*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

Climate Change. Anything new? Anything that can be done?

Posted Wednesday, December 2, 2015, at 12:15 PM
Comments
View 24 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • The following are actual "climate change" predictions that have been made by so called scientists over the years and they are exactly why I don't buy into this global warming garbage.

    1970 -- We'll be in an ice age by 2000

    1976 -- Global cooling will cause a world war by 2000

    1989 -- Global Warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map by 2000

    1990 -- We only have five to ten years to save the rain forests

    1999 -- The Himalayan glaciers will be gone in ten years

    2000 -- Snow will soon be a thing of the past

    2007 -- Global Warming will cause fewer Hurricanes

    2008 -- The Arctic will be ice free by 2013

    2012 -- Global Warming will cause more Hurricanes

    2014 -- The science is settled!

    Yep.....Bovine Scatology....as Phil Valentine would say.

    -- Posted by Tim Lokey on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 1:46 PM
  • *

    Come on Lazzy, I'm waiting for you to use your 3rd grade math education to tell me how many years it would take for all the citizens of Shelbyville to drive a gas guzzler nonstop to leave the same carbon footprint as one of spotted Owl Bore's private jet trips. If the left could really do 3rd grade math AND cared about the USA, we wouldn't be 19 Trillion dollars in debt.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 1:57 PM
  • Tim, it's true that not every prediction by every scientist will always be correct.

    But there is also a big difference in the widespread scientific consensus on climate change, and a few magazine articles or books written by a few scientists on the topics you referenced.

    I'm sure a few scientists did make those predictions you listed. And you could probably find a few that predicted an alien invasion or proof of Bigfoot.

    The big difference is that the consensus on climate change is supported by national academies, scientific institutions, world leaders, etc.

    There were no United Nations treaties or commissions, no G8 summits, on any of the predictions you listed.

    But you think a right-wing radio DJ knows more about this topic than the scientific community?

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 3:28 PM
  • Lazarus, just a quick search for a list of scientist that refute man made global warming found this one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti...

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 5:15 PM
  • Of course you will find a few scientists that will deny the climate change data, but they are a serious minority.

    I counted 36 names on your list. That's not much of a consensus. Here's another list of those supporting the data.

    Academia Brasiliera de Ci'ncias (Bazil)

    Royal Society of Canada

    Chinese Academy of Sciences

    Academiť des Sciences (France)

    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

    Indian National Science Academy

    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

    Science Council of Japan

    Russian Academy of Sciences

    Royal Society (United Kingdom)

    National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

    Australian Academy of Sciences

    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

    Caribbean Academy of Sciences

    Indonesian Academy of Sciences

    Royal Irish Academy

    Academy of Sciences Malaysia

    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

    NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

    National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

    State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

    American Geophysical Union (AGU)

    American Institute of Physics (AIP)

    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

    American Meteorological Society (AMS)

    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:17 PM
  • Tim; I would really like to see you document even one of those "predictions." The only Bovine Scatology is that list.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 6:31 PM
  • Thank you, live for.... Taking a look at that list, it is conveniently broken down into groups. Group 1 is scientists who dispute the IPCC projections, some saying temperatures will be even higher, others saying they will not be as high. This is akin to handicappers disputing the line on Saturday's Alabama-Florida game, some saying Alabama will win by more, others saying they will win by less. That is not the same as disputing that Alabama will win. Another group is those saying that global warming will not hurt anything. Also not disputing the facts. That eliminates half the names without any further discussion.

