Are you concerned that global warming could increase the intensity of hurricanes?

No, I am not concerned.

I am aware that it is doing that very thing. I am concerned that this has become a political rather than a rational issue, so we are no longer doing what is required to change things.

Meh. I kind of like hurricanes, personally.

I’m not terribly concerned. Hurricanes are kind of a joke around here – the Tampa area hasn’t been directly hit by a hurricane in over 80 years, yet every single season we go through the motions.

Home Depot makes a killing on everyone’s yearly plywood purchases, that’s for sure.

The issue, of course is not merely hurricanes, but all extremes of weather, such as the heavy snowfalls in Washington and Baltimore this past Winter, the record-breaking warmth in upstate New York which now endangers the apple crop since the trees blossomed 2 weeks early, and there can still be hard freezes, etc.

Absolutely. Think about the amount of energy it takes to raise the average temperature of the entire ocean by only one degree. Absolutely that will translate into more intense hurricanes.

@dpworkin
unfortunately most of the Politicians comprehend little of the Science involved. They speak the party line and dismiss the facts.
I am an Independent. I usually find fault with both parties on just about everything
I like Science and listen to the Scientist.
My Right wing Brother In Law insist that all the change is a natural cycle. He speaks the Consecrative line. If we did as they wish nothing would change. It would take a major disaster in his back door to force him to comprehend reality. In his life comfort and making money is all that matters.

Yes, well, and people are gullible. They heard about the so-called lies of the Climate Scientists, and never heard about the carefully supervised report exonerating them of misrepresenting the science.

@dpworkin
People like my Brother In Law think in dollar signs.
Unfortunately they live in their own worlds. Even my Husband can not reach him anymore.
He has no concept of how most people live.
He is intelligent and well educated but; he is Brian Washed by sicking people like Bush.
I have read some of the studies on global warming. I have watched many shows presented on Science Channel and PBS. Despite that I have many Science credits; it is difficult to understand everything. Most people do not try.

No I’m not.

I’m worried, I guess, but more generally I’m worried about rapidly changing weather patterns.

Most “skeptics” of global warming point to the fact that the Earth used to be much warmer, or much cooler, at various points in its history. This is true. The problem with global warming isn’t so much the final temperature the Earth ends up at—the problem is that this temperature is changing extremely fast.

Weather is a complex system. If we shift the Earth’s temperature too fast, then weather is going to change a lot. Maybe hurricanes will get stronger, but weather will probably change in lots of unpredictable ways overall.

And in case you haven’t noticed, much of humanity’s success has been based on being able to predict and deal with relatively stable weather patterns.

I think global warming is a cover story for weather control technologies that can produce anomalous events, so no.

See here, here, here, and here.

@Qingu
I believe some of the change is a natural process; but humanity has accelerated it.
Your are correct that living through unpredictable weather would make human survival more difficult.

@kevbo Come on. This trend has been going on much longer than the technology for weather control would likely exist.

@cockswain, it’s doubtful whether that’s correct, since most sources (if you accept them as such) agree that attempts at weather control began during or after WWII and since science was crying “global cooling” as recently as the 70s. But the chronology doesn’t really matter if the technology exists today yet we are still being indoctrinated into believing that the sky is going to fall.

If it really is going to fall and the technology exists, then why isn’t the technology being championed as a solution to the problem as much as the problem is being championed as a “solution” for society’s ills?

You’re making my head hurt. Who is indoctrinating us? Scientists from around the planet are in on it with the US government? Are you absolutely convinced that the accelerated pace of climate change is caused by secret technology and it is highly unlikely to be what most climate-change theorists claim?

@cockswain, We may be on a warming cycle, yes, but I don’t believe we’re headed for a hockey stick outcome. And, I’m not going to personally buy into a carbon-based tax scheme or cap and trade schemes without reconciling the question of weather- and tectonic-influencing technology.

I’m not an apologist for the right regarding the exhorbitant costs to business and industry, and I do believe in protecting the environment. But, I also think the mmgw/agc narrative as most of us understand it is a royal confidence job that more closely resembles a religion than anything else.

I worry like @dpworkin that this has become too political. Personally, I would rather the emphasis be on simply doing the right thing for the planet and the US. Whether the weather is changing due to our interference or not barely matters to me, because I think it is better not to waste energy, I prefer not to rape the land of resources, I prefer to not be dependent on foreign nations, I prefer not to pollute the land, it seems so basic to me. I’m going to stay optimistic that slowly but surely the US will do the right thing and go green. If that helps the climate – fantastic. The US alone would make a huge impact if we could really change since we consume so much.

@kevbo So when the media reports on some news of climate change, let’s say the BBC, how would you describe the trail of information from its source to the reporters?

