Climate Change
February 13th, 2016, 06:46 AM
#41
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,463
I'm sorry, but it scares me when people are this mis-informed. I suggest you get your information from multiple sources, not just blogs posted by nameless people. Reading only things that reinforce what you already believe is not the way to form an informed decision. Unfortunately, this is the sad trend in the world today. Don't be a sheep. Learn about ALL sides of an issue, not just the one you currently believe, and THEN form an opinion. Unfortunately, that's a lot more work than simply being spoon-fed more of the same drivel.
As I said, reasonable people can debate the causes of increasing global temperatures, and I certainly am skeptical of some of the data, not to mention the alarmists who try to claim that every hurricane and snowstorm is further "proof" of climate change, but the temperature trend is definitely upwards. If you have children, you tend to care about what happens to them in the future.
As I said, reasonable people can debate the causes of increasing global temperatures, and I certainly am skeptical of some of the data, not to mention the alarmists who try to claim that every hurricane and snowstorm is further "proof" of climate change, but the temperature trend is definitely upwards. If you have children, you tend to care about what happens to them in the future.
February 13th, 2016, 07:04 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: southeastern Michigan
Posts: 14,215
From where I sit, these are the issues that have to be addressed in the global warming/climate change/summertime debate.
1. Is the global temperature really increasing?
2. If so, is human activity an important or even primary cause?
3. If the planet is warming, what are the pluses (and, yes, there would be many positives to a warmer world) and minuses. Is there something special about the temperature in 1990, which is the year that all of these emission goals seem to be targeting, that is ideal for mankind?
4. To what extent can reducing emissions affect this climate change, if it can be stopped at all.
5. A cost/benefit analysis of stopping/slowing global warming versus adapting to it. In other words, what costs more? Stopping global warming or not stopping it and learning to live with it?
Each of these questions is a subject of legitimate debate. In order for the global warming alarmists, who demand enormous reductions in emissions, to prevail, they need to complete a parlay. They need to show that the planet is indeed warming, that we are causing it, that we can stop it, and that, if we don't, the consequences are so catastrophic as to make the costs worthwhile.
1. Is the global temperature really increasing?
2. If so, is human activity an important or even primary cause?
3. If the planet is warming, what are the pluses (and, yes, there would be many positives to a warmer world) and minuses. Is there something special about the temperature in 1990, which is the year that all of these emission goals seem to be targeting, that is ideal for mankind?
4. To what extent can reducing emissions affect this climate change, if it can be stopped at all.
5. A cost/benefit analysis of stopping/slowing global warming versus adapting to it. In other words, what costs more? Stopping global warming or not stopping it and learning to live with it?
Each of these questions is a subject of legitimate debate. In order for the global warming alarmists, who demand enormous reductions in emissions, to prevail, they need to complete a parlay. They need to show that the planet is indeed warming, that we are causing it, that we can stop it, and that, if we don't, the consequences are so catastrophic as to make the costs worthwhile.
February 13th, 2016, 08:32 AM
#43
Senior Moment Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,879
I'm sorry, but it scares me when people are this mis-informed. I suggest you get your information from multiple sources, not just blogs posted by nameless people. Reading only things that reinforce what you already believe is not the way to form an informed decision. Unfortunately, this is the sad trend in the world today. Don't be a sheep. Learn about ALL sides of an issue, not just the one you currently believe, and THEN form an opinion. Unfortunately, that's a lot more work than simply being spoon-fed more of the same drivel.
As I said, reasonable people can debate the causes of increasing global temperatures, and I certainly am skeptical of some of the data, not to mention the alarmists who try to claim that every hurricane and snowstorm is further "proof" of climate change, but the temperature trend is definitely upwards. If you have children, you tend to care about what happens to them in the future.
As I said, reasonable people can debate the causes of increasing global temperatures, and I certainly am skeptical of some of the data, not to mention the alarmists who try to claim that every hurricane and snowstorm is further "proof" of climate change, but the temperature trend is definitely upwards. If you have children, you tend to care about what happens to them in the future.
February 13th, 2016, 08:35 AM
#44
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,463
From where I sit, these are the issues that have to be addressed in the global warming/climate change/summertime debate.
