Huh? You grow a tree then burn it...no net carbon release. How is that fuzzy or "feels good"?
Before we were burning trees, now we burn oil, coal, and gas.
Cleaner in what sense? As the US switched from agrarian to modern it uses 4x as much energy per person. How is that cleaner overall?
Chris
The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity and using models that have not been validated to support their politicking. There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our society--trusting anyone who claims to be a "scientist" without question. Most sciences are in their infancy--the only ones with any real maturity are physics and chemistry, with biology getting there. Climatology is very immature and basing social policy on its models is about as wise as basing social policy on the ravings of alchemists or astrologers.
Not really. If there is a problem it is the result of suddenly releasing a lot of carbon that was sequestered over millions of years. Trees are short term--burn them and plant new ones where the old ones were and the new ones store the same amount of carbon as the old ones released while being burned.
vielen Dank.
Is that "scientism" or the opposite? I am getting a lot of the latter from the right wingers. Oh and your last sentence is just plain ignorant meanness and bespeaks much of you.
Well, if it gets really hot next year, don't come to me.
To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.
All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to back up that skepticism.
What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned into and age of skepticism and suspicion.
IOW, I've been right all along ...
It is scientism. Google that word.
What, distrust of climatologists? Skepticism is a necessary part of the scientific process--anyone who is calling the climatologists liars is behaving more like a proper scientist than all the folks who are saying "we should trust them because they are scientists".
Oh, now _there_ is a compelling rebuttal if ever I saw one.
I won't, I'll be too busy riding my motorcycle.
In other words lots of propaganda.
With less polution. I have no polution control device on my fireplace and I doubt way back when there were any such devices either. Ther is all kind of polution control devices on oil, coal, gas, and gasoline burning machines.
what,,,,, 4 times more people using cleaner burning fuels than wood.....
Bitte schön ...
None of which affect CO2 emissions in the slightest.
Cleaner in what sense?
The opposite of scientism or anti-scientism if you want. It's the idea that if one spouts anything long enough and loudly enough, it will be believed. It will still not be true however. A good example is calling climatologists liars without any *scientific* proof.
Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.
Would you mind sharing your vetted source you used to reach your observations?
Lew
How about you show me scientific data from 800 years ago, and all years since. Then let's see what the computer spits out. "Normal" weather patterns run longer than what we have data for.
Global warming, climate changes, what ever todays click is was not a such a concern before money was involved, or before scientists had to come up with derived answers to justify the billions in research.
Well, that is exactly what the global warming people are doing, spouting something loud and long and hoping to be believed. And launching personal attacks at anyone who questions them.
If we take the earth's population at 7 billion, and moved them all toTexas,
Wouldn't that put the planet out of balance and throw it out of it's solar orbit? I mean, I can see it wobbling like the washing machine when the big blanket bunches up on one side of the tub and then hurtling out into deep space.
Dave in Houston
Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise in a long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long term trend is the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models that purport to project that cycle are working on 40 years of data. See the problem?
One doesn't need a "vetted source" to see that the glaciation cycle runs on a timeframe approximately 30,000 times longer than that on which the "global warming" models are based. The ice core data is well known.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required