I suppose it is handled much like journalism and the media handles any other wedge issue.

And I’m not getting your drift.

So if a scientific academy from, say, Ireland or Japan reports the latest results of their climate change studies and the BBC decides to report on their findings, where do you picture the US government conspirators are getting involved to control the information?

Perhaps I’m the only one who is deluded into the understanding that mass media is controlled by a handful of corporations and that since 9/11 there’s been a signficant shift to editorial decisions being handed down by said corporate offices.

Regardless, we certainly had Blair by our side on the search for WMDs, etc, so it’s not far fetched to assume a link. Honestly, though I’m not in a space at the moment to attempt to explain this in detail.

None of that, however, has anything to with addressing the existence and use of the technology.

Not concerned. I think this is all political garbage. No one knows for sure, it’s too complicated to make any assumptions without more data and more time. We should all get green regardless if we are doing this or not. Basic fact checking pretty well kills arguments for it and against it. I honestly don’t see the science behind CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas. Methane…yes. CO2…no The trace gasses that never existed in the atmo until we put them there concern me more. Raping the land to get at coal to burn upsets me. Whining about the evil corporations polluting the earth as you take a hot shower or drive clear across town because the super center there has better parking really makes me mad. Thinking it’s a Gov’t conspiracy makes me laugh.

I kind of took the original question to mean assuming it is true that climate change is happening, are you worried about hurricanes? Not whether we believe CO2 affects climate change.

@cockswain, to answer your question about the role of “US government conspirators,” I guess my short answer is that it would be to foment public debate from the outset by laying the groundwork or incubating the “right” climate change science and making sure the debate stays on the front page. I think individual reports matter less than ensuring a sizeable chunk of the population buys into the idea.

That’s the smaller problem. Climate change has the potential to make weather more extreme. The bigger problem is disrupted food chains as a result of disrupted ecosystems. Many species won’t have the time to adapt quickly enough.

@mattbrowne
I agree. Unfortunately many people seem unaware of these basic scientific concepts.
Some people dispute facts or more accurately theories that most Scientist accept. Sometimes discussing things with them is as successful as speaking with a brick wall.
I will not waste my time on such negativity. Too self defending for me.

@kevbo, I’m honestly curious as to how you decide which conspiracy theories to believe.

iirc, you don’t believe that the Holocaust was fake, you don’t believe in creationism… do you believe the moon landing was fake? What exactly is your criteria for choosing which of these things seems believable?

@Qingu, I’ll preface by saying the experience of believing a conspiracy theory (although it is really more a matter of “seeing” one) is a slippery slope… it’s quite easy to believe them all if you believe one. The experience, especially in the beginning, is also akin to crashing through a fairly bottomless pit of false bottoms (if that makes sense), so what may have been what I thought was fairly solid ground a year ago may be superseded by something more plausible today.

I suppose the gist of it for me is whether I trust the official account, which is something I never really had cause to question until I stumbled on alternate theories for 9/11. although when I look back I can recall being spontaneously predisposed to similarly flavored ideas such as when I (prior to understanding conspiracies) read The Da Vinci Code for the first time as well as The Gulag Archipelago and learning about colonialism, third world politics/minority politics and cultural hegemony in college. More than likely anymore, I don’t—especially when it relies on “incompetence theory” or if it involves a cast of characters that I think are likely under the influence of a “globalist” agenda. So I look for plausible alternatives. What seems to be shaking out for me more often than not nowadays with “conspiracy beliefs” are ideas that walk between the two public sides of a debate.

Examples:
Is man made global warming/anthropogenic climate change true?
The words are true. Man is affecting the climate (or more precisely the weather and probably tectonics), just not in the way most people think. I simply can’t reconcile the hushed pursuit of weather control technology, the plain-as-day evidence of chemtrails, and the nebulous debate about how to implement carbon taxation. That doesn’t detract from believing that industry has harmed the environment and that green efforts are worthwhile. I just don’t think the global warming narrative is truthful, and I really do think it is more akin to the high priests demanding human sacrifice to appease the gods—just now with logos-based testaments instead of mythos.

I also pay attention to what the “chant” is… “Global warming is real!” “Global warming is fake!” What is the chant? “Global warming! Global warming!” What does the chant create room for in peoples’ consciousness? Weird weather. And guilt.

Did man set foot on the moon?
Yes, but the version we were sold for how we got there wasn’t the true version, IMHO. My false bottom on this issue, in particular, was coming across Richard Hoagland’s findings of photographic artifacts (i.e. on NASA-released film media and prints, not on the moon itself), which he claimed were evidence of massive “glass structures” on the moon. While that didn’t sound likely, the artifacts were certainly undeniable. When I later came across this article, which explained the artifacts as evidence of giant curtains of Scotchlite (a precursor to green screen) that seemed to make more sense. I also can’t think of a single plausible reason for us not having returned in 40 years except for the will of the people who make those decisions not to do so.

