Environmental Technology Blog

Environmental Technology

The Environmental Technology Blog is the place for conversation and discussion about refuse and recycling, pollution control solutions, hazardous waste and remediation, and environmental sensors. Here, you'll find everything from application ideas, to news and industry trends, to hot topics and cutting edge innovations.

Previous in Blog: Turning Used Chewing Gum into Useable Products   Next in Blog: New Weather Instrumentation Promises More Accurate Forecasts
Close
Close
Close
55 comments

Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

Posted December 14, 2016 9:21 AM by HUSH

It’s only 10 days until Christmas, and a week until winter, so it seems like the perfect time to write about keeping cool when it’s warm out.

Of course, I’m not talking about central air conditioning or a summer’s day at the lake. Instead, I’m referring to the omnipresent, environmental boogie man known as global warming. There are political and scientific debates about the veracity and extent of global warming (as well as the boogie man), but because we’re selling science here, let’s stick to the facts.

  • According to NASA, who is among the best sources you can get: “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
  • NOAA says that 2015 was the warmest year on record.
  • Environment Canada says, “Warming over the 20th century is indisputable and largely due to human activities. Canada's rate of warming is about twice the global rate.”
  • From the UK’s Meteorological Office: “Scientific research shows that the climate—that is, the average temperature of the planet's surface—has risen by 0.89 °C from 1901 to 2012. Compared with climate change patterns throughout Earth's history, the rate of temperature rise since the Industrial Revolution is extremely high.”
  • In December 2015, after years of mocking climate change, Russian President V. Putin said, “Climate change has become one of the gravest challenges humanity is facing.”
  • Lastly, the Chinese Meteorological Administration’s official stance: “Climate change has led to a shortage of water resources, extensive droughts, sea level rise, glacier retreat, desertification, food output fluctuation and epidemic disease…This affects the survival and development of mankind, and deeply hinders our security.”

Only in 2016 would I need to dedicate 200 words to providing climate change evidence. Moving on…

So yes, as a single-planet species, humankind’s greatest existential threat is arguably climate change. Many, many regulations and laws have been passed worldwide to ease atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gases, which are the main contributors to climate change. Yet, it is still not enough.

So, researchers have occasionally proposed dispersing light-reflective sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the intensity of light. Of course, the main drawback is that sulfate aerosols actually damage the ozone layer, which will lead to extra UV rays reaching the Earth’s surface.

Researchers at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences have been studying what materials would be substitutable for sulfate aerosols. In research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team announced they have begun testing calcite particles as a possible solution. Calcite could neutralize acidic compounds in the atmosphere to protect the ozone layer, while also reflecting enough sunlight to cool the planet.

The research team cautions that it’s too early to tell if calcite will prove viable, as stratospheric science isn’t mature enough to offer modeling. However, lab tests are ongoing.

On one hand, atmospheric engineering is a stop-gap solution that might ultimately delay larger atmospheric sustainability initiatives. (Hey, more time to drill for oil!) It might be better as a Plan B, should climate change reach a tipping point.

On the other hand, the battle against climate change needs every weapon in its arsenal at its disposal.

If the real answer to climate change is pollution reduction, do Band-Aid solutions make sense?

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
8
Guru
Engineering Fields - Optical Engineering - Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - Member

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Trantor
Posts: 5363
Good Answers: 646
#1

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 12:31 PM

"On the other hand, the battle against climate change needs every weapon in its arsenal at its disposal."

Too bad its arsenal doesn't include legitimate science, facts, reason, honesty, or integrity.

Letting climate scientists tinker with an atmosphere they don't understand is like giving a loaded AK-47 to a baboon.

__________________
Whiskey, women -- and astrophysics. Because sometimes a problem can't be solved with just whiskey and women.
Reply Good Answer (Score 8)
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#2
In reply to #1

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 12:47 PM

I'm filing a discrimination compliant with the ACLU.

Baboon lives matter

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 2914
Good Answers: 115
#3
In reply to #1

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 1:14 PM

"... is like giving a loaded AK-47 to a baboon."

Didn't we just do that in a recent presidential election?

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#4
In reply to #3

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 1:18 PM

I'm sorry to hear your out of tissues...

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 2914
Good Answers: 115
#5
In reply to #4

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 1:34 PM

Tears of laughter perhaps. Time will tell whether it was a good choice or not, but I have my doubts. Mostly I can't believe that, out of 319 million people in this country, this round's candidates were the best we could do? The Cream of the Crop? What does that say about the rest of us?

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#6
In reply to #5

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 1:44 PM

Yes, time will tell. It always does. But you can't tell that to a lot of people. Their mind is made up before it even started.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#8
In reply to #1

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 6:28 PM

The #1 issue I have with the climate change warming fuss is they do not and will not ever put the 'when-where-how it came to be relevant factors' (multidimensional data set Vs monodimensional data point) in what they present to the general public.