    Delving into the significant list; those supposedly arguing that the system is not being driven by human activity: The first one, Хабибулло Исмаилович Абдусаматов, actually did not dispute that human activity was causing climate change. He argued that the temperatures for 2006 and 2007 being similar meant that the warming had reached its peak, and we were fixing to enter an ice age... whoops. The next one; Sallie Balliunas co-authored with a later entry Willie Soon, a single (industry sponsored) paper (her actual expertise was in astronomy) arguing that solar fluctuations are driving the climate... the paper failed peer review, because it was based on incorrect data. Tim Ball was indeed a professor of *Geography* (distinctly different than Geology) and has declared himself to be a "historical climatologist" with no credentials to back up that claim, and has written no peer reviewed papers, but he has produced books and papers for the industry. He has made a good living as a professional anti-global warming "scientist." At best, he is about as qualified as I am. Robert Carter; congratulations, a genuine retired scientist, although all his work was in paleontology. After retirement he has become a celebrity scientist testifying against man-made climate change in front of numerous governmental bodies. It was subsequently discovered that he was on the industry payroll to serve in that capacity. Ian Clark is a hydrogeologist, another actual scientist. He has written extensively on hydrogeology, but nothing connects him with climate science, except that he was recorded on an anti-climate change documentary in 2007, stating that sea ice and arctic temperatures for the last century correlate with solar activity. Chris de Freitas is indeed a Phd in climatology, and he has said that CO2 "might" not be the cause of global warming. As an editor of "Climate Research" he accepted the discredited Soon-Balliunas paper (which probably led to his resignation, altho that is rather difficult to trace). David Douglass is a physicist, specializing in condensed matter physics, whose work has been in Liquid helium and Superconductivity. He did publish a paper arguing that the Climate effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption were underestimated, and a couple of years later, another challenging the accuracy of the 22 climate models used by IPCC. So he really belongs on the list of those disputing the models, not those disputing man-made climate change. Don Easterbrook. Congratulations! A genuine dissenting scientist, with real credentials. He assumes that climate will follow established patterns that he has studied from the past. His 2008 projection was that we were entering a cooling period... maybe it is late.

    So, looking at the first 10 entries on this list of "dissenting scientists;" three have been discredited for using falsified data, one has falsified credentials, three are not actually dissenters and only dispute the nature of the climate change, two are on the industry payroll, one is only on record with a single statement disputing man-made climate change, and only one is a genuine dissenting voice. It hardly seems worthwhile to continue. What began as a long list, evaporates under closer scrutiny.

    I don't understand why we continue the lost cause of disputing that smoking is bad for your health... I mean that CO2 emissions are behind rising temperatures. We should be asking ourselves the cogent questions; 1) Can we actually do anything about it, or will humans just continue to do what they do, regardless of the long term impact? and 2) What can we, or should we, do in response?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 9:25 PM
  • *

    I predict the earth will heat up in approximately 6 months. At that time I plan to turn my air conditioner back on. If I get to feeling too guilty about it I might even buy a few carbon credits from uncle Al.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:31 AM
  • Well, Fair Share, you and I are pretty much in agreement. I predict that the Coal Barons will be able to control the government and prevent any significant action for, at a minimum, my lifetime. And that would not change if they had to build dikes around Washington DC. And people will continue to deny that CO2 emissions could possibly affect the climate for longer than that. I do not plan to alter my behavior to lessen the impact of climate change. That would be pointless.

    Those silly scientists first proposed that the earth goes around the sun around 350 BC. Two thousand years later, in the 1700's, "religious conservatives" were insisting that both the earth circling the sun and the sun circling the earth be taught in the schools. After all, the earth going around the sun was only a "theory," and it was in direct contradiction to the scriptures. The Catholic Church did not officially acknowledge that a spherical earth circled the sun until 1822. The ability of people to believe what they want to believe is almost limitless.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 1:51 AM
  • Wow, took a while to read through all this. I have been really busy of late. Got to quite getting on here it is eating up to much of my time.

    First off, Lazarus, I think you are misunderstanding my point about scientist who refute human caused climate change. I wouldn't expect you, or anyone else, who has made up their minds about that to accept the credibility of anyone who is expressing an opposing view. That is normal. I just googled "scientist who refute climate change" grabbed a link and posted it just to show they are out there. There are more.

    It seems many want to ridicule the minority of scientist that refute the "man caused" data, and use comparisons of flat earth without considering that it was the majority of the "learned" men that ridiculed the minority and their credibility for suggestion the earth was round. They used the same hysteria and fear tactics then also by saying you will fall off the edge.

