One of the problems at the time was greed. It went all the way to Supreme Court to make the decision that geothermal steam was not a separate mineral, it was just hot water. Seems silly, I know.
As far as a “civilization crash". We are more at risk of a civilization crash from a super volcano than climate change. The added man-made heat should cause more species to go extinct than normally go extinct at the climate peak as has happened in the past. I would like to know a few of the simple things, like how long is the climate peak. Right now, my understanding is from 300 years to 3,000 years. Then this is where the scientists do not agree. Some say we are not yet at the peak. Other say we are at the top of the peak. And yet others say we are over the peak and now in the cooling cycle and are being hit by the warmth lag.
I would think a civilization crash to be more from a side effect of climate change than from climate change itself.
What would happen with 9 billion people on a planet that can only produce enough food for 4 billion with plenty of nuclear weapons?
psik
As far as a “civilization crash". We are more at risk of a civilization crash from a super volcano than climate change. The added man-made heat should cause more species to go extinct than normally go extinct at the climate peak as has happened in the past. I would like to know a few of the simple things, like how long is the climate peak. Right now, my understanding is from 300 years to 3,000 years. Then this is where the scientists do not agree. Some say we are not yet at the peak. Other say we are at the top of the peak. And yet others say we are over the peak and now in the cooling cycle and are being hit by the warmth lag.
I would think a civilization crash to be more from a side effect of climate change than from climate change itself.
What would happen with 9 billion people on a planet that can only produce enough food for 4 billion with plenty of nuclear weapons?
psik
Three studies of the last super volcano eruption show there were only 500 to 5,000 breeding humans left on earth.
You know the first attempt was really screwed up. And in case you can’t figure it out, that was the Global Warming attempt. This second attempt, Climate Change, will move forward a little bit more, but the idiots screaming deniers and pushing for new regulations and taxes will end up pushing us into Global Change, the third attempt.
"That Global Warming Attempt"
What? "Attempt" :ahhh:
Please Mike explain which of these you choose to deny:
That greenhouse gases keeps our planet warm…
Or the part where humanity has been injecting giga-tons worth of the stuff into the atmosphere month after month, year after year, decade after decade ?
Or both???
I would me more than happy to reciprocate. But I am still waiting for you to answer the simple and most basic questions about climate change. Please answer the questions, or explain why you will not answer the questions I have ask you. Then I will be more than happy to answer your questions again.
1. Where are we in the climate cycle? What year does the earth stop warming and go into the cooling cycle?
2. What is the natural warming climate cycle temperatures of the earth? This way we can measure the heat from the greenhouse gases.
3. How many years is the climate warming peak?
I still have no idea where you stand on fixing the problem. All I hear is the sky is falling. Are you for control by regulations or policy changes? Or maybe both. What does Citizen think? And why are you asking questions like is carbon a warming gas and is there more carbon in the air? I have never heard anyone disagree with those items in the last five years.
I stand behind the scientists who are working to get enough climate models of all areas of climate change up and working to arrive at a consensus of the best method for mankind to fix the climate problems to the best of mankind’s ability.
You need to seriously look at what is happing in the world today. Oil is now at $40 a barrel. Cheap oil means more carbon in the air. Can you tell me why the government is not listening to what you are saying? People that are blaming it on the oil companies and billionaires are just showing they don’t have a clue as to how the policies of the world really works. The only thing the protesters have been able to accomplish, mainly in California is to tax themselves and raise the cost of living and doing business in California. Nothing to brag about.
I imagine that most the participants here at CFI trust in the scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I also imagine that most of you are over a half century old,
thus have known about AGW concerns most your adult lives.
I'm curious because here we are 2015
and many of our worst fears are starting to play out before our eyes,
polar and glacier melting, weather intensification, sea level impacts,
yet the public seems more confused about our roll (responsibility) than ever.
Anyone here have any thoughts about
why the scientific findings and basic facts have been
so easily overwhelmed by slick but actually rather superficial PR campaigns?
Who says climate science is failing to convince anyone? The vast majority of scientists support it as do the people with IQs at least in the double digits.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Lois
And why are you asking questions like is carbon a warming gas and is there more carbon in the air? I have never heard anyone disagree with those items in the last five years.
Yet you can say paranoid stuff like
You know the first attempt was really screwed up. And in case you can’t figure it out, that was the Global Warming attempt. This second attempt, Climate Change, will move forward a little bit more, but the idiots screaming deniers and pushing for new regulations and taxes will end up pushing us into Global Change, the third attempt.
See there, it sure seems like you haven't grasped the physical basics of what's going on here; thus I ask.
I stand behind the scientists who are working to get enough climate models of all areas of climate change up and working to arrive at a consensus of the best method for mankind to fix the climate problems to the best of mankind’s ability.
