All Things Environment

[a fan]

One my my favorite things about your Global Warming rants, runrussellrun, is that you see through the Bullcrackers that is LEED.

It's a Money grab. And does nothing to fix the problem.

And yes, I asked about harvest. These plants don't need as much time between planting and harvest...because their environment is warmer, which speeds the germination process.


I can't cite your often funny jabs at other posters-------Laxpower is gone.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I do. I know over a dozen farmers that fit this description. ALL use the USDA/Burpee planting zone chart. NONE are planting earlier (by weeks ) Please tell us the farmers that YOU know that are planting WEEKS earlier.

I didn't ask you about planting. I asked about harvest----every farmer I know in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Germany, France, Bulgaria and more.... are harvesting grains, fruits and botanicals earlier than they were 20-30 years ago. This is worrisome.

Did YOU ask about harvesting? (net moving again ) I will check your words.

But, why is it worrisome that they harvest crops earlier, explain that one to me.

Regarding bashing......show me ONCE....where I have bashed the opinion of a laxthreader? Attacking their intelligence or educaton. Just one ping Vissily.

You bet I bash the links and claims. And will respect ANY scientist that doesn't come at the collective you and me and pigeon hole question askers as deniers. THat spew the "science is $ettled".

"A disgrace to the Profession" a compilation by Mark Steyn is an easy read. I can mail it to you.

"Merchants of doubt" Oreskes/Conway has also been read and discussed.

Peer review icon_puke Why is it the beer advocate's top 50 beers, one brewing company makes up 98%. Like the scientists who agree. Most aren't scientists.

How is the FOI lawsuit between Mann and Steyn going?

exactly

These guys aren’t harvesting earlier. Just ask the Lakota or Sioux when they were harvesting. It changes from time to time. No big deal. The crops don’t know anything about climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... te-change/

The guys that believe Monsanto and Cargill are the smart farmers.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We have no impact. These people are bought and paid for to come up with this fake science.

[RedFromMI]

We have no impact. These people are bought and paid for to come up with this fake science.

Bull - I have been teaching astronomy at the college level for over a quarter century. The video you embedded is absolutely accepted science - even by any climate denier who actually knows science. The argument over climate change is _NOT_ about what is in this video - it is over whether humankind's large use of fossil fuels will push the CO2 levels high enough to cause significant change, or whether there is some sort of natural feedback loop yet undetected that will keep larger change from happening. There is nothing fake about the greenhouse effect.

BTW, a really well thought out explanation that is easy to understand for someone with a modicum of knowledge...

[Typical Lax Dad]

We have no impact. These people are bought and paid for to come up with this fake science.

Bull - I have been teaching astronomy at the college level for over a quarter century. The video you embedded is absolutely accepted science - even by any climate denier who actually knows science. The argument over climate change is _NOT_ about what is in this video - it is over whether humankind's large use of fossil fuels will push the CO2 levels high enough to cause significant change, or whether there is some sort of natural feedback loop yet undetected that will keep larger change from happening. There is nothing fake about the greenhouse effect.

BTW, a really well thought out explanation that is easy to understand for someone with a modicum of knowledge...

There is no sarcasm font....I have been to many post “defense” parties....

[HooDat]

One my my favorite things about your Global Warming rants, runrussellrun, is that you see through the Bullcrackers that is LEED.

It's a Money grab. And does nothing to fix the problem.

I would say it exacerbates the problem. The climate change camp is full of money-grabbing crooks and it damages the credible parts of the message.

The common sense stuff that isn't a money grab would be far better received if the other noise weren't part of the same message.

Clean up after ouselves = don't create BS programs that serve no other purpose than line lobbyists pockets (like ethanol, and solar, and wind)....

Improve our infrastructure so what we need less energy to move goods and people.

Clean our waterways

Improve recycling technologies

[MDlaxfan76]

We have no impact. These people are bought and paid for to come up with this fake science.

Bull - I have been teaching astronomy at the college level for over a quarter century. The video you embedded is absolutely accepted science - even by any climate denier who actually knows science. The argument over climate change is _NOT_ about what is in this video - it is over whether humankind's large use of fossil fuels will push the CO2 levels high enough to cause significant change, or whether there is some sort of natural feedback loop yet undetected that will keep larger change from happening. There is nothing fake about the greenhouse effect.

BTW, a really well thought out explanation that is easy to understand for someone with a modicum of knowledge...

There is no sarcasm font....I have been to many post “defense” parties....

