Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

About That Global Warming...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    I don't think you understand how science works.
    The science already is tested to destruction by peer review which is a system that is regularly rubbished by conservatives.
    Did you read the article Peter? It was penned by none other than a scientist, not a biased politician.

    What the dogmatists understand well is eristic argument, after Eris the Greek goddess of discord and chaos. Eristic tactics come to us from the ancient Greek sophists. Eristic methods manifest themselves today in the works of Saul Alinsky. As the goddesss qualities suggest, they are inherently divisive. The objective is victory, not truth. This is foreign to the training and personalities of most scientists. I, like other scientists, go into debates with a collegial attitude, tolerant of contrary thinking, no matter how wrong it may seem. Freely doubt the ideas; respect the people. When confronted with eristic tactics though, which are often absurd, aggressive, and deeply irrational, we are left gobsmacked. Like any other humans, scientists can speak the language of political nonsense, but they speak it badly. Their famous political naivety makes them easy prey for any political operative. And so we loose against eristic tactics, even when we know they are coming.

    The followers of Eris see opposition in terms of a struggle for power, while scientists see opposition as a means for testing thinking. For scientists, opposition is a feature not a bug. Authorities can proudly convince themselves to be absurdly wrong, until some brave souls stand up to them. Sometimes there is a heavy price.

    An easily comprehensible example would be the case of the physician Ignaz Semmelweis. He proposed that patients would be helped if you thoroughly washed your hands between patients. The consensus among experts of his day was that he was wrong. He was driven out and ended his days in a psychiatric hospital. This phenomenon is not the exception, but the rule. In countless cases ranging from obscure technical issues, known only by experts, to grand insights like continental drift, this story, or something like it, has been played out again and again in history.

    It does not mean that experts are always even mostly wrong. It only means that when humanity does take a step ahead, that step naturally concerns something that prideful experts didnt know before. Over the generations, this lesson has been gradually absorbed into the scientific world. The heretics and crackpots might just be right, and so there is an awareness (even if grudging) that tolerance of what seems wrong is essentialthe scientific version of free speech. It is probably no accident that scientific advances tend to be made in the freest environments. Scientists must ask critical questions of each other about their works to move us all ahead. Its their job. Opposition is necessary, but only opposition with a presumption of good will, where all agree that the objective is truth, not crushing your enemies
    Obviously what is missing here with the controversy of AGW, and the predictions is the "questioning'. In fact questioning has been and is still being attacked tremendously, and this indeed is anti scientific, and purely political in nature. And this is what is corrupting this thing we call science. And it is a monumental problem, while also being completely and utterly absurd, for science isn't supposed to be like this at all. And when science does take such a path, it is no longer actually science.


    Climate, as the scientific field we know today, is very young. It was cobbled together from pieces of a number of established fields and elevated into the limelight only very recently as science goes. It was particularly vulnerable to antirational inroads because there was no core body of scientific knowledge, like say physics or chemistry have. Before the great climate fervor, the term climate science was virtually unheard of. Instead, climatology was a tranquil, narrow, and descriptive area, with little funding and few practitioners. Todays version, climate science, is driven as much by trumped up public fears as traditional scientific objectives. I have heard many times that what we scientists should work on depends on what policymakers want.

    The fields and methodologies of climate science are a disjointed collection that few have anything approaching a universal command of, let alone a universal command from which to form a knowledgable consensus. Is climate research the gathering and description of data? Is it statistical time series analysis? Is it meteorology extended by supercomputers? Is it molecular spectroscopy? Is it oceanography, glaciology, geology, thermodynamics, physics, orbital mechanics, computer science, survey research, economics, biology, dynamical systems theory, solar physics, or much more? It is easy to say all of the above, but specialists in these subfields often wonder privately what the other specialties are actually there for. For example, do we really need complex models when greenhouses are so simple? Or, We modelers can help paleontologists more than they can help us. There are many such examples
    "s


    Yet the noise coming from the "science is settled" people, the same ones who scream loudly about the deniers, apparently do not understand science either. Al Gore either does not understand it, or is playing dumb. I would encourage you to read the rest of the article. For what the man is saying is factual, and facts really do matter. But the politically driven alarmists don't have any time for facts, and that is creating problems, on both sides.

    ?


    • #92
      Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): Global Warming Will Turn Women Into Prostitutes For Food

      A senior House Democrat has once again issued an apocalyptic warning that climate change will hit women harder than men, and that it could drive millions of poor women to engage in transactional sex in order to provide food and water for their families.
      Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) proposed a resolution on Wednesday that said as the climate changes, it will cause food and water scarcity around the world. That will create pressures on poor women in particular, since they are often charged with growing food and collecting water for their families
      [F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health, it read.

      ?


      • #93
        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
        Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): Global Warming Will Turn Women Into Prostitutes For Food


        http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/26/re...utes-for-food/[/I]
        [/INDENT]
        There is not one bit of evidence that warming will cause droughts. Why should it? Warmer temps mean more water uptake, which means more rain. If the earth is turning into a green house, due to green house gases that trap heat, all greenhouses are very humid environments. As we were coming out of the ice age, the sahara greened up, as was a desert during the ice age.

