# New Ice Age Coming or Be Thankful for Global Warming?



## mosquitomountainman

http://news.yahoo.com/calm-solar-cycle-prompts-questions-impact-earth-213912384.html

_Washington (AFP) - The surface of the sun has been surprisingly calm of late -- with fewer sunspots than anytime in in the last century -- prompting curious scientists to wonder just what it might mean here on Earth.

Sunspots have been observed for millennia -- first by Chinese astronomers and then, for the first time with a telescope, by Galileo in 1610.

The sunspots appear in roughly 11-year cycles -- increasing to a daily flurry and then subsiding drastically, before amping up again.

But this cycle -- dubbed cycle 24 -- has surprised scientists with its sluggishness.

The number of spots counted since it kicked off in December 2008 is well below the average observed over the last 250 years. In fact, it's less than half.

"It is the weakest cycle the sun has been in for all the space age, for 50 years," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association physicist Doug Biesecker told AFP.

The intense electromagnetic energy from sunspots has a significant impact on the sun's ultraviolet and X-ray emissions as well as on solar storms.

Solar storms can interrupt telecommunications and electronic networks on Earth. Sunspot activity can also have an impact on the Earth's climate.

Cycle 23 hit its maximum in April 2000 with an average of 120 solar spots a day. The cycle then wound down, hitting bottom around December 2008, the point at which scientists marked the start of the current cycle.

The minimal solar activity at the end of cycle 23 led astronomers to predict a slow cycle 24. But the reality fell even below expectations.

In the first year of the cycle, during which solar activity should have risen, astronomers counted 266 days without a single sun spot.

"The forecast peak was 90 sunspots," Biesecker said, noting that even though the activity has risen over the past year, "it's very clear it is not going to be close to 90."

"The sunspots number peaked last year at 67, almost half a typical cycle," he added.

The last time a sunspot cycle was this slow was in February 1906, the peak of cycle 14, with just 64 spots a day.

The "very long minimum: three years, three times more than the previous three cycles of the space age" was a major surprise, said University of Montana physicist Andres Munoz-Jamillio.

A magnetic switch

Cycle 24 has also diverged from the norm in another surprising way.

Typically, around the end of each 11-year sunspot cycle, the sun's magnetic fields switch direction. The northern and southern hemispheres change polarity, usually simultaneously.

During the swap, the strength of the magnetic fields drops to near zero and reappears when the polarity is reversed, scientists explain.

But this time, something different seems to be happening. The north pole already reversed its polarity several months ago -- and so it's now the same polarity as the south pole.

According to the most recent satellite measurements, "the south hemisphere should flip on the near future," said Todd Hoeksema, director of the Wilcox Solar Observatory at Stanford University.

He didn't seem concerned about the phenomenon.

But scientists are watching the sun carefully to see whether cycle 24 is going to be an aberration -- or if this solar calmness is going to stretch through the next cycle as well.

"We won't know that for another good three or four years," said Biesecker.

Some researchers speculate this could be the start of a prolonged period of weak solar activity.

The last time that happened, during the so-called "Maunder Minimum" between 1650 and 1715, almost no sunspots were observed. During the same period, temperatures dropped sharply on Earth, sparking what is called the "Little Ice Age" in Europe and North America.

As the sunspot numbers continue to stay low, it's possible the Earth's climate is being affected again.

But thanks to global warming, we're unlikely to see another ice age. "Things have not started to cooling, they just have not risen as quickly," Biesecker said._

Let's see ... we have warnings of increased solar flares from "scientists" yet we are also told by scientists that we are in one of the calmest "sun spot" eras in history which would bring a new "ice age" (according to scientists) except that global warming is going to save us (also according to scientists). :scratch


----------



## Woody

Ahh, predictions from the best and brightest.

They can't even predict what the weather will be tomorrow with 100% accuracy yet we are expected to believe they can predict what the weather will be in 1, 5, 10 or 100 years? Yeah, yeah, yeah... Cycles and trends! Road apples. The universe will do what it does despite our best efforts to 'predict' it.

I sure wish I had a job where I can be wrong over 50% of the time and still have a job!!!!!


----------



## cowboyhermit

No kidding on our ability to make predictions, the scientific community just a couple years ago agreed this would likely be the most active solar max. in 100 years, what we got so far is the weakest in 50 :dunno: if that is where the bar is set I could do some work for NASA in the evenings.


----------



## Sentry18

Well that's all just an inconvenient truth. Or is that convenient guess? Slightly inconvenient estimate? Overly convenient theory? Something like that.


----------



## ralfy

"Solar Activity and the so-called 'Little Ice Age'"

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/solar-activity-and-the-so-called-“little-ice-age”/


----------



## FatTire

Am i the only one who sees the irony in a bunch of folks talking all snarky about science.. while doing so using a computer on the internet?


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> Am i the only one who sees the irony in a bunch of folks talking all snarky about science.. while doing so using a computer on the internet?


You might be. I personally have nothing against real science nor do people in general. It's proven it's usefulness within it's own limits. I have serious doubts that it is ever completely unbiased which doesn't make it bad, only suspect at times.

The OP is poking fun at those who have absolute faith in science as the answer to virtually everything. If science is so great and impartial then why are there disagreements and contradictory statements? This post illustrates another of those limits.

Most scientific data is taken on the basis of faith which puts it on the same level of religion in the eyes of many of us. Let's face it, when scientific "knowledge" is proven wrong what do scientists do? They make excuses or appeal to the future (a logical fallacy). In what way is that different than religious dogma?

I tend to take scientific decrees with a grain of salt as I do most interpretations people use for their Bibles, the Koran, their prophets, etc.


----------



## FatTire

I think its important to not confuse what gets reported as science, with actual science, and what scientists actually find and actually claim. 

While its true that at the far edge of things we know, a lot gets taken on faith, the vast majority of what we know is verifiable and repeatable. Faith by definition is neither. To dismiss the notion that scientific discovery will continue to find answers as a 'logical fallacy' seems wrong to me given human history.. that is, scientists have a verifiable history of finding answers, so asserting they wont continue to do so seems unreasonable.

Not trying to get anyone to question their faith here, Im just saying that its a bad idea to build a society based on the notion that scientific knowledge and education should be looked down upon, and that scientists should be viewed with only slightly less disdain than politicians. Scientific inquiry is a process, scientific reporting is a conclusion, the two dont often go together well...


----------



## Woody

Butter is BAD, margarine is good for you!, No... wait a sec... Margarine is bad... Butter is actually good for you! In the 70's it was an ice age coming. Now it is a warming earth! As I get older it is harder and harder to believe the 'experts' really know what they are talking about. I look at where their 'research money' comes from and draw my own conclusions. Which is, none of them really know what the heck is going to happen in the future! If someone gave me enough money, I could predict a fantastic gardening year next year! If it doesn't happen, oh well, another grant and I'll predict what the following year will bring.

Recently, look at what the 'experts' predicted about the US hurricane forecast year. We were going to have one of the most severe seasons on record, Many 'named' storms with several hitting the mainland. Well, what happened to that?


----------



## TheLazyL

I'd take a little global warming right now...


----------



## Tirediron

theoretical education is one of the area where most of the looking down the nose takes place. Many professors have NO practical experience to back up their opinions, they just Know that they are right, if they were right more often then people with actual life experience wouldn't hold their "I am better because I have a phd attitude. Global warming is a perfect example of this 
And most inventions are caused by accidental discovery, not scientific research,


----------



## Sentry18

I don't have enough faith to believe in science. It's just to large of stretch for my imagination. :dunno:


----------



## *Andi

I like science ... but it has to be pure and true. (not into someone's pocket) which (IMO) is rather hard to find today.

But when it comes to a report ... I take it with a grain of salt. (But I do agree with the report that the Bob white quail is down (sharply) in our area...

And science has backed ... 

Give, take and do your own research...


----------



## cowboyhermit

FatTire said:


> Am i the only one who sees the irony in a bunch of folks talking all snarky about science.. while doing so using a computer on the internet?


There is science and there are predictions made by scientists, personally I don't think anyone was being snarky, just rationally skeptical based on the past.



FatTire said:


> I think its important to not confuse what gets reported as science, with actual science, and what scientists actually find and actually claim.


But on the subject of these predictions (solar activity) it is easy to verify just how wrong they were, and that is about as wrong as is possible. Seriously, a random guess would almost certainly have come closer than they did.

http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f104/sun-will-flip-its-magnetic-field-soon-22340/#post301940


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> I think its important to not confuse what gets reported as science, with actual science, and what scientists actually find and actually claim.
> 
> While its true that at the far edge of things we know, a lot gets taken on faith, the vast majority of what we know is verifiable and repeatable. Faith by definition is neither. To dismiss the notion that scientific discovery will continue to find answers as a 'logical fallacy' seems wrong to me given human history.. that is, scientists have a verifiable history of finding answers, so asserting they wont continue to do so seems unreasonable.
> 
> Not trying to get anyone to question their faith here, Im just saying that its a bad idea to build a society based on the notion that scientific knowledge and education should be looked down upon, and that scientists should be viewed with only slightly less disdain than politicians. Scientific inquiry is a process, scientific reporting is a conclusion, the two dont often go together well...