A year is not one single numerical data point that happened in an instant that can be represented in a single mono dimensional number ever and trying to represent all the millions of data point temperatures and the times they were each taken as one single numerical value and then say that that value alone has any significant meaning is very wrong scientific data representation.

Longer warmer Fall seasons, shorter and warmer Winter seasons, and shorter warmer Spring seasons are the what and where of how that global average mean temperature value rise is coming from and warmer weather in those seasons has far more positive effects on all primary life on this planet than it does any negative. Summer season wise planet wide very few places ever see any significant record breaking highs anywhere beyond the expected statistical average expected to be broken in any year.

As for the US we have not seen a single Summer season peak broken since the mid 1990's.

Peak recorded temperature and date of occurrences by US state.

BTW, as far as the rest of the world goes,

World wide peak and low temperature records by location and date.

Reply
Associate

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 27
Good Answers: 1
#14
In reply to #8

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 7:25 AM

When one tries to make a little bit of science, it looks at averages, not peaks

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7960
Good Answers: 284
#15
In reply to #14

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 7:50 AM

Any basis for that assertion? I can think of many things that run counter to the proposed rule, would you exclude these as not part of science?...

Reporting of earthquakes from a seismograph uses peak values, not an average.

Blood pressure measurement looks at local peaks, not at averages.

If a large asteroid is passing close to Earth, the measurement of interest is the closest it will get, not the average distance.

For energetic materials, knowing the minimum amount of friction, or shock, or electrical discharge that will result indeflagration or detonation is far more important than knowing the average amount of friction, shock or electrical discharge required to put things in play.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#16
In reply to #14

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 8:04 AM

Averages?....

I always thought statistics in itself is a science, but statistics is still only a tool.

And its up to the interpretation of the data for a result. And the results is sometimes not always based on knowledge, but also conjecture..

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#17
In reply to #14

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 8:06 AM

Really?

I'm pretty sure it also looks at when, where, how plus other factors when dealing with very complex systems. Without those other points of reference any data about anything in reality is typically useless.

When It comes to reality there are multiple dimensions of data reference points that have to be accounted for for anything to have value and meaning.

You can't use mathematical averaging of a two or three or more axis coordinate system to define a location yet that's exactly what certain groups are trying to do with climate change and the the 'Average Annual Mean Temperature Value'

Just because that value changed doesn't mean anything anywhere has went outside of the known working range or limits of any part of the operating matrix of the system..

Reply
Member

Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 9
#32
In reply to #14

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 11:29 AM

I agree. Statistics looks at averages, Trends, Projections, correlations etc and they all support Climate change

Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#35
In reply to #32

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 11:49 AM

No, not usually and most when looked at in detail often do not show the reality of what they are trying to over simplify to make a false point with.

Largely in the context of climate change and what reported toe the public they support what the person doing the study wants them to support and not the reality that they are built on.

How to Lie With Statistics.

It's also right in line with using general ambiguous terminology to make something sound like it's something else just as the very term 'climate Change' is most often used in a highly non descriptive ambiguous fashion being the climate everywhere has never stopped changing or ever will stop changing nor does what most are pushed to believe what the term 'climate change' implies actually holds true everywhere at any time and for equal reason.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#36
In reply to #35

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 11:55 AM

Reminds me of a saying about accountants....

'Figures don't lie, but lairs can figure.'

Also applies to politicians, especially with employment figures.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 716
Good Answers: 33
#18
In reply to #8

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 11:17 AM

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. As I understand it, trying to express global warming in one number can't possibly represent any actual physical conditions, and therefore the number they come up with is meaningless.

Also, as I understand your answer, fall is warming, winter is warming, spring is warming, and maybe summer is not warming, but all these things are good for "all primary life".

Is that accurate?

__________________
canary
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#23
In reply to #18

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 6:13 AM

Yes. It represents the 'when factor' in the overall issue.

On top of that is the 'where factor' as well being not 100% of every where on the planet is affected identically either. Much of the total percentage of area of the planet has seen no real changes or has seen positive changes as has where I live.

Those to simple extra quantitative dimensions add a huge amount of extra information and data to the overall situation that too many want to completely ignore and say ar irrelevant yet they represent everything in their perceived problem.

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brecksville, OH
Posts: 1604
Good Answers: 18
#33
In reply to #1

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 11:38 AM

Yep! Unfortunately "legitimate science" is no longer considered "cool" these days as it takes too much work!

__________________
"Consensus Science got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" : Rephrase of Will Rogers Comment
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 31117
Good Answers: 1728
#7

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 2:52 PM

You're wasting your time trying to sell global warming in the winter, wait till the summer...

