Sunspots Are Missing

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Shit’s happening on this planet that we can control. To deny this is just plain stupid. Go research the great Dust Bowl and then tell me it was “natural causes”. Man had his hands all over that one. Major FAIL.

We need to embrace the new challenges we face. The green movement is fertile with new technologies with an incredible potential for millions of new jobs. But the right-wing thinking is so antiquated, they’d rather cut off their nose to snub their face. If we followed their thinking, we’d still be working with manual typewriters.

lol[/quote]

In Spain, every new ‘green’ job destroyed 9 real jobs and most of the green jobs were temporary.

You know, the sun heating the planet is not a good reason to have an anti-industrial revolution. Pushing a wooden plow all day may make for pristine rivers and sky, but it would suck…just suck.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
That is interesting.

It won’t expose global warming as a “myth”. Depending on change in temperature throughout the cooling cycle, you could come up with several hypotheses both supporting and denying a greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, I doubt we have enough solar data from the “Little Ice Age” to construct a reasonable baseline.

Still, we should be able to improve our climate model, at least.[/quote]

Actually it does dispel it as the current trend of solar energy has been known and studied for years now. If they haven’t yet compensated for it, they are liars.

All I know is if it turns out to be bad George W. Bush is definitely the cause.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Ronsauce wrote:
Thank you ElbowStrike. That was exactly what I was thinking while reading the first post.

For sure.

A backyard greenhouse keeps the temperature higher inside than out, but that doesn’t mean it won’t get cooler when the sun goes down.

I love how there’s been scientific consensus since the 1970s that greenhouse gases will pose a global-warming / “climate change” problem, but big business interests keep funding think-tanks and various other NGO’s for the sole purpose of protecting their industry with propaganda and lies.


It’s a perfect example of Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits” concept of the difference between leadership and management.

A group of people are hacking their way through a dense jungle.

The leader climbs a tree and calls down, “Wrong jungle!”
The manager yells back, “Shut up! We’re making progress!”

The scientific community observes the evidence and concludes, “We as a species need to wean ourselves off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”

The energy industry yells back, “Shut up! We’re turning a profit!”

The Human Drama continues…[/quote]

No, it is a myth that science has decided this. I know the Earth and Atmospheric professors at The Georgia Institute of Technology openly mock the notion of man made global warming.

The again maybe they work for the oil companies.

The fact is that many of the skeptics are from the IPCC itself. Are the IPCC scientists owned by the oil companies too? Or just the ones that don’t buy the junk science?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Whether or not global warming is caused wholly by human action, I think a lot of these green initiatives are absolutely necessary and long overdue. I wish the focus were less on CO2 and more on the array of deadly chemicals being belched into the atmosphere, though. We can’t keep treating the planet like a garbage dump.

It sounds hokey, but its time for a new revolution. The industrial age of exponential growth at any cost has to be done away with. Its totally unsustainable and this fact is becoming more and more evident every day. Companies build shitty products that break within a carefully planned time window so that they can sell a “new and improved” product and make a profit. The old one sits in a dump and eventually leeches harmful chemicals into the environment. This process is reliant upon a finite, rapidly-depleting supply of compressed dinosaurs and biomass…supplies which happen to lie in some of the most politically unstable regions of the Earth.

Its absolute insanity.

Food for thought:

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html

More food for thought:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams050708.php3

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “… civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “… somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there’s a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Whether or not global warming is caused wholly by human action, I think a lot of these green initiatives are absolutely necessary and long overdue. I wish the focus were less on CO2 and more on the array of deadly chemicals being belched into the atmosphere, though. We can’t keep treating the planet like a garbage dump.

It sounds hokey, but its time for a new revolution. The industrial age of exponential growth at any cost has to be done away with. Its totally unsustainable and this fact is becoming more and more evident every day. Companies build shitty products that break within a carefully planned time window so that they can sell a “new and improved” product and make a profit. The old one sits in a dump and eventually leeches harmful chemicals into the environment. This process is reliant upon a finite, rapidly-depleting supply of compressed dinosaurs and biomass…supplies which happen to lie in some of the most politically unstable regions of the Earth.

Its absolute insanity.

[/quote]

Science, unencumbered by a seedy little bureaucrat, would probably take care of these problems.

A prof at M.I.T. came up with a way to store solar energy pretty cheaply. He says its quite likely that NO ONE will need to have an outside source of electricity to their home within 10 years.

Science will fix just about anything if we LEAVE IT ALONE.

[quote]CDM wrote:
More food for thought:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams050708.php3

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “… civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “… somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there’s a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
[/quote]

One of the best posts ever! Kudos!!

My high school econ text, in 1968 and written by Paul Samuelson (famous econ guy), said that the Soviet Union would overtake the USA by the year 2000. I never have forgotten that.

The trouble is, IMHO, that these guys try and use the continuous functions from analytical math (Calc) to create their models. But humans are not ‘continuous’ — Al Gore invents the Internet and all hell breaks loose, for ex. Most systems are not continuous in a macro sense. They appear to be locally, but not globally. (One reason a planned economy is impossible long-term).

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
Food for thought:

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html

[/quote]

Everyone should read this.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

“I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist.”

http://www.augustreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=31

[/quote]

Do some research on The Heartland Institute, it isn’t made up of bi-partisan scientists so I can see why they would say that…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Pushing a wooden plow all day may make for pristine rivers and sky, but it would suck…just suck.

[/quote]

Because driving a 500HP track tractor with a 40’ wide chisel behind it is so titillating and necessary?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

One of the best posts ever! Kudos!!

My high school econ text, in 1968 and written by Paul Samuelson (famous econ guy), said that the Soviet Union would overtake the USA by the year 2000. I never have forgotten that.

