Tom no one has ever changed a religious opinion. Galaleo was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day, Columbus was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day. Now it is true that these people may have been wrong about some of the details, after all you cannot know what you don't know. Or can you? Jesus was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day, but he knew a little more than most. Climate scientists claim to know what they don't know, because they think they can predict with accuracy the outcome of adding carbon to the atmosphere and their deciples are absolutely convinced that man can reverse the consequences of his actions. We don't have a very good track record in that regard. Change cannot be revolutionary it must be incremental but climate scientists want revolutionary change. When we say we will do this in the immediate future, something within our capacity perhaps, they say it's not enough and pull another, rabbit, read dire prediction, out of the hat and yet so much of their data and predictions are discredited

My conclusion, climate change is happening, it has been for thousands of years, change is normal and to be expected, perhaps if we have learned this during our short lives we have gained wisdom

meanwhile the EPA is doing what every other Administrator does best under the reign of the emperor ........covering up .

Quote:

---

A congressional committee blasted the Environmental Protection Agency today for blocking release of documents related to the Gold King mine disaster, which poured deadly chemicals into the largest source of drinking water in the West.
“It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the EPA failed to meet the House Science Committee’s reasonable deadline in turning over documents pertaining to the Gold King Mine spill,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). “These documents are essential to the Committee’s ongoing investigation and our upcoming hearing on Sept. 9. But more importantly, this information matters to the many Americans directly affected in western states, who are still waiting for answers from the EPA.”
Smith – who frequently spars with the EPA – is chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. EPA director Gina McCarthy has been asked to appear and answer questions about the agency’s role in creating a 3-million-gallon toxic spill into Colorado’s Animas River on Aug. 5. Critics say McCarthy and the EPA have been unresponsive, secretive and unsympathetic toward millions of people who live in three states bordering the river.
For several days, the EPA didn’t notify the states of Utah, New Mexico or the Navajo Nation that the spill was coming their way. McCarthy waited a week before visiting Colorado and even then she refused to tour Silverton, the town nearest the Gold King mine where EPA contractors unleashed the toxic plume into waterways that feed the Colorado River. The agency withheld the name of the contractor working on the project and other details that are generally considered public information. Lastly, the Navajo Nation, which relies on the river for drinking water and farming, received an emergency supply from the EPA in oil-contaminated containers.

---

EPA withholds mine spill documents from Congress | Fox News



This comes in the wake of suspicions that the spill was deliberate .
Geologist predicted EPA would intentionally pollute Animas River to secure federal funding - NaturalNews.com

You fellows are really paranoid, you see plots in everything

plots and incompetence in government . But yeah let's grow the government because they have such a great track record .

Law enforcement is difficult and considering the weight of legislation you have difficult without resources, every decision taken requires fresh resources to enforce it and we know self regulation doesn't work

Here is something I found that adds a twist to the growing concerns over global warming and how to deal with it. I found it pretty interesting. Who knew ?

Your used coffee grounds could do a lot of good | Fox News

Undoubtedly there are natural resources yet to be discovered, we have been provided with everything we need we just have to uncover it

And just in time for Paris

Scientists worried about cold 'blob' in North Atlantic amid record hot spell

Now we all have a marvelous anomaly to consider. What is the significance of ocean cooling in the north Atlanic. I'll put my money on the great conveyor shutting down, however no one is game to make that prediction yet, they speak of the process of the Gulf Stream slowing. What significance does this have for the rest of us who are affected by the flow of the vast ocean currents of the world. I have been disturbed by the incidence of the terms east coast low and antarctic flow this year which has certainly seen a prolonged period of cold conditions and violent storms, happily much of it has moved offshore. We have an El Nino at the moment and the unusual prediction of rain.

We do indeed need to consider that all our efforts at modifying the climate are too little too late and to put it in a local context the Bureau of Meteorology is accused of massaging the numbers to support the theory of climate change whereas they say they are homogenising the data to give more accurate results. Either way someone is telling lies

We can debate the causes of this climate change but the real issue is have humans evolved enough to make the right adjustments to what is obviously a growing awareness of the power of mother nature, and the effects it has on humans across the globe.

I don't think we can just bury our head in the sand and holler when we get lucky enough to have dodged it's effects on our locale, when others are not so lucky. At some point we have to ACT instead of react after the fact.

Humans lie about everything and anything especially when we have no clue, and we holler HELP when Mother Nature blows our house down. Those that can afford it have insurance, but none of us can hide from Mother Nature when she does what he does. So the question none can answer is what to do about it?