__________________
Break a sweat everyday doing something you enjoy
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: About 4000 miles from the center of the earth (+/-100 mi)
Posts: 9091
Good Answers: 1036
#9

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 6:52 PM

Fill the stratosphere with calcite dust? I bet jet engines are not going to like that. And if it doesn't stay up there, maybe we will have far larger problems than the global temperatures rising a couple of degrees in a century.

Haste makes waste. Sometimes not doing anything is better than acting before you understand the situation and making the situation worse.

JMHO.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#10
In reply to #9

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 7:35 PM

Well, doing nothing and still make money... that would also alleviate the politicians that are making money off of climate change.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7960
Good Answers: 284
#11

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 9:49 PM

"So yes, as a single-planet species, humankind’s greatest existential threat is arguably climate change"

Well, yeah, if people are allowed to throw drastic worldwide 'solutions' at a threat perceived from poorly understood (how are those climate model predictions panning out again?) ultracomplex process, then yeah the threat becomes existential, whether or not it was originally.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#12
In reply to #11

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 9:55 PM

And God will smite them all! (Provided we do it for him to prove he's real to those who don't believe as we do. )

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Out of your mind! Not in sight!
Posts: 4425
Good Answers: 107
#13
In reply to #11

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/14/2016 11:14 PM

Which makes it: humankind’s greatest existential threat is none arguably humankind!

__________________
Common Sense Dictates
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 716
Good Answers: 33
#19

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 11:30 AM

I agree that it is scary to try to change the atmosphere to prevent global warming, but if it turns out to be really necessary, then it is good to have some options. After all, we have been changing the atmosphere to increase global warming, so it seems wise to have some way to do the reverse.

If something happens to prove that we actually really need it, even global warming skeptics will realize we actually really need it.

__________________
canary
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Earth - I think.
Posts: 2143
Good Answers: 165
#20
In reply to #19

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 12:19 PM

I would agree with you, except for the fact that they rarely have an "undo" button for such massive endeavors.

__________________
TANSTAAFL (If you don't know what that means, Google it - yourself)
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 716
Good Answers: 33
#21
In reply to #20

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 1:20 PM

Agreed. I don't have much trust in the ability of scientists or engineers to make a change to a massively complicated system without unintended consequences. But if a runaway greenhouse effect starts, we won't have many options. A runaway greenhouse effect can literally sterilize the Earth, and make it like Venus. We would have to stop it by any means possible, and deal with the unintended consequences when they happen.

__________________
canary
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#24
In reply to #21

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 6:27 AM

That's an idiotic and obviously uniformed 'what if' scenario that has no valid place in the overall reality of what could ever happen.

We could not turn this planet into Venus if we tried. Our planet's orbital location plus bulk atmospheric make up are totally different.

Our atmosphere is 99.9% non greenhouse gas based where as Venus is 96.5% greenhouse gas plus has a considerably closer orbit to the sun than we do as well.

The absolute maximum greenhouse effects that are even possible now would not come close to what our planet has already experienced in the past. Just read up on this to see the limits.

Carboniferous Period.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 716
Good Answers: 33
#29
In reply to #24

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 9:51 AM

Would you point me to the part about the absolute maximum greenhouse effects? I didn't see it in the link you provided.

__________________
canary
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#34
In reply to #29

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 11:39 AM

Really?

Click here.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 716
Good Answers: 33
#41
In reply to #34

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 4:01 PM

If you say read up on something and provide a link, I assume that that link has the information you are talking about. The Carboniferous Period link you provided just says it was warm. It doesn't say anything about greenhouse effect or maximum effect of greenhouse gases.

So I googled it myself. You could do that too.

Yes, a runaway greenhouse effect that makes the Earth like Venus is very unlikely, or maybe even impossible, depending on who you talk to.

However, a lesser runaway greenhouse that raises the average global temperature by about 20 degrees C, enough to kill all grain crops, is definitely not impossible. It would not be just due to CO2, but also involves release of methane from the melting tundra and methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. It is not clear how unlikely that is. The more they look the more natural sources of methane they find.

If that lesser scenario happens, I think some calcite dust in the atmosphere might not be a bad thing, but I hope research continues on its effect. I actually trust climate scientists.

__________________
canary
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#43
In reply to #41

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 4:16 PM

I read about it extensively before and felt no reason to spoon feed you the data. Co2 levels were ~4400 and average temperatures were ~ 20 - 40 F higher than now.

As for grain crops I am pretty sure they die off every year. I'm even more sure that they can be replanted in other places than where they are now as well.

I'm also sure that human civilization can and will move to better regions where things are more favorable to their liking just as we have been doing for millennia now.

As for the rest of it I have zero reason to speculate on 'what ifs' and theoretical highly implausible worst case scenarios let alone any desire to want to try and change things as they are now to avoid things we have very little real solid understanding or control of.

Where I live our climate has been shifting in a favorable direction for the last 30+ years so I have zero reasons to stop it. Same with the other major regions of the planet where others have either seen favorable change or no change at all as well.