1. Is the global temperature really increasing?
2. If so, is human activity an important or even primary cause?
3. If the planet is warming, what are the pluses (and, yes, there would be many positives to a warmer world) and minuses. Is there something special about the temperature in 1990, which is the year that all of these emission goals seem to be targeting, that is ideal for mankind?
4. To what extent can reducing emissions affect this climate change, if it can be stopped at all.
5. A cost/benefit analysis of stopping/slowing global warming versus adapting to it. In other words, what costs more? Stopping global warming or not stopping it and learning to live with it?
Each of these questions is a subject of legitimate debate. In order for the global warming alarmists, who demand enormous reductions in emissions, to prevail, they need to complete a parlay. They need to show that the planet is indeed warming, that we are causing it, that we can stop it, and that, if we don't, the consequences are so catastrophic as to make the costs worthwhile.
1. Is the global temperature really increasing?
2. If so, is human activity an important or even primary cause?
3. If the planet is warming, what are the pluses (and, yes, there would be many positives to a warmer world) and minuses. Is there something special about the temperature in 1990, which is the year that all of these emission goals seem to be targeting, that is ideal for mankind?
4. To what extent can reducing emissions affect this climate change, if it can be stopped at all.
5. A cost/benefit analysis of stopping/slowing global warming versus adapting to it. In other words, what costs more? Stopping global warming or not stopping it and learning to live with it?
Each of these questions is a subject of legitimate debate. In order for the global warming alarmists, who demand enormous reductions in emissions, to prevail, they need to complete a parlay. They need to show that the planet is indeed warming, that we are causing it, that we can stop it, and that, if we don't, the consequences are so catastrophic as to make the costs worthwhile.
)The data is pretty conclusive as to the fact that global temps have increased in the last 50 years. Given how that corresponds to man-made events, especially the increased use of energy by developing nations in that time period, one can infer that mankind has had an impact, but you are correct in that there are other possible natural variations at work. I also realize that the data is presented by both sides using careful selection of graph scales and normalizing points that make it appear to support one or the other side's argument. As Will Rodgers said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You have to very carefully parse the data to understand what it is telling you. Neither side has done a good job of subjectively presenting the data.
I also agree with the need for proper cost/benefit analysis and not knee-jerk reactions at any cost, which has been the hallmark of environmentalists since the 1960s. Unfortunately, rational cost/benefit analysis always gets spun into "this additional effort wasn't done because it saved $XXXXXX instead." The problem with saying we need to "adapt" to warming, however, is that we don't know if that's possible. There is some analysis - admittedly an extrapolation - that indicates that once a certain point is crossed, the rate of increase speeds up due to self-perpetuating effects. I don't know enough to believe this or not, but it deserves a better understanding. You wouldn't want to hit a point of no return.
Unfortunately, there's much more that we don't know than we do, and many reasonable people believe that until we know more, we should at least try to mitigate the rate of increase. That's not to say that this is the end of the world or not, only that we should preserve our options before we lose that chance.
February 13th, 2016, 08:59 AM
#45
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,463
Joe, I would posit that YOU are the one who is misinformed. Do YOUR own research. This is like politics, you can't argue it. You either are fooled by the money makers or you think for yourself. See if AlGore will give you a ride on his carbon spewing jet to the next "Globull Warming Conference! LOL!
Yeah, I can live with that.
February 13th, 2016, 12:01 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,972
Joe, I would posit that YOU are the one who is misinformed. Do YOUR own research. This is like politics, you can't argue it. You either are fooled by the money makers or you think for yourself. See if AlGore will give you a ride on his carbon spewing jet to the next "Globull Warming Conference! LOL!
Last edited by RandyS; February 13th, 2016 at 12:03 PM.
February 13th, 2016, 02:43 PM
#47
Senior Moment Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,879
They were caught lying on numerous occasions about the input and the data used. The scientists lied in order to create an event that does not exist. The facts you have listed are ginned up with falsified data. You wear your tinfoil hat well. The sky is NOT falling. Rebut this article if you like. Your graphs and data are nonsensical considering they were cheating to get results that clearly were not present. At least read it.
"One of the most recent examples of this fraud was reported by The Daily Caller: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been criticized for manipulating temperature records to give the illusion of a warming trend. Since then, the agency has been caught changing temperature data from both the past and present."
