Was just looking at the historic highs, lows and average temps for November and concluded that as global warming gets worse it gets harder to keep my house warm.

Like

I'm having the same problem. We should be addressing this global warming issue. Higher taxes would probably fix it. ( lol )

You just may have hit on the reason the name was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".
Our fearless leaders can not be wrong as long as there is weather.

12° in central ky this morning. Thermometer on the shop never got above 20°. Cows and horses stayed circled around the hay rings all day

People, do not be so American-centered. Look at other parts of the world, too, when you make comments like that. By the way, the west has seen higher temperatures than normal for a long time this year.

I am very proud to be American centered that is where I am from and where I live God bless America. Sure has been cold here in Tennessee

John T, ditto times 1000!!!

Weather is not climate. And local conditions (whether they are in Iowa, Tennessee, Peru, Mongolia or News Zealand) neither confirm nor defeat the case for climate change caused by 'global' warming. I am pretty sure this was Klaus' point.

Joe

All knowledge comes from comparisons. What is big or small,long or short, cold or warm, upright or horizontal, beetle or bee, horse or mule, etc. you get the point. Resting only in oneself doesn't create any insights. If you only know one country, you know no country. That doesn't mean you have to have been everywhere, but it means, that you have to have obtained knowledge about the world outside of you to be able to see and understand the surrounding world or even the one inside of you( The latter point is a psychological one). In short, like Joe put it, local conditions do not tell you much if you do not have a point of comparison.

The weather radio this morning 11-19-14 said colder than normal in all lower 48 this week. My knowledge is here in Tn the rest is just hear say I guess. We have some hope gonna be 48 today. The center of the United States is close to Lebanon Kansas bet it's cold their also. As for knowing only 1 country my son in South East Asia told me last night it has cooled some there they turned off the fans. Just sayin it's cold here!
Still proud to be from America Cheers

If folks would have been more "American Centered" and looked to the keeping of their own house before the rest of the world..........we might of not had as much hoo-haw about "global warming" and alot a other mess

Believe all of what you hear and none of what you see. ...yeah, I get it.
Shanen

It has nothing to do with not believing what you see. On the contrary, global warming causes climate change which creates disruptions in weather patterns and incidents of extreme weather. So, believe what you see. I do. But I don't think it disproves the theory of climate change or global warming.

Joe

The biggest problem with climate change, is that this is probably the first times politicians/rulers have the media utilities of such magnitude to use and the normal audacity of the human race to believe they can control climate change,as a road to more power and control.

Okay, Jasper. But that touches on a completely different topic:

1. The question of whether human activity has caused or significantly contributed to climate change and whether steps can (or should) be taken to reduce its severity. (And whether politicians and others are disingenuously using climate change to acquire power).

As opposed to:

2. The question of whether single incidents of cold or warm weather (or even trends of a few years of cold or warm weather) either confirm or disprove the theory of global warming and climate change.

You'll have to excuse my enthusiasim........and my spelling

What we might have had or not , if the country had looked more to keep its own house, is a different story, but there certainly is one point I can agree on: Before one sets out to impose one's political order on others , one better had things working accordingly oneself. That again doesn't mean one is isolationist or shouldn't compare( based on information, not attitude). What a person wants to be proud of is absolutely that person's prerogative, but the view of the world should be supported by knowledge. Many parts of the world have seen considerably higher than normal temperatures, the consequences of which can be felt differently in other regions. Most of the readers of the Front Porch probably also watch the weather on RFD-TV , and all year we heard about Pacific water temperatures which were higher than normal all the way into Alaska which affected the jet stream. The latter one made it possible for Arctic air to flow into the US east of the Rockies.
It is amazing to see the certainty with which some people deny any influence of human activities on the climate. First of all, if we err, let's err on the side of caution to prevent further damage. But be also reminded that there are many examples where humans changed the face of the earth considerably, from exterminating parts of the mega fauna in North America despite the absence of powerful weapons and despite the small number of hunters to deforestation of parts of the world like Italy or North Africa with the consequence of widespread desertification. With modern mankind's huge population numbers and the technical possibilities , in this case immense industrialization, our influence has grown hugely.
Who would have thought at the beginning of the so-called Green Revolution that fertilization practices on the fields of the Midwest could have negative consequences for life in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, for example? Meanwhile nobody denies that anymore who knows anything at all.

What one thinks they know does not always turn out being right in the end guess we will have to wait and see.
First of all, if we err, let's err on the side of caution to prevent further damage 100% agree we should be good stewards of this land.
Knowledge I do have is it has been cold this week this I can not deny.

