Re: How Times Change
I didn't know Huma Bedin used the Gigabob!
13 posts • joined 9 Mar 2011
Another leftist hit piece. When considering whether to do something, it is idiotic to do something simply because everyone else is doing it. The lemmings effect. If email does not help a person do what they want to do, don't do it. The same goes for Twitter, Facebook, and all the other "social media" idiocies.
As the Wicked Witch of the East knows, all emails are supposed to be archived for future use. No emails, no archive, although I would bet that the senator's subordinates do a lot of emailing, especially in answering emails from their constituents. I would say not doing emails is smart except that doing Twitter is incredibly stupid for a high-profile politician.
I think the essence of Charles Darwin's work can be stated as "Adapt or die". Review the known climate changes over the past 500K years and it is clear that the earth is currently on an upward temperature slope. The multiple glaciation/heating periods make that clear. And that means that further warming is inevitable without regard to any actions taken or not taken by humans. And that warming will be followed - centuries from now - by cooling.
Why not spend money on learning how we can adapt to further warming rather than a futile attempt to stop global warming? King Knute, anyone? It is odd that "progressives" are advocates of preserving the climate status quo, a supposedly "conservative" domain.
When "climate scientists" begin to admit that there are natural causes to global warming AS WELL AS man-made causes, and begin to calculate the relative percentages of causality, THEN an intelligent discussion can begin. Until then, the arguments are futile and convince no one.
"Four Republicans ...". Should say "Four Republican politicians without scientific training say ...". I am waiting to see if they have the vaguest notion of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, insolation, chemistry, horticulture, et al.
Distortion #1. All persons who will not genuflect to the AGW cultists believe that the world is not warming.
Truth. The world is undeniably warming. What is not proven is that the CO2 is the sole and only source of the warming. In fact, the melting of the North American ice sheets over 12,000 years ago proves that the earth is warming from reasons in addition to man made emissions. The climate would get warmer if mankind did not exist.
Distortion #2. All reputable climate scientists believe in AGW.
Truth. There are many reputable scientists of long experience who do not believe that man made emissions are the only driving force for global warming. They say these things without pay as alleged by the paid Al Gore minions. Reference the emails of Climate and ignore the whitewash where the AGW cultists investigated the other AGW cultists. The Climategate participants have done more to damage public view of science and the credibility of scientists than has occurred since the Inquisition.
Implied Distortion #3. The current climate is the best climate there has ever been and we must do everything to keep it from changing.
Truth. The current climate is the only climate we have ever experienced. Climate is a long term event, measurable in geologic time terms, not human time terms. There are indications that Medieval Warm Period in Europe (900 CE to 1400 CE) led to the construction of the magnificent cathedrals and events such as wine produced from grapes grown in Scotland. And the Medieval Warm Period has been reported as being significantly warmer than today. Perhaps because experiments have shown that plants grow better with higher concentrations of CO2, we might expect better crop yields from the same amount of land, which will be needed to feed the asymptotically increasing population.
Of course, there would be increased likelihood of flooding in Miami, New York, Boston, New Orleans, etc., but would there be any BAD effects? Maybe those cities could hire engineers from The Netherlands to show them how to build dikes to keep out water.
Climate has been changing back and forth for millions of years so climate change is not new. What is new is the hue and cry that "we can stop it if you will just give us money." Try looking at the different sources of change, starting with heat from the earth's magma via volcanoes and the changes in Earth's orbit, tilt, and precession as calculated in the Malankovitch Cycles.
Why not stop worrying about the natural warming and start spending time and money investigating how to adapt to a warming climate? That would cut off funding for the AGW-hustlers but I am sure Al Gore would not have to start begging.
We have a choice - fight the natural tide of global warming by destroying our economies or rationally spend some money figuring out how to live in a warmer world. Green house gases are an unproven source of global warming although they probably exacerbate the natural processes. Computer models are guides, not proof.
For those who think man made green house gases are the ONLY reason for global warming, please explain why the glaciers that covered Canada and the northern US 15,000 years ago have melted. Climate change is a natural process for many reasons and trying to fight nature is always a losing proposition. Charles Darwin might say Adapt or Die.
Unfortunately, the alleged Climate Scientists cannot perform controlled experiments with climate as medical scientists can perform double blind medical experiments. Without experimental proof, they have only theory. The climate long range projections are subject to insufficient and imperfect data, a mass of assumptions that may not be correct or are numerically wrong, and the biases, some financially induced, that are embedded into the computer programs. The Climategate email revelations and subsequent whitewash "investigation" did enormous damage to the credibility of any "climate scientist".