Scientific knowledge and education can be assets to society and mankind if the scientific knowledge is correct and the education is complete. I'm all for a _good_ education. Unfortunately too much of what's taught in schools is indoctrination.

"Discretion" would be a better word than "disdain." I had a friend ask his science teacher how he knew that the rate of decay for certain elements has been consistent throughout the ages. His professor's response was "that the rate of decay is the same today as it was in the past and it will be the same in the future." That, my friend, is blind faith and just one of the assumptions scientists make.

Science has a verifiable history of being wrong as well. Does that mean we should disregard everything scientists say? Of course not. It does mean that knowledge sometimes changes with the acquisition of new knowledge which means that the conclusions of scientists may stand the test of time or they may not. We should recognize the limitations of science and keep an open mind regarding the conclusions of scientists.

A "logical fallacy" is an argument that people use to prove a point but the argument is based on a fallacy. For example: to "appeal to the future" means that a person makes an assertion that while something may be unproven today, more research in the future will prove that it is true. The fallacy involved is that there is also the possibility that future research will prove the assertion is false.


----------



## FatTire

I guess I just dont understand your assertion that if an experiment is repeated over and over, by multiple people in multiple places, that it is somehow an act of faith to believe that the results will remain largely unchanged. 

Newton discovered, thru experimentation, that an apple falls to the earth due to gravity. He then extrapolated the math out to theorize that the moon was falling towards earth for the same reason, and today you and I communicate thru satelites falling toward earth... its seems odd to call my belief that if I toss a ball in the air its gonna fall 'an act of blind faith'.

Now newtons laws of motion do break down at the sub atomic level, and thats where the wild theories and 'faith' are in science. Now im not saying science has all the answer, and I do agree we should be skeptical, but it seems to me we have become a pretty anti-intellectual society. Not without some justification, its very hard to sort thru the ahenda driven BS . Still, if we reject and put down really smart people cause they get wrong sometimes, we might end up living in a country where all the really smart people focus solely on making trainloads of money on wall street and screw main street.. or maybe were already there...


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> I guess I just dont understand your assertion that if an experiment is repeated over and over, by multiple people in multiple places, that it is somehow an act of faith to believe that the results will remain largely unchanged.
> 
> Newton discovered, thru experimentation, that an apple falls to the earth due to gravity. He then extrapolated the math out to theorize that the moon was falling towards earth for the same reason, and today you and I communicate thru satelites falling toward earth... its seems odd to call my belief that if I toss a ball in the air its gonna fall 'an act of blind faith'.
> 
> Now newtons laws of motion do break down at the sub atomic level, and thats where the wild theories and 'faith' are in science. Now im not saying science has all the answer, and I do agree we should be skeptical, but it seems to me we have become a pretty anti-intellectual society. Not without some justification, its very hard to sort thru the ahenda driven BS . Still, if we reject and put down really smart people cause they get wrong sometimes, we might end up living in a country where all the really smart people focus solely on making trainloads of money on wall street and screw main street.. or maybe were already there...


You need to carefully read the posts I've made. I'm not sure how your response applies to them.


----------



## cowboyhermit

"Blind" faith might be a little far depending on what your personal interpretation of that is. But the main point that it is an assumption is correct in that it is the foundation of the scientific method.

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time 

Since I had to dig up the science quote, here are some others that sort of connect.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
Galileo Galilei

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
Albert Einstein


“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
Michael Crichton


----------



## ralfy

Repost:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/solar-activity-and-the-so-called-“little-ice-age”/

There is no "new ice age".


----------



## BillS

FatTire said:


> Am i the only one who sees the irony in a bunch of folks talking all snarky about science.. while doing so using a computer on the internet?


Science has become corrupted by politics and grant money. Global warming is an industry besides being a deliberate hoax. Every time we have a major storm or a summer heat wave there are idiots claiming it's global warming. But when it's colder than normal nobody comes out and doubts global warming.

There were also corrupt scientists claiming that second hand smoke was WORSE than smoking.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

ralfy said:


> "Solar Activity and the so-called 'Little Ice Age'"
> 
> http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/solar-activity-and-the-so-called-“little-ice-age”/


Interesting article. Just a quote here before I go on:

_... Evidence is growing for a regional effect of low solar activity

Much of what has been written in the media and on the internet fails to appreciate the difference between regional and global climates. My research looks at a potential link between low solar activity and cold European winters. That's a regional and seasonal effect and not a global effect.

Statistically, we found a significant link between the occurrence of cold winters in the long CET record and solar activity. By "significant" we mean that there was only a five per cent chance that we were being fooled by a coincidence. ..._

So he doesn't like the phrase "little ice age" since it was more of a regional issue. The comments following the article were interesting.

Also, some people on the forum are on slow internet connections so whenever possible would you please load the article in your post? Our internet service is having problems at the moment and it's sometimes difficult to open a new link due to long uploads of photos, advertising, etc. When we're on the road we use a jet pack and it cost us more to go over the limit for the month. Including the printed text just makes things easier for everyone.

Thanks.


----------



## FatTire

I agree I am possibly just not getting a lot of what is being said. To me, it sounds an awful lot like most people in this thread are anti-science. Particularly so if that science indicates that something we are doing has quite negative effects. 

Ill go ahead say the same thing Ive said for the last 15 or so years regarding 'global warming'. Its a bad way to get people to see man caused negative effects on the environment through the use of fear. Climate science is quite complicated, involving a dynamic system with a great many variables. Not the least of which is the sun. I would much prefer it if we just focused on verifiable data. If it comes out of a smoke stack and you cant breath it, its probably a good idea to make it as clean as possible, if it comes out of a pipe and you cant drink it, its probably a good idea to make it as clean as possible, if you bury it and it doesnt break down, its probably a good idea to put systems in place to break it down or re-use it. But all of that is hard to put in a nifty motivational catch phrase.

If you dont think man has an effect on the environment, take a look at air quality in china, thats what happens when you decide to not try and clean things up. Also, its interesting to look at temperature data in the days and weeks following 9/11, when all the planes were grounded...


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> I agree I am possibly just not getting a lot of what is being said. To me, it sounds an awful lot like most people in this thread are anti-science. Particularly so if that science indicates that something we are doing has quite negative effects.
> 
> Ill go ahead say the same thing Ive said for the last 15 or so years regarding 'global warming'. Its a bad way to get people to see man caused negative effects on the environment through the use of fear. Climate science is quite complicated, involving a dynamic system with a great many variables. Not the least of which is the sun. I would much prefer it if we just focused on verifiable data. If it comes out of a smoke stack and you cant breath it, its probably a good idea to make it as clean as possible, if it comes out of a pipe and you cant drink it, its probably a good idea to make it as clean as possible, if you bury it and it doesnt break down, its probably a good idea to put systems in place to break it down or re-use it. But all of that is hard to put in a nifty motivational catch phrase.
> 
> If you dont think man has an effect on the environment, take a look at air quality in china, thats what happens when you decide to not try and clean things up. Also, its interesting to look at temperature data in the days and weeks following 9/11, when all the planes were grounded...


I don't believe anyone on this thread is anti-science. I think most are just anti pseudo science. There's a huge difference.


----------



## Woody

Correct! When I hear the phrase 'The science is settled', as in Al, the Goracle, Gore, it makes me cringe. Science is just that, science. It is never 'settled' or 'proven without a doubt'. As man's knowledge of his environment and the universe grow, so does the 'science' behind it.

Science says gravity is final. Years ago the world was flat. Who is to say that in the years to come that Gravity will be just just an old theory? Can't travel faster than the speed of light? Well, today THEY say so, who is to say that in years to come it will be able to be accomplished? Just think back to when fire was an amazing thing. Now it is commonplace. Keep your mind open and don't think in terms of what is possible. Think in terms of what MIGHT be possible. That is science.


----------



## ralfy

Science is politicized, but not in the way we imagine. Read this for details:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

Also, keep in mind that one rationale given by deniers is that the science is too "complex" such that more studies have to be made. That, ironically, involves more funding to scientists.

As for smoking, the "Denial Machine" documentary revealed that the same PR firm and even scientists used to argue that smoking (not just second-hand smoke) is not harmful were also used by Big Oil to question global warming.