Just a blip in this excellent thread, everyone included ...

If you Google up "The Most Important Video You Will Ever See" ,... you may already familiar, or never heard of it ... it occurs to me the substance of the lecture to be found could possibly serve to inform this exchange of ideas and discussion.

Or not, as you wish. :-)

Cheers
Thomas

It is an endless disscusion we could have on this topic. All I know is that I am doing my part to "help" the earth. I drive my horse wherever and whenever possible. The days that I don't have to start an engine are a win!!!!!

Things were a little stale so I thought I would stir this pot again, worked out better than planned. Everyone else jumped in and all I had to do was read!

Now maybe we can talk about religion or political issues.

Thank you, Thomas, for the reference to the video. I watched it. Actually any farmer should understand exponential growth and its consequences. We have increased the number of corn plants per acre from fewer of 18000 to more than 30000 only with tremendous input increase and look where it got us: Greater production, but depressed prices, fewer farms being able to survive because of greater competition. Another increase like that is not possible.
The conclusions of the video necessarily will have to be that we drastically change our economic model, otherwise we are driving ourselves into the ground, a lesson that none of our political and economic leaders either seem to understand or are willing to share with the public since it might collide with their own interests. The only reason not to draw the necessary conclusions from the insight that continued growth is not possible without self-destruction would be that we live in the present and do not care what happens to people in the future, including our children and grandchildren.
By the way, here is an interesting figure: There were about 5000 Amish in the US on 1900, nowadays there are roughly 280 000. If the world population had grown at the same rate , from 1 billion in 1900 we would have 55 billion people on earth.
In my lifetime I have seen the earth's population grow from 2.5 billion to over 7 billion, the US population from 150 million to over 300 million. Understandably here in the US population growth has not impressed people that much yet, since there is so much land, but put a little crisis in, like water shortage in California, and the extent of the problem becomes more obvious.
Hard Paul, if it was your intention to start an interesting discussion, you have certainly accomplished that.

The Muslim population is one of the fastest growing in the US because they don't practice any birth control, either. Why didn't you use them as an example instead of the Amish?

Because I don't have any numbers, Jenny. And I am not familiar with them.

It's crazy that no one worries about world population anymore. There is not a single environmental problem that is not alleviated by relief from unfettered population growth. Many social and political problems, too. This age we live in is hooked on growth--financial, population, etc and it's gospel that we need to grow to be happy. But we will trash the planet in the process of becoming happy, turning the place into Easter Island.

Well maybe I can bring this thread back home on a lighter note. This talk about population control may not be necessary after this winter if millions freeze from all this global warming.

Not a chance, John T. :-)

Climate change and exponential growth of human population are inexorably linked, via carbon, methane and other emissions and pollutants.

I understand the idea, from a presupposed denial perspective, of, "who should I believe, you or my lying eyes". But we don't always see the bigger picture, and I think it's important.

Today's Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com

"There's growing evidence that climate change is causing crazy winters"

I think good stewards will want to stay abreast of the science we do have now, and going forward.

The problem with the science we have now is it can be bought to give results to the highest bidders.

Well said Mooney Ranch

Don't buy anything from china or India and you could cut green house gas production more than anything else you can do here.

Mooney Ranch, who do you think can throw in the highest amounts of money, corporations involved in the oil, coal and car industries, or other entities, like environmental organizations, universities, etc.? Look up which entities have the highest profits , biggest balance sheets.
I certainly agree with your premise that money talks in many ways, but in this case there is an overwhelming consensus of scientists in contradiction to the interests of the fossil fuel industry, ever though the latter have a lot more money than anybody else.

And well said Don McAvoy.Plus if we all watch what we buy, we could help get our neighbors a job or at least a better job.

Cash is definitely king in the corporate world and those companies with the highest profits and biggest balance sheets are also the people who stand to profit the most from a change in the world views of energy production. Certainly there are people on the payroll for them who's full time job is product development of the next big thing in "green energy". Multi billion dollar companies didn't get where they are with out staying one step ahead of the market it's involved in. Could just be a big business move or maybe just skepticism on my part. Either way its food for thought

America's corn and soybean farmers depend on China buying lots of their commodities, in the case of soybeans , 25 % go to China. Many American companies have their products made in China as well.
Everything is connected to everything, so even though I agree in part with Don , there would be consequences.
Lee, skepticism is a careful and conservative approach, and is justified as a way to assess incoming information( in any field, be it science, religion, political ideology etc.) Yet it shouldn't lead to inactivity when it comes to possible or even probable risks. And then we always have to scrutinize the reason for skepticism: Is it well-founded in information or does it stem from the wish not to have to change anything in a nation's or one's personal habits?

