# Joe Bastardi On Climate Change.



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Fox News.

Regards, Mike

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/joe-bastardi-climate-change-agenda-is-being-driven-by-hysteria-not-facts


----------



## Farmerbrown2 (Sep 25, 2018)

I have often thought a big rig that weighs 80,000 pounds gets six to eight miles per gallon but a small truck that weighs 8,000 pounds only gets 18 to 24 mpg. Hopefully someone will explain this to me.


----------



## Troy Farmer (Jul 31, 2011)

Thanks Mike. The climate has always changed and always will. If it hadn't, we would still be hiding from T-Rex.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

I would like to remind the greenie's that, 10,000 years ago, the glaciers went as far south as mid-Illinois. And it was those glaciers that were responsible for the formation of the Great Lakes. Perhaps the Indians or Sumerians were to blame for climate warming?

Of course, facts and history don't seem to matter to some people.

Ralph


----------



## Farmerbrown2 (Sep 25, 2018)

I live right down the road from coal country here in eastern PA . Actually use coal year round for heat and hot water. The greenies have gotten rid of most coal fired power plants and manufacturing facilities. So now the coal we used to burn here gets shipped to China and gets burned there how is that saving the environment. Plus now I have to buy fertilizer with sulfur in it .


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

rjmoses said:


> I would like to remind the greenie's that, 10,000 years ago, the glaciers went as far south as mid-Illinois. And it was those glaciers that were responsible for the formation of the Great Lakes. Perhaps the Indians or Sumerians were to blame for climate warming?
> 
> Of course, facts and history don't seem to matter to some people.
> 
> Ralph


This 'scientist' blew my mind when he attempted to correlate the decline in deaths due to weather in the advent of modern times. It's a pointless graphic because storms have been getting significantly more severe. What it does point to is between the 1920's and today, mobility has dramatically evolved (better evacuation), warning systems have improved or been implemented, advances in meteorology and radar technology have allowed for earlier storm prediction allowing for more advance warning, communication technology is more advanced, rescue technology is more advanced, and structural engineering has evolved and progressed.

I don't know anything about AOC or the Green New Deal. All I've seen was it said money for people even if they don't want to work, and that was a big NOPE for me. But If facts and history are important to you, get your facts from the scientists that fly a rover 34 million miles to Mars and then drive it around, as opposed to a meteorologist writing an opinion piece on Fox News. Your point here isn't an argument; nobody denies climate change hasn't happened in the past. The concern is that it's happening at an unprecedented rate.

Here's what NASA has to say:

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era - and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth's orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1"

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I think the point the scientist was trying to make is that whether or not the earth is warming or cooling or that the climate is changing, we are better equipped for it and safer from it because of technology. Even with stupid people building homes and businesses in the paths of certain destruction from floods or fires that have occurred since the dawn of time, we can lower their chance of dying with better technology. 
I think the average person is more worrried from dying other ways than global cooling, warming, or the new hysteria of climate change. I have also seen some science opinions that some warming wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world and could improve the world in some ways. 
I remember being in HS in the 80's and one of my "teachers" explaining to the class how we were all going to suffer the consequences from the upcoming ice age. Never happened, despite the cover of one of magazines we were forced to read saying it would (Time, Newsweek, etc). I think many have developed a healthy sense of skepticism of science because so many times it is wrong. It's more like speculation than science. Of course the article was tied to higher confiscation of income to prepare for the upcoming ice age. Also, only the democrat party knew the "science" that would lead us out of harms way. That science was more democrats in charge and higher wealth confiscation. 
That was almost 40 years ago. Nothing came of all the fear mongering and the stress.
So here we are today and we only have 12 years before the end of civilization according to AOC and Bill Nye the science guy and their deeply politicized agenda-driven followers. 
I've heard all this before. Back then, They had "science" to prove the ice age we were entering when I was in HS. 
Forgive me, but I am skeptical of this one. I don't care if it's NASA or a politician doing the fear mongering. And while I do detect some changing of the climate, not necessarily for the worse, I am more convinced it's a natural cycle than caused by man. Fossil fuels can be mined and burned in much cleaner ways due to to technology. I'd rather go that way than deface half the land mass of the country with ugly wind mills and solar panels.
My .02


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

JD3430 said:


> I think the point the scientist was trying to make is that whether or not the earth is warming or cooling or that the climate is changing, we are better equipped for it and safer from it because of technology. Even with stupid people building homes and businesses in the paths of certain destruction from floods or fires that have occurred since the dawn of time, we can lower their chance of dying with better technology.
> I think the average person is more worrried from dying other ways than global cooling, warming, or the new hysteria of climate change. I have also seen some science opinions that some warming wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world and could improve the world in some ways.
> I remember being in HS in the 80's and one of my "teachers" explaining to the class how we were all going to suffer the consequences from the upcoming ice age. Never happened, despite the cover of one of magazines we were forced to read saying it would (Time, Newsweek, etc). I think many have developed a healthy sense of skepticism of science because so many times it is wrong. It's more like speculation than science. Of course the article was tied to higher confiscation of income to prepare for the upcoming ice age. Also, only the democrat party knew the "science" that would lead us out of harms way. That science was more democrats in charge and higher wealth confiscation.
> That was almost 40 years ago. Nothing came of all the fear mongering and the stress.
> ...


