Study predicts next phase of solar cycle will bring on 'Mini Ice Age' as early as 2020

You mean Preppers, with a capital P.

 

The real "root cause" of most of our problems, although seldom discussed anymore.

 

Snopes

 

That way they can't be found wrong. If the temperature goes up they are right and if it goes down they are right. It is a good saying to cover the tails.

John, WB0MPB

 

IF you REALLY believe in Global Warming then you should:

• Disconnect from the electrical grid (NOTE: going solar is not helping because of the trail of toxic waste created in the manufacture of solar panels and storage batteries)
• Get rid of your fossil fuel burning vehicles (All-electric vehicles are not an acceptable substitute because of the toxic waste created in the manufacture of the batteries and the fact that most power is generated by burning fossil fuels)
• Get rid of all your clothing, furniture, building materials, etc. that require fossil fuels to produce and leave a trail of toxic wastes)
• Get rid of your electronic/electrical devices (they also have a trail of toxic waste created in their manufacture and their batteries)
• Figure out how to get clean water and dispose of your waste without causing harm to the environment
• Figure out how to heat your homes without electricity or fossil fuels
• Practice birth control

 

Man-made Global Warming, adjusted to cover whatever will happen in the future to Man-Made Climate Change is a classic example of Group Think. From the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Christopher Booker: Global Warming – A Case Study in Groupthink.

A Yale research psychologist called Irving Janis used the term "Group Think" in the title of his influential 1972 Victims of Groupthink. According to Janis there are three rules of groupthink.

They are:

Rule One. A group of people come to share a common view or belief that in some way is not properly based on reality.

Rule Two. Because their common view/belief cannot be subjected to external proof they have to reinforce its authority by claiming ‘consensus.’ The idea is to emphasize that all right-thinking people hold this view and that it is no longer open to challenge.

Rule Three: Anyone who disputes this ‘consensus’ must be excluded from the discussion: at best marginalized; at worst openly attacked or discredited.

These, Janis showed, were the rules which led to the Pearl Harbor/Korean War/Bay of Pigs/Vietnam War disasters above.

They are also, as Booker shows, the rules which explain the current global warming hysteria.

 

It would be nice to get Iowa type snow in Oklahoma I say that just in fun.

 

It would be nice to get Oklahoma type BS in Texas
Tom WA4ILH

 

Well, you can use this vague popular concept to justify denouncing any sort of conclusion or action one dislikes. The problem is that it preferentially overlooks all the situations where group decision making resulted in a "correct" or successful result.

The difference with science is that it is a continuous process of hypothesis, testing, evaluation, theory, repeat. Predictions can be made based on theory, tested and proven false by any single scientist. So far, the climate change deniers are in the minority of science, not based on opinion, but based on facts known so far. This can always change based on new facts, but personal opinions are not the driving force.

Further, most scientific research is done by individual scientists or with a lead scientist and graduate students or small teams. Climate research conclusions are not the result of massive or worldwide bureaucratic committees.

 

Well, we just had the warmest February on record here. Last year was the second warmest and 2012 was the 4th warmest. I'll keep an open mind, but regionally, we're not showing any signs of cooling down. Rather we've been warming up pretty fast. The droughts in the southern half of the US also doesn't belie her 'findings.' Polar ice is at a record minimum with the temperatures a few degrees above freezing in the Winter.

None of this says climate is getting cooler, but Chicken Little only has to be right once as an old friend used to say.

 

http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?thr...n-mini-ice-age-as-early-as-2020.595250/page-6

There are strong flavors of groupthink/religion on both sides of the climate 'debate'. There is also reality, which we should be working to discover.

1) If you look at what the science can actually show about climate history, there have been huge variations without human input. There is strong evidence that CO2 _follows_ rather than _leads_ these past variations. My _hunch_ as a technically trained guy who isn't a 'climate scientist': CO2 is one of the many feedback loops that is part of the climate balance, and that dumping large amounts of CO2 into the air could as easily _lead_ a climate variation as follow it.

2) There is a huge 'natural is by definition good' belief held by many people, the gut feeling that human changes to atmospheric composition is automatically bad even before the evidence is in. Anyone who says that CO2 is not harmful, or who questions the assumption of 'natural balance' is going against their religion.

3) There is a huge 'government regulation is bad' belief held by many people, the gut feeling that regulating CO2 emissions will lead to 'big government' or other grievous harm, and that suggesting CO2 is even potentially harmful is tin foil hat crazy. In some cases even attempting to study the potential risk is going against their religion and needs to be prevented.

4) Human population is the biggest thing driving human caused changes...but the _best_ way to reduce human population is to increase human wealth and education. If you make the assumption that human activity is driving climate change and that the change will be bad, it still might make more sense in the long term to drive industrial expansion and wealth creation, _increasing_ the supposed harm to the environment in the short term to benefit the environment in the long term.

5) The unforeseen consequences of climate change regulation may very well be worse than the harms they seek to prevent. Look at 'biofuels', in particular ethanol, and at world food prices.

6) IMHO global climate change caused by CO2 is very likely to be the case but not necessarily bad. There will be winners and losers, and we should think carefully about these aspects. Lower heating bills in the Northeast of the US, higher AC bills in the Southwest. Will Siberia take over as the world's breadbasket and what are the geopolitical consequences of giving Russia more economic power?

7) IMHO we should be working to reduce net CO2 put into the atmosphere, but need to recognize that human activity is a small part of a much larger cycle, and need to come up with business and growth positive approaches to CO2 reduction. Just because I see some truth in 'human CO2 production will change the climate' does not mean I buy the rest of the religion; IMHO we need to be working on enhanced CO2 sinks rather than reducing CO2 production, and we need to do this in a way where the government involvement is a small as possible.

8) Too many politicians make their living promoting the various climate religions (on both sides) rather than trying to see what reality actually is.

I am not going to comment again in this thread; I've made my points and this could be a huge time sink.

73
Jon
AF7TS

 

Along with "nature is always good" has come "and has been, is, and should forever be static and unchanging", which is just false. It is possible that human activity is changing things now, but change is and has always been the rule, not the exception in nature. Again, the ground on which I stand here in NH was under a mile of ice 12,000 years ago... the forests, mountains all ground to powder under the advancing glacier. I am reminded of this every day. Every large hill has a pile of enormous bolders on its southern flank, dropped as the ice passed over.

 

Godzilla!
臨時ニュースを申し上げます
臨時ニュースを申し上げます
ゴジラが銀座方面に向かっています
大至急避難してください
大至急避難してください
Oh, no, they say he's got to go
Go, go, Godzilla (yeah)
Oh, no, there goes Tokyo
Go, go, Godzilla (yeah)
History shows again and again
How nature points out the folly of man
Godzilla!
History shows again and again
How nature points out the folly of man
Godzilla!
History shows again and again
How nature points out the folly of man
Godzilla!
History shows again and again
How nature points out the folly of man
Godzilla!
Songwriters: Donald Roeser
Blue Öyster Cult

 

All scientists do is collect clues and see where they clues point. Consequently they always have a clue, but the clues can be misleading. Sometimes radical new clues come up that put all the old clues in a new light.

The people who need to admit they don't have a clue are the ones who ignore all the clues while they wait for the Ultimate Clue that doesn't exist and thus can't be found.

 

'Climate Change' has always been happening. The difference now is that there are people who can make a profit from it.