What are your thoughts on global warming?

[Mucky_Waters]

One thing I would say after noticing his bookcase behind him I wouldn't want to hire him as a carpenter!

LOL I found that kind of distracting too. I kept wondering if it was suppose to be like that or the shelf collapsed just before he did his interview an he didn't have time to fix it.
Oh well, I guess we have bigger problems to worry about than sloping bookshelves, what with the Earth turning into a piece of toast. ,,, or is it a Popsicle???

I remember many years ago reading a bumper sticker on a car in the Philippines when the whole global warming theory was just gaining momentum. I think it stuck in my mind because I found it kind of humorous.
The Bumper sticker said:
How do you like your environment, Regular or Extra Crispy?

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Burt Rutan as far as I can see has nothing to gain. The same goes for most of the deniers but not the alarmists.

And what has NOAA/NASA to gain?

 

[Meyer Jordan]

If you look at the US national debt, and who actually holds that debt...........well, the Chinese are the de-facto landlords of the good old US of A. Few Americans realize that and are able to grasp the concept.

Actually 67.5% of the national debt is held by U.S. citizens and domestic investors, international investors only hold 32.5% China and Japan being the largest foreign investors holding about 7% each.
We are our own landlords.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

And what has NOAA/NASA to gain?

Meyer, you are too intelligent to not know what they have to gain.
Just in case you are not kidding I will give you another hint.... It's the thing that keeps them operating. Without it there would be no NOAA or NASA.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

As for Burt Rutan, it is possible he also has something to gain from expressing his views. Perhaps he is getting some under the table funding we don't know about, but I don't know where that would be coming from???

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Meyer, you are too intelligent to not know what they have to gain.
Just in case you are not kidding I will give you another hint.... It's the thing that keeps them operating. Without it there would be no NOAA or NASA.

Maybe I am not that intelligent. I see no reason that NOAA would have to participate in a global hoax.
They are an agency of the Federal government that has not needed to create any justification for its existence since its creation in 1970 (almost 50 years). It is under no threat of being abolished or underfunded. So to infer that it would promote or need to promote a hoax is ludicrous.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Maybe I am not that intelligent. I see no reason that NOAA would have to participate in a global hoax.
They are an agency of the Federal government that has not needed to create any justification for its existence since its creation in 1970 (almost 50 years). It is under no threat of being abolished or underfunded. So to infer that it would promote or need to promote a hoax is ludicrous.

Doubtful they will ever simply be abolished, but if these organizations can create a perceived threat or interest for their particular expertise their funding and job security goes up. That is a fact. Doesn't have to be a out and out "hoax", but if slanting the data in a particular direction creates a bigger buzz and generates more public interest and funding don't you think it's human nature for people (eg; NASA, NOAA scientists, employees, etc...) to do that?
I don't now much about NOAA, but I know NASA goes to a lot of effort banging it's own drum trying to increase it's own government funding. I'm sure if they could they'd like to start another space race and get their funding up to what it use to be back in the mid 60s.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Doubtful they will ever simply be abolished, but if these organizations can create a perceived threat or interest for their particular expertise their funding and job security goes up. That is a fact. Doesn't have to be a out and out "hoax", but if slanting the data in a particular direction creates a bigger buzz and generates more public interest and funding don't you think it's human nature for people (eg; NASA, NOAA scientists, employees, etc...) to do that?
I don't now much about NOAA, but I know NASA goes to a lot of effort banging it's own drum trying to increase it's own government funding. I'm sure if they could they'd like to start another space race and get their funding up to what it use to be back in the mid 60s.

Since NASA has little to do with climatology.discussion of them can be postponed to another day and thread. NOAA, however, already has its plate full.and justifies its funding without the need of fabricating a budgetary need.
The idea of climate change/global warming has been around for quite a long time. For the sake of this particular topic of discussion lets assume that it began being considered in earnest in 1988 when the U.N. formed the IPCC (International Panel on Climate change). This is 28 years ago. As you can see from the chart posted below, if NOAA has been perpetuating a hoax to gain budgetary increases they have failed miserably. If no gain has been realized, I would seriously doubt that NOAA is going to continue devoting resources to something that is not true. It also follows that if Congress believed that NOAA was perpetuating a hoax, they would not hesitate to slash the budget. So, evidently Congress, as a whole, believes that there is some merit in the global warming/climate change claims.