I for one have seen absolutely zero reference to the when and where efactor they would even try to use to change the planetary climate with either which I see as being a extramly important factor in the whole concept.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 716
Good Answers: 33
#22
In reply to #20

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/15/2016 6:09 PM

Speaking of "undo" buttons, I would have no problem with industries pouring gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, as long as they make a backup copy of the Earth first.

__________________
canary
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#25
In reply to #22

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 6:40 AM

We put around 25 - 30 gigatons out and sequester about 3 - 5 gigatons (yea they don't tell you the part either) our self where as the planet as a whole varies in its own carbon cycle actions from around 400 - 450 gigatons over any time frame.

Our own actions overall fall below nature's own average working and workable range limits and our actual carbon output is tapering off to in many developed countries actually dropping.

So before you start worrying about something maybe you should spend a respectable amount of time learning the reality behind what is involved opposed to just taking the word of the media and those who stand to gain from misleading to outright lying to you about the topic because there is a whole lot more to the issue than just our human actions, our CO2 numbers and one single statistical numerical value.

Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 373
Good Answers: 2
#26

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 8:25 AM

Put the global warming guys to work on global dimming with their best guesses on where and when to detonate and deplete the global stockpiles of nukes, putting mini-volcanoes of global dimming blast dust into the atmosphere for the global warming deniers to measure resulting cooling (or heating) and associated blast-residual atmospheric radioactivity products. Big Data to the rescue with all hands on deck as blast by blast we back away from the tick-tock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Dooms Day Clock.

Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 145
Good Answers: 23
#27

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 9:01 AM

Everything you need to know about Global Cooling, I mean Global Warming oops, I mean Climate Change and the "Intentional Deception" those involved keep pulling on us behind our backs.

Climategate 2.0 (Yes, this wasn't the first time these "Scientists" were caught ):

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,”

“I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,”

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

From Climategate 1.0:

“must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#514996b0988d

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#28
In reply to #27

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 9:07 AM

so, condensed down, what you are saying is 'follow the money'?

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 145
Good Answers: 23
#30
In reply to #28

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 10:31 AM

What do they have to hide but the truth?

Why push an agenda so hard on the public which is based on manipulated data unless you intend to use it for unethical purposes.

The purposes are to control those you dictate/indoctrinate your manipulated results to. Results that are being used to take the public's money and property.

They got caught the first time.

They got caught a second time.

Below is a great example of how government-mandated "Climate Change" is being used against U.S. Citizens to:

Control

Take our $$

Intimidate people into Compliance

“President Obama’s plan to reduce climate-disrupting methane pollution is an important step in reining in an out of control industry exempt from too many public health protections,”

Don't you like the way that statement sounds like dairy farmers are due to be taught a lesson from our government.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz4T0z7YPA2

Not condensed but information people should be aware of.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#31
In reply to #30

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 10:34 AM

Why, I'll tell you why. Its because ....

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7960
Good Answers: 284
#37
In reply to #30

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 12:40 PM

Why can I only find this story on sites like 'the daily caller', 'info wars', and 'weasel zipper'?

There is plenty of news on the Associated Press about California passing a law dealing with bovine flatulence (though the wording of the bill requires measures to reduce cow flatulence only if experts agree the technology exists).

Why would the Associated Press shy away from similar reporting?

That Forbes article on Climate gate 2.0 is great stuff. I just hope important stories like that don't get smeared by less reliable infowars type stories like this.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#38
In reply to #37

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 1:22 PM

Unfortunately that all came from way back in 2011 about this time of year so it's pretty old news.

The number fibbers have had time to regroup and revise since. Still their claims have more holes than the skeptics counter arguments by a long shot even now.

I just have a lot of trouble with how they report their side of the data and what significance they place on only a handful of derived data points for the whole fuss while totally ignoring the questions about inconsistencies in the data they build their 'holy number' from actually shows.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7960
Good Answers: 284
#46
In reply to #38

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/17/2016 3:05 AM

Old news doesn't fall off the internet. Even when companies take things off their websites, it doesn't really remove record of it. 2011 is not really that long ago anyway.

I agree with you that there is a big problem with cherry picking, manipulating data, and a cult of cause among some scientists. The commandeering of research dollars and institutions to produce intentionally distorted outcomes to match a certain narrative, while masquerading as legitimate unbiased science is extremely dangerous.

Fake news stories do nothing to improve the situation. The people who already hate the establishment don't require further reason to be upset. The people who support the establishment are only pushed closer and become defensive when presented with stories like this. Sites like infowars aren't aiming for a change, they are aiming for derision. Crap stories they spin and echo diminish the chance that the people who need to be convinced will ever take something like the Forbes article seriously.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 373
Good Answers: 2
#39
In reply to #27

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 2:44 PM

Yep. Follow the money.

