Joe's Garage

[ROBERT GWALTNEY]

So what do we do Joe. are we going to give up our cars I dont think so, or our gas powered lawn equipment How about our gas water heaters, ovens gas dryers bar-b-que grills or gas heat. Not a chance, So try raising taxes to cut down usage then I raise my rates to absorb the tax hikes. And what about government and there enormous amount of waste Heck here in Florida we cant build a road without lighting it from one end to the other. Plus we go into third world countries and we have to change their living conditions to our way of life So I dont see anybody doing very much on the reduction of usage. Even our battery cars are built in oil consuming factories. So if its as bad as you say we are DOOOOMED!!!

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

A perfectly predictable response Tim, I'm sure you have all the "denial techniques" committed to memory but we only need to bring up the first two.

The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial -

1. Fake experts
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found independently in a number of studies, including surveys of Earth scientists, analysis of public statements about climate change and analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers. How might one cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus? One technique is the use of fake experts.

We see this in online petitions such as the Global Warming Petition Project, which features more than 31,000 scientists claiming humans aren't disrupting our climate. How can there be 97% consensus when 31,000 scientists disagree? It turns out 99.9% of the petition's signatories aren't climate scientists. They include computer scientists, mechanical engineers and medical scientists but few climate scientists. The Global Warming Petition Project is fake experts in bulk.

2. Logical fallacies
The reason why there's a 97% consensus is because of the many lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Human fingerprints are being observed in heat escaping out to space, in the structure of the atmosphere and even in the changing seasons. Another denialist technique used to counter the weight of evidence is the logical fallacy.

The most common fallacious argument is that current climate change must be natural because climate has changed naturally in the past. This myth commits the logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. It's like finding a dead body with a knife sticking out of its back, and arguing that the person must have died of natural causes because humans have died of natural causes in the past. The premise does not lead to the conclusion.

And yet with all the greenhouse gases at record levels we have the implausable reality of not much going on for 18 plus years. Ah the perils of modeling, which, none predicted this.
One absolute fact everyone agrees on, when you use model based forcasts, imperceptibly small errors on the front end have monumental compounding impacts and grossly flawed results. Closed loop thinking, Joe, closed loop thinking.
By the way, great article today in the WSJ, on how the hole in the ozone layer has been healing nicely now for quite some years.......oh the horror.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by ROBERT GWALTNEY

So what do we do Joe ...

Maybe we start to wean ourselves off of oil before Uncle Sam makes us
Electric lawnmower, solar panels on the roof, make your daily driver a hybrid or electric. I've done the 1st two, I'm retired so driving is minimal, maybe 10 miles/week. I would say more importantly, vote for candidates that recognize climate change for the threat that it is and who will support initiatives toward clean energy as a top priority.

The fact is, eventually we will be forced toward clean energy whether we like it or not. You think Uncle Sam is in your underwear now, just wait. The combustion engine will go by way of the dinosaur replaced by electric power, solar panels on roof tops part of the building code, more nuclear power plants until compact nuclear fusion reactors come on-line giving us "clean factories". The question is will we transition in time before we've really screwed it up for future generations. We're close to 3 "tipping points" right now, any one of them can trigger a green-house runaway, if that happens we're screwed.

Like I said in the beginning -

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

... I should make it to ~2045 God willing, I may be thinking then, lucky me, I'm checking out of this hotel headed for hell just in time.

Tim, I posted pictures about the Ozone so you would understand, my grandson gets it. Below is the hotlink to post #42, really study it this time.
Joe's Garage

[Joe's Garage]

Does the Ozone story prove we've gotten more stupid?

It was in the 1970s that scientists first realized chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had worn the ozone layer thin above Antarctica. Studies have shown that, left unchecked, ozone destruction could cause higher rates of skin cancer, disrupt plant growth and destabilize the aquatic food chain thanks to an increase in harmful ultraviolet rays.

Fortunately, the world’s policymakers were proactive about environmental problems back then. Leaders agreed in 1987 to the Montreal Protocol, which phased out CFCs.

At the time, industry objected, saying the science was speculative and that regulation would be costly and lead to lost jobs. Sound familiar?

Nearly 30 years after the Montreal Protocol was signed, the ozone layer is just starting to heal, according to a panel of 300 scientists that reports every four years to the United Nations on the subject. It will take until 2050 for the ozone layer in the mid-latitudes to return to relatively healthy 1980s conditions, the U.N. report said. Around the Antarctic, where the ozone layer is the most damaged, it will take until 2075.