Next, keep in mind that deniers' conclusions vary. Some argue that there won't be global warming but an ice age. Others argue that there's global warming but it will protect us from an ice age. Still others insist that there's global warming but it's "natural." And others still conclude that there's no global warming and no ice age, and that everything is "normal." The conclusions may contradict each other but the "solution" is the same: do nothing and/or study the matter further. Which is exactly what Big Business and their government partners want to hear, as that allows people to happily borrow, buy, spend, and consume, and in turn leads to more profits for businesses and more tax revenues for governments.

The phenomenon just described is not hard to explain: much of the global economy is controlled by powerful international corporations, with banks and finance institutions on top. The bulk of their wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, and the value of that wealth can only be maintained as long as more goods and produced, sold, purchased, and consumed. Since the global economy is heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels for manufacturing and even food production, then consuming more fossil fuels is inevitable.

Governments rely on businesses for tax revenues and on citizens to vote them to power. Citizens want a middle class lifestyle, which is the opposite of prepping. They imagine that global warming and peak oil are hoaxes, and in case they aren't, then market forces, science, innovation, businesses, and governments will "save" them.

That's why Big Business and Government are in denial concerning global warming and peak oil. If more people become aware of these and other predicaments, then they will buy, spend, and consume less, and that means losses for both.

That explains why science is politicized. Scientists gather data, but governments are the ones that sign off reports, which is why conclusions have to be watered down to appease businesses and citizens.


----------



## GaryS

ralfy said:


> Science is politicized, but not in the way we imagine. Read this for details:
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years
> 
> Citizens want a middle class lifestyle, which is the opposite of prepping.
> QUOTE]
> 
> That theory is absolutely ridiculous. My fifty years experience of planning and providing for bad times tells me that most preppers are from the middle class.


----------



## Viking

I am thankful for global warming otherwise I suspect we'd all be living in the equatorial belt considering there was a bit of ice covering the Northern portion of this hemisphere. Mammoths are still being found in melting ice fields in Northern climes so what caused the world to be warm before the great ice age when they roamed about? Prehistoric mans SUV's? An even better question that Al (the climate expert) Gore needs to answer is who was at fault for the ice age to end. Was it all the cooking fires from the people cooking mammoth meat?


----------



## Woody

Viking said:


> I am thankful for global warming otherwise I suspect we'd all be living in the equatorial belt considering there was a bit of ice covering the Northern portion of this hemisphere. Mammoths are still being found in melting ice fields in Northern climes so what caused the world to be warm before the great ice age when they roamed about? Prehistoric mans SUV's? An even better question that Al (the climate expert) Gore needs to answer is who was at fault for the ice age to end. *Was it all the cooking fires from the people cooking mammoth meat?*


Good thought. I searched and could not find if they were using EPA approved firepits or buying carbon credits for the unapproved ones. My guess it that these prehistoric bands of criminals were skirting the laws, killing endangered animals (Hey, they are all extinct now aren't they??) and willy-nilly just doing what they needed to survive. Send in the MRAPS to round them up!!!


----------



## ralfy

GaryS said:


> That theory is absolutely ridiculous. My fifty years experience of planning and providing for bad times tells me that most preppers are from the middle class.


A middle class lifestyle consists of a fully-furnished house, condo unit, flat, or farm, with a car or light truck, supplies available via JIT systems, and disposable income to pay for non-necessities such as computers and Internet access, not to mention the ability to go on vacations or trips. That's the lifestyle of most U.S. citizens and members of the industrialized world, if not of around 15 pct of the world's population that earns $10 to $20 a day or more.

Obviously, they can "plan and [provide] for bad times" because they have the money to buy resources to do so. But prepping doesn't simply mean stocking up on food and ammo. In the long term, it means having to deal with fewer resources and less energy, and assuming that the same money will be of less value, if not worthless, and that's the opposite of a middle class lifestyle. Such prepping involves localization and ironically similar to what the poor face.


----------



## GaryS

You still didn't explain how a middle class lifestyle is the opposite of prepping.

Yes, people want "things", comfort, convenience, entertainment, security, etc. That has nothing to do with being middle class, and has everything to do with human nature. 

When I began considering problems that could be faced in the future, "prepper" wasn't even a word, so perhaps my understanding of the term is incorrect. I grew up on a farm where we raised the basics to feed our family. We learned to contend with crop failures, blizzards, and anything else Mother Nature threw at us. We put away seed grain, saved breeding stock, kept extra fuel and coal, canned food, butchered in the fall, raised chickens, picked wild berries...you name it. No electricity, no running water, no television, no Internet, no Walmart, no school busses, no ambulance service, no fire department. We were middle class then, just as we're middle class today. 

The middle moves with change and is not defined by an inventory of "things" you have today, but rather how your general economic situation compares with others. My disagreement with you is only about your statement that prepping and the middle class are somehow at odds. 

If a massive societal breakdown occurs, or we are hit by a massive natural disaster, many of those considered poor today will do just fine, while many considered wealthy will perish and the definition of middle class will evolve once more. Terms like peak oil, global warming, social justice, political correctness, and social engineering, will die a deserved death, and hopefully common sense will once again become vogue.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

ralfy said:


> ... If more people become aware of these and other predicaments, then they will buy, spend, and consume less, ...


Not picking on you, per-se here but I've heard countless people say that they believe in global warming, peak oil, etc. and give long speeches warning "everyone" that "we" need to use less, blah, blah, blah, but I've yet to meet one who has actually made changes in their own life to have less impact on the "earth." In light of all of this "knowledge" you have, what changes have you made to leave a lighter footprint on the earth? Do you live off-grid, refuse to own a motorized vehicle and ride a bicycle instead (or even take a bus?), use a notebook computer to save energy and scrap your desk top energy eater, use a small screen television and forego useless video/computer games?

Just how sincere are you in making real changes in your own life compared to advising "others" that they need to use "less."

Honestly, we (my wife and I and our grandson) leave a much smaller "footprint" than every "environmentalists" I've ever met.


----------



## *Andi

mosquitomountainman said:


> Not picking on you, per-se here but I've heard countless people say that they believe in global warming, peak oil, etc. and give long speeches warning "everyone" that "we" need to use less, blah, blah, blah, but I've yet to meet one who has actually made changes in their own life to have less impact on the "earth." In light of all of this "knowledge" you have, what changes have you made to leave a lighter footprint on the earth? Do you live off-grid, refuse to own a motorized vehicle and ride a bicycle instead (or even take a bus?), use a notebook computer to save energy and scrap your desk top energy eater, use a small screen television and forego useless video/computer games?
> 
> Just how sincere are you in making real changes in your own life compared to advising "others" that they need to use "less."
> 
> Honestly, we (my wife and I and our grandson) leave a much smaller "footprint" than every "environmentalists" I've ever met.


I find this to be true of most "environmentalists" ... You know the ones I speak of, for they jet set around the globe for the next cause not giving a thought of their own "Footprint"

They don't have a life off the grid or any where near ... just a fact! All they have is a cause to which others (but not them) must follow...

Again this is in my thinking ... lol


----------



## Tirediron

*Andi said:


> I find this to be true of most "environmentalists" ... You know the ones I speak of, for they jet set around the globe for the next cause not giving a thought of their own "Footprint"
> 
> They don't have a life off the grid or any where near ... just a fact! All they have is a cause to which others (but not them) must follow...
> 
> Again this is in my thinking ... lol


The above statement kind of fits most arm chair activists too, look at vegetarians they say that they want to save the animals but they keep eating their food artydance:

Simple cure for carbon excesses stop pro sports.


----------



## ralfy

GaryS said:


> You still didn't explain how a middle class lifestyle is the opposite of prepping.


One more time: prepping involves buying guns, ammo, land to farm, food and other provisions for storage, tools, etc. Obviously, one has to be part of the middle class in order to buy these products and assets. (Try doing that with a daily wage of around two dollars a day, which is what more than half of the world's population makes.)

But many of these products and assets are still dependent on resources available far away, if not a JIT system to deliver them.

In the long term, many of these products cannot be replaced, made, or delivered. That's where localization comes in: one uses what is readily available nearby.

When that takes place, a middle class lifestyle disappears, and the prepper ironically has to follow the life of what most human beings who face, who are poor.

Many of those who are part of the middle class do not support the idea that such conditions will take place. They believe that all they have to do is prepare for short-term emergencies. There won't be long-term crises because GovCo will take care of matters.

My point is that you shouldn't assume that only those who belong to the middle class are prepared, especially for long-term crises. Consider the possibility that the poor are also prepared, because the difficulties that the middle class will have to get used to in the long term the poor know all too well.



> Yes, people want "things", comfort, convenience, entertainment, security, etc. That has nothing to do with being middle class, and has everything to do with human nature.


