for those that are interested. Everyone that makes public their forecasts on an upcoming hurricane season (NOAA is not the only one to do this. Some universities do so as well. So does Joe Bastardi) were forecasting an active 2013 Atlantic basin hurricane season. Including Joe Bastardi - http://www.weatherbell.com/ OK, so how did everyone of these entities manage to blow their forecasts on the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season by so much? That will be examined to find out why through analysis. What it tells me is that "it is possible" ( a slight of hand tactic used by the "skeptics" among us to have us think in a different direction. It is suppose to be some kind of a mind expanding experiment when all it really is just a distraction from main talking points ) that something within the climate has changed that changes the book on how forecasts should be made. I will wait for the end of the season analysis to reach its own conclusion.

  • Mike
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Australia has left. Japan is heading that way. Canada bailed, though they claimed they would go along with what the US does. Perhaps UK is the embodiment of what you say, as all major parties are on board the global warming bandwagon, and UKIP might be the beneficiary.

  • 7 years ago

    Your last question was a blatant lie:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201310...

    So why should anyone care what you say in this question?

    Data has indeed been piling up for decades that AGW is a serious threat, eventually something may be done about it, but first the people that are lying about it need to be exposed.

    EDIT: Jeff Engr, you absolutely lied, here is what you claimed the paper said:

    "Anew study showing that the sun and variations in solar magnetic field strength that are SOLEY responsible for variations in earths climate patterns." [typos are from your original question]

    Here is a direct quote from the paper in your link:

    "The increase that started around the beginning of the 20th century is apparently non-solar and has another, most probably anthropogenic origin"

    That is a complete contradiction of what you claimed. This was pointed out to you in answers to your question, which you chose to ignore--meaning that you can't plead ignorance either. You lied and you were caught. Claiming that you told no lies is another lie.

    I am being perfectly civil, but I won't hesitate to point out when you or other deniers lie.

    EDIT for Kano: I make no money at all from climate change or climate studies in general--my income comes from defense, mining exploration instrumentation, teaching, and forensic analysis.

    There is no difference of opinion--Jeff Engr claims the authors of his link say one thing, they completely contradict him. If you can't read the quotes above and see that, then you need to take some reading classes.

    Another EDIT: Thank you Kano, and if this hadn't been pointed out to Jeff Engr multiple times, I could agree with that this could be the result of stupidity alone. However since he's still persisting with this, I would say that stupidity has to be combined with dishonesty.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    I never was based in reality.

    Joseph Goebbel,

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    It was only a scam to start with and it is still a scam. " It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent," Which proves they will fight back with intensity.

    Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

    Was that to inform people or to scare people?

    So in direct answer to your question: I all depends when these masses wise up. A lot of that depends on the work you are doing. Keep putting the truth out there. We are the enemy of the big scam and there is a lot of profit in the scam, so expect a lot of push back just like Goebbels' formula spells out.

    Apparently Peggy does not know what the word 'apparent' means. She must think it is a scientific term. The paper also stated right after that, that discussion of man made or not was not part of the paper and had drawn no scientific conclusions as to that effect. Peggy the school marm should go back to teaching Kindergarten and leave the heavy stuff to the true scientists of this site. And stop calling people liars on such flimsy evidence. Your class would not be proud of you.

  • Kano
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Hah here we see the problem Pegminer is a scientist involved with atmospheric work, any doubts in climate science seriously undermines his career and livelihood, in his frustration he starts accusing people of blatant lies, in the question he points to, I cannot see a lie only a difference in opinion.

    This pause, hiatus or whatever you want to call it, is causing distress for those involved with climate science, some here, even put their heads in the sand, denying there is a pause, it is getting difficult now because before the media has always supported (to excess) climate change, but some of them are beginning to realise they are in danger of losing readers/viewers, and have begin to switch sides.

    Same with politics, slowly the realization is happening that if the public gets fed up, with economic problems taxes, low job rates, they will revolt as they did in Australia.

    A continuing pause and a few severe winters and power shortages could change everything.

    Source(s): Pegminer. Okay I reread it and your correct, the conclusions are very different, doesn't mean he's lying he could just be stupid.
  • C
    Lv 5
    7 years ago

    I didn't''t realize the Post was such a denier rag The focus on politics certainly places it among the conspiracy theory junket

    The pause they discuss is only surface temps. AGW is measured by land and OCEAN temps which indicate AGW itself has not paused. Using a half truth is simply misinformation or a lie if you will. For Christ's sake 2012 was the tenth warmest on record, and this doesn't happen in the midst of a pause, neither do all the other years in the top ten occur in a pause, most of which appeared within the pause. The first ten months of 2013 are the seventh warmest period on record.

    Logic prevails over this feign attempt at flogging AGW,

  • 7 years ago

    It will require a crisis; one that will expose to the great majority of the people how poor the science was behind this movement.

    Re: Pegminer, Dook, et at

    Do not expect civility. Absent the ad hominem, they have no case, and their entire cherished belief system collapses in a heap. The ad hominem is a form of circular reasoning, which seeks to keep the gullible distracted from the (lack of) actual scientific merit of the CAGW case.

  • 7 years ago

    I will take Pegminer's science over your "beleif" system, his modelling experience over your "religeon" about what "soley" causes or doesn't cause climate change, and even his incivility over your inability to spell.

    But he can argue for himself.

    I mainly wanted to say how alarmingly thrilled to my green RHINO core I am, to the point of wanting to emulate Dudess Elizabeth here, and to tap dance all over my hundreds of college science texts authored by Al Gore, that you are giving us such blessedly learned and truthful insights into the latest cutting edge peer-reviewed science in the New York Post. This like totally harks me back to my youthful indiscretions and backbreaking shoveling of snow off differential-equationed Fortran programs in the cotton fields of the Upper West Side Story of Central Park North by Northwest. There, on the sidewalks of the avenues, tangled up in blue and circled by the circus sands, in the early days of pooper-scooping, how truly impressive it was to know how to really roll up and deploy a New York Post.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    I think the article had it right when it implied that contrary data isn't going to slow them down. Some leftists are only interested in the science and getting it right but too many are only interested in using AGW to try to push their agenda. It is all about power and money for them. They are becoming a laughingstock IMO. They are wrong time after time with their predictions yet they never cease to believe they were right all along. They are climate cultists IMO.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.