These same scientists are now telling us about carbon dioxide and climate change. Hum? What do you say Tim, give these same guys another shot at saving our ass?

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Does the Ozone story prove we've gotten more stupid?

It was in the 1970s that scientists first realized chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had worn the ozone layer thin above Antarctica. Studies have shown that, left unchecked, ozone destruction could cause higher rates of skin cancer, disrupt plant growth and destabilize the aquatic food chain thanks to an increase in harmful ultraviolet rays.

Fortunately, the world’s policymakers were proactive about environmental problems back then. Leaders agreed in 1987 to the Montreal Protocol, which phased out CFCs.

At the time, industry objected, saying the science was speculative and that regulation would be costly and lead to lost jobs. Sound familiar?

Nearly 30 years after the Montreal Protocol was signed, the ozone layer is just starting to heal, according to a panel of 300 scientists that reports every four years to the United Nations on the subject. It will take until 2050 for the ozone layer in the mid-latitudes to return to relatively healthy 1980s conditions, the U.N. report said. Around the Antarctic, where the ozone layer is the most damaged, it will take until 2075.

These same scientists are now telling us about carbon dioxide and climate change. Hum? What do you say Tim, give these same guys another shot at saving our ass?

Closed loop mentality Joe, closed loop mentality.
Beware commentary involving "panels of scientists" and "united nations" in combination.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by Tim7139

... Beware commentary involving "panels of scientists" and "united nations" in combination.

Now why would you say that? Let me guess.

NASA Science Leads New York City Climate Change
The New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) 2015, co-chaired by a NASA researcher, published its latest report which details significant future increases in temperature, precipitation and sea level in the New York metropolitan area. Increasing temperature and heavier precipitation events, along with sea level rise, are projected by the report to accelerate in the coming decades, increasing risks for the people, economy and infrastructure of New York City. Specific report findings about local New York observations and projections include:
- Mean annual temperature has increased a total of 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) from 1900 to 2013. Future mean annual temperatures are projected to increase 4.1 to 5.7 degrees F by the 2050s and 5.3 to 8.8 degrees F by the 2080s, relative to the 1980s base period. The frequency of heat waves is projected to increase from 2 per year in the 1980s to roughly 6 per year by the 2080s.
- Mean annual precipitation has increased by a total of 8 inches from 1900 to 2013. Future mean annual precipitation is projected to increase 4 to 11 percent by the 2050s and 5 to 13 percent by the 2080s, relative to the 1980s base period.
- Sea levels have risen in New York City 1.1 feet since 1900. That is almost twice the observed global rate of 0.5 to 0.7 inches per decade over a similar time period. Projections for sea level rise in New York City increase from 11 inches to 21 inches by the 2050s, 18 inches to 39 inches by the 2080s, and, 22 inches to 50 inches, with the worst case of up to six feet, by 2100. Sea level rise projections are relative to the 2000 to 2004 base period.

New York Responds to Climate Change -
Reduce emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 80 percent from 1990 levels, by the year 2050
Improve resilience to climate change in all the state's communities.

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

... What do you say Tim, give these same guys another shot at saving our ass?

Yes Tim, New York is listening to the scientists, maybe you should move to Wyoming

"Climate change research isn’t just something for the future,” said Rosenzweig. “It’s affecting how key policy decisions are being made now. NASA is proud to work with New York City and other intergovernmental entities to provide world-class science.”

[Tim7139]

Well I'll tell you one thing about NYS, it and by default NYC are run by progressives that have essentially denied the fracking revolution here, because, primarilly, we have an arogant governor with national aspirations that won't offend the uber liberals and thusly is allowing the downstate economy to die a slow death. Why? Because the sham environmental multi year study cannot show "absolute" safety guarantees .
More alarmist, BS studies based on models and hilarious assumptions, many of which have interesting foundations leading to global freezing.
Love the fact that any time anybody points to interesting scientific research with less than draconion forcasting it's authored by a " coporate whore" .
Have a glass of koolaid on me, Joe.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by Tim7139

... Love the fact that any time anybody points to interesting scientific research with less than draconion forcasting it's authored by a "coporate whore" ...

Looks like you have all the basis covered Tim, when the message does suggest dire consequences you can call up those 31,000 fake experts of the Global Warming Petition

[bliss]

UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed a 95% confidence interval in the catastrophic computer models which over the last 20 years have overshot the actual temperatures by 80% - proving vast deficiencies in the comprehension of atmospheric systems - and the necessary skill to accurately predict even decadal warming, leave alone hundreds or thousands of years.

