U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

It's curious this thread comes up today anyway. Just this morning at the beach I was reading an article about this on a science mag and the first line was "pretty much all scientists in the world agree despite what media would have you believe".

Isn't that the same line found in every Infowars article?

Us Americans love our conspiracy theories.

Like did you know, 9/11 was an inside job? And that climate change melted those steel beams?

So Alex Jones is behind climate change?

Big climate in conjunction with the Rand corporation with a fiendish plan to eliminate coal !

Everything is coming up Milhouse !

/thread

*** hell, this again?

I'm torn between wanting to comment that despite the Fox News-style habit of claiming otherwise, this forum is clearly a haven for conservatives...

And wanting to point out that apparently "conservative" no longer has a discernible meaning because, among many other things, the reason that word was chosen to describe a certain political cast was literally to indicate being in favor of protecting the environment for present and future generations.

*** conservation. *chainsaw revs* I'm all about that logging. 'bout that logging. 'bout that logging. No conservation.

Meaning got lost in translation, sorry. The meaning wasn't that media lie to people, but that media make a fuss about it.

Try humor sometime, Bruce Banner.

Anyway, most conservatives are actually still in favor of protecting the environment for future generations. We mostly just differ in our view of how much we're willing to economically screw over the current generation in the process.

You'd never get that from the talking points of the most vocal and prominent Republican pols if what you say is legit.

Infact I'd go so far as to say that among the current lot, conservation is a dirty word their corporate handlers have told them they can no longer utter lest the purse strings be tightened come next election cycle.

Current status quo: Liberals are environmental nutters, denial of science is lauded, *insert pandering statements about God and nothing being wrong*

That may be because the average talking points in both parties are aimed at partisan hacks and/or morons.

Cap-and-trade was a Republican idea about 25 years ago. Now that Democrats have shifted far enough to the right that they'll agree to "letting the market sort this out," it's crazy leftist *** that's going to economically *** our kids.

/rolleyes

Nice work. That strawman never saw it comin'.

I'd buy this if the Tea Party weren't a quantifiable thing, the rise of FOX dominating the narrative and the lamentation of long time Republicans either not running for office again or commenting about the shift towards an ideological deadlock.

It's basically a death knell to be pro climate change or science as it stands. Making the argument that we need to do something about the environment (albeit not what the dems want) amounts to party treachery.

Conservatives do want to protect the environment just not to the point of extreme ridiculousness that the left wants. There has to be balance between controlling pollution and producing affordable energy.

The environment in America is clean.

If you want to clean it further, embrace natural gas.

Funny thing about that "logging". Wood harvesters actually plant more trees then they cut and grow the local forestry. Does a farmer harvesting a corn crop devastate the land such that another crop can't be planted? Same thing applies to forestry, each year they select harvest an area, replant and then the next year harvest a different area. They won't return to the same area until it's grown enough for a full harvest / replant. And because they treat the forest as a long term financial investment, they end up growing and protecting it. When a logging company moves in, you get more tree's and a healthier environment.

But hey loggers = bad cause they are cutting down tree's right.... progressive thinking at it's finest.

[Mod edit: Don't throw around "mental disorder" as an insult. --Rooks]

Global temperatures haven't gone up in 18+ years and we are predicted to be hitting a cooling period in another 10~20. The worlds "climate" has been changing for the past four and a half billion years, it's changed must faster and by greater extremes then we've done between the years 1970 and 1996.



Historical global temperature "anomaly"



2000 Years worth of global temperatures



11,000 years worth



Vs 160 years worth




Very simple folks, ya'll been duped. There hasn't been some sort of CO2 super warming happening, just the world leaving out of an Ice Age and naturally warming up. This warming isn't linear, it happens in multi-decal spurts with intermissions and even slight regressions happening. This is why the alarmists always start their graphics in the 1900 and like to use trend lines set between 1970 and 2000, which is the period that the world went through a warming spurt. That spurt would of still happened had we all never evolved in the first place as demonstrated by many previous warming spurts. Thankfully satellites can give us a much more accurate average global temperature then weather stations at airports who are having 0.2 ~ 0.6 added to their every temperature measurement by "data normalization".