    Secondly, as I have said before I do believe in "Climate Change" (to use the current axiom). It is observable at least four times in any given year. Also, as I have said before, I am in favor of reducing waste and pollution in order to be good stewards of the earth.

    The point I am trying to make is that climate change is not caused, or more specifically, to what extent it is caused, by human activity. Sure humans have AN effect. So do cows and every other living creature. There is plenty of information out there supporting that view. You can shoot the messenger and claim they are not credible, but even one who is not considered credible by the main stream can be right. Round earth sailors, who were the minority, bet their lives on it.

    The real issue is credibility. I can remember during the mid 70s that the river would freeze over. At that time, we were being told that we were entering into an ice age. Global cooling was being caused by smoke and pollution blocking out the sun. Twenty years later and it is global warming. Twenty more years and it is "Climate change" (can't miss with that one LOL). I can also remember my parents and grandparents telling my that they will find a way to tax the air you breath. It seems they have found it, and a gullible populace willing to accept it.

    Supposedly CO2 and Methane are the main causative agents that humans produce that cause the issue. Co2 is produced each time you exhale and methane after every chili supper. Now, they want to have a "Carbon tax" and a "Carbon Credit Exchange". Give it time and we will be taxed for breathing, with a flatulence tax on every bag of pinto beans.

    There are technologies out there that can solve a lot of our energy and pollution problems such as the Fusion Torch. Money is the driving facture. It is also the driving factor behind the majority of scientific grants needed to promote the human caused climate change agenda. This is another industry that is in the game, the Information Industry.

    The monetary incentive to regulate every living being on the earth through the "Climate Change" narrative is astronomical. To me, this is more of a threat than a few degrees change in global temperature and, is more than likely the driving force behind all the rhetoric. After all, it is easy to scare people with something that is observable at least four times a year. All you need is for them to believe you.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Dec 3, 2015, at 3:12 PM
  • In recent years, investigations have uncovered emails among this "consensus" of scientists wherein the contents indicated that they were encouraging each other to skew their data in favor of "climate change" or whatever the believers are calling it nowadays. Just this past month, scientists at NASA admitted that they had jury rigged some of their data as well. The predictions listed in my earlier response are actual predictions made by climatologist and other chicken little like folks who want the world to panic because the mean temperature of the earth is increasing at about one degree every 100 years. The global warming priest himself (Al Gore)predicted that the worlds glaciers would be non-existent by 2009 and snow would become a thing of the past. Now we have a president who honestly believes that climate change is more of an immediate threat to our national security than terrorism and some have even gone so far as to say that climate change created terrorist groups like ISIS. However, climate change didn't just shoot 31 innocent people in San Bernardino. Mr. Gore wants all of us to do as he says, but not to live like the hypocrite that he truly is. I know for a fact that the climate changes four times yearly, and I prepare for it. When it's cold I turn on the heat. When it's hot, I'll turn on the air conditioning. When it rains, I use an umbrella and if there's snow on the ground I'm building a fire and making smores.

    -- Posted by Tim Lokey on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM
  • It seems many want to ridicule the minority of scientist that refute the "man caused" data, and use comparisons of flat earth without considering that it was the majority of the "learned" men that ridiculed the minority and their credibility for suggestion the earth was round.

    Actually, "learned" men did not ridicule the idea that the earth was round. Erasthenes (sp?) figured it out thanks to communication between "learned" men, by noticing that references to the length of shadows at noon differed between where he was, and where the person corresponding with him was. From there it was a simple matter of deliberately taking more precise measurements to establish that the earth had to be a sphere, and doing the math to calculate the diameter of the earth (which he got within a very impressive 2%.) "Learned" men argued about the actual size of the earth, a rather natural point of contention, given the limitations on measuring the distance between two places at that time. Which measurement was the crux of the reliability of his size estimate. The basic premise that the earth was a sphere was undeniable. "Uneducated" men would ridicule the idea for another 2,000 years.

