Heretic;1706586 wrote:Technically, if it's RECORD lows, wouldn't that mean there is climate change?

No. A record temperature represents a temporary fluctuation in weather; not a change in climate.

Changes in climate could be observable when looking at time periods of hundreds/thousands/millions of years.

I'm not a scientist and I don't have much knowledge on climate theory. I'm in favor of things being done as clean as possible for the good of our living space. But the climate we speak of here is entire earth's climate. No one can control it all. It's like being in an airplane. If passenger A does everything to make himself clean and fresh, but passenger B farts beans the entire flight, the flight will smell like farted beans regardless of passenger A's efforts.

^^^ nice post.



Now, if only barack were King of the World.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1706650 wrote:I'm not a scientist and I don't have much knowledge on climate theory. I'm in favor of things being done as clean as possible for the good of our living space. But the climate we speak of here is entire earth's climate. No one can control it all. It's like being in an airplane. If passenger A does everything to make himself clean and fresh, but passenger B farts beans the entire flight, the flight will smell like farted beans regardless of passenger A's efforts.

China = Passenger B.

sleeper;1706660 wrote:China = Passenger B.

That's right. I've seen an electric car pass down my street. I think, "that's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that when I visited Beijing, it was dark in the middle of the day".

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1706650 wrote:I'm not a scientist and I don't have much knowledge on climate theory. I'm in favor of things being done as clean as possible for the good of our living space. But the climate we speak of here is entire earth's climate. No one can control it all. It's like being in an airplane. If passenger A does everything to make himself clean and fresh, but passenger B farts beans the entire flight, the flight will smell like farted beans regardless of passenger A's efforts.

Even still, I'd rather be on a plane with one guy ripping ass than all the passengers ripping ass.

Don't forget person c who is selling fart credits and screaming about how everyone will die if they don't give him their money and stop farting.

^^ It's coming. obama's EPA now trying to regulate cow flatulence ......these people have very serious mental issues.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/033114-695328-white-house-to-regulate-cow-flatulence.htm

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1706650 wrote:I'm not a scientist and I don't have much knowledge on climate theory. I'm in favor of things being done as clean as possible for the good of our living space. But the climate we speak of here is entire earth's climate. No one can control it all. It's like being in an airplane. If passenger A does everything to make himself clean and fresh, but passenger B farts beans the entire flight, the flight will smell like farted beans regardless of passenger A's efforts.

Never heard it put like that put yes that is how it works.

QuakerOats;1706803 wrote:^^ It's coming. obama's EPA now trying to regulate cow flatulence ......these people have very serious mental issues.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/033114-695328-white-house-to-regulate-cow-flatulence.htm

It's all coming down to revenue generation (taxes). I didn't buy the "conspiracy nut" theories about Climate Change really being about redistribution and control, but I'm much less cynical of that view as it becomes increasingly evident that they can't and won't really do anything about it but they DO want to tax it.

And the idea is not entirely without merit. We regulate and fine farms for run-off and other pollution, and cow farts are a form of pollution. Just another tax that's ultimately passed on to the consumer, which by nature is a consumption tax that is regressive. Most corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer and worker, but most people are too stupid to realize that while taxing companies is popular, they're actually the ones that end-up paying.

QuakerOats;1706803 wrote:^^ It's coming. obama's EPA now trying to regulate cow flatulence ......these people have very serious mental issues.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/033114-695328-white-house-to-regulate-cow-flatulence.htm

EPA

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/


more required reading

@quaker Do some research on who's writing the articles you are about to post. It will save you a lot of time.

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

So basically his argument that climate change isn't real is because religion. That's enough right there to know he's full of shit and is a fucking moron.

Commander of Awesome;1708924 wrote:@quaker Do some research on who's writing the articles you are about to post. It will save you a lot of time.

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

So basically his argument that climate change isn't real is because religion. That's enough right there to know he's full of shit and is a fucking moron.

You are soooo out to lunch I am not sure why I am bothering to respond. He completely acknowledges 'climate change', as we ALL do. It has been happening for eons. But, it is not caused by man as anyone who rationally looks at it can readily determine. So again, the thrust of a legitimate article went completely over your head because you are so hell bent on crucifying the author/messenger. Stick with facts and logic; it will serve you better.

Commander of Awesome;1708924 wrote: So basically his argument that climate change isn't real is because religion. That's enough right there to know he's full of shit and is a fucking moron.

Read explanations about why water vapor is ignored and it starts sounding suspiciously much more like double-talk and bullshit than science. That's to say nothing of the fact even ignoring water vapor, they STILL can't establish man is having a meaningful impact at a statistically significant (a.k.a, real science) level.

You guys are right, pouring green houses gases into the air by way of burning fossil fuels, creating concrete, etc.. has no effects. Makes sense.

Commander of Awesome;1708931 wrote:You guys are right, pouring green houses gases into the air by way of burning fossil fuels, creating concrete, etc.. has no effects. Makes sense.

No one is saying it has no effect. It's extremely questionable if it's a material affect not completely dominated by other natural cycles. It's not been shown at a scientifically rigorous level of statistical significance to have ANY impact (even dubiously attributing the water vapor effect wholly to CO2), which is partially why you've probably noticed the shift to anecdotal evidence of weather extremes to make the case for climate change with the case for AGW weakening significantly.