Anyhow, blah blah Koch Brothers, blah blah burning tree's, blah blah evil oil bond villians, blah blah, take back all their money

Oh here is the most damning of all.



Red line is what AGW computer models predict, blue and green lines are what is actually measured. AGW computer models are based on the CO2 forced positive feedback loop theory that is the unquestionable sworn truth by all. To question it or point out a discrepancy is to invite ridicule and be labeled a heretic. Reality is based on .... physics and reality, and to question it is to be called insane and be diagnosed with dementia.

This is why I left the cult of AGW. Yes I used to be a true believer, I thought it was sound science, until the discrepancies started popping up and every time they were meet with a harsh "Silence Infidel!" response. Instead of exploring how the AGW model could be incorrect, and how to further understand what's happening, AGW believers circled the wagons and instituted the Spanish Inquisition and all non-believers were purged. There could be no room for doubt, no discussion was allowed, you must follow the tenants of the faith and do as your instructed.

People just need to look no further then the responses that will be posted on this thread. If reality doesn't agree with theory, the obviously reality is wrong and needs to be "corrected".

An adult tree sequesters more carbon than a sapling. Forestry has come a long way in the united States, but don't pretend that the guys clearcutting rain forests are doing the same.

There isn't a single rainforest in the USA that has been clear cut. I am from a forestry state with major lumber and agricultural industries. But nice try with the strawman.

Reread my post.

also, there are rain forests in the US. What do you think temperate rain forests are?

Eh, you might need to reread his post. Note the bolded.

Uh, yeah, there was clear cutting of temperate rain forests in US as recently as 1992. In national forests no less.

Yes we can. Question everything, nothing is taboo or out of reach. For centuries the common "consensus" belief was that you can't deny the earth was flat, the center of the universe, and an unmoving mover moved the celestial bodies around. Then some people noticed oddities and discrepancies that cast doubt on the flat-earth model, and thus a new set of discoveries were made. Those who originally were skeptical about the flat-earth model of the world were harassed, persecuted and call heretics by the same entities that supported the flat-earth model. That model empowered those entities and so they aggressively attacked anything that would discredit or weaken support for it.

Sound familiar. This is what happens when politics and science get tangled up. Political expediency and benefit always trump scientific reason and discovery because Political entities control the funding for that science.


Totally different subject. I'm a conservationist, I deeply hate pollution and destroying an environment. I also deeply love the human race and will not support the political equivalent of genocide. Without hydrocarbon based fuels (Coal / Oil / Gas / Wood) our standard of living would be 17th century at best. Japan recently started back up it's nuclear program because they realized that shutting it down only caused them to burn more coal, oil and gas to make up the difference. Their renewable programs didn't create anything near as much as they thought it would. The choice was then between brown outs, slashed standards of living, ridiculous energy prices, vs burning more hydrocarbons, or just starting the plants back up with more stringent guidelines. They took the smart choice.


Something like this was actually responsible for a mass extinction. Volcanic activity ended up igniting massive coal deposits from the gigantic decomposing tree's of that era. Caused a wildfire that consumed something like over 1/3rd of a continent, blacked the sky and caused a few decades of cool weather and limited sunlight.

Not a single SUV or oil rig was present, human's hadn't gone very far from being rodents at the time.

The biggest environmental danger we are impacting is the plankton population. The right plankton population produces most of the worlds oxygen. The wrong plankton population produce Dimethyl sulfide, a deadly gas. It doesn't take much to change the population into the deadly sort of plankton... This also is one of the many accepted theory of what caused mass extinctions in the past.

This should be interesting. First, cite the time and place you're referring to, second, prove your claim about harassment and persecution.

For bonus points, attempt to transpose these events onto the excommunication of Galileo.

Incidentally, what side are you trying to argue? Commenting on how politics willfully hamstrings science sounds like you actually accept the scientific consensus regarding climate change, further backed up by your anecdote regarding Japan's nuclear power program. And yet I thought you were firmly in the "put my fingers in my ears and shout science down" crowd.