So, what did happen to all that warmth?

We don't change because then the politicians would have to learn the metric system.

It used to be taught in the schools. Some states were even starting to put up dual signs at one point. It's all been slowly going away with the rest of our education system.

Nigel Goodwin said:

Only because you're hanging on to outdated and difficult systems

I really can't see why you haven't changed?, decimal is so much easier - you didn't go the pounds, shillings, and pence route, so why stick to feet and inches?.

I come from the pre-decimal era, but I'm probably the last generation to do so, in a few years time it will be forgotten - the USA is falling further and further behind, and change has to happen - but will take a couple of generations to work through.

Click to expand...

The metric system is easier in terms of converting measurements, and I've used it from childhood and understand it very well. However, for all my experience with it, I cannot "think" in metric. If a measurement is given in metric units, I have to convert it to US standard to "feel" what the amount is.

I don’t know how the lack of “original thinking” is supposed to be relevant. The thread has been, since the very beginning, about the established science of Global Warming. On that topic, many quality posts linking existing data and analysis have been made, the purpose of which is to educate and inform. It’s called a discussion, and its how information gets disseminated and distributed. It’s a fine thing to discuss these issues and sort through them, and doing so does not indicate any lack of original thinking. Neither is it regurgitating. The ability to understand what the data means, read and understand the analysis and discuss the issues intelligently is an asset to a group and to a society. From what I’ve read on this thread, there are some intelligent people who are able to understand the science and discuss it with cognizance. As well, a few people have made a great case, using established science and ability to “connect the dots”, to show that mankind’s actions have consequences on a global scale. Is that original? Well, in some circles it might be. Even if it isn’t, its’ certainly valuable.

It still comes down to faith based science, not hard science. I'll agree with the warming trend (although, not the past couple of weeks), normal natural, we are still recovering from the last great Ice Age, still have to warm up a little more. And I'll agree mankind are a bunch of filthy slobs, and dumping huge amounts of CO2, and other nasty things into the environment. The connection between the two, is the shady science portion. To get them to match up on the Hockey-Stick Graph, a lot of manipulation is needed, but not used equally, or throughout. Quite a few 'blips' like our current cold trend is thrown out. Don't fit with the theme of our graph, so ignore it. A ten year warming trend isn't anymore significant, than three weeks of extreme cold. This really isn't abnormal weather, we've had many extreme swings in the weather pattern, I can remember quite a few over the past 40 years. Only data and events that prove the Rev. Al Gore's cause are important, and included. Everything else is discarded, or shrugged off. It a singular focus, there can only be one explanation, one possibility, one conclusion. How is that original thinking? Isn't anybody's guess, just as good as these others that you follow? It really seems that they already know there is a good chance they are wrong, since most of the speeches, usually end with something about we'll have at least switched to a cleaner alternative, which is the right thing to do.

Let's see, the concern is that we are burning up in years, what took thousands of years to produce. But didn't all those dead plants and animals at the bottom of the oil well, pretty much die off kind of rapidly? Seems like the can pump out quite a quantity from a single well. Still don't see a warmer Earth being such a bad thing. Think there are a lot of people afraid of climate change, whether real or imagined. We've always had extreme weather events, none recorded on the holy graph. They said on the news recently, that this cold spell doesn't mean Global Warming isn't still going to happen, and that will continue to see unusual highs and lows. Basically, no real changes in the way things have always been. I'm ready to adapt to what ever crisis comes from all this, whether it's man-made (tax and cap), or natural. Never been afraid of change, I enjoy the challenge.

Sceadwian said:

We're not talking about cherry picked single person interactions. We're talking about the majority of hundreds or thousand of individuals polled.

Click to expand...

Ok, so there are a lot of uneducated people out there. It really shows the failure of the education system more than anything else.
I don't know about you, but I can usually spot the hidden agenda pretty quickly just by the way it is worded. The tone of the article says a lot.

Sceadwian said:

Measure the number of wood burning homes to the number of trees turning C02 into wood over the entire globe. Not to mention the sea, and that's a BIG unknown with the carbon cycle, and considering it's surface area and active volume more than likely the major determining factor of which we know effectively nothing as far as long term effect goes.

Click to expand...

True. My main thrust was more about bringing ancient carbon back into the equation.

Sceadwian said:

There is no way to end it, I learned that years ago, why do you think I put huge stop signs at the begging of this post that were deleted?

Click to expand...

They were deleted before I got to see them.

Sceadwian said:

Why do you think these types of threads hit such huge post and views limits? Everyone has their own two cents to add to the topic of discussion.

Click to expand...

We haven't even come close to beating the length and OT diversions of the SSB Carrier Suppression thread!

Sceadwian said:

I'm not taking part in the topic of discussion however, I'm questioning that rational behind all the statements being made.

Click to expand...

I think you will find that impossible. By questioning the rational you are taking part in the discussion. There were plenty of "scientific" holes in the statements made by the so called "skeptics", but I didn't see you go after them. If you had been truly impartial you would have questioned their statements too.

If you had been truly impartial you would have questioned their statements too.

Click to expand...

He would have but we have been paying him not to!
Immediate financial gains go a long way in swaying what a person will or will not find in their research and investigations.

kchristie I haven't read every post in this thread there's too much information to absorb. Everyone posted their opinion with their data, funny thing is almost no one posted the same opinion or data =)

That's why I asked brownout to post his opinion and links in a concise post which he refused to do, and I only have an hour, two TOPS available to waste here a day, I'm hard pressed enough as it is to even get to reading half of all posts in the 'normal' threads let alone ones like this which rack up more posts and links than any human being could be expected to swallow. If he can't sum up what his opinion is in a single paragraph and post links to every bit of data that is used to draw the conclusions of that opinion then I certainly can't spare the time to re-read every single last post and

I wish you were paying me, I might feel slightly less upset about the time I've spent posting on this thread already =O

Sceadwian said:

I wish you were paying me, I might feel slightly less upset about the time I've spent posting on this thread already =O

Click to expand...

I wouldn't get "upset" about it since nothing can be gained from doing so. Besides, it looks like tcmtech might be willing to pay you something.

kchriste, upset is watching smart people make illogical statements while quoting other sources for their statements, and then refusing to rehash their opinion into a simple cohesive statement that logically progressives without leaps or questionable and unverifiable assumptions.

Brownout seems to think correlated data means that two graphs match over a short period of time. Even if C02 levels can be directly matched to temperature variations it does not mean that C02 levels CAUSE of the temperature rise, some wacko could just as easily call this a theory of global carbonation which using the SAME data statistcally prove that a rise in global temperature is directly causing a Co2 increase... Correlated data means that there are multiple networks of differing types of measurements that alllll agree together as a cohesive whole. And to truly become scientific 'fact' the same data needs to be gathered from multiple separate independent but similarly measured sources, and ALL of them need to be correlated themselves and all of their divergence possibilities need to be explored. None of this is occurring a scale which leaves ANYONE with 'proof' of any theory.

There are absolutely no sanity checks occurring here.

Besides, it looks like tcmtech might be willing to pay you something.

Click to expand...

My family owns the mineral rights to land that has oil under it and is scheduled to be drilled soon. (maybe this summer even!)
Plus our family farm got echo graphed (correct term?) last summer and came back with a 100% confirmed oil echo as well! (we have 100% mineral rights on it and 25% of that is mine!)
I may be able to finance my own naughty little agendas soon! Boo whaa ha ha ha.

There are absolutely no sanity checks occurring here.

Click to expand...

But at least we know how to delete our emails after every exchange!

Good luck with that tcmtech, I know some folks down in PA that because of the land they own and intelligent holding out for leasing their mineral right are probably going to retire as millionaires. A couple of them are even targets for horizontal drilling so the wells aren't even on their property =O

Still doubt I will actually see much of it. I dont have that type of luck that goes for my positive favor all that often.

The only reason my name is now on the first mentioned mineral rights is because my mom died in October. Now I own 1/2 of 1/6 of 1/4 of 1/4 of the land leases and oil revenues if they drill it. It will have to be a very high output well before I get enough returns from it to retire on.
The other home family farm stuff could still never be touched in my lifetime. Or not likely in a time frame that would benefit me anyway.

In my mind its rather like man made global warming and climate change. Its interesting to ponder on but in reality I doubt I will see any conclusive results from it in my life time! Right now the numbers are to inconclusive for me to be betting on anything related to any of it in both cases.

You can tell me I will be rich in a few years and that the world will be warmer but I seriously doubt both will actually happen.

Sceadwian said:

Correlated data means that there are multiple networks of differing types of measurements that alllll agree together as a cohesive whole. And to truly become scientific 'fact' the same data needs to be gathered from multiple separate independent but similarly measured sources, and ALL of them need to be correlated themselves and all of their divergence possibilities need to be explored. None of this is occurring a scale which leaves ANYONE with 'proof' of any theory.

Click to expand...

What about bore hole data which indicates temperatures from the past? Do you refute the methods used?
What about ice core data which indicates CO2 and CH4 from the past? Do you refute the methods used?
Do you refute the CO2 levels recorded at **broken link removed**? I posted others which showed that same pattern of rising CO2. Are you going to dismiss all this data if a minority of the sites do not match 100%?
Who ever said that science had to prove anything 100%. If that was the case, most of the science today would have to be thrown out.
What I'm trying to get across is that we can still use simple theories, like Newtons law of gravity, even if they are flawed. ie: We can still calculate acceleration on Earth using newtons laws (because the errors are so small) even though those laws violate the laws of general relativity at higher speeds.

Tiny bubbles trapped in ancient ice, may indicate CO2 and CH4 levels of the past, but there is no way to confirm that it accurately depicts the entire planet. It's not proof positive, nothing else to support it. This is the belief of some 'scientists'. Bore holes? Have to read more into that later, sounds like climate science, at it's finest. First thought it was tree rings again, was surprised it's a hole in the ground. Those guys have real fixation with holes don't they... Maybe a few drinks at sleazy night club might help out with that.

Have to check, but isn't Mauna Loa still an active volcano?

It's not that numbers are a little off, a lot of math is used to get everything to match up, what does work for the graph is discarded as a 'blip'. The original raw, un-buggered data seems to be lost or hidden, details on what math was used where, is kept secret. They should have fully released everything long ago if it's all hard facts. Words and trust, aren't scientific, a wealthy politician doesn't add credibility either. We only have a limited ability to look into the past, and even then its mostly guessing. Just no way to prove it's all the hard truth as being sold, and doubt anybody will spend the time and resources to disprove, nothing to be gained, except to embarrass a bunch of people. There is a lot of good science going on, which need more funding and support, proving this a hoax would have a bad effect all around. We do need to move on to better ways, cleaner ways, but science and environmentalist can't afford another hole in the Ozone layer/Ice age controversy.

kchriste said:

What about bore hole data which indicates temperatures from the past? Do you refute the methods used?
What about ice core data which indicates CO2 and CH4 from the past? Do you refute the methods used?
Do you refute the CO2 levels recorded at **broken link removed**? I posted others which showed that same pattern of rising CO2. Are you going to dismiss all this data if a minority of the sites do not match 100%?
Who ever said that science had to prove anything 100%. If that was the case, most of the science today would have to be thrown out.
What I'm trying to get across is that we can still use simple theories, like Newtons law of gravity, even if they are flawed. ie: We can still calculate acceleration on Earth using newtons laws (because the errors are so small) even though those laws violate the laws of general relativity at higher speeds.

Click to expand...

Amen to that kchriste. There is something that not everyone can understand, and it's absolutely true that much of established science has proven to be useful and reliable, although refinements have been made. The repeated argument that scientific data is useless until proven 100% without a single doubt does not stand up to historical tests. Examples are found everywhere: nuclear energy has been produces and utilized without understanding the physics 100%. The father of the nuclear age never had quantum mechanics, and even rejected the whole idea. But with imperfect science, the technology has been developed and used. With the refinements, better and more effective technology can be developed. Similar developments for electronics, nano technology, etc. When other fields are studied, astronomy, chemistry, geology, genetics, etc, etc, etc, we see science doing the same thing: looking at the available evidence and making the very best conclusions based on state of the art analysis methods, correlated data, peer reviewed analysis, measurement technology and so on. Climate science has been consistent with the very best and most established scientific methods. The scientists involved are like detectives, examining the data, drawing conclusions based on established methods, refining their work through the peer review process. Although mistakes have been made, the scientific community has a mechanism to find and correct errors, which proves that the system works. You are correct to show all of the correlating data points, ice cores, tree ring, sediments,etc, as well, direct measurements of CO2 has been correlated from all across the globe, and those who attempt to show no correlation exists are simply ignoring the quality data that has been collected and analyzed. And it's not a faith based science, as has been shown repeatedly, it uses the best of scientific methods, and nobody has shown otherwise other than try to make generalized, self authoritive statements, which can never be substantiated. Seems they believe repeating something makes it true. But the science is real and does not suffer damage from these attacks.

BrownOut said:

The scientists involved are like detectives, examining the data, drawing conclusions based on established methods, refining their work through the peer review process. Although mistakes have been made......

Click to expand...

Admittedly cherry-picked, but how many people have been wrongly convicted and locked away due to crime scene 'data' being mis-read, tainted investigative methods, peer ass-covering, departmental targets, and so on?

There's fallibility in practically ANY subject we may choose to debate here, but the underlying theme is extreme distaste for those in a position of 'authority' who will not admit to being wrong.

Tree ring data keeps being referred to, but even Briffa himself questioned whether it should be included in the IPCC report.....and for that, he gets a little more respect than the rest of them.

tcmtech said:

The other home family farm stuff could still never be touched in my lifetime. Or not likely in a time frame that would benefit me anyway.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering if they will give you a carbon credit not to drill

I'm wondering if they will give you a carbon credit not to drill

Click to expand...

Right now the average well around here is pushing 1000 - 2500 barrels a day normal outputs. Being I and my family are on the skeptical/ 'We could care less' side of the climate debate they had better have one hell of a credit payment for us!
$10K - $25K a day for the next 40 - 50 years (conservative estimate on the Bakken oil field service life) would likely swing my family and neighbors decisions toward being strongly in favor of not drilling.

kchriste and brownout, are you serious? Is that the summation of your arguments and self congratulatory back patting?

What about bore hole data which indicates temperatures from the past? Do you refute the methods used?

Click to expand...

I don't refute that data.

What about ice core data which indicates CO2 and CH4 from the past? Do you refute the methods used?

Click to expand...

I don't refute that data either.

Do you refute the CO2 levels recorded at **broken link removed**? I posted others which showed that same pattern of rising CO2. Are you going to dismiss all this data if a minority of the sites do not match 100%?

Click to expand...

and last of all but not least I don't refute that data.

If the borehole data can be correlated to ice samples that proves a relation between temperature and C02 levels in the past, I can agree with that completely, because it does. There is nothing in the data that says which one LEADS the other, in fact it's quiet impossible because the resolution of the data is on the order of thousands to tens of thousands of years.

I can't refute the Mauna Loa data, but I can completely throw it out the window as having anything scientific to do with the other two data sets because it's resolution is averaged yearly over a span of time so small it doesn't even fit into a single point on the other data...

I hope you do understand the gravity of what I'm saying because you just actually proved everything in my preposition correct. At what point will any of this sink in? What strings are you gonna grab for next? If you can't post a preposition better than that and data which actually fully correlates then I'm waving at you from the ground floor of your collective house of cards.

I was searching the web for more information on a few of the data sources mentioned above, and stumbled on a pretty good read. Facts about Climate Change Science, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics Seems to fit my views pretty well, but presented very good. All sources linked, even some listed throughout this thread. Seems to be a fair, balanced look at the topic.