The day before B. Gates and his mega-bucks climate hoaxer buddies met with the Donald, they held a news conference, summarized here:

http://www.b-t.energy/

So, they are starting with $1 billion in chump change. When will they ever learn the flowers need CO2...and a lot of it.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#40

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 3:37 PM

For me, back 2008-2009, the people that did more damage to climate change are the politician$.

Where they'd have their little minions shove it down your throat and saying trust me look at the numbers.

Now for me, I always believed in climate change, And the term 'Climate Change' is just a more acceptable term the liberals came up because 'Global Warming' was such a fiasco.

Now is to see what happens to this so called 'Settled Science'.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#42
In reply to #40

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 4:03 PM

"Where they'd have their little minions shove it down your throat and saying trust me look at the numbers."

That's where I have always question them. On their numbers being they seem to only have two they feel are worth screaming about and most cant explain how they arrived at either of them themselves.

As for being settled I have found that the only people who use that statement are the one who wish to end a debate immediately because they know they have no solid ground to stand on and no rational face saving facts or further defence to work with.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#44
In reply to #42

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 4:59 PM

I would challenge GW on that basis,... guess thats where I honed my skills when I challenge now the political left

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#45
In reply to #44

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/16/2016 10:32 PM

The problem i have with their numbers is how they can't relate how their average values don't relate to reality and then say that the details don't matter because the average value represents everything correctly when they don't and can't.

Today I thought up a little example of how dangerously wrong using averaging for a large statistical problem is.

Say Diabetes for example . ~9.3% of the US population has it and needs to treat it. Thats a fact.

Now here's the problem with handling that problem based on the methods and assumptions that the AGW crowd believes in of by their reasoning 9.3% of the population should be getting treatment but the who and where they live specifically is irrelevant. 9.3% need treatment is all that matters.

So what would their three options be?

Option one is they have to take 93 out of every 1000 people and give them treatment for diabetes even though many of those chosen 93 are likely to not have or need the treatment just as of the other 907 who don't get it many of them will be the ones who do.

Or option two, they average out the equivalent dosages that 9.3 % of the population would need but administer that over the whole population and everyone gets 9.3% of a correct treatment dosage of medications whether they need it or not.

Or option three where they take a whole population base from one single area and treat them and do nothing with anyone from anywhere outside that zone.

By their reasoning that the averages are only what matter and not the details they are derived from either one should work fine right because the averaging of the whole and the total treatments given by the numbers add up to meet those averages perfectly.

Or do they end up killing ~9.3% of the population because their mathematical and statistical methods do not allow for individual as needed treatment of those who are in need?

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#47
In reply to #45

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/17/2016 10:18 AM

Interesting example.,

And btw, if you keep making a face with your emoticon sticking your emoticon tongue out, it's going to stay that way.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 716
Good Answers: 33
#48
In reply to #45

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/17/2016 11:46 AM

Perfect real-life example, except your silly straw man argument about how research is being done by fools and idiots who somehow can't help but killing off a random 9% of the population. Here is how it really worked.

Scientists, in this case epidemiologists, discovered that there is a surge in diabetes. They work to try to figure out why. They discover that there is a correlation between eating more sugar and having diabetes.

The sugar industry gets upset. They start a disinformation campaign to persuade scientists to avoid doing research on sugar and diabetes.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255

"The SRF [Sugar Research Foundation] sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor."

Here's a good review article about it:

"In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

"The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to "refute" concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

Diabetes has been known for over 2000 years, insulin has been used to manage it since 1921, but because of the sugar industry interference only in the past 10 years has there been significant research looking at the link between sugar and type 2 diabetes directly, like this one.

"The findings showed that drinking one to two sugary drinks per day increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 26% and the risk of metabolic syndrome by 20% compared with those who consumed less than one sugary drink per month. Drinking one 12-ounce serving per day increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by about 15%."

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/sugar-sweetened-beverages-sodas-diabetes-metabolic-syndrome/

Next, cities try to improve the health of their citizens, reduce disability, improve productivity, improve quality of life, by proposing a sales tax on sugar. The sugar industry responds by mounting advertising campaigns that say the research is not clear, that the tax will hurt the poor, that the money will be wasted, that it won't help prevent diabetes, that it is obesity that causes diabetes, that it is unfair to target only one industry, that we live in a nanny state, that we should be all be terrified of government overreach and the awful power the bureaucrats are trying to grab, that government is more dangerous than diabetes, etc., etc. The taxes are rejected. Diabetes continues to rise.

There, fixed it for you.

And yes, this is how the global warming debate works.

__________________
canary
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#49
In reply to #48

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/17/2016 9:07 PM

Yes I know how the diabetes study and development of our present methods of treatment came to be and how I wrote what I did was intended to be a very obvious analogical reference of how using the wrong mathematical modeling and ressulting wrongful approach to handling a large scale problem because of wrongful statistical analysis and mathematical modeling can go very wrong when poor mathematical reasoning is used.

