Oklahomans & Global Warming

[stile99]

I repeat, Tundra's goal in creating this thread is clear. The question is why are we still playing his game?

[Pete]

I repeat, Tundra's goal in creating this thread is clear. The question is why are we still playing his game?

Right, but there are others that have this point of view and IMO it's dangerous.

Lots more people read these threads than actually post in them.

[Achilleslastand]

So how many of you, only ride a bike or walk? Have installed solar or wind power at your homes? And Are Vegans ?

Was going to install a solar panel until I found out OG&E charges you a "fee" for doing so.

[Tundra]

Right, but there are others that have this point of view and IMO it's dangerous.

Lots more people read these threads than actually post in them.

Science evolves and changes on most every subject monthly or yearly, called advancements, some of these advancements are continued growth, and some are proven wrong altogether. I agree all humans should be good stewards with the earth, but how is sending trillions of dollars from first world countries to third world countries fair? In the name of we are the bad guys some how because we use fossil fuels and they don't....to me it looks like a huge transfer of wealth to parts that don't have any. Who stands to get rich from global warming? That should be the real eye opener to Americans , we continue to see our wealth evacuated from our accounts to be spent on hopeless programs, global warming IMO is just another hopeless program, that you and I will not be benefiting from my friend..

[bchris02]

I think it would be interesting to see the correlation between those who believe Ken Ham's version of young-earth creationism and those who deny climate change. For those who aren't familiar with Ken Ham, he is a young earth creationist that cherry picks scientific evidence to support a young earth and packages it in a way that sounds just scientific enough to convince people who don't know a lot about science. He operates the creation museum in Kentucky that shows man and dinosaurs walking together and many Dominionist politicians are working to get his curriculum taught in public schools.

It wouldn't surprise me if most of the climate deniers come from that group. Theistic evolutionists, "used earth" creationists, and pure atheistic evolutionists all seem to be more open to accepting climate change from my experience.

[TheTravellers]

Scientists cannot accurately predict weather out more that a few days so why would anyone think they have proven that climate change is man-made, especially when climate change has occurred naturally for the history of the earth? Temperature records don't prove anything. There is a lot of money to be made on this and huge leverage by big government control freaks who can use this to dictate every aspect of your life so I am suspicious. The facts aren't convincing at all. Why did the control freaks change the name from global warming to climate change? Because all the cold weather made people realize that global warming wasn't really happening anything near what the control freaks were claiming. In any case precisely what causes climate to change is a guess - there are just too many variables. That being the case, the 31000 people who signed a petition saying it was a hoax are just as credible as those who signed any other petition. Fact is, no one knows why, its always been changing, and there is no evidence that this happened because I drove my car to work. To those who continue to buy into this, how do you explain the authors other points about source of CO2, record snow, moose coming back, etc? When I was in college the big scare was about the sun dieing and another period of extreme cold. Maybe we should start worrying about that when we are done worrying about this.

First, weather != climate.

Second, it is known what causes the temperature of the atmosphere to rise - CO2 (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/).

Third, the atmosphere has warmed and cooled in the past without humans (because we haven't been here for most of earth's history), but the increase in warming that has been happening recently (the past century or less) is happening faster than in the past, and it's because of humans and our industries.

Fourth, our sun won't die in our lifetimes, that's just absolutely ridiculous, we know with complete certainty that it won't happen.

[bchris02]

Third, the atmosphere has warmed and cooled in the past without humans (because we haven't been here for most of earth's history), but the increase in warming that has been happening recently (the past century or less) is happening faster than in the past, and it's because of humans and our industries.

This is true. Conservatives downplay the impact of climate change even if it is happening because it has happened before, but the difference is in past times, it happened gradually enough for ecosystems and species to adapt. The current issue is that it will happen too fast for nature to keep up and that will lead to mass extinctions and loss of ecosystems.

[adaniel]

I agree all humans should be good stewards with the earth, but how is sending trillions of dollars from first world countries to third world countries fair? In the name of we are the bad guys some how because we use fossil fuels and they don't....to me it looks like a huge transfer of wealth to parts that don't have any.

Who has suggested this as legitimate policy?

[David]

Was going to install a solar panel until I found out OG&E charges you a "fee" for doing so.

