|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Hot Earth... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1399133526 Message started by Serowbot on 05/03/14 at 09:12:06 |
|
Title: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/03/14 at 09:12:06 Okay,.. everybody plant just one more tree in your yard... It won't fix nuttin'... but it can't hurt... ...and it's a nice spot to drink a beer and contemplate yer' navel... Many parts of the world just went through a wicked winter,... we here in Az didn't even come close to a winter... we had 3 chilly days in November and that's it... Globally,... the average temperature was up.. and that's what makes the climate change a reality... That is "Global" warming... or what is now called "Climate change"... The name change wasn't a change in facts,.. just a new way of looking at them... This warming is going to cause wicked cold storms and weather... Why?... The oceans are the storm engine of the planet... Warmer waters will make more extreme weather...(bigger, badder, storms)... Like we just had... Also,... higher sea levels... just a few feet, may seem like it don't matter.... ... but 60 or 70% of the Earth's human population lives on coastal cities... New York, London, Miami, LA, Houston, Venice, and a hundred other major cities will join Atlantis,... as mythical places that once were... I'm in S.Az... 2600ft up and 400 miles from the ocean,.. why should I worry?... Well,... I'm not near as worried as some people should be... We are pretty dry here though... :-?... Jus' plant a tree... where's the harm?... ;D... Whether we are the cause, or it's all mother nature doing her thing... it will still hurt us bad... If all our efforts can only make 6" of difference... it could save 20 cities and millions of lives... .. or, it could make a nice shady spot in yer' yard to drink a beer, and contemplate yer' navel... PS... I'm building an ark... ;D ;D ;D... ...out of Savage head covers, belt guards, and muffler shields...(donations accepted, but you must pay shipping... and include some nuts and bolts... gonna' need a lot of them)... ;D ;D ;D... :-?... http://happyminutes.blog.com/files/2012/07/Proof-of-global-warming.jpg http://funny-pictures.funmunch.com/pictures/Dont-Believe-In-Global-Warming.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by raydawg on 05/03/14 at 10:37:35 That ain't proof till my fishnet speedos are a hang'n on that line too..... Not sure about the truth in GW, one thing fer sure is the planet has never been here before, perhaps this is what it does as it ages, I dunno. What I do know is the extreme left, of the likes of algore, who has capitalized on it GREATLY, only to fuel the possibilities of more warming at the hands of man made CO2 by his lavish lifestyle (green footprint) and the incessant, angry, belittling of opposing opines, for political fodder, has not led to a more open and honest exchange, where if in fact the "charge" is true, makes their motivation all the more suspect.....and sad too, for it seems the green they are concerned with is their own $$$$$$$$ :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/03/14 at 10:51:39 Im not saying our climate isnt affected by our actions. I think to do so would be ignoring glaringly obvious facts. However, in the 70's , in spite of all the industrial revolution & all the factories, most of which started out as ecological disaster areas, we saw cooling that lead scientists to predict a Mini Ice Age.. So, we know that the climate has more influential things acting on it than Just Us.. &, we have seen in recent years such things as polar caps on other planets melt, as out temps have risen, The sun is a powerful thing & greatly affects our climate. How MUCH of what we are seeing is to be blamed on us? Nobody knows that answer. AND, lets say we decide we are a major contributing factor.. Has anyone got a plan to actually change things enough to make a real impact? Just paying Gore carbon tax credit fees wont do it. What level of industry IS sustainable, should we discover that is the problem? Ive read things on this & what I read boiled down to ( I paraphrase) " We can alter our lives to 3rd world status, spend billions upon billions, & slow the increase by 10ths of a degree".. IOW, IF we are the real problem, even if we stopped doing nearly everything we are doing that causes the problem, the die have been cast & theyre comin up Snake Eyes.. If people will take the time & do some digging, theyll discover that Ken Lay & Al Gore dreamed this thing up, with carbon taxes being the greatest get rich scam since the federal reserve. Which, BTW, is very difficult if not impossible to discover the owners of.. BUT, if ya look at the countries that have recently needed a good solid "Spreading of democracy" in,, youll see they havent been participants in the Rothschild central banking scheme. Not a one.. each & every one were sovereign nations with their own currencies, they wouldnt accept IMF or any other loans.. John Sullivan ( I think thats his name) "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".. Understand what thats about & eyes will be opened. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/03/14 at 16:34:05 moving reply to this thread __________________________________ Chicken Little: "the sky is falling" scientific facts: 29% of earth's surface is land mass, humans occupy 1% of that 29% .. when carbon dioxide levels rise, ocean plant life flourishes.. Atmospheric oxygen comes from plant life in the ocean NOT rain forests (20yrs ago the liberals were trying to save the rain forests) when atmospheric oxygen levels rise, polar glaciation occurs which lowers sea temperature, quite simply: reverses any warming trend. earth dynamics (ocean & atmospheric) cycle up and down in a sine-wave style when illustrated as a graph (as above replies illustrate) 20yrs ago liberals would have us believe shrinking rain forests would cause global oxygen depletion which we now know was false. Today liberals believe man's puny 1% footprint of earth's LAND MASS (land = 29% of global surface) will effect global temperatures? Earth oceanic & atmospheric conditions will continue to "cycle" normally as it has for millions of years. Al Gore is Chicken Little |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by North Country on 05/03/14 at 20:57:44 Mr. Shorty sir, what do you think you might gain by denying scientific fact?.. Other than making yourself appear misinformed? Re-posting my comment from the “Looking at the data thread”. Here is the gist, and some noted quotes and stats from an article I read recently (maybe in “scientific American”?) not sure. Okay re-looked up some stats, here goes. First, the Co2 is safe myth. Yes I know that some scientists have said this is a safe level. The industry and government backed and funded scientists that make up the IPCC have endorsed this point of view. If it is safe, ... why at only .8*C is the Arctic sea ice disappearing 80 years ahead of schedule, why are the continental glaciers melting, why is Antarctica emitting methane, why are vast areas of the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia thawing and emitting methane, why do so many scientists say the methane release from frozen sinks is an irreversible catastrophe threatening the survival of humanity? Fact is 2*C is not safe. As we speak it is being proven that 2*C and still rising will guarantee 4*C, and a 4*C rise that isn't an absolute plateau, will lead to 6*C, which most agree is an end game for humanity. So why such a miscalculation? Because the government restrained compilation of data from the IPCC has regarded climate change as a lineal equation, rather than a multidimensional interrelated system where the effect on one ecology or subsystem, is in effect realized by others. Where effects of a situation or system, feeds back not just onto itself, but unto the entire system complex. It is all about thermal equilibrium, and a radiative forcing very near zero, last found pre industrial period at near 270 ppm CO2e. Much above that, and the planet slowly starts heating. At today’s levels near 397 ppm CO2 and 470+ CO2e, most all of the earth's thermal sub systems are in positive feedback. They are all feeding into global heating, which in turn will result in rising mean global surface temperatures. This is a frightening prediction of things to come. Back to top |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/04/14 at 05:51:06 North Country your ignorance would be laughable if not for the level of arrogance you open with.. you actually believe 80yrs has any significance in regards to earth history? you obviously don't read with comprehension and it shows. You and Al Gore are genuine buffoons. You ignore facts laid out in front of you just to remain loyal to the failed liberal agendas |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by raydawg on 05/04/14 at 07:19:48 555D5C424C4A2F0 wrote:
Heed your own advice much? But please do not waste my time in imploring me to repost information already covered. Secondly, whatever information you may be at odds with, please do your own research sir. Please tell me who it was that implored you...... We have ways to deal with them. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/04/14 at 17:18:59 Here's why your plant a tree idea is a bad one. It distorts reality and over emphasizes a problem that is minor. The Left would rather see others in the undeveloped world stay that way so it will help appease their guilt..... Read the great article at the link below. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288.html |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/04/14 at 17:40:04 When planting a tree becomes a bad idea,.. you have let yer' politics run off with yer' common sense... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by pgambr on 05/04/14 at 17:53:00 Perhaps this should be in it's own thread. If fossil fuels are that big of a concern now, what is the world going to be like in 40 years? The global population is expected to surpass 10B. How are that many people going to inhabit the planet in a manner other than 3rd world conditions in every every continent? JOG may be right again - Georgia Guide Stones. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/04/14 at 18:46:31 2234233E26333E25510 wrote:
No, when YOU turn planting a tree into a cause, you know your politics have run off with common sense. You posted this plant a tree thing as a political statement, nothing more. Plant a tree, flip a switch, turn your lights on so you feel better about yourself but leave undeveloped countries to $hit outside in the dark. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by mpescatori on 05/05/14 at 01:36:51 OK boys & girls, now STOP IT! or else I get mad at you... >:( ;) Anybody out there ever been in the 3rd Grade ? Ever heard of the Dinosaurs ? How were the temperatures back then ? Ever heard of "Paleometereologists" ? Ever heard of "Tree Rings" and "Petrified Forests" ? Exactly WHEN did Man begin measuring temperatures with accurate and reliable instruments, and keep historical records ? First things first, back in the days of the dinosaurs, Earth temperatures were much higher, and humidity was much higher than today. Fossil evidence shows that large dinosaurs (cold blooded animals)roamed not only portions of now semitropical Earth, but also areas which today are continental or even semi-arctic. Fossil evidence being not only the dinos themselves, but mostly plant life. Where are the largest coal deposits? In modern-day semiarctic areas. Ancient rain forests in North Germany, Canada and Siberia ? YUP ! Secondly, studying tree rings in petrified forests tells us a lot on how the climate was in those days. High temperatures, high humidity, high CO2 (where were factories and fossil fuels back then ? :-? ) no polar ice caps... The planet has lived through many, many hot-cold cycles. 