Do you now, pray tell then, who are these 'attempters' you just exposed?
Your fixation on the models is another red flag. What in the world are you thinking perfect models are gonna get us?
What about the observational empirical evidence? What about the paleo studies?
What about science being all about pulling together as many strands of evidence as possible?
Besides the top notch models are damned close to the observations. What's your problem?
I've asked you to describe what you find their short comings are,
and you come back with 'i need find global solutions' :ahhh:
what's that got to do with facing what the GCMs are telling experts? >:(
and what serious experts are telling us.
Come on tell us specifically what's missing from the models?
If you can't do that, what are you bitching about?
Why not just take the experts word for it?
__________________________
… All I hear is the sky is falling. Are you for control by regulations or policy changes? Or maybe both. What does Citizen think? And why are you asking questions like is carbon a warming gas and is there more carbon in the air? I have never heard anyone disagree with those items in the last five years. …
Can you tell me why the government is not listening to what you are saying? People that are blaming it on the oil companies and billionaires are just showing they don’t have a clue as to how the policies of the world really works. The only thing the protesters have been able to accomplish, mainly in California is to tax themselves and raise the cost of living and doing business in California. Nothing to brag about.
Who cares what my opinion on that stuff is!
I'm talking about honestly grasping what's actually happening to our planet !
But as usual diversions and distractions and misdirection is all we can hope for from those who loudly attack serious scientists.
Mike, understanding the basic geophysics of our home planet Earth has absolutely nothing to do with solutions.
But, don't you know you sure as hell can't start on solutions without first understanding causes !
Mike, what's the point talking about that when people refuse to grasp the basics, as reported to us by the community of full time Earth science experts.
You need to sit up before you can crawl, before you can walk, before you can run.
What I am doing is hopefully helping some of the scientists who are working on the problem but are limited by work and management policies as to how much voice they are allowed to use. It seems they can write all the white papers they want. But the number of skilled journalist that can interpret the white papers seem to be limited. Plus because of my age, I have been through several policy changes in the past. The United States really blew it when they did not go with geothermal energy. One of the problems at the time was greed. It went all the way to Supreme Court to make the decision that geothermal steam was not a separate mineral, it was just hot water. Seems silly, I know. But it is just that type of stuff that ends up screwing up the right choices some times.
That certainly is a breath-taking panorama you shared there.
As a friend would say: "The conspiracy ideation is great in this one."
Don't suppose you have any specifics, or will this claim remain certain but vague like perhaps UFO sightings.
What's wrong with the regular global community of experts who have been doing these Earth studies for decades stretching into centuries ?
Why do you think you can't trust them ?
I imagine that most the participants here at CFI trust in the scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I also imagine that most of you are over a half century old,
thus have known about AGW concerns most your adult lives.
I'm curious because here we are 2015
and many of our worst fears are starting to play out before our eyes,
polar and glacier melting, weather intensification, sea level impacts,
yet the public seems more confused about our roll (responsibility) than ever.
Anyone here have any thoughts about
why the scientific findings and basic facts have been
so easily overwhelmed by slick but actually rather superficial PR campaigns?
Who says climate science is failing to convince anyone? The vast majority of scientists support it as do the people with IQs at least in the double digits.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.phpLois
Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it. We operate and live by the programs setup by our scientists that have to meet the conditions and operate in a free market environment and a chaotic political system.
Germany and Korea of the past were two countries that thought science could prevail and take the country to a much higher level of life style if science was uses as the controlling factors of policy making. Both Germany and Korea were the powerhouses of economic, educational and scientific status at the time. Both operated by the highest levels of expert scientists in the world that was back by people of power, using the science to help control the government and the people.
And we still today have not reached the levels of the use of expertise that Germany and Korea had in some areas of science. But we did learn that either we control science or science will control us. And we highly disliked the big brother and secrecy aspects of many of the sciences.
Some Americans understand this and know that it takes generations to move forward in some areas but understand that this human factor is required for our values. Otherwise we would have only the top scientists running for public offices and the Presidency. And all of the policies would be controlled by science and not politically. You would be born into a world like that of cattle and sheep and controlled throughout your lifetime, if you were lucky.
Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it. We operate and live by the programs setup by our scientists that have to meet the conditions and operate in a free market environment and a chaotic political system.
...
But we did learn that either we control science or science will control us. And we highly disliked the big brother and secrecy aspects of many of the sciences.
Some Americans understand this and know that it takes generations to move forward in some areas but understand that this human factor is required for our values. Otherwise we would have only the top scientists running for public offices and the Presidency. And all of the policies would be controlled by science and not politically. You would be born into a world like that of cattle and sheep and controlled throughout your lifetime, if you were lucky.