That's technically not true yet, the fee structure they are requesting has yet to be approved by the corporation commission. Plus, if you installed solar before sometime this past year you would have been grandfathered into not having the extra fee.

[Questor]

Scientists cannot accurately predict weather out more that a few days so why would anyone think they have proven that climate change is man-made, especially when climate change has occurred naturally for the history of the earth? Temperature records don't prove anything. There is a lot of money to be made on this and huge leverage by big government control freaks who can use this to dictate every aspect of your life so I am suspicious. The facts aren't convincing at all. Why did the control freaks change the name from global warming to climate change? Because all the cold weather made people realize that global warming wasn't really happening anything near what the control freaks were claiming. In any case precisely what causes climate to change is a guess - there are just too many variables. That being the case, the 31000 people who signed a petition saying it was a hoax are just as credible as those who signed any other petition. Fact is, no one knows why, its always been changing, and there is no evidence that this happened because I drove my car to work. To those who continue to buy into this, how do you explain the authors other points about source of CO2, record snow, moose coming back, etc? When I was in college the big scare was about the sun dieing and another period of extreme cold. Maybe we should start worrying about that when we are done worrying about this.

Right, the scientists are using this to make money! You've figured it out! They are making literally thousands of dollars! Thousands I say!

MEANWHILE, pay no attention to these billionaires over here in this corner that own all these companies that are opposed to any form of regulation related to any of this....

I know who you remind me of now. The oil companies who claimed the earthquakes in Oklahoma had nothing to do with them... Right up until the problem got so undeniably big causation became crystal clear.

Well so no worries then. If we learned anything from the OK quake issue, it's that if we just keep doing the same dumb thing eventually we will have caused so much damage the link will become apparent. It's really too bad by that point in time though we will be uninsurable and will be looking at massive government subsidies because of it. I can't wait until we all get to start replacing our roofs every year and foot most of the bill each time.

CO2... The planet in our star system with the most CO2 in its atmosphere is also the warmest (Venus), even though it isn't the closest to the Sun. So that seems pretty alarming. Even if you don't think human activity is causing all of this here on our planet, but you've got a pretty good example showing you what does cause global warming (regardless of the source), then why the heck wouldn't you take action to reduce amounts of that chemical compound in our atmosphere??

[Tundra]

Right, the scientists are using this to make money! You've figured it out! They are making literally thousands of dollars! Thousands I say!

MEANWHILE, pay no attention to these billionaires over here in this corner that own all these companies that are opposed to any form of regulation related to any of this....

I know who you remind me of now. The oil companies who claimed the earthquakes in Oklahoma had nothing to do with them... Right up until the problem got so undeniably big causation became crystal clear.

Well so no worries then. If we learned anything from the OK quake issue, it's that if we just keep doing the same dumb thing eventually we will have caused so much damage the link will become apparent. It's really too bad by that point in time though we will be uninsurable and will be looking at massive government subsidies because of it. I can't wait until we all get to start replacing our roofs every year and foot most of the bill each time.

CO2... The planet in our star system with the most CO2 in its atmosphere is also the warmest (Venus), even though it isn't the closest to the Sun. So that seems pretty alarming. Even if you don't think human activity is causing all of this here on our planet, but you've got a pretty good example showing you what does cause global warming (regardless of the source), then why the heck wouldn't you take action to reduce amounts of that chemical compound in our atmosphere??

There's also the fact that there's trillions of dollars being poured into GW research and people get truckload after truckload of praise and money heaped upon them for supporting GW and the media of the entire world on board, but nowhere near as much research going into anti-GW, and anyone who disagrees is lumped in with New Age freaks and Wiccans and is targeted for the usual liberal style of vicious mockery as these comments prove. Gee, I wonder why everyone agrees GW is happening

[Questor]

There's also the fact that there's trillions of dollars being poured into GW research and people get truckload after truckload of praise and money heaped upon them for supporting GW and the media of the entire world on board, but nowhere near as much research going into anti-GW, and anyone who disagrees is lumped in with New Age freaks and Wiccans and is targeted for the usual liberal style of vicious mockery as these comments prove. Gee, I wonder why everyone agrees GW is happening

So basically you had no answer to my post. Again, it's not like we don't have another planet in our star system that we can observe and see exactly where this is leading. Again, regardless of what's causing it, no one is denying the warming is actually happening and if that is the case why wouldn't we try to do something about it? This planet does all kinds of crazy things and we always try to trump the planet... Whether we are talking about the Dutch building dikes, Florida building artificial barrier reefs, or Californians building dams and vast water channels to make the deserts livable, we always fight back. Why won't you let us fight back against global warming? Why are you advocating doing nothing?