Red, you will find that TLD is often being highly sarcastic, mimicking the knuckleheads who would say dumb things like what he's posted (on all sorts of topics).
We really do need some sort of sarcasm emoji.

[jhu72]

This is where the cynical side of me comes into play... these same scientists had 2 space shuttles blow up in their face... one at launch... one on re-entry. It ain't as easy as we think it should be. That doesn't mean we should not do it. It means that there will be painful mistakes along the way. Anybody like me that watched Challenger blow up on live TV understands the complications and the risks.

Right. They aren't perfect. And your skepticism is warranted.

That skepticism is addressed by working on things that have other primary benefits: the energy efficient homes and factories I mentioned. Address directly reducing CO2 last. Focus on infrastructure, both private and public, that we know makes people, companies and governments, better and more financially efficient. Doing these things inherently reduces greenhouse gas emission exponentially as a secondary effect.

If we do that, and only that? The problem will be fixed, and we won't have to do stupid things like carbon taxes or "cap and trade'. That stuff costs money and fixes nothing.

We're in the same camp, old bean. Your skepticism makes us focus on the right fixes, and ignores the silly stuff that does nothing but lines the pockets of Al Gore and his kind.

Clean the Chesapeake, as runrussellrun suggests, and bring the oyster beds and recreation back. Look for ROI !

I see your point but addressing CO2 last is not smart. CO2 once it is in the atmosphere is very difficult to remove, it remains for a very very long time, and needless to say expensive. Your plan will leave us with a beautiful much warmer planet.

[jhu72]

We have no impact. These people are bought and paid for to come up with this fake science.

Bull - I have been teaching astronomy at the college level for over a quarter century. The video you embedded is absolutely accepted science - even by any climate denier who actually knows science. The argument over climate change is _NOT_ about what is in this video - it is over whether humankind's large use of fossil fuels will push the CO2 levels high enough to cause significant change, or whether there is some sort of natural feedback loop yet undetected that will keep larger change from happening. There is nothing fake about the greenhouse effect.

BTW, a really well thought out explanation that is easy to understand for someone with a modicum of knowledge...

TLD is pulling everyone's chain.

There is no argument you can make to educate some of these folks. I have stopped trying. It makes no difference, they are proud of their ignorance, and fortunately their opinions do not matter. Those who can make a difference in the world are already on board. Even our know nothing fake president, is little more than an annoyance in this regard, over the long haul.

*Edited to correct spelling error.

[cradleandshoot]

There is no argument you can make to educate some of these folks.

That will never happen when the folks in question understand the difference between educate and indoctrinate. When the education begins with … "the science is settled" you are not being educated you are being indoctrinated. Nice try 72... I hope you have some better tools in that tool box of yours. They are rusty, unusable and in need of a lot of WD 40... I am still all ears if you can tell us how we save the planet. Does Consensus save the planet or does science save the planet?

Here is some education from Dr Spencer... his words speak volumes here. That is if you can sort through all the sheepdip being presented beforehand.

"Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved."


Saving the planet my arse… as always it is nothing more than follow the money. Isn't that what it always boils down to... Al Gore has already proven that fact.

[Typical Lax Dad]

There is no argument you can make to educate some of these folks.

That will never happen when the folks in question understand the difference between educate and indoctrinate. When the education begins with … "the science is settled" you are not being educated you are being indoctrinated. Nice try 72... I hope you have some better tools in that tool box of yours. They are rusty, unusable and in need of a lot of WD 40... I am still all ears if you can tell us how we save the planet. Does Consensus save the planet or does science save the planet?

Here is some education from Dr Spencer... his words speak volumes here. That is if you can sort through all the sheepdip being presented beforehand.

"Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved."


Saving the planet my arse… as always it is nothing more than follow the money. Isn't that what it always boils down to... Al Gore has already proven that fact.

Who said the “science is settled”....Obama....nobody is trying to “save the planet”. Read the government report. It’s clear what needs to be “saved”.

[cradleandshoot]

For goodness sakes TLD... the mantra for years has been to tell us ignorant peons that the science is settled. What the heck did you just crawl out from under a rock some place and never got the message... http://time.com/4308518/climate-change-settled-science/ This is what the chicken little brigade is preaching... STFU all you deniers... we are right... you are wrong. It is articles such as this that makes we want to tell all you chicken little members to go and eff yourselves. There is nothing settled on this issue. Despite what a certain member of our little club wants to tell everyone... nobody effing knows or can predict what our planet will do. There is no PhD, Masters degree, BS degree person out there on this planet that knows what the future holds. bang1

[Typical Lax Dad]

For goodness sakes TLD... the mantra for years has been to tell us ignorant peons that the science is settled. What the heck did you just crawl out from under a rock some place and never got the message...