        ?


        • #94
          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
          I don't think you understand how science works.
          The science already is tested to destruction by peer review which is a system that is regularly rubbished by conservatives.
          Is it now?

          Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal

          A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of fabricated peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications.

          The publisher is BioMed Central, based in the United Kingdom, which puts out 277 peer-reviewed journals. A partial list of the retracted articles suggests most of them were written by scholars at universities in China, including China Medical University, Sichuan University, Shandong University and Jiaotong University Medical School. But Jigisha Patel, associate editorial director for research integrity at BioMed Central, said its not a China problem. We get a lot of robust research of China. We see this as a broader problem of how scientists are judged.

          Meanwhile, the Committee on Publication Ethics, a multidisciplinary group that includes more than 9,000 journal editors, issued a statement suggesting a much broader potential problem. The committee, it said, has become aware of systematic, inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review processes of several journals across different publishers. Those journals are now reviewing manuscripts to determine how many may need to be retracted, it said.

          Peer review is the vetting process designed to guarantee the integrity of scholarly articles by having experts read them and approve or disapprove them for publication. With researchers increasingly desperate for recognition, citations and professional advancement, the whole peer-review system has come under scrutiny in recent years for a host of flaws and irregularities, ranging from lackadaisical reviewing to cronyism to outright fraud.

          ?


          • #95
            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            There is not one bit of evidence that warming will cause droughts. Why should it? Warmer temps mean more water uptake, which means more rain. If the earth is turning into a green house, due to green house gases that trap heat, all greenhouses are very humid environments. As we were coming out of the ice age, the sahara greened up, as was a desert during the ice age.
            The effect would not necessarily be universal, its contingent on weather and jet stream patterns.

            ?


            • #96

              The article states there are 9,000 journal editors so I imagine the number of papers they review is at least 100,000 a year so 43 wrongly peer reviewed papers (even 5 times that) doesn't seem like a reason to question the entire peer review process.

              ?


              • #97
                Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                The article states there are 9,000 journal editors so I imagine the number of papers they review is at least 100,000 a year so 43 wrongly peer reviewed papers (even 5 times that) doesn't seem like a reason to question the entire peer review process.
                The article also makes it abundantly clear that the journal believes it's just the tip of the iceberg. Where do I get a trademark on the term "White Wall of Silence"?

                ?


                • #98
                  Ok let's say there's 50 times as many bad papers as reported that's still just over 1% of the total of 100,000 total papers it's not a reason to doubt the process.

                  ?


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                    Ok let's say there's 50 times as many bad papers as reported that's still just over 1% of the total of 100,000 total papers it's not a reason to doubt the process.
                    If the point of peer review is to catch fraudulent science, and it's not doing so, there is every reason to doubt the process.

                    ?


                    • So you now expect perfection from scientists and any fraud of the peer review system (which is being investigated and hopefully cleared up) means the entire system is suspect even if the fraud is much less than 1%. Are you claiming all peer review is now pointless as if you are then you also can't bring any scientists to the table to try and back your claims that climate change isn't real or are your scientists special and unimpeachable?

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Commodore View Post

                        If the point of peer review is to catch fraudulent science, and it's not doing so, there is every reason to doubt the process.
                        That would be a huge problem if we find that over 3-4% of peer reviewed material was fraudulent. I choose the 3-4% figure because that is the one kicked around to describe accuracy in polls, as well as the portion of humanity that is in the "sociopath" category.

                        To expect scientists as a group to get below the 4% (sociopath) mark means they would have procedures to root them out before they get to peer review. I don't even know if psychologists (or others in social sciences) do this. Of course they should, but I doubt they spend enuf time and energy on this.

                        Ability to detect and defend oneself from sociopathological behavior should be taught in high school, so this "peer review" argument then would be practically irrelevant.

                        Since our society depends very heavily on science, it is that much more important to deal with fraud and other lies more harshly when it comes to science. Even if the community of scientists were 3 times more efficient at rooting out the frauds, that would still leave about 1% of their number as expert sociopaths, the figure put forth by Peter. Difficult to believe that even 3% of climate scientists (the usual portion of frauds) could drive the other 97% of their colleagues based on the sociopaths' toolkit of BS, intimidation and faked emotion. That implies that the 97% have given up testing hypothesis and seeking further data pro/con.

                        ?