As a god fearing Christian and a life long farmer born from a long lineage of farmers, good stewardship of the land that I am responsible for is a given. I totally agree with Don. The shipping of American parts to China only to have assembled products shipped back is an unnecessary use of non renewable energies and a major reason for the lack of good paying jobs across the country. Only the purchasing power of the American public will make this change though I'm afraid. A change desperately needed for the country as well as the earth. Instead the national media will parlay the message to the public that the big money corporations want us to hear. Long story short, the profits generally lie with the ones who require the change and the expense lies with the ones who have the change forced upon them. This is true for most situations though and not just this one

Overwhelming consensus of scientists I think not!

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

JohnT, this story talks about a petition that was signed by 31,000 self-proclaimed and unverified "scientists" who claim there is no evidence of global warming. Anyone could sign the petition — regardless of their level of education or scientific experience — and, as far as I can tell, that same person could sign it multiple times.

Joe

No question that there is big money to be made by big Government when they begin to tax individuals for anything imaginable. It wasn't very long ago they were talking about taxing manure from livestock.

The only solution for global warming that I have heard the experts come up with is more regulations and higher taxes. I'm regulated and taxed plenty already. If you wonder why most Americans are so skeptical, take a good look at health care. The biggest power grab in the history of this great nation, and if you don't think so, go visit your doctor if you still have one.
National debt is robbing our younger generations for many years to come. If you want to come together to preserve this great nation, take a look at how we spend and give away money we don't have. There's always a crisis that needs our attention. Be a great place to start. Instead of coming up with new way to add to it.
Shanen

Joe their were 2 links in my post not sure where the other went. Also plenty more out their that do not agree with the overwhelming consensus statement. All I am saying is that a their are a whole bunch of scientist all over the board on this issue and just because some say one thing or the other does not make one right.
In a previous comment Joe said global warming climate change is theory. We are having a conversation about a theory.

JohnT, I found the two links on the post to be identical. I deleted one of them when I made the other one a "hot" link to the page. Sorry if I missed something.

Joe

our weather changed when Mt St Helen blew her top and it has not went back.

our weather here changed when Mt St Helen blew her top & it hasn't came back. Nothing man has done caused that. still maintain that the world has been warming since the last Ice Age or warming and cooling to where we can live with the changes. no big deal

US consumers represent a very small percentage of world population, and consume a relatively very high percentage of the planet's attributes commonly referred to as resources. So for this reason I think it is correct to expect US consumers shoulder their fair share of responsibility for damages.

Crimes against the planet by major polluters should be prosecuted. Bolivia recently passed a law that is intended to be used for that purpose.

The economic system that monetizes resources but not the damage caused through their exploitation, is fundamentally unjust and unsustainable.

The scientific term of "theory" is different from the common usage of the word. The latter one usually is closer to "assumption", "guess" or "speculation", whereas the former one refers to ""a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree". As science goes everything is looked upon skeptically and has to be proved to panels of other scientists who usually try to disprove even the veracity of a statement till they are shown full evidence.
Just because a lot of people((primarily within the USA and primarily belonging to well-defined groups) do not want to believe the theory of climate change( by the way once its proved to the fullest extent its too late to do anything about it) doesn't mean there is not enough evidence for it.
As to the alleged economic damage for curbing greenhouse emissions one could just as much assert the opposite. We are cutting ourselves short from developing and accepting alternative solutions if we do not start seriously and vigorously to look for them now. The draft horse community could be among the forefront because we do have solutions especially for the small-scale farmer. After all we have been using solar power successfully all along.
In this context if you can, compare my letter from Aug 4 on the US Farm Report Mailbag website.

Absolutely right, Klaus. When we harness and yoke, we are hitching to our star, the cleanest, most abundant, most everlasting energy source, that happens to be free, up to now.

If BIG DIRTY ENERGY could figure out how to monetize the sun, you could have expected to have seen much more clean energy by now.

Every system that harnesses a perpetual energy source works to keep some measure of oil, tar, coal, nuclear, in the ground, thereby reducing pollution to some small extent. More and more people are taking the initiative. Sometimes the initiative is not taken to fatten a status quo net worth statement, but rather an investment in conservation. Just as any farmer knows, often our farms survive and thrive economically because of what we DON'T spend, notwithstanding the status quo's embracing of the capital intensive, expansionist, economy of scale model.