Wow, do you really believe that stuff?
"Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it."
How do you figure that?
Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it. We operate and live by the programs setup by our scientists that have to meet the conditions and operate in a free market environment and a chaotic political system.
...
But we did learn that either we control science or science will control us. And we highly disliked the big brother and secrecy aspects of many of the sciences.
Some Americans understand this and know that it takes generations to move forward in some areas but understand that this human factor is required for our values. Otherwise we would have only the top scientists running for public offices and the Presidency. And all of the policies would be controlled by science and not politically. You would be born into a world like that of cattle and sheep and controlled throughout your lifetime, if you were lucky.
Wow, do you really believe that stuff?
"Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it."
How do you figure that?
I want to know who he figures that too, because if they are, they are made by the same pseudo-scientists involved with Ken Ham.
Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it. We operate and live by the programs setup by our scientists that have to meet the conditions and operate in a free market environment and a chaotic political system.
...
But we did learn that either we control science or science will control us. And we highly disliked the big brother and secrecy aspects of many of the sciences.
Some Americans understand this and know that it takes generations to move forward in some areas but understand that this human factor is required for our values. Otherwise we would have only the top scientists running for public offices and the Presidency. And all of the policies would be controlled by science and not politically. You would be born into a world like that of cattle and sheep and controlled throughout your lifetime, if you were lucky.
Wow, do you really believe that stuff?
"Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it."
How do you figure that?
Staying in the subject area of the post “climate change". So there is no dancing around. All the programs we have today were put together by scientists. Then backed by political factors and presented to the public. Can you name a few that were not?
Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it. We operate and live by the programs setup by our scientists that have to meet the conditions and operate in a free market environment and a chaotic political system.
...
But we did learn that either we control science or science will control us. And we highly disliked the big brother and secrecy aspects of many of the sciences.
Some Americans understand this and know that it takes generations to move forward in some areas but understand that this human factor is required for our values. Otherwise we would have only the top scientists running for public offices and the Presidency. And all of the policies would be controlled by science and not politically. You would be born into a world like that of cattle and sheep and controlled throughout your lifetime, if you were lucky.
Wow, do you really believe that stuff?
"Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it."
How do you figure that?
Staying in the subject area of the post “climate change". So there is no dancing around. All the programs we have today were put together by scientists. Then backed by political factors and presented to the public. Can you name a few that were not?
What programs are you talking about?
Staying in the subject area of the post “climate change". So there is no dancing around. All the programs we have today were put together by scientists. Then backed by political factors and presented to the public. Can you name a few that were not?
What programs are you talking about?
Put together why which scientists?
Backed by what political factors?
Who was doing the presenting to the public?
You haven't named a damned thing.
Tossing out irrational claims is not "naming" anything.
Naming something requires sharing specifics.
Staying in the subject area of the post “climate change". So there is no dancing around. All the programs we have today were put together by scientists. Then backed by political factors and presented to the public. Can you name a few that were not?
What programs are you talking about?
Put together why which scientists?
Backed by what political factors?
Who was doing the presenting to the public?
You haven't named a damned thing.
Tossing out irrational claims is not "naming" anything.
Naming something requires sharing specifics.
Just like his factually inaccurate claim that global warming morphed to climate change, Mike has nothing here. He substitutes vague assertions form facts then challenges others torpor him wrong. When proven wrong he ignores the evidence and moves on to other unsupported statements, but this BS about programs is the most egregious.
I imagine that most the participants here at CFI trust in the scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I also imagine that most of you are over a half century old,
thus have known about AGW concerns most your adult lives.
I'm curious because here we are 2015
and many of our worst fears are starting to play out before our eyes,
polar and glacier melting, weather intensification, sea level impacts,
yet the public seems more confused about our roll (responsibility) than ever.
Anyone here have any thoughts about
why the scientific findings and basic facts have been
so easily overwhelmed by slick but actually rather superficial PR campaigns?
Who says climate science is failing to convince anyone? The vast majority of scientists support it as do the people with IQs at least in the double digits.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.phpLois
Basically our policies are all done by scientists when you really come down to it. We operate and live by the programs setup by our scientists that have to meet the conditions and operate in a free market environment and a chaotic political system.
Germany and Korea of the past were two countries that thought science could prevail and take the country to a much higher level of life style if science was uses as the controlling factors of policy making. Both Germany and Korea were the powerhouses of economic, educational and scientific status at the time. Both operated by the highest levels of expert scientists in the world that was back by people of power, using the science to help control the government and the people.
And we still today have not reached the levels of the use of expertise that Germany and Korea had in some areas of science. But we did learn that either we control science or science will control us. And we highly disliked the big brother and secrecy aspects of many of the sciences.