Like using averaging to over simplify a problem and then issue a treatment without taking the individual elements of who is or isn't negatively affected from of the overall problem into consideration.

Also,what did you fix?

It looks to me like you totally failed to get what I was implying.

Are you saying that how the AGW debate works? The skeptics side shows how the believers sides approach to their handling data and coming up with a cure is seriously flawed and then the believers side totally fails to comprehend what was told to them the claims that the fix!?

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 716
Good Answers: 33
#50
In reply to #49

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/18/2016 1:25 AM

Yes, I know what you intended. Yes, wrong statistical analysis can go very wrong. Your analysis used such ridiculous mathematical analysis that even someone who knows nothing at all would know that's ridiculous. You made the analysis look ridiculous in order to make scientists and GW look ridiculous. But it has no relation to GW science at all. You just made it up to make scientists look like fools. And it works. Some people will read your post and think, yes, more "proof" that GW is just a conspiracy, when you just made it up. It is just like fake news. It doesn't matter if it is true. It only matters if you can get attention.

What I fixed was to bring in the actual state of the fake "science" that is used to prevent people from taking action to fix an enormous problem, both for diabetes and for GW.

There is no need to debunk your math. Any fool knows it is garbage. That is your point, to make science and scientists look like garbage.

The skeptics side of GW hears a continuous drumbeat from bloggers, politicians, and a few scientists who have been paid to defend fossil fuel from its critics, the same group that defended tobacco from its critics. They take scientific articles and twist their true findings to cast doubt on GW. They produce no actual data themselves, but lie in wait of any research that they might jump on to make the rest of the research look doubtful. They are willing to destroy faith in science, government, elections, and democracy itself in order to prevent governments from hurting their profits.

Follow the money. The money is with Exxon and the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel companies. They are willing to destroy the US to defend their profits.

Somehow you seem to think that tens of thousands of zombie scientists are both too stupid to do good research and too brilliant to get caught in an enormous conspiracy, and in which not one person has ever "come clean" with a crisis of conscience. That doesn't sound unlikely to you?

It is easy for you to do your voodoo handwaving about the evil of using averages when you could not even conceive of the advanced math that they have to use to do their actual research. I have news for you. The "average" of ANY set of numbers does not represent ANY SINGLE NUMBER in the set. It is an emergent property of the set. It is often useful. When it is not useful you may use the median, or the mode, or the standard deviation or the skewness, or a matrix, or a distribution curve. None of these concepts represents any single number of the set. They are all emergent properties. Even the concept of temperature, a single measurement at a single place at a single time, represents the emergent property resulting from the behavior of all the atoms and photons together at that time and place. A temperature measurement is already an average that does not represent any single atom or photon. And yet it is useful. I think even you would say it is useful. What you DO NOT want is a number that has all the complexity of the original data, or it would be useless. Just like a temperature measurement in the form of a database with the kinetic energy for every individual atom would be useless. The point of science is to generalize from the data, and find emergent truths.

And when scientists try to come up with a way to measure the "temperature" of the planet, you call it bogus. What is useful about it is not that it is exact for some time and place. It is an emergent property of all the measurements all over the world and would be useless if it did represent any single place or time. What is useful is that it is an index to the amount of heat energy held by the surface of the planet. Sure, a rise of 1 or 2 or 5 degrees C would not be very interesting in a single place or a single time. But it is useful as an index to the harm that results from all the complex processes that are changed by adding that amount of heat energy to the system.

I doubt you complain about stock market analysts using a single number to report the behavior of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, even though it has no relation to any actual profit or company or moment in time, and its movement is the result of enormously complex forces of economics and psychology that are not even touched on by the most advanced economists. Some people say that the stock market is rigged, and bubbles happen, and corrections happen, and even with all that, it still represents something true and useful. But people make money from the stock market, so that means it must be a grand conspiracy, right? No. Even if someone is making money from the stock market, it is mostly true and valid as far as it goes. People can invest and know what happens to their investment. Even if someone, somewhere, is making money from GW, it still represents something mostly true and valid. What is not valid is when someone tries to tell you that you should disregard the Dow Jones and invest in this other scheme that gives you the "true" value of the stock market. If someone tells you that, you know very well you should check your pockets and watch your back.

Same with GW. Somebody is trying to tell me that the scientists are all wrong and that the "true" temperature of the planet is lower. That's when I check my pockets and watch my back. I check the science. I still trust the scientists. You get worried when someone tries to tell you that the temperature of the planet is higher. That is when you should check your pockets and watch your back. But they have destroyed your trust in science, so who who do you trust that actually knows the science? There is nobody left.