                        • The problem with global warming is that it has become a religion, not science. There are adherents on both sides of the argument who will defend their position despite the science. I try to believe what I see with my own eyes and not some computer model. I see that none of the radical claims over the last 30 years have proven out. The planet is not getting hotter, cities are not under water, hurricanes have subsided, instead of increasing. There is still snowfall every year. Those who argue for warming continue to push their projections out past any observable time and continue to make excuses as to why their models may be failing.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                            The problem with global warming is that it has become a religion, not science. There are adherents on both sides of the argument who will defend their position despite the science. I try to believe what I see with my own eyes and not some computer model. I see that none of the radical claims over the last 30 years have proven out. The planet is not getting hotter, cities are not under water, hurricanes have subsided, instead of increasing. There is still snowfall every year. Those who argue for warming continue to push their projections out past any observable time and continue to make excuses as to why their models may be failing.
                            When models based upon "what they think they fully understand" do not over time reflect reality, that probably means that "what they think they understand" is WRONG. And obviously much of what they do not understand is in regards to co2 levels, and its predicted effects upon climate. So there are other factors involved here that are perhaps mitigating the assumed effects of higher co2 levels. Climate change, vis a vis warmer temps is more involved than just what the co2 level is. They thought there was a one to one relationship between co2 and temps, and there were just utterly wrong. This is why their models failed horrible in its predictions.

                            The ice caps are supposed to be gone by now or within the next few years, yet that has not, and obviously isn't gonna occur. The hurricanes were supposed to be more numerous, and on an average stronger, yet that is not the reality either. We should not have the delta of the Mississippi river increasing in size after years of not increasing in size, yet that is happening too.

                            Now they are trying to blame the droughts in Ca on climate change, because of co2 levels, yet droughts are not necessarily the effects of a warming, and our past droughts like in the 1930s was not climate induced, but weather. So, the alarmists will call record level snow falls 'weather' which is not to be confused with climate, while insisting upon calling a drought, climate change when in fact it's probably just weather variation. We had a bad drought in parts of the south a few years ago, where our corn only reached knee high and then stopped growing in parts of the south. And it lasted more than a year. We are no longer under drought conditions. The same will happen with Ca, which also happened in the 30s in parts of the US, causing the Dust Bowl. Now, in Meso America the Mayans suffered a very long drought that imploded their civilization, yet today, the jungles reclaimed those farms and cities, once that long drought ended. This drought occurred before the industrial age and fossil fuel burning.

                            The trouble with the alarmists, is that they don't want the climate to change, and they want co2 levels to stay at 280 ppm forever, and never rise, even as in the distant past the levels were 1500 ppm while life flourished. We should all hope for the earth to warm more as it comes out of the last ice age, for man has always prospered when this happened. And with world population always growing, we will need for growing areas for food crops to open up which happens with the warming, on very fertile lands that today we cannot farm in the northern hemisphere.

                            If one took another view of warming, they could say that any warming is being done so that the earth can feed the growing population of humanity, so that we don't have more people literally starving to death. Now, if the earth starts to cool, I will be one of the people getting worried, for that indeed would be very bad, and something to get concerned about. But if that happens, what in the world would the UN want taxed in order to redistribute income?

                            We probably need to leave enough fossil fuels in the ground so that when the earth starts to cool, we can really in a big way try to increase co2 levels to give us a few more years before mile thick ice sheets cover most of the US.

                            ?


                            • Carbon-based fuels are supplied by a few countries. For coal, 80% of the world's reserves are found in only six (6) countries. For oil reserves, 80% of it is controlled by ten (10) countries.

                              That, and that alone, could be the reason China is going big into renewables and away from coal/petroleum.
                              Funding surged because of a 32 percent expansion in China’s commitment to renewables, as well as a record $19.4 billion committed to offshore wind projects that were years in the making.
                              http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...port-for-solar

                              Of course, China will run propaganda that they love the environment and don't want to harm people with by-products of coal/petroleum use. But the real reason is because fossil fuels are much more unstable in price and availability than renewables can be. Even poor countries like Nicaragua are going heavily into renewables, and for the same reason.

                              Sorry BD. We're not going to burn more carbon to warm up the planet if it cools down. If land for food production shrinks, the easier way is to reduce our population to a point where we can be sustained by whatever land can be cultivated, while providing for other species needed to maintain a long-term environment. That strategy is much more practical than trying to figure out how much gas we should or should not pump into the atmosphere.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                Carbon-based fuels are supplied by a few countries. For coal, 80% of the world's reserves are found in only six (6) countries. For oil reserves, 80% of it is controlled by ten (10) countries.

                                That, and that alone, could be the reason China is going big into renewables and away from coal/petroleum.

                                http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...port-for-solar

                                Of course, China will run propaganda that they love the environment and don't want to harm people with by-products of coal/petroleum use. But the real reason is because fossil fuels are much more unstable in price and availability than renewables can be. Even poor countries like Nicaragua are going heavily into renewables, and for the same reason.
                                China is switching off of coal because to provide enough power for their population with it would simultaneously render their cities uninhabitable.
                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                Sorry BD. We're not going to burn more carbon to warm up the planet if it cools down. If land for food production shrinks, the easier way is to reduce our population to a point where we can be sustained by whatever land can be cultivated, while providing for other species needed to maintain a long-term environment.

                                Are you volunteering?
                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                That strategy is much more practical than trying to figure out how much gas we should or should not pump into the atmosphere.
                                A much more practical strategy is to move as much of our agricultural production indoors, minus some pleasant pastures that will support all but the largest mega-fauna, who can be raised in controlled environments.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X