The trouble is, IMHO, that these guys try and use the continuous functions from analytical math (Calc) to create their models. But humans are not ‘continuous’ — Al Gore invents the Internet and all hell breaks loose, for ex. Most systems are not continuous in a macro sense. They appear to be locally, but not globally. (One reason a planned economy is impossible long-term).

[/quote]

HH,

Thanks, but that is all Walter Williams, IMO one of the more brilliant columnist out there. Don’t know if this has been posted or you have seen this but it is some interesting stuff.

[quote]conorh wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Pushing a wooden plow all day may make for pristine rivers and sky, but it would suck…just suck.

Because driving a 500HP track tractor with a 40’ wide chisel behind it is so titillating and necessary?[/quote]

What would you rather do, live in a cave and eat nuts and berries?

Just for fun, Google ‘The Anti-Industrial Revolution’. Our rulers would much rather have a feudal state run by them, so they don’t have to compete anymore.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What would you rather do, live in a cave and eat nuts and berries?

[/quote]

The thought had crossed my mind.

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Whether or not global warming is caused wholly by human action, I think a lot of these green initiatives are absolutely necessary and long overdue. I wish the focus were less on CO2 and more on the array of deadly chemicals being belched into the atmosphere, though. We can’t keep treating the planet like a garbage dump.

It sounds hokey, but its time for a new revolution. The industrial age of exponential growth at any cost has to be done away with. Its totally unsustainable and this fact is becoming more and more evident every day. Companies build shitty products that break within a carefully planned time window so that they can sell a “new and improved” product and make a profit. The old one sits in a dump and eventually leeches harmful chemicals into the environment. This process is reliant upon a finite, rapidly-depleting supply of compressed dinosaurs and biomass…supplies which happen to lie in some of the most politically unstable regions of the Earth.

Its absolute insanity.
[/quote]

To me its obvious that “man-man” global warming is bullshit, but in the other hand I totally agree with your statement above.

In the old days even the cheapest products were still pretty good and could be used for a lifetime, in those days the standard was “quality”…no marketing bullshit…

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Ronsauce wrote:
Thank you ElbowStrike. That was exactly what I was thinking while reading the first post.

For sure.

A backyard greenhouse keeps the temperature higher inside than out, but that doesn’t mean it won’t get cooler when the sun goes down.

I love how there’s been scientific consensus since the 1970s that greenhouse gases will pose a global-warming / “climate change” problem, but big business interests keep funding think-tanks and various other NGO’s for the sole purpose of protecting their industry with propaganda and lies.


It’s a perfect example of Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits” concept of the difference between leadership and management.

A group of people are hacking their way through a dense jungle.

The leader climbs a tree and calls down, “Wrong jungle!”
The manager yells back, “Shut up! We’re making progress!”

The scientific community observes the evidence and concludes, “We as a species need to wean ourselves off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”

The energy industry yells back, “Shut up! We’re turning a profit!”

The Human Drama continues…

No, it is a myth that science has decided this. I know the Earth and Atmospheric professors at The Georgia Institute of Technology openly mock the notion of man made global warming.

The again maybe they work for the oil companies.

The fact is that many of the skeptics are from the IPCC itself. Are the IPCC scientists owned by the oil companies too? Or just the ones that don’t buy the junk science?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport[/quote]

Where does their funding come from? Quite probably they are heavily influenced by some industry of some sort.

[quote]lou21 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Ronsauce wrote:
Thank you ElbowStrike. That was exactly what I was thinking while reading the first post.

For sure.

A backyard greenhouse keeps the temperature higher inside than out, but that doesn’t mean it won’t get cooler when the sun goes down.

I love how there’s been scientific consensus since the 1970s that greenhouse gases will pose a global-warming / “climate change” problem, but big business interests keep funding think-tanks and various other NGO’s for the sole purpose of protecting their industry with propaganda and lies.


It’s a perfect example of Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits” concept of the difference between leadership and management.

A group of people are hacking their way through a dense jungle.

The leader climbs a tree and calls down, “Wrong jungle!”
The manager yells back, “Shut up! We’re making progress!”

The scientific community observes the evidence and concludes, “We as a species need to wean ourselves off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”

The energy industry yells back, “Shut up! We’re turning a profit!”

The Human Drama continues…

No, it is a myth that science has decided this. I know the Earth and Atmospheric professors at The Georgia Institute of Technology openly mock the notion of man made global warming.

The again maybe they work for the oil companies.

The fact is that many of the skeptics are from the IPCC itself. Are the IPCC scientists owned by the oil companies too? Or just the ones that don’t buy the junk science?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Where does their funding come from? Quite probably they are heavily influenced by some industry of some sort.[/quote]

IPCC scientists? You’re right, The IPCC must be under the influence of some power… lol

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html

That was a good read.

Poor Michael is dead now :frowning:

He gave us much joy

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
CDM wrote:
More food for thought:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams050708.php3

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “… civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “… somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there’s a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

One of the best posts ever! Kudos!!

My high school econ text, in 1968 and written by Paul Samuelson (famous econ guy), said that the Soviet Union would overtake the USA by the year 2000. I never have forgotten that.

The trouble is, IMHO, that these guys try and use the continuous functions from analytical math (Calc) to create their models. But humans are not ‘continuous’ — Al Gore invents the Internet and all hell breaks loose, for ex. Most systems are not continuous in a macro sense. They appear to be locally, but not globally. (One reason a planned economy is impossible long-term).

[/quote]
All true, why should we believe these conclusions form these people when they have been consistently wrong.It’s like a friend with hot stock tips or betting yips who is always wrong. why put your money behind what he says?