That has everything to do with being part of the middle class.



> When I began considering problems that could be faced in the future, "prepper" wasn't even a word, so perhaps my understanding of the term is incorrect. I grew up on a farm where we raised the basics to feed our family. We learned to contend with crop failures, blizzards, and anything else Mother Nature threw at us. We put away seed grain, saved breeding stock, kept extra fuel and coal, canned food, butchered in the fall, raised chickens, picked wild berries...you name it. No electricity, no running water, no television, no Internet, no Walmart, no school busses, no ambulance service, no fire department. We were middle class then, just as we're middle class today.


So, where's your Internet access and computer coming from?

FWIW, most people worldwide earn only around two dollars daily. That means none of the amenities that you just mentioned, plus no farm.



> The middle moves with change and is not defined by an inventory of "things" you have today, but rather how your general economic situation compares with others. My disagreement with you is only about your statement that prepping and the middle class are somehow at odds.


The middle class generally moves in one direction, i.e., upward mobility. That's why they can access the Internet and post messages in forums, and that's Internet service and technology provided and marketed by large corporations. Think of the infrastructure that's needed to make this discussion possible. Much of what's available worldwide pales in comparison to this.

Also, look at the resource consumption conditions of countries like the U.S. We're looking at a country that has less than 5 pct of the world's population but has to consume up to 25 pct of world oil production to maintain middle class conveniences, including over 250 million passenger vehicles.



> If a massive societal breakdown occurs, or we are hit by a massive natural disaster, many of those considered poor today will do just fine, while many considered wealthy will perish and the definition of middle class will evolve once more. Terms like peak oil, global warming, social justice, political correctness, and social engineering, will die a deserved death, and hopefully common sense will once again become vogue.


That's exactly my point. The middle class will have a lot of difficulty adjusting, unless you can prove to me that most of them grew up in farms and had almost no amenities until recently. Perhaps that argument applies to developing countries with growing middle classes, but for industrialized countries I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## ralfy

mosquitomountainman said:


> Not picking on you, per-se here but I've heard countless people say that they believe in global warming, peak oil, etc. and give long speeches warning "everyone" that "we" need to use less, blah, blah, blah, but I've yet to meet one who has actually made changes in their own life to have less impact on the "earth." In light of all of this "knowledge" you have, what changes have you made to leave a lighter footprint on the earth? Do you live off-grid, refuse to own a motorized vehicle and ride a bicycle instead (or even take a bus?), use a notebook computer to save energy and scrap your desk top energy eater, use a small screen television and forego useless video/computer games?
> 
> Just how sincere are you in making real changes in your own life compared to advising "others" that they need to use "less."
> 
> Honestly, we (my wife and I and our grandson) leave a much smaller "footprint" than every "environmentalists" I've ever met.


Countless? I very much doubt it.

And your second point is fallacious, i.e., because those who are warning of these problems aren't doing anything about, then these predicaments don't exist. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

You need to do the research on these predicaments to see for yourself. Here's a summary: CO2 ppm is now almost 400, and we are looking at over 20 positive feedback loops taking place, with some negative feedback even harmful (such as increasing ocean heat content leading to acidification). And then there's environmental damage.

Conventional oil production has been in an undulating plateau since 2005, with unconventional production trying to meet demand. Oil prices are three times higher than they should be, and food prices have also gone up.

We are now in our fifth year of a global financial crisis. Governments keep insisting that we're recovering but unemployment is high, austerity measures are taking place, and social unrest continues worldwide.

Now, I don't mind people arguing that these aren't true, but I don't see the point in doing so in a prepper's forum. AFAIK, preppers look at a worst-case scenario, consider multiple predicaments taking place, and assume that whatever they can conveniently buy today for prepping won't be available tomorrow.


----------



## ralfy

*Andi said:


> I find this to be true of most "environmentalists" ... You know the ones I speak of, for they jet set around the globe for the next cause not giving a thought of their own "Footprint"
> 
> They don't have a life off the grid or any where near ... just a fact! All they have is a cause to which others (but not them) must follow...
> 
> Again this is in my thinking ... lol


Again, this is the same fallacy, i.e., attacking the messenger and not questioning the message. Why not try the latter?

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

It doesn't matter if the one who gave the numbers is jetsetting or not, because the numbers remain: the global ave. ecological footprint per capita is higher than bio-capacity. The former will go up as more join people worldwide join the middle class while the latter will drop due to environmental damage, global warming, and population increase.

If you disagree, then feel free to use other data sets and methodologies to come up with a contrary conclusion.


----------



## cowboyhermit

ralfy, it seems like you are trying to take the logical or scientific view but I don't think you are doing it many favours. IMO the fallacies you pointed out are in fact your misinterpretation of what has been said. 

If in fact mosquitomountainman or Andi were making the argument that environmentalists are hypocritical on these issues and this PROVES that the hypothesis of human induced global warming (for instance) was incorrect, then it could be argued that they had fallen into a fallacy (Tu quoque, for instance). There is nothing in their writing to indicate this. What it seems to me they were saying, and I agree btw, is that those people who truly believe in these effects and choose to do those things blatantly anyways, are acting immorally. If I believed pressing a button would kill someone and I did it anyways that would be immoral, whether it actually had that effect or not.

These people see a problem and think "Somebody should do something about this!" 

I could list several logical fallacies in your comments at the very least but there is no sense turning this thread into that.
The biggest issue I have with your comments toward the end of the thread though is that you are using way too many assumptions and generalizations, and asserting your definitions are the correct ones. You are not being scientific in your reasoning.


----------



## GaryS

Ralfy, your theory is only correct if your definitions and assumptions are absolutes. To use an old farmer's term, I believe they are road apples.


----------



## *Andi

ralfy said:


> It doesn't matter if the one who gave the numbers is jetsetting or not, because the numbers remain: the global ave. ecological footprint per capita is higher than bio-capacity. The former will go up as more join people worldwide join the middle class while the latter will drop due to environmental damage, global warming, and population increase.


Thank you for proving my point ...


----------



## offgridcooker

The global warming mob has tried to kookify* anyone that questions them by calling them “climate deniers”
The “rational right” needs some names for the “global warmest”.
How about? 
“Climate Cultist”
or “Jim Jones Climate Cultist”
and since most of their solutions to ending global warming is to stop capitalism how about EnviroMarxist*.

Any suggestions as to what names we can use to describe these environmental wackos?

Also we need to use some enviroemotionalism* “crisis crying” hysteria to fight back. 
Here is an example.

>>Here's a summary: CO2 ppm is now almost 400.

400 ppm is only 4 hundredths of one percent !!
OMG we are almost out of co2 !!! plants need co2, what are we going to do without plants? Plants make oxygen, we are all going to suffocate !! 
We need plants for food, , we are all going to starve to death !!
We are in danger. There is a crises and we must do something.
The “enviromarxis” tell us that capitalism increases co2 so we need to encourage capitalism and maybe require everyone to drive an SUV?

See how works?

* I had to create some new words to make my point. I think the definitions are obvious.
“Kookify”
“Enviromarxist”
“Enviroemotionalism”


----------



## Viking

offgridcooker said:


> >>Here's a summary: CO2 ppm is now almost 400.
> 
> 400 ppm is only 4 hundredths of one percent !!
> OMG we are almost out of co2 !!! plants need co2, what are we going to do without plants? Plants make oxygen, we are all going to suffocate !!
> We need plants for food, , we are all going to starve to death !!
> We are in danger. There is a crises and we must do something.


I keep telling people if they want to live in a home made of wood then they need to send CO2 to the forests to grow the trees needed for the lumber, not just for homes but chairs to sit on, tables to eat off of, desks for figuring home finances on, and look at all the musical instruments that give entertainment and joy to listens to which are made from various types of wood that need carbon to get to where they are to be used to make the products. Look at all the "Save the planet" musicians that have instruments made of wood, steel, brass, plastics and other materials that involve logging operations, mining operations, smelting operations and toxic components put together for amplifiers, wires and speakers (mounted in wooden cabinets). Oh, then there is the big fancy motor homes they travel in, you get the picture, more carbon creating. So I say send the CO2 to all the forests for future wood products and to farms to grow crops. One other thing, where we live the area around us has been logged many times over the years but looking around at the beautiful greenery on all the mountain sides you'd probably guess that they had never been logged. I've walked into forests that have trees the same size as the stumps that have springboard notches in them for felling with axes and two man cross cut saws. Those were cut probably in the neighborhood of 70 years ago or so. I've come to the conclusion that most of the tree huggers are just sorry they won't see trees grow to maturity in their lifetimes, of course perhaps their lifetimes may be rather short due to the fact that many are growing and using MJ from the very same forests they are trying to protect.:dunno:


----------



## Tirediron

Viking has hit upon a huge point here Most activists have very little knowledge about what they are protesting, like logging for example. many, many species of trees don't live very long, so either we use them or they die. if we use them the carbon is sequestered, and the replacements use up more carbon in growing, if they are left to rot they release it back into the atmosphere and cause more problem. when the preacher (Gore, Suzuki et all cause more problem and do little to curtail there footprint they and the whole system loose credibility. Pro sports creates huge carbon footprints but where are the protests, When these thinly veiled marketing programs use holistic science instead of cherry picking maybe they would have some credibility. Ever notice that Gore's charts and graphs lacked measurement units, they only show time.