From the article;
NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012
http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_gl...tion_NOAA.html
"One of the most recent examples of this fraud was reported by The Daily Caller: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been criticized for manipulating temperature records to give the illusion of a warming trend. Since then, the agency has been caught changing temperature data from both the past and present."
From the article;
NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012
http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_gl...tion_NOAA.html
Last edited by z11375ss; February 13th, 2016 at 02:45 PM.
February 13th, 2016, 03:01 PM
#48
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,463
Founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran journalist, and Neil Patel, former chief policy advisor to Vice President Cheney,
From the article;
NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012
NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012
Let's say that you are running back-to-back track tests on your car. The original setup consistently ran 14.2 to 14.5, with a couple of outliers at 13.9 and 14.6. Your new tune runs 13.95 to 14.1. Do you keep the new tune or revert to the old one because of the ONE data point? This is EXACTLY the same thing. Use a little common sense.
February 13th, 2016, 04:57 PM
#49
Senior Moment Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,879
So in essence Joe, you believe the planet is getting warmer and through reduction in greenhouse gases it will get cooler? Drink much Kool Aid? Any source I put up here is going to be refuted by you as unreliable because you say it is unreliable. That's not a debate. You need to put your money where your mouth is and sell all your gas guzzling machines and go off the grid entirely. Is this what mankind should do to solve Globull Warming? I bet you voted for Obama, didn't you?
February 13th, 2016, 05:06 PM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,590
So in essence Joe, you believe the planet is getting warmer and through reduction in greenhouse gases it will get cooler? Drink much Kool Aid? Any source I put up here is going to be refuted by you as unreliable because you say it is unreliable. That's not a debate. You need to put your money where your mouth is and sell all your gas guzzling machines and go off the grid entirely. Is this what mankind should do to solve Globull Warming? I bet you voted for Obama, didn't you?
February 14th, 2016, 08:42 AM
#53
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,463
Final comments on how uninformed the American public really is:
According to the National Science Foundation, 23% of Americans (TWENTY THREE PERCENT!?!) think the Earth is the center of the solar system.
The vast majority of Americans think that the annual NASA budget is about 1/4 of the federal budget (it's actually 0.5%).
Democrats think that 44% of the members of the Republican party make over $250K a year. Republicans think this number is 39%. The actual number is 2%. (This factoid comes from today's Washington Post).
According to the National Science Foundation, 23% of Americans (TWENTY THREE PERCENT!?!) think the Earth is the center of the solar system.
The vast majority of Americans think that the annual NASA budget is about 1/4 of the federal budget (it's actually 0.5%).
Democrats think that 44% of the members of the Republican party make over $250K a year. Republicans think this number is 39%. The actual number is 2%. (This factoid comes from today's Washington Post).
February 14th, 2016, 09:37 AM
#54
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,463
And, in the interest of mocking all media sources, I have to post this. Warning, turn down the volume if you're at work...
http://www.theonion.com/video/breaki...omewhere-16928
http://www.theonion.com/video/breaki...omewhere-16928
February 15th, 2016, 12:57 AM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Elkridge, MD
Posts: 26
Meanwhile planes, trains and ships have nearly no emissions rules. "Race cars" can't move the needle one bit by comparison, but maybe it was a misguided attempt to close a loophole of someone saying their daily driver is a race car. I agree with Joe's earlier comments about wanting to protect the environment but got to keep these things in perspective.
February 15th, 2016, 09:51 AM
#59
Senior Moment Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,879
My 100 year old Grandmother was smart like that too. I wonder, with age comes wisdom? Looks like it. I have realized in my half century or so I can't do everything, change everything, must live with consequences. They have been around long enough to see the futility of worrying about things not under your control. I'm getting there. I'm getting older, that's what it is!
February 16th, 2016, 07:09 AM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wichita, Ks
Posts: 1,070
There are only 6 corporations that control 90% of the media in America. Fox is bought off just as much as NPR. NASA and NOAA is controlled by the government. The government plays politics. It's pretty tough to believe data put out by the government. It seems every decade global warming is debunked. Global warming is about control. With global warming they can control the rest of the economy. They already have a huge chunk with obamacare. Then there is the weather modification programs the government has been working on since the 50's. I used to talk about conspiracy theories too until I realized they were right and the government IS listening to my phone calls and reading my emails.