I don’t debate much on the Holocaust for a variety of reasons, and I’m certainly not a denier. If I were to question anything about it, it would be whether the 6 million figure is accurate and whether Khazars (which I vaguely understand to be a subset of Jews who are largely the byproduct of a ruling family’s politically motivated conversion to Judaism in the 9th or 10th century) were sold out to get Israel off the ground. But, this is just a back-burner whiff of an idea that I’ve never really followed up on and will readily concede. I’m not anti-semitic, but I am doubtful about the motives of Zionists whether their last name is Steinberg or Biden.

I’m not sure how creationism is a conspiracy theory, except that there’s probably a funny joke about God being the conspirator in there somewhere.

So basically I’m distrustful, and that leaves me with the freedom/burden/delusion of fabricating my own explanation. Pun intended.

Why do you find it more likely global warming is caused by weather-control technology rather than CO2 emissions?

As I said up above, I don’t believe global warming exists in the sense that industrial output is changing the surface temperature of the earth to the point of cataclysm, so I can’t give a straightforward answer to your question. I doubt this narrative because I am distrustful of the people who are selling it, and by that I don’t mean I am distrustful of scientists or science. I am distrustful of the interests involved in marketing this theory to the populace.

The earth may be getting warmer as part of a climate oscillation—global warming in that sense, I believe (although I am doubtful at this point that the raw global temperature data is untainted). And I believe (not uniquely) that industrial output damages the environment.

The effect of global warming is purported to be weird weather (and volcanic activity and tsunamis and earthquakes).

What else under the sun can produce these phenomena? Or mitigate them and why aren’t these solutions (even if they are just ideas in a lab) being discussed side by side with “green” measures and above-board geoengineering? Why is this option obfuscated by the cacophony of the left screaming environmentalism and the right screaming anti-business?

Why is it so easy to believe that we’ve perfected technological waste to the point that it can fundamentally alter the world’s climate (as evidenced by weather and volcanos and tectonics) but so difficult to imagine that we’ve perfected technology to the point that we can influence the weather and volcanos and tectonics directly?

I guess my response—and I don’t want to turn this into a conspiracy-theorist bashing thread—is that I think you are using your mistrust as a positive indicator, or as positive evidence, which is really a logical fallacy.

I mean, in the case of global warming, there is really no evidence whatsoever that man-made weather changing machines are behind it. But you believe this because you mistrust the official accounts.

Like, if I said “I am 27 years old,” and you didn’t trust me when I said this… that wouldn’t be a reason to believe the completely unrelated and unevidenced claim that I am 127 years old.

I brought up creationism because I think it functions the same way as conspiracy theories. It “fills in the gaps.” It doesn’t have to be consistent, or evidence. It works, because its adherents believe they are poking holes in the “mainstream theory” and it de facto fills that holes (never mind that it has its own holes and a complete lack of evidence). Also, as per conspiracy theories, creationists often cite skepticism about evolution as “evidence” that their own ideas are true. There’s also some similarities revolving around authority structures, the need for both creationists and conspiracy theorists to understand reality as this top-down, neat, authority-driven and controlled mechanism, rather than a messy, bottom-up emergence full of accidents and incompetence.

@Qingu, That’s certainly illustrative and helpful. I still have not internalized your definition of evidence, so it’s probably worth repeating.

As I stated above. I don’t believe man-made weather changing machines cause global warming. I believe man-made weather changing machines are capable of causing weird weather, possibly more. I think you would agree that there is evidence of man-made weather changing machines (although perhaps you agree only on a smaller scale). There is evidence of military aspirations to weaponize the weather, and evidence of congressional effort to limit militarized proliferation of weather and tectonic influencing technology. Yet, I am to believe that weird weather is incontrovertibly a byproduct of global warming.

If I didn’t trust you were 27, then it would be a reason to look for an alternative accounting of your age (assuming I wasn’t just comfortable with the ambiguity). I would accept as likely to be true the next most plausible explanation until evidence surfaced that proved otherwise. But I do agree that I would start by looking for a top down explanation. I certainly give more credence to top-down mechanisms than I used to but would say that I believe they enjoy a rather parasitic relationship with “bottom up emergence” rather than being a full replacement. I’m still open to genuine accidents and incompetence, just significantly less so with certain objects of debate.

I doubt this narrative because I am distrustful of the people who are selling it, and by that I don’t mean I am distrustful of scientists or science. I am distrustful of the interests involved in marketing this theory to the populace.