    The idea of the earth traveling around the sun remained more controversial, particularly after the rise of Christianity and the Roman Catholic church. Based on a number of bible verses ( my favorite being 1 Chronicles 16:30: Tremble before him, all the earth! 
 The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.) it was considered heresy to believe that the earth circled the sun. Legend has it that Gallileo was killed for saying that the earth traveled around the sun. The truth is, he was only put under house arrest for the rest of his life. Technically, his crime was the heresy of heliocentrism, but it seems more likely that his trial and conviction was spurred by his public ridicule (in his writings) of the pope and church for believing otherwise. (the tone adopted in most online discussions is nothing new.)

    The current "debate" over climate change has many parallels. It is the lack of a basic underpinning in science that creates the doubt. Such arguments as "Every living animal 'creates' carbon dioxide when they breath." (The respiratory cycle of plants and animals using carbon and oxygen does not change the amount of free carbon) or that "volcanoes put out more carbon dioxide than we do" (there is a natural cycle of carbon being both absorbed into and given off from the planet into the atmoisphere by natural processes, and yes, volcanic activity has driven catastrophic climate change in the past) are simply red herrings. The human activity of extracting vast quantities of buried carbon from the earth and releasing them into the atmosphere is *in addition* to all natural processes.

    Back to the round earth. Columbus is extolled for having "discovered" that the earth is "round," when, in actuality "learned" men had known this to be true for thousands of years. He did have difficulty finding a crew of sailors willing to risk proving this to be true. However, not only was Columbus not a groundbreaking scientist, he had relied on an estimate of the size of the earth that was ridiculously understated. Had the Americas not existed, he and his crew would have starved long before reaching India (or, actually Asia.) Regardless of how mis-stated the estimate of its size, the earth was still "round."

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 1:45 PM
  • '(Al Gore)predicted that the worlds glaciers would be non-existent by 2009...' No. Actually, he did not. Based on satellite tracking from NASA: "2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record" https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-i...

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 1:57 PM
  • -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 7:43 PM
  • Interesting link Liveforlight

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Dec 27, 2015, at 11:17 AM
  • Thanks Steve. I ran across this information recently and thought of your blog.

    I doubt it will change anyone's mind who already believes the "man caused" climate change narrative. But, this article should be cause for concern for anyone. Most concerning to me is the "adjusted" data being used to support the narrative. It begs the question; Why? The answer,, MONEY, which should be obvious to anyone with common sense.

    The other thing about "man caused climate change" that raises more ilk than anything with me, is that those who say they believe it as fact, are unwilling to change or adhere to their own ideology/rules that they would impress on others.

    The same ilk is present when dealing with tolerance, benevolence, faith, race, and a host of other issues. People don't do what they say and claim to believe.

    This is the main reason I have reduced/eliminated my time spent posting on blogs. It's like pouring water on a Ducks back. It has no effect except to waste my time and annoy the Duck.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Dec 28, 2015, at 11:54 AM
  • *

    Global Warming! That is a caption invented to make Congress support the science industry with Millions of researching dollars.

    It paves the way for our Protecting Government to scare people into paying higher utility bills when it's hot or cold. To prepare the people to pay some kind of energy tax or lose control over their own air conditioners etc.

    We have Global Warming because of what our Governments have done, not what the people have done.

    Look around the world and see how people live in their countries! People who live in the icy North don't wear Hawaiian Shirts and go barefoot. People who live on the Equator know what Hot weather is and dress accordingly.

    In Tennessee, we just wear what feels comfortable at the time.

    People will adjust to the Climate Change. Scientist will keep on researching as long as they get money for their pay checks and will change their opinions with the weather as long as they don't lose their money.

    I have been reading about a new energy source that will do away with anything we are using today. Wonder what that will cost us? That may be the first installment of the Energy Tax.

    It's just like they done away with the coat hanger on the back of your TV set if you couldn't afford an antenna. Now you have to buy cable, a Dish or some form of Satellite contraption just to watch TV.