Reading the comments, it seems only two commenters have any actual knowledge of what goes on at the NSA program. The remainder speak from their vast store of ignorance and ill will. Then there are the persons of such vastly superior intellect that they are able to interpret "unconstitutional and illegal" behavior better than SCOTUS and the FISA courts. And don't forget those whose response to others with whom they do not agree is always the infamous ad hominem attack.
I seem to remember that the telephone company collects your phone call metadata and uses it to send you a bill. Some ISPs monitor your internet usage and send you a bill. NSA collects phone number, phone called, length of call. Stores it. At this point, it is No-Name data, less than your telephone companies gather. Some other authorized agency decides they need your data so they look in the PUBLIC telephone directory or get the address online, get the FISA court to authorize the release of data from NSA, nd NSA complies with the court order. Linking a name to the metadata is done under court order, as is further processing.
It would be physically impossible to actually listen to and record every telephone call and every internet message of everyone. How many zetabytes of storage would that require? How many people would be required to listen in to all conversations? Try to think logically for a change.
As for Snowden, he has admitted he deliberately wormed his way into NSA in order to find evidence of things he did not like. That is almost the definition of a mole spy. He undoubtedly considers himself to be a righteous crusader. I consider him guilty of Treason.
As Senator Moynihan said, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
Please caution Prince Harry that the men in that area (and sometimes the women) are particularly fond of shooting and are very likely to have a rifle, shotgun, or pistol (sometimes several of each). They are likely to take umbrage to slights quite easily when they perceive they are provoked. I really would hate for someone to cause a truly international incident by shooting Prince Harry because of his attentions to their favored one.
BTW, I spent 6 long weeks there in summer 1965, performing electronic experiments at the Gila Bend Auxiliary Air Force Base out amongst the Saguaro cactus. It gets hot there in the summer time!!! Very hot.
If I read the charts correctly, the data reviewed covered only surface data from stations on land masses. That accounts for 30% of the planet. What about the 70% covered by water? What about the heat energy in the air blanket above the earth?
Frankly, I am more likely to trust satellite observations than I am to trust all the data from the land stations. For one thing, more money is spent on each satellite instrument than is spent on a land station - many times more money and that usually means better accuracy. If we take the raw data - not "corrected" to meet someone's pet theory of AGW, the data should be much more in step with reality.
I have noticed that when "deniers" or "skeptics" post on this and other pertinent articles, the posts are full of data and references to sources of the data. In other words, they are watching the science and the results of analysis. When the members of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming (Al Gore, Pope) post, they are using ad fontem arguments, adding nothing in the way of information for consideration. So one group adds information, the opposing group adds noise. Guess which group is the most correctly scientific?
The many skeptical arguments above recount my own doubts better than I could have stated them - congratulations to those posters. As someone stated, "Follow the Money". Taxes, Cap and Trade, Indulgences (or should we say Carbon Credits), other ways of taking money from producers and giving it to non-producers. Why does the IPCC exist - power grab maybe?
If you ask the wrong questions you get meaningless answers. Climate change is obvious and has been going on for about 4 billion years, sometimes warmer and sometimes colder. The scientists I have heard say that the northern areas of both Europe and North America were submerged in ice about 40,000 years ago. Where is that ice now? There is scoring in the rocks of Central Park in New York City that indicate three periods when very deep glaciers were present there. The ice comes and goes. Most scientists say the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. Why did it end? Were the cave people burning too much wood? Maybe it had something to do with a natural cycle. The cyclic charts going back millions of years say that we are now on an upswing getting warmer, similar to the previous cycles.
Is the climate getting warmer? I would say yes. Will it continue to get warmer? Yes, regardless of what we do or do not do. The case for manmade global warming is unproven at best and a fraud at worst. Certainly methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases but whether they are the TOTAL cause of the warming is certainly not proven and is in fact highly unlikely. Water vapor is a high proportion of the GHGs in our atmosphere and there are probably some other elements active also.
As for the scurrilous implication that conservatives are easily led, the opposite interpretation is more likely, that the anthropogenic global warming cultists have drunk the Koolaid and are beyond help, while the conservatives study the science and make up their own minds. A little skepticism is also apparent in that conservatives generally do not wish to destroy their nation's economy for fruitless causes. Think about it: if the nations do nothing and the earth gets warmer (as I believe it will), the AGW cultists will castigate everyone for doing nothing. If the AGW cultists are allowed to rob the economies of nations for their scam, and the earth gets warmer, they will say we did not do enough. They are in a "Heads I win, tails you lose" scam.
AGW cultists say "Stop climate change!" Why are they so sure the present climate is the very best climate there can be and changes are not desired? I am still waiting for the answer as to why the last ice age ended.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019