This is the crux of what I want to understand about your thinking. Let me see if I can characterize what I view as your position: global warming is currently occurring, but only as part of a natural cycle and not caused by industrial output. Global warming/climate change is being used as a cover story by corporations and governments who control all media to hide the actual weird weather effects we see that result from their weather-control technology.

How close am I to understanding your viewpoint? If I’m correct, which governments do you believe are involved in weather-control? How do you picture the governments work with the media? At some point one might expect someone at Director level or so to admit that every global warming story they’ve run was coerced by their superiors. Superiors (CEOs and whatnot) that you believe are making backroom deals with military personnel? am i in the ballpark here?

@cockswain, that is basically correct with the caveat that I don’t know really whether global warming is occurring. I know that temperature data says we’ve had some of the warmest years on record in recent decades, but I’ve also read that data collection sites have been diminished and relocated in ways that are favorable to generating higher temperature data. Is that true? I don’t know.

A short answer to your question about which governments would probably run along the lines of the alliances represented by the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc. China and Russia have invested in this technology as well, although it’s portrayed as somewhat crude in the article.

I think there was coercion around the reporting of 9/11 (such as anthrax being mailed to newsrooms), but in the case of global warming I’m not sure it’s that’s been necessary. The media is so biased and fractured now that we basically get ideology (pick your flavor, of course) with a side of facts. Not to mention that journalism has mostly been reduced to simply repeating what experts say. Plus, a lot of people genuinely believe in global warming, including newsroom editors. So I don’t believe there’s much coercion involved, although if you want to see an example of mainstream reporters stepping forward in the face of coercion, see here. If you want to see an example of the close relationship between the Pentagon and the media, see here.

@kevbo – I actually think that around 1 out of 500 conspiracy theories will turn out to be true, so it’s entirely possible that in, say 2040 parents will tell their kids, well, thirty years people thought…

But this also means that most conspiracy theories will turn out to be wrong or we can already be 99.99999999999% certain. The holocaust was very, very real, for example.

@mattbrowne
I appreciate your logic.
You are correct.

@mattbrowne, never have I said anything to the contrary, and I hope you’re statement that it was real is for your own edification, because I don’t need to be convinced. I’ve been to Dachau. I took pictures. Even if I had never been, I wouldn’t have cause to doubt the event is as historical and factual a fact as a historical fact can get. Can I be more clear that I don’t doubt this is a historical fact?

@Qingu, this is why I don’t discuss the issue.

@kevbo But, despite the fact this is a possible option to believe (international medias controlled by shadow gov’ts and high ranking military officials), why have you chosen it as the most likely possibility? Why not believe the “traditional” (a word you may take exception to) view, and just in the back of your mind think “well maybe there’s a X% chance it is all a cover story for weather control technology”?

This is the main part I don’t get of your view.

@cockswain, I appreciate your effort to understand someone’s different way of thinking, and I hope @philosopher doesn’t mind too much that we’ve (I’ve) derailed her question with this discussion.

This goes back to the slippery slope idea, but I suppose it boils down to having acquired different ideas about 9/11, which leads one to pay attention to the cast of characters and bag of tricks involved with that event. From there, it’s relatively easy to see similar patterns in other controversial events. The truthfulness or factual accuracy of those patterns and tricks are debatable as we’ve seen. I just happen to believe that many of them are employed beyond 9/11.

I guess the reason for it being “most likely” IMHO is because the actions of those marketing global warming doesn’t match the rhetoric. Aside from that, and I don’t know if you bothered to read my links above, but we had a Secretary of Defense (Cohen) who came out and said basically that these things exist.

“Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts…”

Now maybe he was making it up or throwing out the idea as a smokescreen to justify spending or what have you, I suppose those statements are open to interpretation like everything else. I interpret them to mean that the technology exists, but like everything else we want to keep the technology for ourselves and deny it to everyone else.

I did look at the links, and I believe you posted them on another thread not too long ago.

I can’t deny some unexplained occurrences surrounding 9/11, but let’s not discuss that.

I need clarification on this statement: the actions of those marketing global warming doesn’t match the rhetoric. What do you mean by this?

@kevbo – Yes, yes, I know. I wanted to point out that not every conspiracy theory should be dismissed completely just because some people label it so. I know that you love the subject, for example the unanswered questions related to 911. Even though Bush certainly didn’t ask Atta to commit mass murder, there are some dubious business connections with certain Saudi Arabians for example.

@mattbrowne, sorry if I misread. I would assume a “fake Holocaust” would be the conspiracy theory, not a “real Holocaust.”

@cockswain, still thinking…