----------



## offgridcooker

cowboyhemmit made a very wise comment when he said
"then it could be argued that they had fallen into a fallacy (Tu quoque, for instance)."
If everyone studied the logical fallacies, the world would be a better place. I am not claiming to know them all but the main fallacy the enviromarxist use is antidotal evidence.
The throw everything up on the wall hoping something will stick.
The water is so muddy now I cant see. 
What worries me is what if they are right and I have been put off by their fallacious arguments.
I will keep an open mind.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

ralfy said:


> Again, this is the same fallacy, i.e., attacking the messenger ...
> 
> It doesn't matter if the one who gave the numbers is jetsetting or not, ...


It does matter and it is not attacking the messenger. It's a search for credibility. If someone yells loudly, and bangs on door telling the occupants of a building that there's a bomb that's going to explode in the basement but, when the people come running to the exit, they see him calmly sitting there and reading a newspaper they will doubt the accuracy of the message and the sincerity of the messenger.

Environazis preach a message that they don't believe themselves. If they did they'd take action in their own lives. I don't care what the numbers are. When I see someone preaching a doom and gloom message to the world yet making no changes in their own life I don't need to see their numbers. I know what they truly believe. ... And apparently that includes you.


----------



## FatTire

I think there is a man caused componant to climate change, and I think we are at peak oil right now... and I agree totally with 3M regarding a certain type of liberal. 

They are all over california, hosting fund raisers to stop logging while drinking wine spritzers on 12k square foot redwood decks, advocating gun bans while living in gated communities patrolled and guarded by armed security..


----------



## ralfy

cowboyhermit said:


> ralfy, it seems like you are trying to take the logical or scientific view but I don't think you are doing it many favours. IMO the fallacies you pointed out are in fact your misinterpretation of what has been said.


Those are fallacies. That is, if a person acts on his argument, then his argument is true. If he doesn't, then his argument is wrong. That makes no sense whatsoever.



> If in fact mosquitomountainman or Andi were making the argument that environmentalists are hypocritical on these issues and this PROVES that the hypothesis of human induced global warming (for instance) was incorrect, then it could be argued that they had fallen into a fallacy (Tu quoque, for instance). There is nothing in their writing to indicate this. What it seems to me they were saying, and I agree btw, is that those people who truly believe in these effects and choose to do those things blatantly anyways, are acting immorally. If I believed pressing a button would kill someone and I did it anyways that would be immoral, whether it actually had that effect or not.


You're committing the same error: hypocrisy has nothing to do with the issue of global warming. If you want to argue that a "new ice age" is coming, then you need to prove it using data. That's it.



> These people see a problem and think "Somebody should do something about this!"


That's another error, i.e., assuming that if a person identifies a problem, then the intention is that he wants to do something about it.

Did you ever consider the possibility that what we are seeing is not a problem but a predicament?



> I could list several logical fallacies in your comments at the very least but there is no sense turning this thread into that.


That's another error, i.e., implying that because I also commit fallacies, then the fallacies that I referred to are either wrong or acceptable. Stick to the topic: if you want to argue that a "new ice age" is coming, then do so using data.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, etc., then why not make a new thread about that?



> The biggest issue I have with your comments toward the end of the thread though is that you are using way too many assumptions and generalizations, and asserting your definitions are the correct ones. You are not being scientific in your reasoning.


On the contrary, by not referring to hypocrisy I've been nothing more than "scientific in [my] reasoning." But if you argue otherwise, then read what Professor Lockwood argued and disprove his claims that there is no "new ice age."

I'll expect that in your response.


----------



## ralfy

GaryS said:


> Ralfy, your theory is only correct if your definitions and assumptions are absolutes. To use an old farmer's term, I believe they are road apples.


Feel free to raise other "definitions and assumptions," and I will respond to such.


----------



## ralfy

*Andi said:


> Thank you for proving my point ...


Thank you for proving their point.


----------



## ralfy

offgridcooker said:


> The global warming mob has tried to kookify* anyone that questions them by calling them "climate deniers"
> The "rational right" needs some names for the "global warmest".
> How about?
> "Climate Cultist"
> or "Jim Jones Climate Cultist"
> and since most of their solutions to ending global warming is to stop capitalism how about EnviroMarxist*.


"Denier" is used because they come up with contradictory conclusions about the issue. For example,

Scientists are doing it for the money, but because the science is "complex" let's do further studies, which means more money spent.

There's no global warming but there'll be an ice age.

There's an ice age but it's being negated by global warming.

Man-made global warming has no effect on climate, so that means the ice age is on.

There's global warming but it's "natural," so there's no ice age.

There's no ice age or global warming: everything is normal.

Also, note the "Denial Machine" documentary which showed Big Oil involved. What was surprising is that the PR firm and even several scientists working for the tobacco industry were also used to question global warming.

In contrast, skeptics will look at multiple data sets to understand the issue, such as temperature heat anomaly stalling because oceans are absorbing more heat, leading to acidification, etc., or that other measurements show that temp. anomaly is still rising. For example,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...al-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/



> Any suggestions as to what names we can use to describe these environmental wackos?


You do realize that some are prepping because they argue that environmental damage will lead to resource shortages?

I also noticed that in general anyone who refers to any predicament, whether it's global warming, environmental damage, or peak oil, is labeled a "wacko" by the establishment.

In contrast, preppers understand these predicaments, consider the worst-case scenario, and prepare accordingly.



> Also we need to use some enviroemotionalism* "crisis crying" hysteria to fight back.
> Here is an example.
> 
> >>Here's a summary: CO2 ppm is now almost 400.
> 
> 400 ppm is only 4 hundredths of one percent !!


Look at Vostok data as presented in the NAS final report. From there, analyze around 20 positive feedback loops that involve higher CO2 ppm.



> OMG we are almost out of co2 !!! plants need co2, what are we going to do without plants? Plants make oxygen, we are all going to suffocate !!
> 
> We need plants for food, , we are all going to starve to death !!
> 
> We are in danger. There is a crises and we must do something.
> The "enviromarxis" tell us that capitalism increases co2 so we need to encourage capitalism and maybe require everyone to drive an SUV?
> 
> See how works?
> 
> * I had to create some new words to make my point. I think the definitions are obvious.
> "Kookify"
> "Enviromarxist"
> "Enviroemotionalism"


http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

For more examples, try

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

If you want more advanced material, go for NAS reports. If you're looking for something that deniers funded, try BEST. Take note, though:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...erature-study-results-confirm-global-warming/


----------



## ralfy

Viking said:


> I keep telling people if they want to live in a home made of wood then they need to send CO2 to the forests to grow the trees needed for the lumber, not just for homes but chairs to sit on, tables to eat off of, desks for figuring home finances on, and look at all the musical instruments that give entertainment and joy to listens to which are made from various types of wood that need carbon to get to where they are to be used to make the products. Look at all the "Save the planet" musicians that have instruments made of wood, steel, brass, plastics and other materials that involve logging operations, mining operations, smelting operations and toxic components put together for amplifiers, wires and speakers (mounted in wooden cabinets). Oh, then there is the big fancy motor homes they travel in, you get the picture, more carbon creating. So I say send the CO2 to all the forests for future wood products and to farms to grow crops. One other thing, where we live the area around us has been logged many times over the years but looking around at the beautiful greenery on all the mountain sides you'd probably guess that they had never been logged. I've walked into forests that have trees the same size as the stumps that have springboard notches in them for felling with axes and two man cross cut saws. Those were cut probably in the neighborhood of 70 years ago or so. I've come to the conclusion that most of the tree huggers are just sorry they won't see trees grow to maturity in their lifetimes, of course perhaps their lifetimes may be rather short due to the fact that many are growing and using MJ from the very same forests they are trying to protect.:dunno:


Keep in mind that we face three predicaments (global warming coupled with environmental damage, financial crisis, and peak oil) and that the three should be seen in light of each other. Combine increasing population, overpopulation, over-consumption, increased in armaments sales worldwide, increased vectors for disease, and more, and one realizes that these predicaments amplify each other.