Some Americans understand this and know that it takes generations to move forward in some areas but understand that this human factor is required for our values. Otherwise we would have only the top scientists running for public offices and the Presidency.
No, that would never happen. The top scientists are far too smart to run for political office. They can see what a cesspit running for office it is. List the top scientists who have ever run for political office.
And all of the policies would be controlled by science and not politically. You would be born into a world like that of cattle and sheep and controlled throughout your lifetime, if you were lucky.
We are already in that world and it wasn't scientists who created it. They were politicians who were anything but scientists.
We are already in that world and it wasn't scientists who created it. They were politicians who were anything but scientists.
Like scientists can't figure out that planned obsolescence is going on in automobiles and other products 46 years after the Moon landing?
How often have you heard scientists talking about it? What does unnecessary manufacturing do for pollution and energy consumption?
Is that POLICY?
People who are supposed to know and say noting are just as full of sh!t as liars.
psik
We are already in that world and it wasn't scientists who created it. They were politicians who were anything but scientists.
Like scientists can't figure out that planned obsolescence is going on in automobiles and other products 46 years after the Moon landing?
How often have you heard scientists talking about it? What does unnecessary manufacturing do for pollution and energy consumption?
Is that POLICY?
People who are supposed to know and say noting are just as full of sh!t as liars.
psikBut, is it fair to make scientists a whipping boy of convenience.
Every intelligent person knows that planned obsolescence is quite wasteful -
why not flog some of the business people and politicians who actually do make the rules and set the pace.
Or the whole American mindset of Too Much Is Never Enough, with Hollywood and advertisers feeding total bs to people nonstop,
people who demand even bigger bs next season… and so on and so forth.
Guess I'm just saying singling out scientists for not being perfect foresight filled citizens seems a cheap shot that misses the point.
But, is it fair to make scientists a whipping boy of convenience.
Every intelligent person knows that planned obsolescence is quite wasteful -
why not flog some of the business people and politicians who actually do make the rules and set the pace.
Who judges what is fair? I don't really care about fair.
What matters is the facts. That is what scientists are supposed to deal in.
I don't hear business men or politicians saying that accounting should be mandatory in the schools either so future worker/consumers will know to think about the depreciation of all of the junk they buy. Who knows what the economy would be like today if it had been mandatory for the last 50 years?
Don't scientists buy cars and pay mortgages? They have as much of a dog in this fight as anyone else.
psik
But, is it fair to make scientists a whipping boy of convenience.
Every intelligent person knows that planned obsolescence is quite wasteful -
why not flog some of the business people and politicians who actually do make the rules and set the pace.
Who judges what is fair? I don't really care about fair.
What matters is the facts. That is what scientists are supposed to deal in.
I don't hear business men or politicians saying that accounting should be mandatory in the schools either so future worker/consumers will know to think about the depreciation of all of the junk they buy. Who knows what the economy would be like today if it had been mandatory for the last 50 years?
Don't scientists buy cars and pay mortgages? They have as much of a dog in this fight as anyone else.
psikpsik, I think we're getting a few things muddled up here.
There is doing serious scientific work, it is a full time plus job getting the data and processing it properly.
There is communicating the science news to the public, (that is, reporting on the products of these immensely busy scientists).
That has never been scientists' responsibility
What about a media community where blatant lying about facts is accepted as standard operating procedure.
,
Why not blame the 'fifth estate' were scandal and conflict is more interesting that basic learning about our global climate engine.
Regular people depend on the public media to inform then.
People expect politicians and a their staffs to be informed.
Don't get me wrong I don't think scientists are innocent either and I think I've pissed off some scientists I totally respect in the process of writing about my issues
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/10/colo-floods-statistics-vs-physics.html
and some other more recent stuff
But there's a lot worse blame and guilt to be doled out to other groups first.
That has never been scientists' responsibility
What about a media community where blatant lying about facts is accepted as standard operating procedure.
I do not share your worship of scientists. The Bell Curve dictates that the majority of them are mediocre scientists. Some admitted that they didn't accept AGW until 2005. But that is OK because they have degrees in science.
But if they all admit that CO2 is a major factor then it should be pretty obvious that Planned Obsolescence must contribute to that. I do not know of any scientists talking about that however.
It is like this society has "Intellectual Boxes" and everyone is supposed to stay inside their box even when there is obvious stupidity in other boxes.
I don't have a degree in economics but I noticed that economists were ignoring Demand Side Depreciation in 1976. I have confronted PhD economists about this. Most ignore me but one said I was correct and that the economics text books are wrong. Planned Obsolescence would show up in that Demand Side Depreciation.
http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html
I put that on the Internet before Global Warming and Peak Oil were becoming such a big deal in the media.
psik