February 16th, 2016, 08:16 AM
#61
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,590
There are only 6 corporations that control 90% of the media in America. Fox is bought off just as much as NPR. NASA and NOAA is controlled by the government. The government plays politics. It's pretty tough to believe data put out by the government. It seems every decade global warming is debunked. Global warming is about control. With global warming they can control the rest of the economy. They already have a huge chunk with obamacare. Then there is the weather modification programs the government has been working on since the 50's. I used to talk about conspiracy theories too until I realized they were right and the government IS listening to my phone calls and reading my emails.
February 16th, 2016, 11:19 AM
#62
Senior Moment Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,879
Here you go Joe, refute this too.
The DoomSayers Of Climate Change
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2016-02-16 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 232 references Ignore this thread
The DoomSayers Of Climate Change
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this column the so-called "predictions" of "Global Warming" have proved incorrect. This has not stopped the screaming, or the amount of money being forcibly removed from people at gunpoint to "give" to those who run this crap or profit from it, irrespective of the economic harm it does to the economy of the world.
Reality is, that just like the so-called "lipid hypothesis" that has been roundly disproved in the medical field, "global warming" is bunk. If CO2 is the cause of "global warming" and it's man's contribution to it (which is a low single-digit percentage of the total of CO2, by the way) then there are certain facts that are very hard to reconcile.
Among them are the fact that the upper atmosphere hasn't warmed to any material degree. Nor has the middle-atmosphere band that were told was where all the CO2 effects would concentrate and thus force the warming downward toward us.
Further, the ground datasets have been altered; the people doing it claim they have to adjust for "various factors", but if that data is inaccurate how about the satellite observations of the upper atmosphere, and the dropsonde and balloon observations of the middle layers? Neither of them show warming either, and the gap keeps widening -- which certainly looks like intentional tampering, doesn't it?
Next, if in fact the ocean is going to warm catastrophically and the atmosphere warming is the cause then the upper layers of the ocean must warm first. That's obvious. But.... they don't. In fact the oceanic warming that has been observed has been led from the deeper layers, although the absolute rate of change is shockingly low -- about 1 degree in 400 years, which is hardly a disaster prognostication for the next half-century. Nonetheless the cause can't be atmospheric if the warming is originating in the deep, and it is.
It is not "science" to continue to claim that something that was projected to happen and then didn't is still "inevitable" and "occurring." When your theory is disproved through the fullness of time science demands you modify or throw out your theory.
That's what science is.
Politics and theft, on the other hand, requires no science. It simply requires a gullible population that refuses to lock up the thieves.
Considering that the same sort of claims have been made for the "food pyramid" yet those "recommendations" kill millions in the US every year, not to mention causing a tremendous amount of damage to both health and finances of the common person, is it any wonder that we find it in this area of so-called public policy as well?
The DoomSayers Of Climate Change
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2016-02-16 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 232 references Ignore this thread
The DoomSayers Of Climate Change
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this column the so-called "predictions" of "Global Warming" have proved incorrect. This has not stopped the screaming, or the amount of money being forcibly removed from people at gunpoint to "give" to those who run this crap or profit from it, irrespective of the economic harm it does to the economy of the world.
Reality is, that just like the so-called "lipid hypothesis" that has been roundly disproved in the medical field, "global warming" is bunk. If CO2 is the cause of "global warming" and it's man's contribution to it (which is a low single-digit percentage of the total of CO2, by the way) then there are certain facts that are very hard to reconcile.
Among them are the fact that the upper atmosphere hasn't warmed to any material degree. Nor has the middle-atmosphere band that were told was where all the CO2 effects would concentrate and thus force the warming downward toward us.
Further, the ground datasets have been altered; the people doing it claim they have to adjust for "various factors", but if that data is inaccurate how about the satellite observations of the upper atmosphere, and the dropsonde and balloon observations of the middle layers? Neither of them show warming either, and the gap keeps widening -- which certainly looks like intentional tampering, doesn't it?