With that, it will not matter what tree huggers say: a combination of a resource crunch, environmental collapse, and effects of global warming is inevitable.

Some preppers incorrectly assume that others discuss and acknowledge these predicaments because the latter is seeking solutions. That's precisely they should be seen as predicaments: there are no solutions.

In which case, preppers should expect a worst-case scenario in the long term.


----------



## ralfy

offgridcooker said:


> cowboyhemmit made a very wise comment when he said
> "then it could be argued that they had fallen into a fallacy (Tu quoque, for instance)."
> If everyone studied the logical fallacies, the world would be a better place. I am not claiming to know them all but the main fallacy the enviromarxist use is antidotal evidence.
> The throw everything up on the wall hoping something will stick.
> The water is so muddy now I cant see.
> What worries me is what if they are right and I have been put off by their fallacious arguments.
> I will keep an open mind.


The argument that "the world would be a better place" if everyone "studied the logical fallacies" should be proven.

Also, the arguments raised by so-called "enviromarxists" are not anecdotal but based on data gathered from multiple data sets. See the NAS final report for details.

In contrast, deniers engage in cherry-picking to ensure "business as usual."

Finally, preppers should not be worried about these predicaments because the main task of prepping is to prepare for worst-case scenarios involving these predicaments. Right?


----------



## ralfy

mosquitomountainman said:


> It does matter and it is not attacking the messenger. It's a search for credibility. If someone yells loudly, and bangs on door telling the occupants of a building that there's a bomb that's going to explode in the basement but, when the people come running to the exit, they see him calmly sitting there and reading a newspaper they will doubt the accuracy of the message and the sincerity of the messenger.


Show me in this thread where the credibility of those who argued that there is no "new ice age" was questioned. Please start with the Lockwood article.



> Environazis preach a message that they don't believe themselves. If they did they'd take action in their own lives. I don't care what the numbers are. When I see someone preaching a doom and gloom message to the world yet making no changes in their own life I don't need to see their numbers. I know what they truly believe. ... And apparently that includes you.


Again, that's fallacious. Remember, this is scientific data and studies that we are looking at. It doesn't matter what the "messenger" believes in.

Put simply, show using scientific data that there is no "new ice age".


----------



## ralfy

FatTire said:


> I think there is a man caused componant to climate change, and I think we are at peak oil right now... and I agree totally with 3M regarding a certain type of liberal.
> 
> They are all over california, hosting fund raisers to stop logging while drinking wine spritzers on 12k square foot redwood decks, advocating gun bans while living in gated communities patrolled and guarded by armed security..


Spot on! In fact, not only does environmental damage make global warming denialism irrelevant, even peak oil does the same.

As for the last part, that should not surprise anyone, as the financial elite will create the veneer of environmentalism while having "business as usual."


----------



## cowboyhermit

:brickwall: Trying to argue logic with someone who ignores it is not productive, I will try to explain in hopes that it is merely a misunderstanding.



ralfy said:


> Those are fallacies. That is, if a person acts on his argument, then his argument is true. If he doesn't, then his argument is wrong. That makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> IF you read what I wrote it clearly stated that IF they were making that argument then it would be possible to argue a fallacy, but that was not the case.
> 
> You're committing the same error: hypocrisy has nothing to do with the issue of global warming. If you want to argue that a "new ice age" is coming, then you need to prove it using data. That's it.
> 
> You are committing an error once again, I NEVER said that someones hypocrisy disproved global warming, in fact I stated the opposite.
> 
> That's another error, i.e., assuming that if a person identifies a problem, then the intention is that he wants to do something about it.
> 
> There was no error here either, it was an observation. We have all seen people do this, so you are incorrect again.
> 
> Did you ever consider the possibility that what we are seeing is not a problem but a predicament?
> 
> Sure
> 
> That's another error, i.e., implying that because I also commit fallacies, then the fallacies that I referred to are either wrong or acceptable. Stick to the topic: if you want to argue that a "new ice age" is coming, then do so using data.
> 
> Once again you are mistaken, I NEVER stated that your fallacies held any sway over the one you pointed out. I stated that you made them, unlike the supposed ones you pointed out, in fact I chose not to point them out so as not to take this thread in the direction you have continually tried to drag it.
> 
> If you want to talk about hypocrisy, etc., then why not make a new thread about that?
> 
> On the contrary, by not referring to hypocrisy I've been nothing more than "scientific in [my] reasoning."
> 
> You are making another mistake here, even if the conclusion were true it would not make your reasoning scientific. The fact that you have "not referred to hypocrisy" does not make your reasoning scientific.
> 
> But if you argue otherwise, then read what Professor Lockwood argued and disprove his claims that there is no "new ice age."
> 
> I'll expect that in your response.
> 
> If you can read at all you will not find anywhere that I have argued otherwise. I have taken issue with irrationality being misconstrued as science and logic


ETA; You seriously posted 8 times in a row? You think you are having a reasonable discussion or debate or are you just here to tell everyone that they are wrong and you have the answers? Either way this is seriously unproductive and you are behaving somewhat like a troll at this point, imo.


----------



## GaryS

The following is opinion…nothing more.

When it comes to predicting earth’s future, we are all woefully ignorant. Despite academic sniveling to the contrary, all the selective data presented by real and pseudo-science as fact, is really little more than pap to justify opinions based on political desires or a narcissistic need for love and recognition. 

Warming and cooling cycles of earth’s climates are normal and have been going on since its creation/formation… long before humanoids walked the land. The planet has its own thermostat that has functioned for eons, and despite fantasies of self-importance and a need to regulate everything, late arriving humans of the liberal bent do not have their omnipotent finger on the thermostatic dial. 

Does human activity have an effect on climate? Certainly it does, but so does butterfly flatulence. The planet’s ability to deal with either is beyond our comprehension, and more importantly, beyond our control. When a species of plant or animal becomes a problem with overpopulation, or simply no longer fits, nature resolves the issue by changing or eliminating the components. It will do the same with humans, but somehow any prevailing science that is left will find a way to blame the few remaining humans for everything and create ways to satiate their need to control.

I accept the fact that scientists think they are correct in their belief that humans are the cause when the earth’s average temperature increases by .1 degree Fahrenheit in ten years. However, scientists from other times also believed that the sun orbited the earth and that draining a patient’s blood would cure their illness, not to mention the innumerable times scientific studies proved that coffee is bad for your health…or not. 

Knowledge has improved enormously over the centuries, but science is not absolute and no matter how desperately some may wish, it is forever evolving.

I don’t have a problem with learning to do and build things that are cleaner, smarter, and less destructive. I’m all for it, but to make it a crime to deviate from some blowhard’s pet theory really chaps my butt. 

Peak oil is a favorite environmentalist whining point, but much of the problem has been caused by other liberals demanding cars be designed by bureaucrats instead of engineers. If the damn governments would adhere to their Constitutional constraints and responsibilities, science and technology would be far more efficient and responsive to authentic driving forces, instead of some bureaucrat’s erotic dream.


----------



## Viking

At the last post by GaryS indeed it would be a good one to close this thread with because as far a I'm concerned I certainly couldn't have said it any better, anything else at this point would be like lifting the lid on a septic tank to find the marbles you thought you might have lost down the toilet.


----------



## Woody

Viking said:


> At the last post by GaryS indeed it would be a good one to close this thread with because as far a I'm concerned I certainly couldn't have said it any better, anything else at this point would be like lifting the lid on a septic tank to find the marbles you thought you might have lost down the toilet.


Grimm? GRIMM??? GRIMM!!!

Where is that girl when we need someone to call shenanigans (TM Grimm 2013) I think we need to keep this open or ralfy will post on other threads and screw them up by getting them off topic. I have actually enjoyed reading this, haven't made any posts because everyone else (thanks everyone else!) has done a good job.

I did something I have never done on a forum, searched for all posts by a user. Out of *ITS* 32 posts NONE have anything to do with prepping. No intro, no Hi, I canned something today, no I'm preparing for..., nothing. It is so obvious ralfy is a *TROLL* it is amusing. Most *TROLLS* usually try posting to fit in first, before showing their true colors. *IT* must be a new hire or have too many other allias' on other boards to concentrate on what *IT* is posting. I say keep *IT* busy here so we can find some enjoyment! There have been way too many rational discussions here, we need a bit of levity. Oh, wait a sec... We are probably paying this moron to post here! Ahhh. So be it, at least I get to see where my extorted tax dollars are going.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

ralfy is definitely a troll. No substance, just endless controversy and whining.

He thinks the world as he knows it is going down the tubes but he's made no changes in his life as a result. He believes (supposedly) in the drivel he's linking yet has no answers for himself or anyone else. He just wants people to think he's smart (yet his posts prove otherwise).

troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll...