3rd Grade tells us that the last Ice Age ended about 12000 BC. TO ME that means the planet has been warming for the last 14000 years. Fossil fuels only came around the 1700's... in the form of COAL, mostly in Germany and England. THAT's when smog started. GMC and your neighbor's SUV has nothing to do with it. Your Sunday BBQ should be fined and shut down because hot coals produce zillion times more CO and CO2 than a SUV cruising at 60mph... Where does CO2 come from ? 1. Decomposing sea plants - try stopping that ! 2. Volcanoes - try putting a lid on those ! 3. Farting cattle... YUP! A toast to Gyrobiob and his "wheat belly" thing... ::) 4. Decomposing plant life on dry land 5. Ordinary breathing of ALL animal life on Earth and natural forest fires, 6. Man-made Industry, for the last 2-5% of ALL GLOBAL YEARLY CO2 production; I say 2-5% because it depends on the area. So shut down your air conditioning, ride a bicycle the 25 miles to work, have a cold shower, eat more home-grown eggs and veggies, and stop buying all produce that comes from more than 50 miles away (no more Idaho potatoes...) OR Get a grip, and realize you can't stop the Earth from spinning... ...it's just another cycle... ...the real problem is the spin doctors are making the gullibles think it's the end of the world... PS Exactly WHEN did Man begin measuring temperatures with accurate and reliable instruments, and keep historical records ? Answer: around 1860. Which means we have NO IDEA of how temperatures were from the times of Adam& Eve until 1860, other than looking at tree rings... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/05/14 at 08:50:48 You wont get anywhere pointing out the Great Lakes were gouged out by glaciers. These people have literally been raised believing in a Boogie Man. When Duponts patent on R-12 was about to run out, suddenly it was a bad thing & had to be stopped,, |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/05/14 at 09:18:28 JOG, accusing others of seeing boogiemen?... :-/... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/05/14 at 09:42:12 No one taught me they were there. I believe the things I believe based on ME looking for answers, because, IMO, there are many, many loose end when I accept the "answers" I am just given. The masses buy into what there told to worry about,, YOu guys wanna worry about something, fight against GMOs. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Pine on 05/05/14 at 10:26:57 I would post something functional in this thread... but its too full hot headedness as it is... yall have with it... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by mpescatori on 05/05/14 at 12:52:30 Read my post... :) |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by raydawg on 05/05/14 at 16:13:14 4452455840555843370 wrote:
C'mon JOG, that IS funny :-* |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/07/14 at 04:28:03 Now that Hopey's been President for 5+ years, he's weighing in on the single largest issue caving the entire planet today.....climate change. Here's the single biggest problem with the report and Sew's tree planting crusade, they are both based on a series of models that have been wrong, on the high side of temperature, since they were introduced 15 years ago or so. All the major UN reports have been wrong on the high side. Think about that. Doesn't that tell you (along with a ton of other evidence) they have already decided the outcome in their own minds and on purpose or not, creating models that fit their thinking, not the facts?! |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/07/14 at 04:55:02 Here's a perfect example. I read this, checked a few sites with data from nasa satellites about global temperature and wonder how it is all we here is global warming, global warming yet there doesn't seem to be any. http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/global_cooling_underway.html |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/07/14 at 05:25:05 Some good points/questions for you in the settled science group should answer. 1) No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets), contrary to all “consensus” predictions? 2) Natural or Manmade? If we don’t know how much of the warming in the longer term (say last 50 years) is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade? 3) IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs” translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party? 4) Climate Models Can’t Even Hindcast How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how to you botch a hindcast? 5) …But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can’t even explain the past? 6) Modelers Lie About Their “Physics”. Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain “fudge factor” tuning? 7) Is Warming Even Bad? Who decided that a small amount of warming is necessarily a bad thing? 8) Is CO2 Bad? How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort of dangerous gas? 9) Do We Look that Stupid? How do scientists expect to be taken seriously when their “theory” is supported by both floods AND droughts? Too much snow AND too little snow? 10) Selective Pseudo-Explanations. How can scientists claim that the Medieval Warm Period (which lasted hundreds of years), was just a regional fluke…yet claim the single-summer (2003) heat wave in Europe had global significance? 11) (Spinal Tap bonus) Just How Warm is it, Really? Why is it that every subsequent modification/adjustment to the global thermometer data leads to even more warming? What are the chances of that? Either a warmer-still present, or cooling down the past, both of which produce a greater warming trend over time. And none of the adjustments take out a gradual urban heat island (UHI) warming around thermometer sites, which likely exists at virtually all of them — because no one yet knows a good way to do that.o |