Have humans evolved? What makes you think we are smarter than the Greeks or the Romans or the Chinese or the Moors. Each of these had a culture and great achievements. We cannot decide what to do until we can definatively define the cause of the problem all we can do is build patches. Tal even if we stopped all emissions today we would not have the desired effect for centuries, we may even be beyond the tipping point and if that is so we will see the onset of another ice age and Mother Nature will do what we refuse to do, control our population and our activities. I think we might need those coal mines

I haven't dodged the effects in my locale, an east coast low is a terrifying experience, feet of rain and hail and they are certainly becoming more prevalent but not one single thing can I do to prevent it. My nation says we will reduce emissions by 25% but we won't do it by cap and trade and we are criticised yet China will be allowed to continue to pollute for decades let us just all stand by and see the march of the windmills across the land and say this is better

Of course we have evolved if we can speak without waiting months for a pigeon to find us and as we find new problems we find better ways to deal with them.

Some evolve quicker than others and some need more convincing. Evolution is an ongoing process.

My glass is half full what about yours?

That's not evolution it is just development. Physically we are the same and if you took the middle east as an example we have learned nothing. We are bigger because there is greater food resource but we are not smarter, in fact people used to do wonders with almost nothing.

My glass is full it is just the contents that are suspect, if we survive our own averice we will emerge with something worthwhile. We have perhaps 6,000 years of recorded history and yet we have the audacity to think we can order circumstance, another thousand years of this and we will have exhausted many resources, with a population of perhaps 2,000,000 we might have achieved sustainability but right now we are an out of control virus. Our real problem is we have outdone natural selection and the brightest and fitest live along side those who don't contribute, this is a problem we have to solve

Quote:

---

Barack Obama says that 97 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. That’s just a lie (or a very ignorant remark): as I point out above, there is no consensus that it’s dangerous.

---

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/201...-done-science/


Some reason has been injected into the climate change debate it seems there are like myself some people who are willing to agree that climate change is happening but the effects may not be catastrophic but the scientific communty doesn't agree, that is they are hiding behind their consensus

Quote:

---

These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

Interesting and basically accords with my view, which is something is happening, man might be contributing and the effects may not be catastrophic. I have said for a long time the data is flawed but Cruz is wrong in saying satellite data doesn't show some warming, it does, but a much lower level than the so called consensus. Come back to what I have said many times, even if we stopped all carbon emissions immediately, the change would continue because we don't have the technology to make large scale changes in the global weather systems. My view further goes to say if there is an emissions problem it is one cause by the northern hemisphere economies and they have the responsibility to fix the problem, anything we do won't make any difference at all because it is within the perimeters of a statistical error. By the way this isn't to say we have not acted responsibly, we have not built a coal fired power station in many years and have even taken some out of service

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

My view further goes to say if there is an emissions problem it is one cause by the northern hemisphere economies and they have the responsibility to fix the problem, anything we do won't make any difference at all because it is within the perimeters of a statistical error. By the way this isn't to say we have not acted responsibly, we have not built a coal fired power station in many years and have even taken some out of service

---

yawn . You drank the kool aid too.

Funny how it was warm enough that grapes grew in England and Greenland in the Middle ages. The world didn't end... and the normal cycle continued. Wasn't people that did it then and its not people doing it now.

Not all weather patterns are annual....or even a few years, some are centuries in duration, others thousands of years.

No Tom I recognise that things are changing, it is very obvious that seasons are different, like we have an el nino with rain, I'm still out on the reasons a change is happening because we should not be using computer models to make long term decisions, computer models are opinion, not science and we all have opinions. We cannot forget that there are finite resources and we still have to be looking at solutions to future problems before they overtake us. Not so long ago we were discussing peak oil and a new ice age.

yes, patterns can be long term and there are factors they have to take into account such as volcanic activity which can cause both short term and long term problems. What I would like to know and noone can tell me, what is the norm

Antarctic sea ice maximum at 'normal' level for first time in three years - Science - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Or is it, Antarctic sea ice is normal. I'm somewhat unsure of what this means but I don't think it means a significantly shrinking ice cap even though the ice cap covers a smaller area than last year. I know it has meant some colder periods than usual in recent months around here as apparently the maximum was reached almost three weeks later this year. I'm wondering how this data feeds into measurment of the mean average temperature which is allegedly suggestive of warming. Does it mean that the ice was slow growing and thus indicative of higher temperature, or does it mean it was colder for longer. It would be interesting to know what the calculated volume of the ice is from year to year and how much reference is made to measurements in Antarctica in calculating the average. Perhaps data from Antartica is smoothed

Quote:

---

Despite receiving a subpoena from the House of Representatives, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) continues to defy the summons to explain itself regarding a controversial climate study it had released back in June.
An aide to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology said the NOAA has refused to provide documents related to a report that suggested there has been no reduction in global warming rates, as was initially thought.

---

NOAA Scientists Refuse To Comply With House Science Committee Subpoena : SCIENCE : Tech Times

What have they got to hide ? that they are a complete fraud ?