----------



## musketjim

Hurry up global warning. What's taking so long?


----------



## ralfy

cowboyhermit said:


> :brickwall: Trying to argue logic with someone who ignores it is not productive, I will try to explain in hopes that it is merely a misunderstanding.


Let's find out if you succeed.



> IF you read what I wrote it clearly stated that IF they were making that argument then it would be possible to argue a fallacy, but that was not the case.


They WERE making that argument.



> You are committing an error once again, I NEVER said that someones hypocrisy disproved global warming, in fact I stated the opposite.


This is what you wrote:



> There is nothing in their writing to indicate this. What it seems to me they were saying, and I agree btw, is that those people who truly believe in these effects and choose to do those things blatantly anyways, are acting immorally. If I believed pressing a button would kill someone and I did it anyways that would be immoral, whether it actually had that effect or not.


The topic has NOTHING to do with "immorality." Worse, this off-topic point implies that if a person who acknowledges AGW is "immoral," then his argument is wrong. What other motive is there to come up with such a point?



> There was no error here either, it was an observation. We have all seen people do this, so you are incorrect again.


Who are these "people" you are talking about, and do they constitute the majority?



> Sure


If that's the case, then you should realize that your off-topic view concerning immorality is irrelevant.



> Once again you are mistaken, I NEVER stated that your fallacies held any sway over the one you pointed out. I stated that you made them, unlike the supposed ones you pointed out, in fact I chose not to point them out so as not to take this thread in the direction you have continually tried to drag it.


Get your story straight: I did not make the point about immorality.



> You are making another mistake here, even if the conclusion were true it would not make your reasoning scientific. The fact that you have "not referred to hypocrisy" does not make your reasoning scientific.


Read the article I shared from Lockwood. That directly addresses the topic thread and is my conclusion on this topic.



> If you can read at all you will not find anywhere that I have argued otherwise. I have taken issue with irrationality being misconstrued as science and logic


If you have not "argued otherwise" concerning what Lockwood said, then the point of immorality becomes irrelevant!

Again, if anyone wants to talk about hypocrisy, why not create a new thread? The topic thread does not refer to that.



> ETA; You seriously posted 8 times in a row? You think you are having a reasonable discussion or debate or are you just here to tell everyone that they are wrong and you have the answers? Either way this is seriously unproductive and you are behaving somewhat like a troll at this point, imo.


My points are very easy to follow: the claim that there is a "new ice age" is not right. The reasons are given in Lockwood's article.

What responses do we see to that? Zero. Instead, we have off-topic remarks about environmentalists being hypocrites, misinformed points about CO2 and plants, etc.

And I'm the one trolling?


----------



## Tirediron

What about the CO2 released by volcanoes the Gores et al seem to conveniently ignore that and their flights in aircraft, only wanting the average Joe and Jane to change their ways


----------



## ralfy

GaryS said:


> The following is opinion&#8230;nothing more.
> 
> When it comes to predicting earth's future, we are all woefully ignorant. Despite academic sniveling to the contrary, all the selective data presented by real and pseudo-science as fact, is really little more than pap to justify opinions based on political desires or a narcissistic need for love and recognition.


The bad news is that the argument works both ways. In which case, given "a narcissistic need for love and recognition," denialism wins. Here's my reason:

The global economy requires more fossil fuel consumption to have continuous growth. Businesses, governments, and a growing global middle class want the same.

Deniers argue that at the very least, we should study the matter further, and that ironically means more funding for scientists.

In which case, everyone gets what they want. That's why denialism is part of mainstream thought, and refers not only to global warming but to anything that will get in the way of they rosy views of the future.



> Warming and cooling cycles of earth's climates are normal and have been going on since its creation/formation&#8230; long before humanoids walked the land. The planet has its own thermostat that has functioned for eons, and despite fantasies of self-importance and a need to regulate everything, late arriving humans of the liberal bent do not have their omnipotent finger on the thermostatic dial.


The problem isn't natural cycles but the effect of higher CO2 ppm on over twenty positive feedback loops.

Worse, we also face peak oil, which not surprisingly most also deny.

That's where "self-importance" comes in. That is, more people want more of the same middle class conveniences, and they believe that there's no need to regulate anything as large corporations will save the day.



> Does human activity have an effect on climate? Certainly it does, but so does butterfly flatulence. The planet's ability to deal with either is beyond our comprehension, and more importantly, beyond our control. When a species of plant or animal becomes a problem with overpopulation, or simply no longer fits, nature resolves the issue by changing or eliminating the components. It will do the same with humans, but somehow any prevailing science that is left will find a way to blame the few remaining humans for everything and create ways to satiate their need to control.


The remark about butterfly flatulence is melodramatic nonsense. The NAS final report and other studies explain thoroughly multiple positive feedback loops connected to higher CO2 ppm.

The rest of the points supports AGW. The planet is responding to higher CO2 ppm, not to mention environmental damage, and we are now seeing the results today. Combine that with other predicaments, such as peak oil, and these predicaments show that human beings are not in control of the situation.

Given that, one is better off prepping and expecting worst-case scenarios rather than hoping that we will have a "new ice age."



> I accept the fact that scientists think they are correct in their belief that humans are the cause when the earth's average temperature increases by .1 degree Fahrenheit in ten years. However, scientists from other times also believed that the sun orbited the earth and that draining a patient's blood would cure their illness, not to mention the innumerable times scientific studies proved that coffee is bad for your health&#8230;or not.


Actually, it's not so much as CO2 ppm being the main cause but as a trigger for positive feedback loops. Read the NAS final report and other studies for details.



> Knowledge has improved enormously over the centuries, but science is not absolute and no matter how desperately some may wish, it is forever evolving.


This is, as pointed above, ironically one of the reasons given by deniers to delay decreasing fossil fuel consumption. It's ironic because it leads to more funding for scientists, not less.

And then there's peak oil, which not only threatens that "evolution" but removes one of the motives for denialism, which includes the need to burn more fossil fuels. See the IEA Outlook 2010 report and others for details.



> I don't have a problem with learning to do and build things that are cleaner, smarter, and less destructive. I'm all for it, but to make it a crime to deviate from some blowhard's pet theory really chaps my butt.


Why not see it the other way round, especially given the fact that "cleaner, smarter, and less destructive" is the response to global warming? In which case, questioning a so-called "blowhard's pet theory" becomes irrelevant because the means needed to address the problems raised by that theory is already what you support.



> Peak oil is a favorite envirnementalist whining point, but much of the problem has been caused by other liberals demanding cars be designed by bureaucrats instead of engineers. If the damn governments would adhere to their Constitutional constraints and responsibilities, science and technology would be far more efficient and responsive to authentic driving forces, instead of some bureaucrat's erotic dream.


No, peak oil is a scientific fact, based on oil being a limited resource. There's more, but I don't have time to explain them to you.

The rest of your paragraph is shared by the mainstream, including non-preppers. That is, it's only the governments that are at fault, and that more "efficiency" and technology will solve these predicaments, even though in a global capitalist system these two factors actually lead to the opposite.


----------



## ralfy

mosquitomountainman said:


> ralfy is definitely a troll. No substance, just endless controversy and whining.


All of my points are substantial, logical, and coherent. In contrast, what has been questioned concerning AGW have been debunked here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php\



> He thinks the world as he knows it is going down the tubes but he's made no changes in his life as a result. He believes (supposedly) in the drivel he's linking yet has no answers for himself or anyone else. He just wants people to think he's smart (yet his posts prove otherwise).


Read your paragraph very carefully. For the first sentence, you did NOT deny that we are "going down the tubes," but you argue that I've "made no changes in [my] life as a result." You don't know me. You're trolling.

You refer to what I share as "drivel" but you implicitly acknowledged them in your first sentence. Why should I make changes in my life if they are in response to what you call "drivel"?

For the last point, that is not my intention. But if your messages end up showing that I sound smart, then that's your problem, not mine.



> troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll...


That is what trolls do. When confronted with reasonable points, they cover their ears and shout the same words over and over, hoping that the other will go away.

Fine. I'll post some more in this thread and then leave.


----------



## ralfy

musketjim said:


> Hurry up global warning. What's taking so long?


You're several years too late.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-here-to-stay-trenberth-converstion.html


----------



## ralfy

Tirediron said:


> What about the CO2 released by volcanoes the Gores et al seem to conveniently ignore that and their flights in aircraft, only wanting the average Joe and Jane to change their ways


http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm


----------



## ralfy

To the mods, I'm afraid I'll have to post this off-topic point here, which will be my last message in this forum:

From what I've experienced, preppers concern themselves with various crisis. Some prepare because they believe that the dollar will collapse, others because they believe storms will be stronger and droughts more pronounced, still others expect oil prices to increase readily due to peak oil, and still others nuclear war, a pandemic, and so on.