Next, if in fact the ocean is going to warm catastrophically and the atmosphere warming is the cause then the upper layers of the ocean must warm first. That's obvious. But.... they don't. In fact the oceanic warming that has been observed has been led from the deeper layers, although the absolute rate of change is shockingly low -- about 1 degree in 400 years, which is hardly a disaster prognostication for the next half-century. Nonetheless the cause can't be atmospheric if the warming is originating in the deep, and it is.
It is not "science" to continue to claim that something that was projected to happen and then didn't is still "inevitable" and "occurring." When your theory is disproved through the fullness of time science demands you modify or throw out your theory.
That's what science is.
Politics and theft, on the other hand, requires no science. It simply requires a gullible population that refuses to lock up the thieves.
Considering that the same sort of claims have been made for the "food pyramid" yet those "recommendations" kill millions in the US every year, not to mention causing a tremendous amount of damage to both health and finances of the common person, is it any wonder that we find it in this area of so-called public policy as well?
February 16th, 2016, 12:08 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,972
There are a select and very few scientists that still refute the theory of man made global warming, but when 97% of them all agree, I think this needs to be put to bed.
Here you go Joe, refute this too.
The DoomSayers Of Climate Change
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2016-02-16 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 232 references Ignore this thread
The DoomSayers Of Climate Change
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this column the so-called "predictions" of "Global Warming" have proved incorrect. This has not stopped the screaming, or the amount of money being forcibly removed from people at gunpoint to "give" to those who run this crap or profit from it, irrespective of the economic harm it does to the economy of the world.
Reality is, that just like the so-called "lipid hypothesis" that has been roundly disproved in the medical field, "global warming" is bunk. If CO2 is the cause of "global warming" and it's man's contribution to it (which is a low single-digit percentage of the total of CO2, by the way) then there are certain facts that are very hard to reconcile.
Among them are the fact that the upper atmosphere hasn't warmed to any material degree. Nor has the middle-atmosphere band that were told was where all the CO2 effects would concentrate and thus force the warming downward toward us.
Further, the ground datasets have been altered; the people doing it claim they have to adjust for "various factors", but if that data is inaccurate how about the satellite observations of the upper atmosphere, and the dropsonde and balloon observations of the middle layers? Neither of them show warming either, and the gap keeps widening -- which certainly looks like intentional tampering, doesn't it?
Next, if in fact the ocean is going to warm catastrophically and the atmosphere warming is the cause then the upper layers of the ocean must warm first. That's obvious. But.... they don't. In fact the oceanic warming that has been observed has been led from the deeper layers, although the absolute rate of change is shockingly low -- about 1 degree in 400 years, which is hardly a disaster prognostication for the next half-century. Nonetheless the cause can't be atmospheric if the warming is originating in the deep, and it is.
It is not "science" to continue to claim that something that was projected to happen and then didn't is still "inevitable" and "occurring." When your theory is disproved through the fullness of time science demands you modify or throw out your theory.
That's what science is.
Politics and theft, on the other hand, requires no science. It simply requires a gullible population that refuses to lock up the thieves.
Considering that the same sort of claims have been made for the "food pyramid" yet those "recommendations" kill millions in the US every year, not to mention causing a tremendous amount of damage to both health and finances of the common person, is it any wonder that we find it in this area of so-called public policy as well?
The DoomSayers Of Climate Change
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2016-02-16 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 232 references Ignore this thread
The DoomSayers Of Climate Change
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this column the so-called "predictions" of "Global Warming" have proved incorrect. This has not stopped the screaming, or the amount of money being forcibly removed from people at gunpoint to "give" to those who run this crap or profit from it, irrespective of the economic harm it does to the economy of the world.
Reality is, that just like the so-called "lipid hypothesis" that has been roundly disproved in the medical field, "global warming" is bunk. If CO2 is the cause of "global warming" and it's man's contribution to it (which is a low single-digit percentage of the total of CO2, by the way) then there are certain facts that are very hard to reconcile.
Among them are the fact that the upper atmosphere hasn't warmed to any material degree. Nor has the middle-atmosphere band that were told was where all the CO2 effects would concentrate and thus force the warming downward toward us.
Further, the ground datasets have been altered; the people doing it claim they have to adjust for "various factors", but if that data is inaccurate how about the satellite observations of the upper atmosphere, and the dropsonde and balloon observations of the middle layers? Neither of them show warming either, and the gap keeps widening -- which certainly looks like intentional tampering, doesn't it?