Every act to avoid participation in the dirty energy attrocities, is a direct action against unchecked resource depletion and environmental degredation, both of which are suicidal.

T Payne I guess you don't use any fuel or electricity that would pad the wallets of those who provide big dirty energy but the rest of America relies on it quite heavily. See, without the chance for profit individuals don't take the risk of losing money, time, or energy to provide a service for us.

Everyone who pays taxes lines the pockets of Big Dirty Energy, whether they use the products or not. Major Oil companies mark their annual welfare checks in the hundreds of billions.

A bright spot is the rapid growth in solar installations in recent years. In 2006, a household or business invested in solar once every 80 minutes on average. In 2013 a household or business went solar every four minutes. It's a burgeoning industry employing millions worldwide. Big Dirty is feeling the competition, and lobbies strenuously to thwart the inertia of clean energy. So Big Dirty takes our tax money and uses it against us, and clean energy.

The upshot is, on balance, the more clean energy that comes on line, the less pressure there is on the supply of dirty energy resources. This dynamic should tend to keep prices lower, and supply last longer than otherwise.

This is why a growing number of people, myself included, conclude it makes sense from a public interest perspective, to shift subsidies away from dirty energy toI cleaner technologies. There is no downside to it that I can see. Lower input organic method farming with animal power works exactly the same way, and is another sector experiencing growth, with very little subsidy support.

Big Dirty doesn't see it that way, of course, because the competition hurts them in the pocketbook. They spend all kinds of money to buy our votes and those of our elected representatives, as everyone must have noticed by now.

Clean energy is here and expanding as an industry. We need, and should expect much more of it.

If it is a viable business it will come (solar). I don't believe in subsidies for any industry ag included, it's just a way for the gov. to have a little control.

Subsidizing an industry that is both damaging and unsustainable while leaving viable solutions to fend for themselves must be particularly bothersome to your belief system then, eh HP? :-)

The subsidy programs are prone to corruption. There is nothing more glaring in this regard than the Big Dirty scam. These corporations are governing now. They are in many ways the defacto governing body, in control of all branches of government at all levels.

I have never heard of the gov. giving oil companies money, however I have heard a lot about Solindra and other failed attempts by the gov. to get the ball rolling for green energy. We are not going to see eye to eye on this because you think gov. is the answer and I think it is the problem. Not business. I'm going elk hunting now, be gone for a couple days.

Mother nature will always do her own thing and if we are alive we will deal with it. Hope we all survive winter with good health,good friends and good food.

One way the government gives money to oil companies is by not charging royalties for gas that is flared off or used in the extraction process. When we don't charge royalties for the oil and gas used in extraction, the government is basically paying those companies to pump out oil and gas. Here is a good story that explains what is going on:
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/26/366729904/critics-say-more-oil-industry-royalties-should-go-into-u-s-coffers?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

Why is it people will believe that any scientist that works for any outfit that says there's more to climate change than just the Al Gore hysteria is a shill for the oil companies, but they'll buy into anything scientists that work for the climate change industry whole hog? It's 2 sides of the same coin. Both sides are in it for power, a career, money, influence. Look at the billions poured into the Solydra type failures or the falsified data that the climate change industry uses and tell me a grain of salt isn't needed. Yes, we need to take care of the planet and act in a sustainable manner, but taxes and gutting our economy while ignoring China and India aren't any answer. Climate Change has become a cult.

Charlie T is right on the mark as to one of them ways Big Dirty is subsidized by public finance. And there are many more, amounting to hundreds of billions annually, globally, for their largest of them multinationals.

It takes roughly 750 lbs of coal to generate them electricity necessary to light one 100 watt light bulb for one year, without interruption. Maybe everyone on their planet would like to have that much energy to use personally.

As we approach world population of 9 billion humans by mid century, from 7 billion now, I am sure everyone is capable of doing the arithmetic.

Without a change of direction, irrespective of any pejorative political bias, we will all be in very deep do-do.

Btw, I don't think you are reading me well, Hard Paul, when you say I favor "government" subsidies. First, I have said that in many ways Big Dirty is the "government". Second, I have been critical of subsidies for their propensity for catalyzing corruption, as we have now with the Big Dirty problem.

So when you say we will never agree ... I disagree. :-)

2 quotes I will insert here ...

"We have lived our lives by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the world.

We have been wrong.

We must change our lives so that it will be possible to live by the contrary assumption, that what is good for the world will be good for us.

And that requires that we make the effort to know the world and learn what is good for it."

Wendell Berry

"Think globally, act locally."

Anonymous