I know you believe GW is happening, because you say you are happy at the warming that you see happening in your area. So you are not a very good scientist, you are very good at rationalizing (the opposite of being rational), and you are a very good capitalist, defending your own benefits at the expense of everyone else. You may not be happy very long, if you start getting heat waves that wipe out your local economy. But even if you're happy, the rest of the world has good reason to be worried.

__________________
canary
Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
3
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7960
Good Answers: 284
#51
In reply to #50

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/18/2016 8:19 AM

The fact that academia and much of science is structured in a very hierarchical way makes it susceptible to the pitfalls of group think. The fiasco referred to as 'Climategate I & II' indicate the argument for AGW has been commandeered, at least partially, by people actively encouraging group think and suppressing any suggestion/evidence to the contrary.

.

That is also a type of 'fake news'. Both sides behave badly and are eager to forgive/forget their own trespasses, yet stubborn about forgiving similar misdeeds from the other side.

.

Personally, attempting to sort through the muck raised by both sides, it looks like the Earth surface in total has been generally warming, ever so slightly for the last century. We are coming out of an ice age, so thi's makes sense.

Additionally, it would be difficult to disagree with the idea that CO2 levels have been increasing over the last century (the ice core samples seem highly suspect to me, so I don't have much certainty further back). It seems fairly straight forward that this increase is due in large part to burning fossil fuels.

.

There is also plenty of evidence that CO2 does absorb and emit infrared energy. The same can be said of methane. The total effect of those two pale in comparison to the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere, and I think the evidence for CO2 having some special multiplicative effect on water vapor is tenuous at best.

.

All in all, the presentation from both sides leaves me more confident about predicting the behaviour of mankind than the behavior of the weather. Side A is claiming that side B is trying to supress freedoms and ram through an agenda based on incomplete data and faulty logic. Side B claims side A is filled with idiots and led by strictly self-interested immoral liars.

Side A needs to separate itself from the component that is speaking falsehoods and generally acting childish.

Side A needs to rigorously rid itself of the cohort intentionally skewing conclusions. There needs to be a return to the values of science wherein dissent is encouraged, not stifled. Perhaps then some climate models can be improved to the point where some actually make reliably decent predictions of temperatures a couple years in the future....it will certainly be easier to take predictions about where we might be in a couple decades, if at least predictions a few year out are spot on.

In general it would be helpful if both sides could stop berating the other side. If you really believe someone is inherently evil or impossibly stupid, why would you try to change their mind? If you can't fathom that there might be reasonably intelligent, moderately decent person on the other side, it would be best it you didn'the engage.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22718
Good Answers: 411
#53
In reply to #51

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/18/2016 9:01 AM

Your first paragraph about academia nailed it. It seems that the professor or instructor will impose not so much as knowledge but his views own into you.

you either go with it, or battle and be awarded a poor score for the class.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 145
Good Answers: 23
#54
In reply to #51

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/19/2016 11:33 AM

In general, I like a lot of what you stated. I don't agree with every part of it but you make some good statements.

I would say that the concept of Climate Change has given the EPA similar powers as the IRS when it comes to controlling U.S. Citizens, taking their money and property while the scientists have been deceptive with much of the results that the EPA uses as their justification. All of this helps grow Side B.

Side B listened to Side A push Global Warming again and again, while at the same time, Side B saw Record Low temperatures being recorded several years in a row. Side B is well justified in its skepticism that Side A was not being honest in what it presented. Then reports come out that Global Warming has been "On Pause" for the last 18 years even though Side A has been pointing to example after example that it was occurring during the last 15+ years. Result: Side A renames Global Warming to Climate Change.

Side A has helped establish or enlarge Side B due to some of them being deceptive and definitely by not being transparent.

Side B is ridiculed and made to look as if they just don't care about the environment, when that is truly not the case.

Side A needs to own up to what they have done (multiple times now). The need to be extremely transparent and go out of their way to work with Side B in establishing rules for transparency in how they collect their data and present their results. The data collected and results provided needs to be signed off by both Side A & B for it to be considered valid and releasable to the public. Otherwise it cannot be presented at all.

Side A brought this upon themselves at least twice now so, moving forward, it is Side A who has to go the extra mile to establish credibility in what they present.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#55
In reply to #54

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/19/2016 2:07 PM

Kinda like,

"Of course we had to exaggerate and lie about it because if we had told the truth no one would have taken us and our cause seriously!"

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#52
In reply to #50

Re: Could Aerosols Reverse the Tides of Climate Change?

12/18/2016 8:37 AM

Back in the early 2000's I believed as you apparently do and as you have seen I like a good debate and I like to win and to do so I do it by learning as much as I can about what eve the topic is that interests me such as this one.

I argued the it's real and all the things you pointed out as well to the best of my abilities. But along the way I kept finding glaring problems with everything being presented and what it was being said to mean Vs what the actual underlying data said.

It gave me doubts to the validity of the research and as I dug into who was doing the research and how they were handing it plus all the key people behind it and what they were to gain from such misdirections I could not in good faith and scientific diligence continue to side with them.