[Tundra]

So basically you had no answer to my post. Again, it's not like we don't have another planet in our star system that we can observe and see exactly where this is leading. Again, regardless of what's causing it, no one is denying the warming is actually happening and if that is the case why wouldn't we try to do something about it? This planet does all kinds of crazy things and we always try to trump the planet... Whether we are talking about the Dutch building dikes, Florida building artificial barrier reefs, or Californians building dams and vast water channels to make the deserts livable, we always fight back. Why won't you let us fight back against global warming? Why are you advocating doing nothing?

In the last 100 hundred years, tell everyone on OkcTalk how high the temperature rose.

[Tundra]

So what are we suppose to be fighting? Do you want to go back to the dark ages?

[Questor]

It's no secret that the earth has warmed enough that the insurance companies have started adjusting their models. It's becoming more expensive on the coasts, and sadly right here in Oklahoma as well. It's also out in the open that the pentagon and intelligence agencies think that future wars are going to be fought over water supply issues, and insect borne disease issues as a result. They consider it a matter of national security. If that isn't bad enough, some scientists believe it will eventually impact our way of life... severely.

With so much on the line, I guess I'm one to think that we have more than two hyper polarized choices in front of us (e.g. Go back to the Stone Age or see total annihilation). I think politicians do us a huge disservice when they present everything in black and white terms like that... Reality is usually not like that, and that is just an invented construct to cause argument.

I think our number one emphasis has to be on being more efficient in everything we do. In the history of business, being more efficient has always proven to be beneficial to the bottom line over the long run. There is tremendous waste in most industrial activity... Because of entrenchment people are unwilling to change. Require them to change. Subsidize the transition costs where it makes sense (as tax breaks or whatever is most palatable). Require cars to have much higher MPG ratings. Build more wind farms. Stop enacting policies that are perceived to favor fossil fuels and punish solar. Promote sensible mass transit. Build more efficient homes where less energy is wasted - do this by updating building codes. Do the same for our power plants.

It's unfortunate that Fukushima has soured so many on nuclear... It is by far the cleanest and most efficient form of power. Perhaps research better strategies on how to roll it out... Making sure that plants are well protected from natural and intentional disaster. Then favor it as a matter of policy.

Find ways to plant more trees (which breathe in CO2 and convert it to oxygen) instead of mowing them down.

A lot of the reason why newly industrial countries start their energy production with extremely dirty forms of energy is because it's cheap up-front, and because it's easy work that you can get unskilled labor to do. Through international treaties, trade agreements, and changes in loan structure at the Ex/Im Bank create policies making nuclear and other clean energy more competitive for these startup nations... Such as providing better loans (since newer tech usually has a bigger up-front investment but is then cheaper in the long run). Provide knowledge exchange and university training do that these countries have the much needed engineers to do these things. For the little tweaks in law here and there, and expense of negotiating and then providing some of these things, the benefits to our planet would be profound. And what do you know, it would benefit us as well because we are one of the few high tech countries that could export our tech and knowledge to others. There is no way this isn't a win-win. And yes, if it comes down to it, we should consider taxes and tariffs to push development into these areas.

[stile99]

In the last 100 hundred years, tell everyone on OkcTalk how high the temperature rose.

Attention, everyone on OkcTalk. The troll has requested someone tell you something easily found by a short Google search. The only real time invested is how long you take to type the question, the results came back in 0.74 seconds.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...last-100-years

But that's one of those confusing 'fact' things and will be ignored.

[Tundra]

Attention, everyone on OkcTalk. The troll has requested someone tell you something easily found by a short Google search. The only real time invested is how long you take to type the question, the results came back in 0.74 seconds.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...last-100-years

But that's one of those confusing 'fact' things and will be ignored.

In typical fashion the global warming police have resorted to name calling and rhetoric, to try and silence those with a different opinion, because well thats not allowed in this matter.