Ok. I just wanted to know where you were getting your messaging. Just because a person doesn't understand the model, it doesn't make them a peon. Correct me if I am wrong but your position is that man has no impact on the climate and even if we did nobody can predict what the planet will look like in 100 years....or something close to that?

Do you believe the science behind the greenhouse gas effect is flawed?

[cradleandshoot]

For goodness sakes TLD... the mantra for years has been to tell us ignorant peons that the science is settled. What the heck did you just crawl out from under a rock some place and never got the message...

Ok. I just wanted to know where you were getting your messaging. Just because a person doesn't understand the model, it doesn't make them a peon. Correct me if I am wrong but your position is that man has no impact on the climate and even if we did nobody can predict what the planet will look like in 100 years....or something close to that?

Do you believe the science behind the greenhouse gas effect is flawed?

You really need to listen to some of the things Dr Spencer has been saying. For your sake I will post it one more time...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-w ... r-dummies/ Read them again... one through nineteen and read his conclusions. I guess you are a believer in consencus and not what is right or wrong. Knock yourself out. I have enough ingrained common sense to know Buffalo Bagels when it is put in front of me. I am smart enough to know that we can't change what our planet will do. If you can give me a detailed plan how that is done... i have inquired about this more than a few times. I will be glad to listen to the TLD plan for reversing gplobal warming. Short of that I will gladly lump you into the group of vocal critics who can't simply define in logical terms how you save the planet? You all are great about bitching about it but are sorely lacking in the solutions department. Unless of course eliminating the internal combustion engine is step #1 to saving the planet.

[Typical Lax Dad]

For goodness sakes TLD... the mantra for years has been to tell us ignorant peons that the science is settled. What the heck did you just crawl out from under a rock some place and never got the message...

Ok. I just wanted to know where you were getting your messaging. Just because a person doesn't understand the model, it doesn't make them a peon. Correct me if I am wrong but your position is that man has no impact on the climate and even if we did nobody can predict what the planet will look like in 100 years....or something close to that?

Do you believe the science behind the greenhouse gas effect is flawed?

You really need to listen to some of the things Dr Spencer has been saying. For your sake I will post it one more time...

If he posted here, I would ask him. I asked YOU what do YOU believe.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You are worried about someone making money because of the climate change debate....I know one person for sure that is capitalizing on the debate: There is a sucker born every minute

[jhu72]

News flash for C&S and Roy Spencer -- things work the same way today as they have for hundreds of years in SCIENCE -- nothing has changed but for the fact that clowns like Spencer can convince people like C&S that he, Spencer, is the real scientist. Spencer plays the poor me, those other "fake scientists", won't let me in the club with my BS theories, they persecute me, game.

You want your theory, your explanation to be accepted, show your data, show your calculations and lets see if some one else can reproduce your results. No one has reproduced Spencer's results -- NOT EVEN HIS OWN EXPERIMENT PRIMARY COLABORATOR agrees with his "claim to fame" results. The scientific community has pointed out to him the reason his results are wrong, in detail, multiple times. We have been over this before, this is not new.

Spencer is wrong and he no longer pushes his BS theory in the scientific community - he spends his time selling it to non-scientists and agenda driven faux news media.

[Typical Lax Dad]

News flash for C&S and Roy Spencer -- things work the same way today as they have for hundreds of years in SCIENCE -- nothing has changed but for the fact that clowns like Spencer can convince people like C&S that he, Spencer, is the real scientist. Spencer plays the poor me, those other "fake scientists", won't let me in the club with my BS theories, they persecute me, game.

You want your theory, your explanation to be accepted, show your data, show your calculations and lets see if some one else can reproduce your results. No one has reproduced Spencer's results -- NOT EVEN HIS OWN EXPERIMENT PRIMARY COLABORATOR agrees with his "claim to fame" results. The scientific community has pointed out to him the reason his results are wrong, in detail, multiple times. We have been over this before, this is not new.

Spencer is wrong and he no longer pushes his BS theory in the scientific community - he spends his time selling it to non-scientists and agenda driven faux news media.

And making a buck.

[jhu72]

Al Gore think alike.

[Trinity]

David Attenborough warns of the extinction of the natural world. Stable Genius doesn’t buy it. Saudis First.