NT - How uninformed has our nation become??

[Jack from Ohio]

From our natural gas company....

Long, cold winter to impact April bills

Winter weather hung on longer than expected. In fact, March was 20% colder than normal and 145% colder than March 2012. As such, your April natural gas bill, which reflects March consumption, will likely be higher than normal - due to the fact that for most, the furnace was on all month long. Please keep this increased usage due to weather in mind as you open your bill this month. Plus, January and February were 11% and 1% warmer than normal, respectively.

More importantly, if you have found yourself behind on payments and/or need assistance, call us today at 1-800-XXX-XXXX. Or go to our website to access our online chat service, which is typically live during normal business hours.

• You can request a payment arrangement, which allows you to pay your bill in smaller increments over an extended period of time - this service is free with no interest charges.
• Or, we have second chance options for those who have previously broken payment arrangements.

[Richcpaman]

Are you still shoveling all that "global warming" stuff?

Or has most of it melted?

Rich

[Jack from Ohio]

Supposed to be some more snow showers here this weekend.

[jklcpa]

Supposed to be some more snow showers here this weekend.

Aren't parts of OH getting horribly strong storms tonight with tornado watches?

It was very warm here today, supposed to be 80 tomorrow and then cooling back down. It was almost too hot, and last week with the cold and the strong winds I couldn't get warm.

[Jack from Ohio]

Aren't parts of OH getting horribly strong storms tonight with tornado watches?

It was very warm here today, supposed to be 80 tomorrow and then cooling back down. It was almost too hot, and last week with the cold and the strong winds I couldn't get warm.

Yes on the strong storms tonight and tomorrow. By Saturday, cold again and the possibility of snow.

The groundhog was lynched today!!

[SCL]

and then...

there is the recent report from noaa that 2012 average temps in n america/usa was the highest in "recorded" history (and 8 out of ten in the last 25 years since around 1880).

before any of you spew "what about before or after 1880", take the time to review scientific climate history...there is 700000 years of evidence in greenland and antarctica ice cores (plus several million years of evidence in pacific and atlantic ocean sediment cores) that the earth is warming beyond any prior "natural" climatic cycles.

[Jack from Ohio]

and then...

there is the recent report from noaa that 2012 average temps in n america/usa was the highest in "recorded" history (and 8 out of ten in the last 25 years since around 1880).

before any of you spew "what about before or after 1880", take the time to review scientific climate history...there is 700000 years of evidence in greenland and antarctica ice cores (plus several million years of evidence in pacific and atlantic ocean sediment cores) that the earth is warming beyond any prior "natural" climatic cycles.

All based on conjecture and not on hard evidence.

[dominoes]

It doesn't take 700,000 year old ice cores to prove something is happening to the environment. A couple summers ago the Northwest Passage through the Arctic opened for the first time in recorded history. It all melted. Does that mean Santa needs scuba gear? Iceland? Not so much anymore. Greenland? Yeah, more green. Glacier National Park? Go see it soon. It's disappearing rapidly.

[Jack from Ohio]

Where is the proof that man has had ANYTHING to do with the earth warming. The last Ice age was thousands of years ago, long before the industrial revolution, and the earth has been warming ever since. The earth's climate has changed many times in recorded history, but any thinking that man has caused it is pure speculation and hyperbole.

[Catherine]

This was my degree -- Earth Sciences.

One of the first (and HARDEST) lessons for people to learn is that the entire length of human experience is the length of a gnat's life in the entirety of this history of this planet. At this latitude where I sit, right now, there was once a full MILE of ice thickness. Before that - tropical. Before that -- another mile of ice. Tropical. Ice. Temperate. Ice. Tropical. Ice. On and on and on the cycle goes for billions of years. Human recorded history barely goes back 6,000-ish. With _good_ records -- well, one could say maybe 150. However, there has been enough data falsification -- and enough just piss-poor data collection technique -- to make that suspect.

One of the reasons I got into earth science was a book that came out in the 70's, by Carlo Ponti -- about "The Coming Ice Age" (out of print but still available in libraries -- I got it a few years ago and re-read it on purpose).

If you read Ponti's book, you will see that he proposes many of the SAME solutions to the "ice age" danger as the global warming people do -- more and more government control - of population, of crop locations, of farming techniques, overall global governance (sometimes called "cooperation")... and this also shows why the main thrust of global warming frenzy has come from POLITICIANS and not scientists.

"The science is settled!!" -- balderdash. Science is NEVER settled. Certainly not something with as many variables as climate. Anyone remember the articles about the "butterfly effect"? -- Go look 'em up; as THOSE are true. Tiny changes in starting conditions make HUGE changes in projections, even when the models are accurate. There are NO climate models accurate to the required level for the data they are using and the minutiae they are projecting. NONE. And I am a wee bit more able to assess those models than probably anyone else here on this forum.

On top of all this, the data the warming folks are using has been FALSIFIED. There is a wonderful, roughly one hour long, presentation by Lord Monckton, (available on YouTube) showing just what has been done to the data. Go watch, and then draw your own conclusions.

