Thread: Now it's Global Weirding?

"Global Weirding" ? seriously? The climate change "movement" is nucking futz.

Every event can't be hammered to fit into the same theory ,it's simply nonsense, it's no more authenticate then saying "god did it".

Yes, there is warming and it's well within the bounds of human experience, adaptability and capability.

The Vikings farmed in Greenland 1000 years ago. There were grape vines worth exploiting in New Foundland, New England and Great Britain. 300-400 years ago much of Europe was choked in ice during the winters that none of us have seen in our lifetimes and there was still a civilization that was growing and expanding.

The truth is of course there is change, there always has been. Crippling our economies and options isn't going to make life better for us.

So. One person in a newspaper goes with a silly name and it is supposed to be a criticism of the entire issue. In all honesty, the whole point of the post just sounds childish.

I do see the recent climate news to have a significant amount of weird to it. A 2100 mile snowstorm in the United States AND a category five typhoon in Australia after a prolonged drought isn't normal.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

"Global Weirding" ? seriously? The climate change "movement" is nucking futz.

Every event can't be hammered to fit into the same theory ,it's simply nonsense, it's no more authenticate then saying "god did it".

Yes, there is warming and it's well within the bounds of human experience, adaptability and capability.

The Vikings farmed in Greenland 1000 years ago. There were grape vines worth exploiting in New Foundland, New England and Great Britain. 300-400 years ago much of Europe was choked in ice during the winters that none of us have seen in our lifetimes and there was still a civilization that was growing and expanding.

The truth is of course there is change, there always has been. Crippling our economies and options isn't going to make life better for us.

Even though global climate change due to human activity is factual, it is not a fact. It is a theoretical construction to explain the observed facts (or data points).

The facts that have been observed supports this theory. I agree that there are no such thing as 'proof' in science, only evidence.

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

So. One person in a newspaper goes with a silly name and it is supposed to be a criticism of the entire issue. In all honesty, the whole point of the post just sounds childish.
.

Do a web search for the term, it didn't start in that newspaper article.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

"Global Weirding" ? seriously? The climate change "movement" is nucking futz.

Every event can't be hammered to fit into the same theory ,it's simply nonsense, it's no more authenticate then saying "god did it".

Yes, there is warming and it's well within the bounds of human experience, adaptability and capability.

The Vikings farmed in Greenland 1000 years ago. There were grape vines worth exploiting in New Foundland, New England and Great Britain. 300-400 years ago much of Europe was choked in ice during the winters that none of us have seen in our lifetimes and there was still a civilization that was growing and expanding.

The truth is of course there is change, there always has been. Crippling our economies and options isn't going to make life better for us.

No one is saying that the climate wouldn't be changing without Global Warming, except for those using it as a straw man.

There is evidence that human activity is influencing the climate, and the logical human response to that is to determine what that influence is, and to control that influence in a way that produces positive results or at least reduces negative results.

Whales shit in the ocean, but dumping untreated sewage of the human population into the ocean has negative effects, that we are trying to mitigate with sewage treatment. Moving trillions of tons of carbon from coal and petroleum deposits into the atmosphere seems to effect the climate, and while the effects will be both good and bad, it will depend a lot on the area as to what the specific effects will be.

Rising sea levels will require huge expenditures by coastal communities, and most of the human population lives along the coast, and has a huge investment in the infrastructure that will be affected.
Changing climate will have an effect on agriculture, turning what is now fertile farmland into desert, and in other places, making the desert bloom.
It depends on where you are located as to the effect on you.

The oil and coal industries will see their profits affected negatively by efforts to control carbon emissions, so they will spread the message that the science is unproven, that the cure is worse than the disease, and they will use their influence with their political servants to get them to motivate their bases to spread this message, and they do.
But understand that messaging is messaging, and facts are facts, and the two don't always overlap.

Originally Posted by goober

the logical human response to that is to determine what that influence is, and to control that influence in a way that produces positive results or at least reduces negative results.

Once upon a time the logical method was sacrifice to the gods; now it's supposed to be fixed with a sacrifice to global fairness.

The oil and coal industries will see their profits affected negatively by efforts to control carbon emissions

I wager the human race will pump out and burn every drop of oil it possibly can. Artificial price controls through emission based taxes/fines aren't' going to replace the need for energy.

Hopefully in the mean time people with good sense will develop other means to supply energy in an economic fashion.

People have gotten to be so stupid. Not only do they think the climate of this planet can be manipulated thru taxation, when they experience unusual weather events they reach the conclusion something is wrong.

Originally Posted by goober

There is evidence that human activity is influencing the climate

No there is not. Believing so is the religion of Leftists ... an unprecedented 2000 mile winter storm is not seen as evidence of cooling as it goes against the religion.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Once upon a time the logical method was sacrifice to the gods; now it's supposed to be fixed with a sacrifice to global fairness.

That is true! LOL

There appears to be a pretty solid line of demarkation here - them that think humans can affect the Earth's climate, and them that don't. Nothing can be done about it. It's just a shame that the stupid people think that the other people are the stupid people. They're right.

Originally Posted by shardene

Even though global climate change due to human activity is factual, it is not a fact. It is a theoretical construction to explain the observed facts (or data points).

The facts that have been observed supports this theory. I agree that there are no such thing as 'proof' in science, only evidence.

Human activity has a minuscule effect on the climate if any. The so-called "facts" are the result of intentionally skewed data designed to achieve a predetermined political result. But since governments can reap trillions in taxes and unscrupulous scientists can gain fame and large research grants, the hoax is continued. And even the ethical scientists are taken in because they can only use the flawed data they receive to come to results that support the hoax.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Once upon a time the logical method was sacrifice to the gods; now it's supposed to be fixed with a sacrifice to global fairness.


I wager the human race will pump out and burn every drop of oil it possibly can. Artificial price controls through emission based taxes/fines aren't' going to replace the need for energy.

Hopefully in the mean time people with good sense will develop other means to supply energy in an economic fashion.

(My emphasis.)


"Sacrifice" in the religous sense was never presented as a logical method - it was a religious rite, a propitiation of the God(s).

If you were to say "every drop of oil it economically or politically can", I could agree with that. Soon we will have to switch away from fossil fuels - because soon the remaining stocks will be too unprofitable to extract, or the politics of extracting them will be too painful. Prex Carter had the right of it back in the 70's - we should have been looking hard for reasonable alternatives starting then. Instead we listened to happy talk & elected Prex Reagan - who promptly ripped the largely symbolic solar panels off the White House, told us to crank up the heat, lose those sweaters, & feel good about gas guzzlers. Hoo-ah!

What I don't understand is why we can't use the rescourses we have and put a demonstrative effort into finding alternatives? Ones that actually work, too, not ones that only kinda work if you subsidise them.