I believe all of these problems will take place, not necessarily at the same time, but in combination with each other, causing havoc and very likely long-term damage.

In short, all of my views are ironically shared by preppers. It's just that several of them disagree with each other by choosing one crisis and ignoring others. In contrast, I think all of these predicaments will take place, with some crises caused by or amplifying others.

That's why I see global warming denialism, together with peak oil denialism, faith in science and technology, and various claims about environmentalists, economic naysayers, etc., as irrelevant. I think for a prepper the logical thing to do is to assume a worst-case scenario rather than being "thankful" that an ice age, or science and technology thanks to the government and business, or the military, or anything else will "save" us.

That's it. Thanks for letting me share these views in this forum.


----------



## FatTire

Well, for my part I dont think ralfy is a troll. I think he explained his points calmly, rationaly, and without personal insults. He does clearly have very personal reasons for why he preps, global warming and peak oil seem to be his pet issues. I would argue that the why behind a person is pepraring, is far less important than that they are preparing. 

The only place I find fault here is that he seems to need everyone to agree with him. Comes across as preachy rather than willing to have a discussion. No one is obligated to agree with you, the links you post, facts presented, line of reasoning, your monthly cycle, or anything else. The beauty part is, you arent obligated to agree with them either. 

I happen to agree with ralfy, but unless we can find a way to put our differences aside, see the value in others rather than just what we dissagree with, we wilk continue to bicker as we slide into tyranny, with those in power smiling...


----------



## GaryS

Ralfy, I'm among those who hope you don't leave. The only problem I have with your posts is your arrogant attitude and preachy delivery. You believe you are right about everything, but others don't share your degree of conviction, and you apparently consider it your duty to educate all of us backwoods crackers. 

What you fail to get across is how a utopian society can be created without tyranny. What country with a strong central government has ever been successful over the long haul? What would you, as an obvious collectivist living in the West, do about the massive pollution problems in the world's two most populous countries? What are the anti-religion statists going to do about the worldwide expansion of jihadists? 

Since this is a prepping forum, do you share this administration's edict that federal officials can seize privately stored food supplies for redistribution in an emergency? Do you believe that anyone who believes the federal government is corrupt should be on terrorist lists? What about gun control?

Please reconsider your thoughts of leaving. Your posts have left me irked, frustrated, sad, confused and sometimes incredulous, but until your friends in the administration are successful in finding a way to totally stifle speech, you are welcome any place I go...and you will be challenged.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Whether someone agrees or disagrees on the effect of humans on climate is not an issue to me, there are valid arguments on both sides so keeping an open mind is important. I never argued against global warming, only against faulty science and logic. The way ralfy came into a thread started by someone else and tried to take it over and tell everyone what it SHOULD be about is another story. His replies to other comments were often not at all logically sound or scientific and his posts calling out other members were also flawed. I have no wish to see him leave personally but if he is going to behave in other threads the way he has in here :dunno:


----------



## mosquitomountainman

ralfy said:


> All of my points are substantial, logical, and coherent. In contrast, what has been questioned concerning AGW have been debunked here:
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php\
> 
> Read your paragraph very carefully. For the first sentence, you did NOT deny that we are "going down the tubes," but you argue that I've "made no changes in [my] life as a result." You don't know me. You're trolling.
> 
> This is what's so frustrating with you. Your reading comprehension isn't very good. Drawing a conclusion from what is not stated is an argument from silence (another logical fallacy).
> 
> You refer to what I share as "drivel" but you implicitly acknowledged them in your first sentence. Why should I make changes in my life if they are in response to what you call "drivel"?
> 
> Your actions are influenced by what you believe, not what I believe. Again, your "implicit acknowledgement" statement is an argument from silence. Another logical fallacy. I seriously doubt that you have the capability to comprehend what's written in a third grade textbook.
> 
> For the last point, that is not my intention. But if your messages end up showing that I sound smart, then that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Sorry bud, you struck out again.
> 
> That is what trolls do. When confronted with reasonable points, they cover their ears and shout the same words over and over, hoping that the other will go away.
> 
> Fine. I'll post some more in this thread and then leave.


Then the proof that you are a troll is already there.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

ralfy cannot put together a logical argument and is abusive toward other forum members. He's given no indication that he believes his drivel because he's given no indication that he's actually taken steps to prepare for his foreseen events nor has he given any indication that he's changed his lifestyle to alleviate the effects of the man-caused global warming that he's warning everyone else about. His personality is highly abrasive and he's shown no desire to listen to, consider, or logically address the points of others.

He needs time to grow up and definitely needs a course in logic. :brickwall:

He's posted very little on the forum and those posts that he's made have been divisive and childish drivel. If he never comes back, who would miss his presence ... and why?


----------



## FatTire

I would. I place a high value on diversity of opinion in the arena of ideas. I disagree that he was being abrasive and abusive, I think its more that he doesnt communicate well online. I agree he needs to mature a bit, the underlying tone seemed like he expected people should just agree with him and his data, and that just aint so. I recall it being pretty difficult for me to come to the realization that no one is obligated to view the world thru the same pair of glasses i use. 

If i saw abrasive and abusive behavior, i would certainly agree with you 3M, diversity of thought should not be had at the expense of civility...


----------



## Tirediron

I don't believe that humanity and the activities of the last 300 years haven't had an effect on the atmosphere, but world war II had to have released a huge amount of carbon into the atmosphere, But I never heard it mentioned in any of the models. Just because someone post something on a blog doesn't make it fact.
what real world data that I do have is that in 2005 we have had a once in 250 year rainfall, followed by a "normal" winter. 2013 we had an other once in 250 year rainfall (not counting the one in 2005) again. 9'' in 72 hours, in our yard site. now we are having an early winter, we have already had more snow fall in 36 days than we normally get in 6 months (Oct 15 to April 15) our summer weather patterns have changed. 

I seriously don't think multi quoting peoples posts and critiquing their language or layout is a productive debate style. and one link to a blog or article does not make it a fact. even if it is from a phd.


----------



## FatTire

I dont think anyone here is going to be convinced on 'global warming' one way or the other. Those that believe it already do, and those that dont, aint going to no matter what. Personally, I think we are past the time when it mattered. Either its a scam and theres nothing that needs to be done, or its not and we are past the point of no return already.


----------



## NaeKid

Tirediron said:


> Viking has hit upon a huge point here Most activists have very little knowledge about what they are protesting, like logging for example. many, many species of trees don't live very long, so either we use them or they die. if we use them the carbon is sequestered, and the replacements use up more carbon in growing, if they are left to rot they release it back into the atmosphere and cause more problem. when the preacher (Gore, Suzuki et all cause more problem and do little to curtail there footprint they and the whole system loose credibility. Pro sports creates huge carbon footprints but where are the protests, When these thinly veiled marketing programs use holistic science instead of cherry picking maybe they would have some credibility. Ever notice that Gore's charts and graphs lacked measurement units, they only show time.







:2thumb: :2thumb: :2thumb:


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> I would. I place a high value on diversity of opinion in the arena of ideas. I disagree that he was being abrasive and abusive, I think its more that he doesnt communicate well online. I agree he needs to mature a bit, the underlying tone seemed like he expected people should just agree with him and his data, and that just aint so. I recall it being pretty difficult for me to come to the realization that no one is obligated to view the world thru the same pair of glasses i use.
> 
> If i saw abrasive and abusive behavior, i would certainly agree with you 3M, diversity of thought should not be had at the expense of civility...


Not much diversity of thought in his posts. Mainly because there wasn't much "thought" in his posts. He just kept appealing to his "experts" and told everyone else to read and agree. If you didn't see things his way he labeled you as a "denier" and began implying you were an idiot and (because you were being deceived) unable to draw your own independent, intelligent conclusions based on your own research and experience.

There's no abrasive, abusive or uncivil behavior there?


----------



## cnsper

With - temps this week, I could use about 10 degrees of global warming. Anyone have some extra?


----------



## Viking

cnsper said:


> With - temps this week, I could use about 10 degrees of global warming. Anyone have some extra?


Well normally we could probably spare that but the way the TV weather people are talking about the snow storm that's hitting us it's supposedly a "Twenty year storm". I don't know that it's that but the last time we had sub freezing like this was in 1991 when it got down to a rarely seen -5 degrees here. Thing is now days people have very short memory spans and many forget what happened 5 years ago. Anyway the lesson we learned having the sub freezing in 1991 we used in designing our water systems. So don't feel alone in wanting a bit of global warming, we could stand to have about 25 degrees more here as tomorrow night it's supposed to go down to 8 degrees.


----------



## cnsper

High today will be -5 and all I want is it above 0


----------

