Global climate change...in Iceland

Careful, differing opinions may hurt the op's feelings.

I wish someone would do a scientific study on how many conspiracies the average person can retain in great detail before the mind can take no more.

2oldman wrote:
If you think the pushback against GCC is bad, consider the life of Galileo.

His declaration that the earth was NOT the center of our solar system almost got him executed, since it contradicted passages in the Bible. He spent the rest of his life in exile for espousing (and proving) something that was true, but was roundly rejected by the church and therefore most of humanity.

Rejection of science is nothing new. It took 20 years to get the lead out of gasoline, although there were plenty of paid scientists to declare it was not harmful.

We accept the science we grew up with: earth is not 4000 years old, light travels really fast, the moon is not cheese, nobody lives on Mars, and space is really big. But somehow when we get older, science becomes a big debate and the noise gets really loud.

Rejection of science? How about the fact that "science" tends to change over time. Far too often, scientists make predictions based on analysis, etc.. But when funding is likely to be cut (like with NASA), predictions can change to make a case so that funding isn't cut.

Its not science any more. Its people making a case to protect their own arse.

If you think the pushback against GCC is bad, consider the life of Galileo.

His declaration that the earth was NOT the center of our solar system almost got him executed, since it contradicted passages in the Bible. He spent the rest of his life in exile for espousing (and proving) something that was true, but was roundly rejected by the church and therefore most of humanity.

Rejection of science is nothing new. It took 20 years to get the lead out of gasoline, although there were plenty of paid scientists to declare it was not harmful.

We accept the science we grew up with: earth is not 4000 years old, light travels really fast, the moon is not cheese, nobody lives on Mars, and space is really big. But somehow when we get older, science becomes a big debate and the noise gets really loud.

For those RV'er that believe in "man made" GW; discussing man made GW on an RV site is like the Dugger family coming to my home and discussing birth control to me. :B
Or like Al flying around the world in a jet that uses fuel measured in tons to talk about GW to the masses and how they should stop their selfish and wasteful manners!

I'll stop Rv'ing and burning copious amounts of fossil fuel while RV'ing when you do it first.

Go on, ante up! :B

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Humans have recorded accurate climate data for how long? 100 years? 200? The earth as been around 5 billion years, give or take. Not exactly a huge statistical sample, to say the least.
Then, there is the fact that we currently use sophisticated data recorders to record that temperature. Do we really think the guy who recorded the temperatures for Missoula, Montana in 1914 had the same accuracy as today? Do we know for sure he didn't locate his equipment for a bit of convenience, say closer to his building than ideal, just to make it a bit easier to get those readings? Do you really think he was concerned his temperature data would be used to justify billions upon billions upon billions of spending 100 years in the future?
Then there is the fact that to derive these current temperature readings, climatologists use mathematical models to "adjust" for things like thermal gain in cities. Tweak the formulas, you tweak the resulting evidence of climate change.
Finally, the bulk of the earth's landmass would benefit from climate change. Think of the additional food that could be grown and the additional population that could be accommodated if Siberia and Northern Canada was habitable.

You make some very good points WRVPO. And I agree with your take on the temperature data collection. However much of the data collected is done with ice cores from the arctic regions and the tale is told there for sure. What caused any given change is up for at least some educated guesses.

But one thing I can say for certain since I have seen it with my own eyes is that the glaciers of both Alaska and Europe have shrunken DRAMATICALLY in my lifetime. This observation was made in person over 35+ years. When I was stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage in 1973 the portage glacier could be seen right in front of the visitor center. Now it is completely out of sight and you have to take a boat to it. It has receded more than two miles in that time.

That supports the FASTER change theory and I agree with that. But also to deny that putting too much of a pollutant into our finite atmosphere has no effect is to ignore the patently obvious.

Just a note to another poster: the earth being round was NOT a scientific discovery it was OBSERVATIONAL. Just as was the fact that we orbit the sun.

UN Official admitted, not too long ago, along with countless Scientists that the Global Warming/Changers cooked the books.
It was all about achieving Global Social and Economic Justice or Global Communism and getting rid of Capitalism.

QUOTE from Old-Biscuit post:

"Took me 32 years of operating a Power Plant to form my opinion.

When a unit was not operating the NOX and CO2 not being produced was 'credited' to the units that were operating so that expensive control measures would not have to be installed.
Not only would they be expensive but would also limit output....resulting in less MW production----less revenue----less $$$$$$$$$$$ in owners coffers."

end quote.

The true reality:

Yup and then the power plant had to consume even more fuel to produce the same output it had before adding all the so called, "very expensive scrubbers and air pollution control etc mandated items" and thus was brought back to about the same overall yearly air quality exhausted but at a considerably higher cost per KWH and plant operating cost.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul his graft money is what has actually happened! Indisputable and proven so many times over!

Even seen this happen right here wher we live with our municipal owned coal fired power plant which was forced to spend many millions of dollars of pollution control items even though it's pollution output per KWH was much lower than the very large coal power plant just 15 miles north which was allowed to continue to pollute massively because they had political power and claimed they couldn't afford to add the mandated control items to their plant as it would bankrupt them. As our municipal plant is city owned and has no lobbying force and is non-profit and their power plant was for profit and is part or a huge power conglomerate, they were given special treatment and favors. We know as wehad lived it and the air quality before and after and all associated costs incurred was printed in the local newspaper as it must be because it's municipally owned.

Our per KWH bills went up 60% while theirs did not change at all. Price of coal didn't change nor was anything else done to the power plant to affect the per KWH cost and was all listed in full detail and is every year.

So easy to understand: Follow the money!

Science is NOT a consensus of scientists. Science is FACT. A consensus of scientists thought the world was flat. FACT is it is round.

A consensus of climatologists say there is global warming/climate change. FACT is there has always been climate change since there has been a climate, as someone else stated.

Question is, how much has the climate been affected by man? Possibly a very small amount (not fact). How much can man stop climate change? Probably by the same very small amount.

Oh good god! So this is what we've come to? With this kind if insightful analysis and thoughtful logic I see in the climate change denialsits and those that think "FAKE" news comes from CNN and the BBC our country is in desperate straits for sure.

We may be the first empire that virtually ruled the world for so short a time (What 80 years?) and then failed of it's own collective stupidity.