The former head of research for IPCC last year wrote a peer reviewed paper showing all warming since mid 1900s up to the present falls well within natural climate variance and margins of error. Which of course proves it's the Climate Kooks who are DENIERS of the empirical data.

So, Joe of Joe's Garage - you are a DENIER.

Also.....

Before Copernicus and Galileo, roughly 97 percent of scientists believed the sun orbited the earth.

[Tim7139]

Recent polls are in, 97% of scientists have reported Joe is what's known as a "keyboard kommando"

[Tim7139]

P.S. This just in. Now being carried by a few national newsfeeds, an interesting breakdown of the U of Queensland reserch paper by John Cook. This is the study widely reported to be the primary scientific analysis supporting the 97% consensus on climate change that friend Joe and other internet luminaries banty about.
It turns out Joe is right, 97% of scientists with a definative opinion agree on climate change being driven by man.
What is somwhat less discussed is that the study reveals that over 66% have, in fact, no definative opinion which means the actual population of climate scientists with belief in man made climate change is about 33 percent.
Hey Joe, pick yourself up a copy of " how to lie with numbers " send me the bill, I'll write it off to community service.

Oh, and I should add, that 30% cosensus involves the agreement that man has "any" roll in the process, not the dominant role.

[Joe's Garage]

Global Warming Petition scientists enjoy the 200th annual GWP Christmas Day road rally just outside of Anchorage, AK. Participants stated a good time was had by all even though temps were cooler this year and one should "bundle up". The GWP spokesman quickly added "just further proof Global Warming is a hoax."

[Tim7139]

Less humor, more homework because lord knows........you need it.
Besides.......I'm always a little chilly.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by Tim7139

Less humor, more homework because lord knows........you need it ...

Not stealing your thunder Tim, anyone who has read this thread knows you are the headliner comedian, not to worry.

Cause and effect, that's all it is, cause and effect -

This ...


Begets this ...

[bliss]

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Not stealing your thunder Tim, anyone who has read this thread knows you are the headliner comedian, not to worry.

Cause and effect, that's all it is, cause and effect -

This ...


Begets this ...

Joe's new book "meaningless pictures from the internet" will be in bookstores for the holidays.

32% Joe 32%. That's the fact Jack.

[Tim7139]

Come one come all:
The global comedy show called the G20 conference has begun, with a climate-centric theme.
Yesterday we got to hear from yet another major player in the climate debate....The ambassador from the Scheychelles. Homework assignment for all concerned citizens of the planet.......find out where that is. I have actually been there, the average island is about the size of a Walmart parking lot.
Rumor has it that today the conference will be addressed by a guy that runs a bottle deposit facility in Costa Rica.......

[bliss]

[cycleguy55]

In geologic terms the insurance industry is pretty young but apparently they're believers in global climate change: Insurance industry aims to reduce huge losses from climate change extremes - Business - CBC News

The insurance industry has been hit by mounting claims from extreme weather, and for years now it has pointed out that the real costs associated with climate change are already with us.

In the past decade, insurers have come to see that the only way to handle the changes ahead is to find ways to limit their costs, according to Craig Stewart, vice-president of federal affairs for the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

"The property and casualty insurance industry has been on the front lines of this," Stewart told CBC News. "For the industry, climate change is a priority. We're working with every level of government to try to impress preparedness."

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

In geologic terms the insurance industry is pretty young but apparently they're believers in global climate change: Insurance industry aims to reduce huge losses from climate change extremes - Business - CBC News

The insurance industry has been hit by mounting claims from extreme weather, and for years now it has pointed out that the real costs associated with climate change are already with us.

In the past decade, insurers have come to see that the only way to handle the changes ahead is to find ways to limit their costs, according to Craig Stewart, vice-president of federal affairs for the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

"The property and casualty insurance industry has been on the front lines of this," Stewart told CBC News. "For the industry, climate change is a priority. We're working with every level of government to try to impress preparedness."

That headline does not come from the industry per se. The frequency of violent weather is actually lower in recent years. What is, however, much higher, is the amount of high value real estate and infrastructure in these areas resulting in huge issues. Seems lots of folks fail to realize oceans can be occaisionally unpredictable.
By the way, you sure you want to be quoting government sources, you guys recently elected a snowboard instructor as PM.
Probably still better than our guy.