|
Title: You want climate change models? Post by mpescatori on 05/07/14 at 05:37:53 WebsterMark, you're my man :) You want climate change models ? Sure, I'll give you climate change models all you want ! FROM THIS http://https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhmziswrS7LeLXpz3zyKqGOEw3Vm4IWkpyrZVg3OlRvkm9fyZTlA TO THIS http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/13/article-2362606-1ACBB102000005DC-873_634x505.jpg TO... [drum roll, please...] THIS ! TADAAA !!! http://turntherightcorner.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/sports-illustrated-swimsuit-2014-cover-tiegen-agdal-aldridge.jpg?w=650 8-) NOW THAT'S THE CHANGE I LIKE !!! :D |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/07/14 at 06:28:03 finally....! A warming model I can fully embrace!!! |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/07/14 at 07:47:15 0F3D3A2B2C3D2A15392A33580 wrote:
******************************* Ohh, before the drive to create a data stream that would allow them to pretend there was some horrid thing afoot they had data collection sites in areas away from dense population areas. Those got eliminated over time. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/07/14 at 09:21:28 Hmmmmmm?... Should I believe a bunch of armchair experts, talking through their hats,... or 97% of the experts in the world?.... I know, I know,.. all the experts have a political agenda to lie,... unlike a bunch of guys that argue politics on a bike site for fun... I don't need to strain my brain on this one... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/07/14 at 09:55:53 97%? Says who? & did ya forget the scientist who recently quit the IPCC & reversed course? Who is paying these scientists? Where is the data? Why did they start using thermometers on roof tops & by cement runways to gather data? Did they not see that as being out of step with reality? Why just accept what we are told when we have so often been lied to? Where did the "soon to come, mini ice age" go? Were those alarmists not also scientists? Wasnt there "consensus" then? Who determines what the world SHOULD be doing? & HOW will Americans changing their lives & paying carbon taxes even have any effect at all while China & other countries pollute unrelentingly? If the greens want a cause, let them take up ending nuke power ( Remember Fukushima?) & stopping GMOs.. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/07/14 at 12:02:02 687E69746C79746F1B0 wrote:
here in lies the problem...... 1) I would not refer to those questioning the IPCC data 'armchair' as many of them were on the original panel. 2) No one I know disputes climate change or disputes a gradually warming. What many dispute is the time frame. I say it began thousands of years ago after the last ice age. That part is a fact. IPCC says it began recently because of greenhouse gases according to their modeling software. 3) the 97% number is a lie that's been repeated often. Take 5 minutes and get the truth for yourself about this number and then don't repeat. Ask yourself this question, shouldn't the number be 100%? Who are the 3% that say there's been no warming? Every scientist whose ever written anything on the topic says climate change is true; it's the source and timeframe that are challenged. 4) as far as political agenda, the IPCC and UN by definition are political. Are you so gullible to think that somehow 'oil men' are influenced by money by scientist looking for millions in government funding are somehow pure and holy? Really? where were you when I was selling life insurance?.... 5) given the fact you repeated the 97% number which is not true, clearly you believe on face value what you're told BECAUSE of your political point of view. I suspect the future dangers have been overblown because of my political point of view. Given the fact that every single prediction since the first IPCC report can out has been vastly overstated (and always on the high side) I have the better position. You cannot point to IPCC data that's been accurate. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/07/14 at 12:55:38 http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm Excuse all the smoking/cancer visuals... but, the facts are there... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ[/media] |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/07/14 at 16:48:42 A Theyve been wrong on all counts to date 2 There was "consensus" when we were warned of the oncoming mini ice age. D No one has yet addressed exactly how all of US being taxed for energy use would have any impact on the GLOBAL output,. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by pgambr on 05/07/14 at 16:55:55 47585E5944437242724A58541F2D0 wrote:
I have not heard an explanation about the past two ice ages. This was the coldest winter in years and they still blamed it on the global warming. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/07/14 at 17:09:06 Where did the 97% come from anyway? |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/07/14 at 17:41:37 PS.. You all win... I give up... You are all in that brilliant 3% that thinks you know more than all the experts in the world... You may need a bigger helmet... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/07/14 at 18:03:28 & yet, youve declined to offer any logical points against ours.. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/07/14 at 18:50:00 3422352830252833470 wrote:
That's a bit of a cop out dude.... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/07/14 at 23:17:12 Youre a laid back dude. You want to trust people. You trust the goobs, We were Taught to do that,, I did it, for a few years, but the answers I was handed in the news or from teachers simply didnt fit into the equation I was observing ^& actually answer it,I finalloy met some people who knew about the federal reserve, They pointed me to Creature from Jekyll island,, I read it & Suddenly I SAW what was really happenimg. I( cant understabd how anyone can accept the state of reality we are told is true., FWIW, My wi9fe was an "American".. She believed America was what she had grown up believibg. I didnt believe that,m but culdnt oprove itm,After kistening to Alex Jones & soending the first moinths taking nots & looking for ways to o\prove him wrong, unsuccessfully, I started taking what he qas saying to my wife & forcing her to listen to it & address it. After a coupla weeks of that, she put her face in her hands & Cried, Begging me to NOT change her reality,, & YES, thgere are more realities than one,, The realkity I see when I look at the world is vastly different from the reality the sheeple live in,, AND it Looks WEIRD to then,, as does their reality the opoerate in look weird to me. GW Griffin, Lew Rockwell.,good places to go diggin,,& since Drudge has recently fsllen under threat, it must be of value,, |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by mpescatori on 05/08/14 at 01:08:03 I read a post by I forget whom, with a word/abbreviation I did not understand and which I could not find online. I replied in a joking manner, nothing obscene nor NSFW, yet both posts have been deleted. I fail to understand. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by mpescatori on 05/08/14 at 01:56:27 I understand, now... ::) Wrong thread... :-X I was referring to "TMI post" and it was actually in the "personal prob" thread about the poison ivy... It's still all there... I must be getting old... :P ;D |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/08/14 at 03:29:16 one volcanic eruption pollutes the atmosphere more than the entire industrial age.. evidence shows earth has always had warming/cooling cycles |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by raydawg on 05/08/14 at 03:52:50 Pharisees, Sadducee, and Politicians all preach doom, with the only hope, as in hope and change, residing with putting our allegiance in them....... Bot, you, me, anybody is free to put their faith wherever they want to, but its our responsibility, to our self, to question it....... As I said before, when Al Gore lives according to the threats of reducing our/his green foot print, I'll listen to him, just as I would listen to Obama re: race issues when they call their own into account when using the "N" word in comedy. rap music, etc. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/08/14 at 10:02:42 DOOOM.....DOOOM we must tax you to stop the DOOM |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/08/14 at 10:18:20 What's yer' elevation there in Florida, Shorty?... :-/... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/08/14 at 11:42:22 65 feet above sea level |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/08/14 at 16:36:51 The 97% is a lie, it is really around 52% and dropping: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/ The survey: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html Where the lie originated: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article Exerpt from first link: Quote:
This knowledge has been out there for a long time... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Trippah on 05/08/14 at 19:40:22 Well, given the rising sea levels, I am about to buy stock in a surfboard company. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/09/14 at 05:07:45 http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-9-months/ Here's what I don't understand. This satellite data which measures temp shows no warming for 17 years in a row now. The IPCC reports that started the entire global warming craze predicted on 3 or 4 different occasions over this 17 year period the temp would have risen by various amounts. (Various because they reduced their predictions in later reports) So how is it the data shows no increase yet all I hear now is that global warming has already affected me? You got some 'planing to do Lucy.... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/09/14 at 13:38:29 pay Al Gore or else....DOOOM ;D |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/09/14 at 14:11:53 My beliefs do not come from Al Gore... they come from near unanimous consensus of science... Yours comes from documented manipulations and lies promoted by a few billionaires... This is not one theory versus another... this is reality versus deception... Argument is futile... every fact I put forward is countered by a Koch brother funded lie... They are equal in number... but not at all in substance... Shame you can't see that... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by North Country on 05/09/14 at 14:20:17 “North Country your ignorance would be laughable if not for the level of arrogance you open with”.. “You and Al Gore are genuine buffoons. You ignore facts laid out in front of you just to remain loyal to the failed liberal agendas.” Well, so much for Mr. Bot’s ban on name calling… I’m thinking my stopover at this site may be in the end, brief. Now we are into the denial of the scientific fact of (mankind-enhanced) climate change. Gee, how many of you are Flat Earther’s? How many Creationist’s believing the universe is only 6000 years old? How many Fundies’ believing every word of the Bible is literally true? How many believe the “Bengasi” “Bengasi” “Bengasi” witch-hunt is even worse than Reagan failing to provide security for the 250 Marines he let die in the Beirut terrorist bombing? Or the Bush/Cheney fake Iraq war murdering 5000 American’s and 100 000 or so Iraqis? The Healthcare boogie man has fallen apart after the success of the AHC, so now it’s time to resurrect the Bengasi boogie man yet again. The GOP has been making themselves look like fools for years now, and they simply do not understand that they are making themselves look downright crazy by trying to keep this “Bengasi "Scandal" afloat. The GOP is a one trick pony, and that pony is dead. 90% of you folks hate Obama, love the Teaparty, hate liberals, love your guns, hate taxes, love your bibles, hate everyone who disagrees with your limited and ignorant world view, love a free government ride, hate giving a lift to anyone else, and yet love thinking of yourselves as what?.. some kind of patriots?… Such hutzpah, such gall, such nerve, such arrogance, such a lie! It always amazes me that the people who are collecting their government checks are the loudest ones protesting those who need assistance. I cannot see how they don't see themselves as being included in the social safety net. There's dumb, but this is WAY beyond dumb… Mr. guy 2, no offence intended, and you may not be receiving any SS or work related assistance. But you do say you are disabled and can’t work.. Really? What’s wrong with you sir that you can ride a motorcycle but not find a job??.. How are you supporting yourself? ..just asking. Like (I suspect) you, may be much like the Patriot Leader Mike Vanderboegh who is on Social Security disability. He was the idiot that encouraged Tea partiers to throws rocks at Congressional offices. He travels around the county on his SS disability checks protecting the border in Arizona, rallying for gun rights in Virginia and now in Nevada with fellow welfare grazing clown Cliven Bundy. If he can travel around the country guarding the border, attending rallies, and leading a terrorist militia in the desert; it doesn't sound like he has any kind of disability that prevents him from working. Time to cut this free-loader loose from the government teat, and arrest his ass. The teabagger who protested "keep your government hands off my Medicare!" And he said that's like driving cross-country to protest highways. Should show you what kind of mentality (or more accurately, LACK thereof) we're dealing with, here. So much for the "rugged individualist creators" who view others as "takers". The whole lot of them are frauds and phonies. The gun-toting Bundy terrorists hanging out on Federal land don’t seem to be members of working America in the usual sense. They seem to always have time on their hands to play their games. They want to come across as just "plain old hard working Americans standing up to government, but don’t seem to have a job they need to get back to anytime soon. Considering all the guns/weapon and fetishes they own I would not think of them as the disenfranchised poor/unemployed of society trying to make a stand for (whatever) either. Moochers and takers the lot of them, lazy ignorant scumbags. And for those of you who are members, I hereby rename the Tea Party the “Govt. Teat Party”. These are the same guys who threatened to kill cops, pointed guns at federal agents, threatened Harry Reid, prevented media from accessing a public road, set up checkpoints on public roads, said "the Negros" are on welfare because they never learned how to pick cotton, punched a fellow Mooch Militia member/Vietnam Vet in the chest then pushed him down, threatened to draw guns on each other, stole equipment from each other, stockpiling (likely stolen) FEMA food and equipment and using HAM radio equipment without a license…what a gang of maggots. These Bundiers were shutting down and stopping people on the interstate demanding proof of who they are. They have taken over that town.. and so many of you support this freeloading, racist, gun-humping nut. I’m afraid it’s going to get really ugly there. The intimidation of citizens by armed thugs and criminals cannot stand. The state of Nevada recognizes the federal government, gives deference to it, and believes it has the right to use force to enforce its laws. Section 2 of the Nevada state Constitution states: “The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whomsoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority”. Got that? Armed force! So all of you Constitution! Constitution! Constitution! spouting patriots do NOT believe in the American Constitution or the Nevada state Constitution??? Is Cliven Bundy a patriot? He isn't even close. He's an opportunist, using conservative rhetoric in an attempt to rally support for his unlawful behavior. A patriot makes personal sacrifices for principle and the greater good. Bundy does no such thing. He breaks the law for self-interest and personal gain. Worse yet, Bundy's words and actions reveal he suffers from a sense