 

[morewater]

Actually 67.5% of the national debt is held by U.S. citizens and domestic investors, international investors only hold 32.5% China and Japan being the largest foreign investors holding about 7% each.
We are our own landlords.

What a relief, only a third of your debt is offshore.

Let the nonetary wars begin (Trump meeting with Taiwan, the Phillipines now being China's new "best friend", deterioration of the Yen).

Confucius say "May you live in interesting times" (or was that Mao, General Tso or Col. Sanders)?

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Since NASA has little to do with climatology.discussion of them can be postponed to another day and thread. NOAA, however, already has its plate full.and justifies its funding without the need of fabricating a budgetary need.
The idea of climate change/global warming has been around for quite a long time. For the sake of this particular topic of discussion lets assume that it began being considered in earnest in 1988 when the U.N. formed the IPCC (International Panel on Climate change). This is 28 years ago. As you can see from the chart posted below, if NOAA has been perpetuating a hoax to gain budgetary increases they have failed miserably. If no gain has been realized, I would seriously doubt that NOAA is going to continue devoting resources to something that is not true. It also follows that if Congress believed that NOAA was perpetuating a hoax, they would not hesitate to slash the budget. So, evidently Congress, as a whole, believes that there is some merit in the global warming/climate change claims.
View attachment 96355

http://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/history/

 

[MitchM]

Actually 67.5% of the national debt is held by U.S. citizens and domestic investors, international investors only hold 32.5% China and Japan being the largest foreign investors holding about 7% each.
We are our own landlords.

Even though the majority of debt is domestic, the creditors are still due interest on that debt.
The fed can't raise interest rates too much because the American economy can't afford the payments.

Trump floated the idea of writing off some of that debt and was heavily criticized for the thought.
Reality will catch up with people sooner or later.

.

 

[mgmine]

And what has NOAA/NASA to gain?

Here is the point that I took away from the video (did you watch it?) He doesn't say that the earth isn't warming and he doesn't say that man isn't causing part of it. What he is saying is that what this means to the earth isn't being presented accurately. Using the same data that the climatologists use (without scaling it to show an absurd swing) he lays out a good argument.He, like so many other people are simply dismissed. Why is that?

 

[sissy]

I have not seen any of the government offices saving money on there buildings .I notice it here they still use the old fashioned bulbs (not even CFL )and yet Danville utilities keep saying we need to cut back . In the city they have street lights and outside lights on all the buildings to show them off .They don't even cut back on water usage and they are on city water and others in Danville have brown lawns the city buildings are nice and green .Sprinklers are on and water running into the street .Government offices are wasteful places

 

[mgmine]

if NOAA has been perpetuating a hoax to gain budgetary increases they have failed miserably. .... It also follows that if Congress believed that NOAA was perpetuating a hoax, they would not hesitate to slash the budget. So, evidently Congress, as a whole, believes that there is some merit in the global warming/climate change claims.
View attachment 96355

First off hoax is the wrong word. Deception might be a better way to describe it. I will tell you this and the data will back me up. Within the next 6 months the temperature in a great part of the United States and Canada will double. Does that sound like a good thing? To a child in school that is told that, it probably would be upsetting. It's all in the details and that's where the rub comes in. Congress is no different than the rest of the population. They only have whatever information is given to them and that they are willing to listen to, to base their decisions on. If you are constantly told something and no one refutes it then you will believe it. Do you think for one moment that all of the members of congress would sit down together and listen to a view that they didn't agree with? Then have meetings to talk about what they heard?

 

[mgmine]

What a relief, only a third of your debt is offshore.

Let the nonetary wars begin (Trump meeting with Taiwan, the Phillipines now being China's new "best friend", deterioration of the Yen).

Confucius say "May you live in interesting times" (or was that Mao, General Tso or Col. Sanders)?

As Trump has pointed out we spent 6 trillion dollars in places like Iraq hopefully he can put an end to the spending like that.