It did not add up, the science was full of huge holes no one wanted to talk about and a most of the supposedly leading scientists were very much already suspected to be on the take as well and I had figured that out well before the first 'climategate' debacle ever arose and showed that to be too true to publically ignore.

Now as for me personally I went back to college about that time and took a few geology classes as electives and one of them was an environmental geology class that dealt with the exact principles of how we define and monitor our weather and climate and how it affects us in general.

The thing is our local college here in Minot has been doing loads of environmental study work for decades and up until the early 2000's all of it was neatly catalogued and kept in the basement of the college library where anyone could look at anything they had ever done any research on at any time.

The problems I became aware of at that time was that pretty much every professor and student who had anything to do with those studies and had solid understandings of what they found and reported Vs what was being said about climate change at the time screamed that that's not what the majority of their data said nor implied was happening here or in any other college and university they worked with anywhere that did similar research anywhere else either. Yes things changed but not as ws being pushed on the general public or with new government issued regulations regarding it.

At one point it was heavily implied that if they didn't not do their research in a specific way that they would loose their funding. Plus at that time that decades long archive of technical research completely disappeared as well. Now the thing is, before I went back to college for my electrical engineering degree I used to fix copying machines and the college library was one of my own service accounts so I knew the people in the offices well.

I asked aobut what had happened to the archive and the story told has two very different sides to it. To the average person it was just boxed up and moved to make room for more stuff despite having loads of open shelf space available. The real story behind it I was told by the very people who ran the library at the time was it was taken under the threat of the college and the library losing much of it's research and general operations funding if they did not comply so that's really why it was sent someplace to never be seen again. Making space had little to do with it. Burying the decades worth of raw baseline study paperwork someplace that future student and professors plus the general public could never reach and use again was.

That's what I have seen myself firsthand behind this whole AGW issue. It's built on false data, misrepresented data, political wrangling and corruption at every level and since the whole mess started not one prediction has ever came remotely close to having come true.

What has happened is that thousands of average people like me have taken up the crusade to scrutinize every shred of data that is ever presented regardless of it source and double check it to see if it's valid and being correctly presented to which much of it making the claims you support obviously has not otherwise people like me would not be constantly pointing out every flaw, misrepresentation and outright lie behind everything that gets said about the topic.

What we have found is there are two very distinct camps in this subject. Those who say it's real and a threat who's top people keep getting caught lies and disinformation and those who say it's not anything like what's they claimed that so far have had very clan track records on what they have provided to back their views and reasonings plus have so far had nature itself show things far more favorably to our sides predictions as well.

as for your 10,000 scientists I've heard no such claims of them having ever existed. I have however hear of may people who name made such a list and they made a major fuss about having had their good names attached to such lies and drivel though without their knowledge or permission.

As for defectors there are many way too many that have admitted to having been pressured into misrepresenting their data to keep their jobs or they were outrightly on the take. It's not a secrete by any means and the are many more more that feel their data is fine but that whoever handled it beyond them twisted it around using bad math that looks good to the unknowing unfamiliar average person to say something far different than what they stand for. So as for defectors they are everywhere and given what i have seen I am probably one of them myself. I changed sides and I have no problem with telling my story about why I did. My basic morals ethics gave me no choice and I am too low otnt to totem pole it get any financial kickbacks to say anything different.

Regarding the reality of how the world climates have changed the believers side says everywhere got worse and will keep getting worse plus that anywhere that did not change or that may have improved either does not count or is totally played off as irrelevant just as you have yourself regarding my regions gains.

Now as to the skeptics side we are everywhere and we know that a huge part of the world has either seen no change or has improved and it's too big of a percentage in the whole of things to be playing off and ignored and we put every bit of our research data and anything else asked of our side out for further review without hesitation.

As for myself I am just one person with one view and nothing else. But there are millions more like me every where who work in every profession and industry and have every reason to disagree with what is being rammed down our throats and we don't like it regardless of what reason you say we have for doing what we do.

I for one worked in the oil fields doing fracking and I can honestly say that what really goes on in fracking and the oil industry as a whole is nowhere close to the other bizarre horrible corrupt world it's reported to be by certain groups who have anagentsda to uphold with every shred of misinformation, exaggeration, lies and unsubstantiated cause and effect bullshit they can come up with.

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 55 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

agua_doc (1); Andrew Westman (2); bullardrr (2); Canary (8); CNCfer (1); IdeaSmith (1); Kilowatt0 (1); LuciousB (3); phoenix911 (12); piriet (1); Rixter (1); SolarEagle (1); tcmtech (15); truth is not a compromise (5); Usbport (1)

Previous in Blog: Turning Used Chewing Gum into Useable Products   Next in Blog: New Weather Instrumentation Promises More Accurate Forecasts

Advertisement