Deep politicization and agendas go both ways, there isn't a single entity that owns a monopoly on them. You have to keep politics out of science. It's killing science. And the problem science is facing is that if the Democrats embrace a position, then Republicans will reject it simply because the Democrats picked it up, even if there is compelling data. It doesn't become about what the data tells us--which is the cornerstone of science--it's become about confirmation bias. I don't care what Al Gore or AOC says, or what's on the cover of Time Magazine. I do care about what is published in the journals Nature or Science, which are two of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

But to your point, science is not clairvoyant. Science is a data-driven process designed to help us reach the most objective conclusions as accurately as possible. It is constrained by the limits of currently available technology and our knowledge of the time. It is not correct 100% of the time, because it is constantly expanding and updating. Science is an active, ongoing and infinitely expanding process. But to hold out because it has been wrong before and it could be wrong again--albeit with no data to substantiate the claim--isn't scientific. HOWEVER, that is why research is ongoing, because science IS driven by skepticism. This skepticism is what drives scientists to continue research. They challenge a hypothesis by doing studies generating data, rather than simply dismissing it without data.

People want to believe that humans are too insignificant on the Earth to cause any significant change. But think of the impact that we really are capable of having: a seismograph in Arizona can pick up the seismic activity from a nuclear bomb tested 6,000 miles away in North Korea.

Yes, the government of a third-world country is literally shaking the entire earth just by blowing up a single bomb. Now imagine the impact that 8 billion of us are capable of.

Forget what your political inhibitions or biases are. As we say at work, 'let the data do the talking.'


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hayjosh said:


> Deep politicization and agendas go both ways, there isn't a single entity that owns a monopoly on them. You have to keep politics out of science. It's killing science. And the problem science is facing is that if the Democrats embrace a position, then Republicans will reject it simply because the Democrats picked it up, even if there is compelling data. It doesn't become about what the data tells us--which is the cornerstone of science--it's become about confirmation bias. I don't care what Al Gore or AOC says, or what's on the cover of Time Magazine. I do care about what is published in the journals Nature or Science, which are two of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.
> 
> But to your point, science is not clairvoyant. Science is a data-driven process designed to help us reach the most objective conclusions as accurately as possible. It is constrained by the limits of currently available technology and our knowledge of the time. It is not correct 100% of the time, because it is constantly expanding and updating. Science is an active, ongoing and infinitely expanding process. But to hold out because it has been wrong before and it could be wrong again--albeit with no data to substantiate the claim--isn't scientific. HOWEVER, that is why research is ongoing, because science IS driven by skepticism. This skepticism is what drives scientists to continue research. They challenge a hypothesis by doing studies generating data, rather than simply dismissing it without data.
> 
> ...


Long as the "data" isn't skewed, like a lot of the "global cooling", then "global warming", then "global climate change" theories data has been, I would agree.

I think anyone who takes critical data, then skews it for political gain, like an Al Gore did, should face deep repercussions. I bet he has caused the 8 billion people of the world a lot of lost sleep and money.

Yet on and on he and his type go, spewing lies to impressionable people, who have a strong desire to be VIRTUOUS over people who are simply trying to live their life in manufacturing, mining, farming, construction.

Lets face it, there's a lot of people who want to grasp onto these hot button topics to appear more virtuous than others for social media or political gain. They're always pointing the finger at the manufacturer, crying "environment polluter", point to Trump and cry "racist", etc. Tie Hollywood into this and the liberal news media and you can see why there's so much skepticism.

I'm all for clean environment, but I'll be damned if I'll sit back and be guilted or shamed into changing something that's been politically stained, like man made climate change ruing the planet until I have complete, non-political facts.


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

Oh climate change. Dont get me started. Over the last 50 years we have had global cooling, than global warming, than climate change. All predicting dooms day and the end of humanity in 10-20 years. All crying for the only solution to all of the above problems is to give the governments more power money and control.
In 50 years of predictions they have never been right once(unless they adjusted the data). But they keep preaching the same dooms day story. Tell me what other scientific theories could be wrong 100% of the time for 50 years and still be taught as fact and have people threaten to put you in jail if you deny their theory? News flash thats not how science works.
Lets change the question up a little bit. The solution to climate doomsday is more power money and control for the government. Lets assume for sake of argument right now that climate doomsday is real and we are causing it. Why would we trust the governments to solve and fix the problem? Governments ruin everything they get involved with. 
The other things is the climate doomsday preachers are getting filthy rich and yet they dont live what they preach. Look at Al Gore in the states or David Suzuki in Canada. Basically men like this are getting rich running a climate doomsday cult. Look at what and how they are doing and compare to other cult leaders and its excally the same.