Also look into the history of the Chicago Climate Exchange -- see who were the early investors, see how many BILLIONS they stood to make trading carbon credits. Compare the list with those screaming loudest about global warming and the need to limit carbon emissions. (Hint: look for a former VP's name.)

And for the CO2 being SO!!! high -- nope. It's been way higher, and not "just" in dinosaur days. Plus it is a TRAILING indicator, not a leading indicator.

[JJStephens]

I'm fascinated by both sides of the debate (both here and on the larger stage) . . . but my guess is that no one's mind has changed.

It kind of reminds of the 'does God exist?' debate. The bottom line is that both sides must either believe or doubt by the same thing: faith.

[Jack from Ohio]

This was my degree -- Earth Sciences.

One of the first (and HARDEST) lessons for people to learn is that the entire length of human experience is the length of a gnat's life in the entirety of this history of this planet. At this latitude where I sit, right now, there was once a full MILE of ice thickness. Before that - tropical. Before that -- another mile of ice. Tropical. Ice. Temperate. Ice. Tropical. Ice. On and on and on the cycle goes for billions of years. Human recorded history barely goes back 6,000-ish. With _good_ records -- well, one could say maybe 150. However, there has been enough data falsification -- and enough just piss-poor data collection technique -- to make that suspect.

One of the reasons I got into earth science was a book that came out in the 70's, by Carlo Ponti -- about "The Coming Ice Age" (out of print but still available in libraries -- I got it a few years ago and re-read it on purpose).

If you read Ponti's book, you will see that he proposes many of the SAME solutions to the "ice age" danger as the global warming people do -- more and more government control - of population, of crop locations, of farming techniques, overall global governance (sometimes called "cooperation")... and this also shows why the main thrust of global warming frenzy has come from POLITICIANS and not scientists.

"The science is settled!!" -- balderdash. Science is NEVER settled. Certainly not something with as many variables as climate. Anyone remember the articles about the "butterfly effect"? -- Go look 'em up; as THOSE are true. Tiny changes in starting conditions make HUGE changes in projections, even when the models are accurate. There are NO climate models accurate to the required level for the data they are using and the minutiae they are projecting. NONE. And I am a wee bit more able to assess those models than probably anyone else here on this forum.

On top of all this, the data the warming folks are using has been FALSIFIED. There is a wonderful, roughly one hour long, presentation by Lord Monckton, (available on YouTube) showing just what has been done to the data. Go watch, and then draw your own conclusions.

Also look into the history of the Chicago Climate Exchange -- see who were the early investors, see how many BILLIONS they stood to make trading carbon credits. Compare the list with those screaming loudest about global warming and the need to limit carbon emissions. (Hint: look for a former VP's name.)

And for the CO2 being SO!!! high -- nope. It's been way higher, and not "just" in dinosaur days. Plus it is a TRAILING indicator, not a leading indicator.

Why bring facts and logic into a discussion about a very politicised issue? I love your sense of common!!

[kcjenkins]

Cat, I love your post. But you know the facts will have no effect on the "believers" You can point out the evidence of tropical plants in Canada in ages past, etc, and they will just ignore it as if you did not say it.. They WANT to believe that if we just change how we behave, we can change eons of climate change overnight. That sort of illogic just can not be penetrated

[Catherine]

Cat, I love your post. But you know the facts will have no effect on the "believers" You can point out the evidence of tropical plants in Canada in ages past, etc, and they will just ignore it as if you did not say it.. They WANT to believe that if we just change how we behave, we can change eons of climate change overnight. That sort of illogic just can not be penetrated

Yet, "silence gives assent" and I will not give assent. I thought there may well be something to "global warming" -- years ago, until I did my OWN investigation and concluded it was hokum for political purposes.

There may also be those who read the emotion-laden and fact-poor tirades who will be swayed if there is no rebuttal.

Or perhaps I just have a compulsion for tilting at windmills. On the bright side, the US Constitution study group I started four years ago has grown from 3 people per month (including me) to over three dozen (and not the same folks every month). So some windmill-tilting has an effect.

Thanks, KC

[kcjenkins]

You are right, of course. We have to keep answering their rants, even though we know we won't penetrate THEIR ignorance, we may be able to dilute their influence on those uninformed listeners/readers who are not hearing the contrary facts from the mainstream media. So keep on doing it on BOTH issues. The ignorance on the Constitution is as bad as the ignorance on 'climate change'. Maybe worse, because at least their own common sense will make the average person question the sort of idiocy Gore was pushing, just be looking around at the real world. But most young people today have not even been exposed to anything about our Constitution.

[kcjenkins]

New science standards for the Nation’s public schools aim to put the Global Warming agenda at the center of all science curricula,progressively building upon a foundation of global warming indoctrination through every year of a child’s K-12 education.

[Catherine]

Ever more reasons to homeschool.

[kcjenkins]

Oops, almost posted a link, Tom.