    We are slowly being forced to use what the government wants us to use. Did you know you have to have a telephone number to survive in this world of commercial products? Try to order something Online without one.

    Ever notice in the old westerns that cowboys would be on the prairie for weeks of even months and when they would come to town and take a bath - they all had longjohns on. Did they wear them to keep warm or to keep cool?

    -- Posted by sui on Tue, Dec 29, 2015, at 9:45 PM
  • Two of your comments piqued special interest sui. "I have been reading about a new energy source that will do away with anything we are using today." I see blurbs about things like that on the net but did not realize that some might be true. Can you share?

    The other one? "Ever notice in the old westerns that cowboys would be on the prairie for weeks of even months and when they would come to town and take a bath - they all had longjohns on. Did they wear them to keep warm or to keep cool?" That is an interesting observation. I presumed it was to maintain the decency issues at the time, but.....?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 9:42 AM
  • *

    Steve,

    I get emails on Yahoo News stories. Most stories on this item is usually on a webpage that has it's own video explaining it. You have no control over the video. You watch and listen or delete the page.

    I tried to do just that but my wife came in and started talking so I couldn't listen or watch it. Or at least I felt like I shouldn't, lol.

    What I did get out of the first part is that...

    The Big Industries are investing in this energy whatever.

    it's like they can buy into it and use it themselves without going thru the utility companies. They are investing like Millions of Dollars so you know what that will mean for you and I.

    We will still be paying the high price for utilities but to the industries in the form of investment payments like a stock or bond.

    The energy source is suppose to be cheaper because it doesn't take nearly as much to produce what is used today.

    What it is, ?????

    Will we save money? I really doubt it unless you have Millions to invest in it.

    You would think that would help the Global Warming a lot, and it may, but someone has to pay these investors some profits for their money.

    However it has downfalls. It will shut down Coal Mines, Natural Gas Lines, Wind Mills, Oil Industries, OPEX, Electrical Companies and Gas Companies.

    With all those companies shut down, it should help Global warming, but I don't see it, because MAN will have to find a job somewhere with all the jobs that will be shut down and MAN will have to burn fires to keep warm because they won't have money to pay for the new low cost energy.

    It will be like taking all the older cars off the street and making everyone buy a newer car of not being able to use a coat hanger on a TV set.

    Progress has a way of hurting a lot of people. Mainly the poor. But now the Middle Class is poor!

    If I see the video come up again I will post it.

    Right now the main thing is Gun Confiscating laws they are coming up with so police can take your weapons.

    In the west, like it is today, during the day it is hot but at night, I imagine they needed the longjohns.

    Of course those are just movies. Maybe they were trying to let us know just how dirty they got on the range during the cattle drives.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 9:16 PM
  • *

    Steve,

    website about: Enough fuel, in fact, to power the entire globe for over 36,000 years.

    http://moneymorning.com/ext/articles/new-fuel/the-end-of-big-oil.php?iris=445950...

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 5:56 PM
  • Steve,

    The "Fusion Torch" has been in existence since the 1960's. It has the potential to recycle 100% of the materials we are now discarding which saves energy, natural resources, and the planet.

    This is not just "Climate Change" rhetoric but real re-usable resources. Fusion Torch technology creates heat/electricity as a by-product instead of burning coal or gas to do it.

    There is a lot of info on the web about it. Here is a link you may find interesting.

    http://fusiontorch.com/Recycling.html

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 8:33 PM
  • Thanks folks. I will read both when I get to a computer again. Smart phone makes me blind. :-)

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 8:49 PM
  • When those who believe in "global warming" begin to demonstrate the courage of their convictions by actually living as though they believe it, maybe their arguments might be a bit more believable.

    -- Posted by Tim Lokey on Fri, Feb 5, 2016, at 11:51 AM
  • Interesting concept Tim. Federal lawmakers ESPECIALLY.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Feb 5, 2016, at 1:53 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: