• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Global warming

Los

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
505
Points
28
Location
NH
Care to elaborate?

To make the opposite case I would start with 95-98% of IPCC computer models outpacing reality in terms of surface/satellite warming. Could also point to NOAA's historical temperature data adjustments resulting in an exaggerated warming trend -- whether or not this was the intent. And then a quick read up on ClimateGate will give some insight into the internal politics of climate science and silencing/blacklisting of dissenting views, which appear to be for more numerous than John Kerry or Al Gore would like us to believe.

All in all, we're talking 0.8 degrees celcius warming since 1850 -- and no warming in the last 20 years. Doesn't strike me as much of a threat.

Al Gore's mid-2000s crusade was the absolute worst thing that ever happened with respect to addressing the very real threat of global warming. He is a polarizing politician (and a douchebag in my personal opinion), and he turned global warming into a left/right issue.

In addition, there are indeed alarmists (some with a political agenda, some without), whose predictions have failed to materialize for one reason or another and as a result have understandably sowed the seeds of doubt.

There's also the issue of the mainstream media's lack of credibility. They've shown time and time again that they can't be trusted. The fact that they're fully on board the global warming wagon further sows the seeds of doubt (and understandably so).

I'll also admit it's true there are leftists who want to use the need to address global warming as a way to backdoor more government and global government. I won't deny that. But that's just one more reason why conservatives need to take off their ideological glasses, acknowledge the threat, and help to craft a bipartisan plan of attack.

But the issue has become too polarized, so I have no hope that collective action will ever happen. The only slim hope lies with the market-driven development of a carbon sequestration technology. But even if that technology is fully developed there will still be political questions regarding how, where, and when it should be used. And the fact is that most people HATE winter and want a warmer planet. SO, basically, skiers are screwed.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,955
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
Fun fact: there is a 135 page long thread discussing global warming on Killingtonzone where quite literally no one has changed their beliefs. We've gone down this road how many times on AZ with the same results?

I liken the subject to religion at this point in today's culture. There are no "discussions" just folks wanting to hear themselves talk. Folks believe what they do and only accept facts that support their stance.

But by all means. Have at it.....

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

wtcobb

New member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
825
Points
0
Location
North of the Notch
duty_calls.png
 

bdfreetuna

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
4,300
Points
0
Location
keep the faith
Good response Los. Although did not address my point that warming has been minor over 150 years and seems to have paused for the last 20 anyway. So where is the urgency?

You acknowledge that the alarmists have been discredited by their own alarmist predictions not coming to pass, yet you seem to be still alarmed by the prospect of global warming.

Appreciate you response and not trying to badger you, but curious why you remain alarmed.
 

Los

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
505
Points
28
Location
NH
Good response Los. Although did not address my point that warming has been minor over 150 years and seems to have paused for the last 20 anyway. So where is the urgency?

You acknowledge that the alarmists have been discredited by their own alarmist predictions not coming to pass, yet you seem to be still alarmed by the prospect of global warming.

Appreciate you response and not trying to badger you, but curious why you remain alarmed.

Thanks Tuna. I'll send you a PM. Just trying to heed deadhead's observation....
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
I liken the subject to religion at this point in today's culture. There are no "discussions" just folks wanting to hear themselves talk. Folks believe what they do and only accept facts that support their stance.

The problem is that people like you and a few others like to debate about this despite solely lacking any formal training critical to understanding the science behind it.

Stating that climate models are dramatically wrong (e.g. Tuna and Gomez) simply underline their lack of understanding of the physics of the climate, the decoupled nature of climate models and the real earth, and the role of natural variability in modulating the climate. Climate models CANNOT (and I will repeat it - they CANNOT) perfectly track the earth temperature. The roughly steady-state atmospheric temperatures between 2000-2012 CANNOT be represented by ANY climate model expect by luck (i.e. resulting from roughly in-phase cooling resulting from natural variability).

It's only religion to people like you, BG, Tuna and idiots like Al Gore. It should be about science and only science. But people like you don't want to listen to the scientists. That's fine. You're probably very happy with your 'anti-science' new government.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,955
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
The problem is that people like you and a few others like to debate about this despite solely lacking any formal training critical to understanding the science behind it.

Stating that climate models are dramatically wrong (e.g. Tuna and Gomez) simply underline their lack of understanding of the physics of the climate, the decoupled nature of climate models and the real earth, and the role of natural variability in modulating the climate. Climate models CANNOT (and I will repeat it - they CANNOT) perfectly track the earth temperature. The roughly steady-state atmospheric temperatures between 2000-2012 CANNOT be represented by ANY climate model expect by luck (i.e. resulting from roughly in-phase cooling resulting from natural variability).

It's only religion to people like you, BG, Tuna and idiots like Al Gore. It should be about science and only science. But people like you don't want to listen to the scientists. That's fine. You're probably very happy with your 'anti-science' new government.
Woah buddy

Suggestion: before you start labeling someone "people like you", you might want to get your fact straight about those you are labeling first.

Go ahead and search this forums history from start to finish or anywhere else on the internet and you will not find a single comment by me suggesting I disagree with the science behind global warming concerns. You are way off the mark regarding your interpretation of my beliefs.

My point was quite simple. People are fully divided on this subject and tend to cherry pick only the data to support their particular point of view. It's for that reason that I don't like these debates and don't contribute what I know or believe.



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
Woah buddy

Suggestion: before you start labeling someone "people like you", you might want to get your fact straight about those you are labeling first.

Go ahead and search this forums history from start to finish or anywhere else on the internet and you will not find a single comment by me suggesting I disagree with the science behind global warming concerns. You are way off the mark regarding your interpretation of my beliefs.

My point was quite simple. People are fully divided on this subject and tend to cherry pick only the data to support their particular point of view. It's for that reason that I don't like these debates and don't contribute what I know or believe.

Fair enough. May be I read too much in your post no 5. Blame it on the frickin rainfall of Wednesday and Thursday followed by yet another freeze-up. Makes me mad as hell.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
Surprised that this thread has been allowed to go this far!

If you want to follow global warming more and talk or text like minds then go to Protect Our Winters. Or visit Greenpeace!

As a thread in AZ it always ends up bad and someone will get kicked off. Personally, no one really knows the climate history of this earth and what past trends were like when we were not around.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
If you want to follow global warming more and talk or text like minds then go to Protect Our Winters. Or visit Greenpeace!

Really ? Advocacy groups are never the best source of information.

Personally, no one really knows the climate history of this earth and what past trends were like when we were not around.

Wrong. While there are still lots of unknowns, we know a great deal about climates of the past at many different temporal scales. There are even scientific journals dedicated to this exact topic.
 
Last edited:

bdfreetuna

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
4,300
Points
0
Location
keep the faith
Stating that climate models are dramatically wrong (e.g. Tuna and Gomez) simply underline their lack of understanding of the physics of the climate

In this case it's just comparing model predictions with the reality which then takes place. I may be a simple minded plebeian but graph-lookin' and chart-seein' always came easy to me.

I assume you are eminently qualified on the topic of climate science?
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,170
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
It's only religion to people like you, BG, Tuna and idiots like Al Gore. It should be about science and only science. But people like you don't want to listen to the scientists. That's fine. You're probably very happy with your 'anti-science' new government.

Oh puhlleeeze.... get off your self-righteous, omnipotent, global warming, high-horse.

I have multiple degrees in science and yet you bang on the keyboard here acting as if you're the only person here capable of "understanding" science.

(SEE: my previous post in this thread regarding the "arrogant" Global Warming viewpoint).
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
Oh puhlleeeze.... get off your self-righteous, omnipotent, global warming, high-horse.

I have multiple degrees in science and yet you bang on the keyboard here acting as if you're the only person here capable of "understanding" science.

(SEE: my previous post in this thread regarding the "arrogant" Global Warming viewpoint).

Congratulations on your multiple science degrees. They are clearly not related to climate science or climate modelling.

If calling you out on a topic you clearly don't understand (climate modelling) makes me arrogant, than so be it.
 
Top