Former NASA Scientists Challenge Government Narrative On Global Warming

April 19, 2013 by Ben Bullard

PHOTOS.COM

A new study group composed of former NASA scientists is challenging the mainstream narrative on the validity of global warming.

About 20 scientists, most of them former members of the U.S. space program’s Apollo Team (the team that put America on the moon) organized The Right Climate Stuff research team last year to re-examine the belief that human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creating a global warming crisis.

The team invited a number of scientists both for and against the conventionally accepted theory of global warming to study the issue, but stipulated that all presentations had to be backed by data.

A year later, the team has come out with a sort of progress report that indicates the way it’s leaning so far. The report makes six assertions:

1. The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not settled science.
2. There is no convincing physical evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming; most of the alarm results from output of unvalidated computer models.
3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making. “Our manned aerospace backgrounds in dealing with models of complex phenomena have convinced us that this rule must be followed to avoid decisions with serious unintended consequences.”
4. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, scientists have time to study global climate changes and improve prediction accuracy.
5. The U.S. government is overreacting to concerns about anthropogenic global warming. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be beneficial for forest and crop growth to support the Earth’s growing population, so control of carbon dioxide emissions is not an obvious best solution to hyped-up concerns regarding anthropogenic global warming.
6. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause.

The findings aren’t unique among scientists who dissent from the mainstream take on global warming. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change organized in the early 2000s as a research team united by a lack of a standing agenda on environmental policy.

“Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the [u.N.-backed] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignores,” explains the group’s website. “Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.”

[Catherine]

Lord Monckton in St. Paul a couple years ago -- fabulous. Just fabulous.

http://youtu.be/4zOXmJ4jd-8

[Jack from Ohio]

Catherine,

How dare you bring facts and reality into a political discussion!!!

[kcjenkins]

That is exactly what is wrong, Jack. This SHOULD be a scientific discussion, not a political one. Yet it has become primarily a political debate, based on mostly incomplete and sometimes outright false data.

[Jack from Ohio]

That is exactly what is wrong, Jack. This SHOULD be a scientific discussion, not a political one. Yet it has become primarily a political debate, based on mostly incomplete and sometimes outright false data.

Too many low information voters think politicians have knowledge about the things they talk about and legislate. In the past 40 years, I have seen no evidence to support the idea that politicians have ANY factual and scientific knowledge about the things they legislate.

Most Americans cannot discern between made up political information and scientific facts and realities. Our education system has failed to teach students any of the skills needed to be able to discern this for 3 generations now.

Man-Made global warming is the 30 year version of Y2K.

Rant over....

[kcjenkins]

Totally agree, Jack. Our kids are NOT being taught 'critical thinking' at all in school today. All parents and grandparents need to teach this vital lesson to their kids at home. It is essential if they are going to grow into competent voters and consumers, and if you do not give them lessons in it, they will never even realize how they are being manipulated by both business advertising and by politicians. There are some good sources available to help you get started. Just a teaser to think about: [No links, Tom]

Underlying Strategies

(The three underlying strategies are “Reflection, Reasons, Alternatives” (RRA):

1. Urge students to be Reflective, to stop and think, instead of making snap judgments, or accepting the first idea that comes into their heads, or automatically accepting whatever is presented in the media.

2. Gently ask such questions as “How do you know”, "What are the reasons?" and “Is that a good source of information?” thus prodding them to have good Reasons for their views and to seek reasons for others' views.

3. Emphasize alertness for Alternative hypotheses, conclusions, explanations, sources of evidence, points of view, plans, etc.

[Jack from Ohio]

Totally agree, Jack. Our kids are NOT being taught 'critical thinking' at all in school today. All parents and grandparents need to teach this vital lesson to their kids at home. It is essential if they are going to grow into competent voters and consumers, and if you do not give them lessons in it, they will never even realize how they are being manipulated by both business advertising and by politicians. There are some good sources available to help you get started. Just a teaser to think about: [No links, Tom]

Underlying Strategies

(The three underlying strategies are “Reflection, Reasons, Alternatives” (RRA):

1. Urge students to be Reflective, to stop and think, instead of making snap judgments, or accepting the first idea that comes into their heads, or automatically accepting whatever is presented in the media.

2. Gently ask such questions as “How do you know”, "What are the reasons?" and “Is that a good source of information?” thus prodding them to have good Reasons for their views and to seek reasons for others' views.

3. Emphasize alertness for Alternative hypotheses, conclusions, explanations, sources of evidence, points of view, plans, etc.

And English and language skills enough to understand the three points you just made.

[kcjenkins]

Hey, you can start this sort of training in kindergarten, Jack. In fact, use the little kid's favorite question to start the process. Ask THEM "why" whenever they say something that indicates they are parroting something that you know is wrong or is incomplete. And keep right on asking "why?" all the way through high school. It's a very powerful question, that makes the person have to think about what they just said, and think about how to defend it.

Then you can add, "what else might work?" to get them even deeper into thinking, not just accepting. You do not have to explain those three points, those are for you. The kids just need to be mentally challenged to think instead of just accepting, everything else flows from that.