Next, if in fact the ocean is going to warm catastrophically and the atmosphere warming is the cause then the upper layers of the ocean must warm first. That's obvious. But.... they don't. In fact the oceanic warming that has been observed has been led from the deeper layers, although the absolute rate of change is shockingly low -- about 1 degree in 400 years, which is hardly a disaster prognostication for the next half-century. Nonetheless the cause can't be atmospheric if the warming is originating in the deep, and it is.
It is not "science" to continue to claim that something that was projected to happen and then didn't is still "inevitable" and "occurring." When your theory is disproved through the fullness of time science demands you modify or throw out your theory.
That's what science is.
Politics and theft, on the other hand, requires no science. It simply requires a gullible population that refuses to lock up the thieves.
Considering that the same sort of claims have been made for the "food pyramid" yet those "recommendations" kill millions in the US every year, not to mention causing a tremendous amount of damage to both health and finances of the common person, is it any wonder that we find it in this area of so-called public policy as well?
February 16th, 2016, 04:04 PM
#64
Senior Moment Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,879
I think the real reason you want to "put it to bed" is because you can't refute the argument above. Just because "most" scientists believe in Globull Warming doesn't make it less Bull. Can't refute the facts, just say they aren't valid or true with no documentation. There, fixed.
Last edited by z11375ss; February 16th, 2016 at 04:11 PM.
February 19th, 2016, 11:28 AM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Big Lake,MN..Spent most of my life in Boston
Posts: 714
The lead author of global warming wrote a piece in Times magazine in the late 1980's warning the earth was cooling ...and the result would be famine due to lost crops.....
So what is it..are we burning up...freezing to death or going crazy giving these "scientists" any value at all.
So what is it..are we burning up...freezing to death or going crazy giving these "scientists" any value at all.
February 19th, 2016, 11:55 AM
#66
Administrator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Poteau, Ok
Posts: 40,629
I admit, I'm as confused as anyone and a skeptic. I agree with navvet, we've had smoke blown up our butts since the late 60's early 70's and directions have changed. From we're heading into an ice age to the other extreme. There is so many conflicting arguments and opinions either way. I remember back in the 80's that it was cow flatulence, R12 was burning a hole in the ozone layer, , etc. The issue at hand is... are these new regulations going to solve the problem and the answer is no. The expense and unreasonable pressure placed on the people of this country is not worth the small change that we may make on the end result. It is not our country causing this, its China, India, etc... that have taken up the industrialized dirty manufacturing that we have lost over the years.
In addition, how many old planes and other historical artifacts have been uncovered since the ice started melting. Apparently we've gone through this cycle before because these items were not covered in ice originally.
In addition, how many old planes and other historical artifacts have been uncovered since the ice started melting. Apparently we've gone through this cycle before because these items were not covered in ice originally.
February 21st, 2016, 12:10 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brazil Indiana
Posts: 11,509
February 21st, 2016, 03:31 PM
#70
Makes no sense.
There needs to be a world wide epa actually. With realistic terms, this would create our economy back..trading wouldnt be needed..
Like the plumbers union in my state..All the lead rules and regulations. But commercial buildings you are required to do some lead joints....Think about all the dead old plumbers from lead and espestos...
Like said the world needs to be held to a standard.
The u.s. pisses me off with how every state has some different rules.
The towns have different rules.
Why not make things simple..make everything the same in the u.s..
Im a plumber, the 10 towns i deal with want everything done differently. I fail inspections...Why the **** do i have 4 licences and multiple types of insurance..While the towns dont care if home owners/ foreigners/ non-insured/ licenced, do the same work??
There needs to be a world wide epa actually. With realistic terms, this would create our economy back..trading wouldnt be needed..
Like the plumbers union in my state..All the lead rules and regulations. But commercial buildings you are required to do some lead joints....Think about all the dead old plumbers from lead and espestos...
Like said the world needs to be held to a standard.
The u.s. pisses me off with how every state has some different rules.
The towns have different rules.
Why not make things simple..make everything the same in the u.s..
Im a plumber, the 10 towns i deal with want everything done differently. I fail inspections...Why the **** do i have 4 licences and multiple types of insurance..While the towns dont care if home owners/ foreigners/ non-insured/ licenced, do the same work??