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

About sums things up.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Maybe this also sums it up:

*"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."*

*H.L. Mencken*


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

JD3430 said:


> but I'll be damned if I'll sit back and be guilted or shamed into changing something that's been politically stained, like man made climate change ruing the planet until I have complete, non-political facts.


Then NASA is your best bet.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hayjosh said:


> Then NASA is your best bet.


I dont know bout that, Josh.

NASA can be as political as any of them. Also could depend on whos running NASA. Could be a political hack.

I remember Obama politicizing NASA

https://capitalresearch.org/article/nasa/

I'd rather get my data from an independent data source, not one tied to the government-especially the corrupt government of the Obama administration


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

It ALL comes down to "Money, Power and Sex".

Money gets you power, money and power get you sex. Everything we do comes down to those three! I'm not being cynical, just observing ours, and every animal or plant's, behavior from a distance.

Bush honeysuckle is a good example of what I am talking about. It is the first to leaf out ("money"), the last to loose its leaves ("power"). As an under story plant, it is a prolific reproducer and takes over the growth in a woods and crowds out everything else ("sex").

Bill Clinton is another example.

When it comes to climate change, if I can get you scared enough to give me money to study it, then I get the power to support my family and have children which I may be able to prepare to survive the changes.

I'm going to bet that not 1 in 100 of us on HT would be able to survive a 10,000 years ago, maybe not even a 100 years ago.

Just thinking.....

Ralph


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

And here's another perspective:




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2091901427525915



Ralph


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

JD3430 said:


> I dont know bout that, Josh.
> NASA can be as political as any of them. Also could depend on whos running NASA. Could be a political hack.
> I remember Obama politicizing NASA
> 
> ...


You'd rather get your data from an independent source, and in doing so you cite a far right right-wing website to help you arrive to that conclusion? I don't think there would actually be ANY data good enough for you if it doesn't already fit your biases.

Those sources NASA were citing (beyond their own research) were from the journals Nature and Science.

At some point you have to look at something truly objectively rather than through the lense of bias. Without that, we learn nothing new, but only reinforce what we want to believe.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Didn't say that. Just cited that as a source of information regarding Obamas politicization of NASA. The long eared closet Muslim himself pretty much said he was going to make NASA a "Muslim outreach program". As much as I love the NASA of the past, they have far outlived their usefulness as a unbiased source of science.
Thank you previous administrations. Nothing is sacred. 
As far as you using NASA as your sacred cow for "climate change" information, just remember, they may get unbiased "science" and politicize it for their own gain.
Remember, NASA may realize large grants of taxpayer money to throw rockets and probes up in space to study climate change. But first, there has to BE climate change for that to happen. No climate change, no space program to study it. No new toys for NASA to play with.
As the new Minnesota congresswoman said: "it's all about the Benjamins"


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

JD3430 said:


> As the new Minnesota congresswoman said: "it's all about the Benjamins"


Amen, amen, amen!

Ralph


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

Humans did create the problem. Adam and Eve ate the fruit. The world has been dying ever since. It will continue to untill Jesus comes again.


----------



## Farmineer95 (Aug 11, 2014)

Happy Easter
He is risen


----------



## 32-0-0 (May 30, 2017)

Hayjosh said:


> This 'scientist' blew my mind when he attempted to correlate the decline in deaths due to weather in the advent of modern times. It's a pointless graphic because storms have been getting significantly more severe. What it does point to is between the 1920's and today, mobility has dramatically evolved (better evacuation), warning systems have improved or been implemented, advances in meteorology and radar technology have allowed for earlier storm prediction allowing for more advance warning, communication technology is more advanced, rescue technology is more advanced, and structural engineering has evolved and progressed.
> 
> I don't know anything about AOC or the Green New Deal. All I've seen was it said money for people even if they don't want to work, and that was a big NOPE for me. But If facts and history are important to you, get your facts from the scientists that fly a rover 34 million miles to Mars and then drive it around, as opposed to a meteorologist writing an opinion piece on Fox News. Your point here isn't an argument; nobody denies climate change hasn't happened in the past. The concern is that it's happening at an unprecedented rate.
> 
> ...


Before you put too much faith in NASA, do some research on James Hansen who I'm sure you know has worked at NASA for decades. In the '70's he created a model that predicted an ice age in 30 years. And when Mother Nature proved his model wrong, he then switched his position to global warming and now I'm sure he is a climate change advocate. Just remember that all these climate predictions are based upon computer models that in my opinion are incapable of taking into account all the variables that influence the climate.


----------



## IHCman (Aug 27, 2011)

Good one on climate change. A little long to watch. The "show me the data" line I completely agree with.


----------