I was totally curious to see how many on OkcTalk believe in global warming.


Im well aware of how to use google, some on the other hand do not know how to.

Can you tell me why the graph goes up then down, instead of just a steady increase year by year?

Despite some cooler years from 2008 to 2010, the decade as a whole (2000–2009) was the nation's warmest on record, with an average temperature of 54.0°F. In contrast, the 1990s averaged 53.6°F, and the 1930s averaged 53.4°F.

The first four years of this decade (2010–2013) were slightly cooler on average than 2000–2009 for the United States, with an average of 53.5°F. The United States covers only about 2% of the globe's total surface, so there can be noticeable differences at times between U.S. and world temperature trends. Overall, global readings this decade are running warmer than in the 2000s.

[stile99]

In typical fashion the global warming police have resorted to name calling and rhetoric

My most humble apologies, considering you started the thread, then started the rhetoric and name calling (see posts #41 and #42) I thought that was the direction you wanted to go. Was I wrong? Or is it only OK for you?

As to why the graph goes up and down instead of a steady increase, I would assume since you cut and pasted parts of the article you think support your position, that you can read the part that says "The blue line tracks the changes in the trend over time." on your own. When you look at the graph, what does the blue line do? Does it go up and down, or does it show an increase? What do the paragraphs regarding global temperature say, rather than just the United States? Hint: The answer is even in the part you cut and pasted. Bet you wish you cut off that last sentence, huh?

[Tundra]

My most humble apologies, considering you started the thread, then started the rhetoric and name calling (see posts #41 and #42) I thought that was the direction you wanted to go. Was I wrong? Or is it only OK for you?

As to why the graph goes up and down instead of a steady increase, I would assume since you cut and pasted parts of the article you think support your position, that you can read the part that says "The blue line tracks the changes in the trend over time." on your own. When you look at the graph, what does the blue line do? Does it go up and down, or does it show an increase? What do the paragraphs regarding global temperature say, rather than just the United States? Hint: The answer is even in the part you cut and pasted. Bet you wish you cut off that last sentence, huh?

No name calling on this end, I was responding to Pete in 41 & 42..

[bchris02]

So what are we suppose to be fighting? Do you want to go back to the dark ages?

Sooner or later, humanity is going to have to accept that this planet has limited resources and people are going to have to learn to live in harmony with it and use those resources efficiently. The American Dream(TM) of the past 60 years is not a good use of resources, is the largest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world, and at its core is totally incompatible with fiscal conservatism. The American Dream(TM) based around automobile suburbia, unknown to many conservatives, has nothing to do with what the American dream really is about; opportunity.

It doesn't mean everyone is entitled to live 30 miles from their workplace, commuting in their own personal automobile on wide highways paid for by the taxpayer.

Anyways, I think this thread should be merged with the Climate Change thread in the politics forum.

[stile99]

Anyways, I think this thread should be merged with the Climate Change thread in the politics forum.

Seconded.

[zookeeper]

[Uptowner]

TLDR honestly why are we still posting on this thread it snowed last week. It's a myth idiots.

Ps for those of you who don't know me that's sarcasm.

[Questor]

Despite some cooler years from 2008 to 2010, the decade as a whole (2000–2009) was the nation's warmest on record, with an average temperature of 54.0°F. In contrast, the 1990s averaged 53.6°F, and the 1930s averaged 53.4°F.

There's actually quite a bit of research going on about that. The global rescission of 2008+ may in fact help science prove unequivically a global warming link to human activity. When the economy crashed, transportation, worldwide shipping, energy production, etc. fell off a cliff. This means during those years less stuff was getting pushed into the atmosphere by us humans, probably by much less than any current regulation could do. So one hypothesis is that it would stand to reason we would see a temporary dip in temperatures that would then resume once our economy rebounded. The hypothesis could become theory (e.g. something supported by hard data) in a few more years time if it pans out. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of the research.

[Questor]

I was just reading a business book unrelated to the topic of global warming, but something really interesting was found within it... It is estimated that 2/3 of all energy consumption in the US is related to office space. The other major consumption of energy is automobile transit to and from work.

The simple statement, which was just an aside, was that we could eliminate nearly all of the major drivers of energy consumption in this country simply if more white collar business allowed telecommuting.