February 21st, 2016, 04:27 PM
#71
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
It can also go too far, as with "harmonization" in the EU, where Brussels bureaucrats are trying to erase any differences between the various European countries.
However, if we could make all other countries (such as through trade sanctions) impose the same working conditions, workplace safety rules, and minimum wages that we have over here, we'd never lose a single job to China, because the companies wouldn't be able to have goods manufactured for 35 cents an hour, and throw their employees out to die in the gutter like dogs when they're through with them.
As it is now, the reverse is happening: The crappy conditions of the Third World are being imposed on our own workers here at home, which is why Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they are against the "establishment" candidates.
- Eric
February 21st, 2016, 05:15 PM
#72
In essence, this is true, though, of course, you'd never get "certain" countries to agree with it.
It can also go too far, as with "harmonization" in the EU, where Brussels bureaucrats are trying to erase any differences between the various European countries.
However, if we could make all other countries (such as through trade sanctions) impose the same working conditions, workplace safety rules, and minimum wages that we have over here, we'd never lose a single job to China, because the companies wouldn't be able to have goods manufactured for 35 cents an hour, and throw their employees out to die in the gutter like dogs when they're through with them.
As it is now, the reverse is happening: The crappy conditions of the Third World are being imposed on our own workers here at home, which is why Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they are against the "establishment" candidates.
- Eric
It can also go too far, as with "harmonization" in the EU, where Brussels bureaucrats are trying to erase any differences between the various European countries.
However, if we could make all other countries (such as through trade sanctions) impose the same working conditions, workplace safety rules, and minimum wages that we have over here, we'd never lose a single job to China, because the companies wouldn't be able to have goods manufactured for 35 cents an hour, and throw their employees out to die in the gutter like dogs when they're through with them.
As it is now, the reverse is happening: The crappy conditions of the Third World are being imposed on our own workers here at home, which is why Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they are against the "establishment" candidates.
- Eric
I do have a problem with how everything is going in the states. As a worker, why are there different standards in every state. Every town has theirs. There is favoritism.
I do some state work, i get the this co. @ $$ can you be at this$. Obviously i comply...but there needs to be better standards.
There are people living in a "non working standard" that comply with the taxes/ tax breaks/ ext. With free living.
I have done ma. housing heating system replacements. In 3k qu ft + homes. Some on the islands, theese homes are 800k...getting free work.
Wile i drive 300 miles away to replace my mothers heating system..
February 21st, 2016, 05:56 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brazil Indiana
Posts: 11,509
Because the US Constitution says so. This prevents the feds from micro managing something local that they have no business being involved in.
February 21st, 2016, 06:17 PM
#74
But its ridiculous the past 3 years, before in my trade there wasnt problems.
Im talking about the inspectors/ towns "never received permits resend"..mail order they had them..
Jobs failing from made up codes.."this county requires this" "this town dosent provide water meters" BUll **** like this. But it goes farther
February 21st, 2016, 07:35 PM
#75
Senior Moment Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,879
Yes, we do need a "like" button.
March 7th, 2016, 09:32 AM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: southeastern Michigan
Posts: 14,215
A little more on this.
NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/0...-for-58-years/
NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/0...-for-58-years/
March 7th, 2016, 09:50 AM
#77
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rogues Island, USA
Posts: 3,613
I clearly remember the doom and gloom new Ice Age warnings of the 60's and 70's.
My degree in Geology tells me all I need to know about global warming and cooling. They are roughly 20-25k year cycles. We are on the down turn now so in about 10k years we'll have another ice age.
In fact the ice melt in the Arctic is desalinating the North Atlantic which pushes the Gulf Stream farther south. That means Europe doesn't get the warm air and water and will be the first to experience the coming Ice Age. You'll just have to wait 10-15k years from now to see it. Enjoy
My degree in Geology tells me all I need to know about global warming and cooling. They are roughly 20-25k year cycles. We are on the down turn now so in about 10k years we'll have another ice age.
In fact the ice melt in the Arctic is desalinating the North Atlantic which pushes the Gulf Stream farther south. That means Europe doesn't get the warm air and water and will be the first to experience the coming Ice Age. You'll just have to wait 10-15k years from now to see it. Enjoy