of deluded entitlement. He believes public lands are somehow owed to him. He believes he shouldn't have to pay the same fees as every other rancher. He takes public resources for private gain ... Government isn't the enemy people, Ronald Reagan did this nation a grave disservice when he said government isn't the solution; it is the problem. This accelerated the trend toward deregulation and privatization, and ultimately ensured that our government, ostensibly of, by and for the people, has been bought and paid for by corporate interests.. Big time. Government is not now, and has never been the enemy. The enemy is the corporate interests, which are dominated by the military-industrial complex Ike warned us about, and are screwing you and me into the ground daily. But you love your screwing… ahhh, more, deeper… How can so many of you be so stupid?? Now that we're an inch away from being an oligarchy, we see our government, the people we've elected to represent us, representing the interests of the very rich and big corporations at our expense. Yet, individual taxpayers such as we pay in over 83% of the government's total tax revenue, and corporations less that 10%. In 1944, individuals paid in 53% and corporations 35%. So basically we're spending more and more and getting less and less. The GOP has been making themselves look like fools for years now, and they simply do not understand that they are making themselves look downright crazy by trying to keep this “Bengasi "Scandal" afloat. The GOP is a one trick pony, and that pony is dead. I could go on gentlemen, but what is the use? I have to endured so many uninformed, ill-informed, and just plain stupid people here in northern Maine, I had hoped that combined with my love of my S-40, and a site devoted to this awesome machine, and better yet a political thread, I might find people of like mind, yet with diverse, even mutually agreeable points of view. My experience here has been a disappointment. This thread (not the rest of the site) is composed of 90% nasty people with closed minds who are brain washed (brain dead) and not open to genuine and honest debate of current political topics. I have many other “neutral” political sites that I frequent, and enjoy participating in and contributing to. Most people on these other sites are congenial and not subject to such course, rude, vulgar and condescending posts as those of you on the TT thread. I have vowed to spend less and less time here as it is a devotion of my time to a useless activity. If the effort of posting logic, reason, and scientific fact to morons brings no compensating gain it is a total waste of time. 90% of you suck up the propaganda that is spoon fed to you like an industrial strength vacuum cleaner. The “stupid”…it burns! |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/09/14 at 14:58:40 Yours comes from documented manipulations and lies promoted by a few billionaires... Not true. I can site a hundred scientist who disagree. That is not documented manipulations. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/09/14 at 15:00:20 Well, so much for Mr. Bot’s ban on name calling… I’m thinking my stopover at this site may be in the end, brief. 1) Which you ignored immediately 2) you'd just return under a different name |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/09/14 at 15:07:20 Sorry North,.. I missed that one... The monkeys are in charge of this zoo... It stays deceptively peaceful, as long as there is no opposing view... Then,..very once in while,.. they snare a passing liberal and go berserk... ;D ;D ;D... I try to stay out of the TT.. most of the time... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/09/14 at 15:54:57 Webster, You have a PM ... -Serow |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/09/14 at 16:21:18 I'm in trouble now.... Picked on the teachers pet. "She" can say what "she" wants.... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/09/14 at 16:23:43 Webster,.. PM's are private. It is against site rules to discuss them publicly... Quote:
You can respond to me, in a PM... We won't discuss it here... - Serow Sorry guys,.. but Webster went way.. over the line... in a post that has deleted by me, in it's entirety... Don't allow this... too far, is too far... I'm calling on cooler heads here, my friends.. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/09/14 at 16:43:45 How many names did your "girl" call some of us in "her" rant above? Did u send "her" a pm? Oh wait, that's double secret stuff..... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/10/14 at 06:27:58 Back to the topic..... Here's an article I can get behind at least 95% of the way..... Makes very good points to both sides. I remember hearing about pumping sulfides into the air to deflect just enough sunlight. https://theweek.com/article/index/261237/on-global-warming-conservatives-have-a-blind-spot-mdash-and-liberals-have-tunnel-vision |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/10/14 at 11:30:15 232B2A343A3C590 wrote:
you proved me right |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/11/14 at 06:25:46 3C2A3D20382D203B4F0 wrote:
how about British news, Koch manipulates across the pond? And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191 |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by North Country on 05/11/14 at 18:04:35 “How about British news, Koch manipulates across the pond? And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year.” Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191 Shorty You may believe in your own reality sir, but rational people believe in science and facts. The reference you post as proof the ice-caps are growing is the UK “Daily Mail”. For those of you not familiar with this crappy little right-wing tabloid, the Mail is said to be the most “right-wing” British newspaper in print. The Daily Mail shares a lot of the same outlook as Fox News, and the National Enquirer (they promote an agenda of anti-science and sensationalism). They use sources that any US reporter in any media wouldn't touch with a bargepole, and most importantly they are not viewed as a “legitimate” news source. The Daily Mail is usually spoofed in Great Briton for its obsession with nonsense. It’s sometimes referred to as The Daily Lie. The Mail is rabidly anti-reproductive choice, uses the words "homosexual agenda", engages with 'War on Terror' stories with the gusto of FOX News, and is supportive of pseudoscience and medical scare stories without foundation. It may be helpful to know that during the 1930s the Daily Mail supported Nazism and Fascism - its controller, Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The Mail's "Star" columnist - Richard Littlejohn - lives in a mansion in Florida from which he happily pontificates his egregious nonsense. He is a loud-mouthed bigot, and he fits in perfectly in Mail Land. A sampling of Mail front-pages reveals these favored topics: Whipping up fear of Muslims - Xenophobic nonsense - Those evil Muslims again - The gay PC-brigade going after those poor Christians - Scare story BS - Standing up for that most disadvantaged group, white men - Yes, gosh there's people having sex - Stigmatizing the poor, the unemployed, foreigners and Muslims in one swoop - OMG the Bible is banned!!!1 Except that the story turned out to be BS. Quote: “A month spent reading the nation's leading mid-market newspaper took me into a terrifying, depressing world, filled with suspicion. Please excuse me if I seem a little peculiar. I have just returned from a country where bubonic plague has broken out, violent criminals roam the streets, and child slavery is commonplace. Millions of its inhabitants are malnourished, and danger lurks in seemingly innocent places - like milk, bread, and garden sprays. Ponies - yes, ponies - are slaughtered for the gastronomic pleasure of the country's neighbors. A Stasi-style surveillance state is secretly plotting to turn them all vegetarian, and to top it all there's even a Wicked Witch who - until very recently - exerted a malign influence over the nation's ruler. Readers of the Daily Mail will recognize immediately where I'm talking about. Others will be surprised to learn that I'm referring to twenty-first century Britain. But this is the picture you'd get from unadulterated consumption of the Mail. I know, because I've just done it. It was weird.” …Yes, well enough debunking of “The Mail”. It does illustrate however how so many of you are misinformed (duped) by assuming that questionable sources which reflect your unfounded beliefs are facts. And now to refute the Mail’s nonsense sir, here is some legitimate science from reliable sources: Arctic sea ice extent for April 2014 averaged 14.14 million square kilometers (5.46 million square miles). This is 610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) above the record April monthly low, which occurred in 2007. While the rate of ice loss was rapid through the first half of April, it subsequently slowed down. The rate of ice loss averaged for the month was 30,300 square kilometers per day (11,700 square miles per day), which is slower than the average rate of 38,400 square kilometers per day (14,800 square miles per day) over the period 1981 to 2010. As of May 4, 2014, extent was below average in the Barents Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and the Bering Sea, and slightly above average in Baffin Bay. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by pgambr on 05/11/14 at 18:55:17 What about the Great Lakes this year? Last Thursday, the Great Lakes were more frozen than they had been in 35 years, with 92.2 percent of the lakes' surface covered in ice, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) in Ann Arbor, Mich. That's the second-highest since ice cover started being recorded in 1973; only 1979 had an icier winter, reaching 94.76 percent ice cover at one point that February. On Saturday, Lake Michigan had the most ice the individual body of water had ever recorded, at 93.29 percent. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/12/great-lakes-ice-cover_n_4899269.html Take a look at this link, merely for some great photography. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Trippah on 05/11/14 at 19:50:45 When all the usa's motorcycle dealers only carry snowmobiles, I will start to suspect something's up. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/11/14 at 20:07:20 Yea, yea,, I remember,, ALL those scientists telling us how there would be no ice in the N. Atlantic by 2012.. Well,, they are wrong, still, again,, whatever. & All you guys hollering about "Listen to the scientists" Well, it was scientists telling us about the coming mini ice age in the 70's.. They were wrong, there was consensus, so, scientists can be wrong & consensus means bupkiss.. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/12/14 at 13:25:11 434B4A545A5C390 wrote:
;D ;D ;D You used a NASA aticle dated 2/29/2012 to debunk a Daily Mail article dated 9/7/2013?? ;D ;D ;D Quote:
;D ;D ;D That is truely hillarious!!! Are you denying the ice is there or are you taking it as a matter of faith that the ice is gone? Also, being the most right-wing paper in a socialist country isn't really saying much. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/12/14 at 13:38:23 So, just to clarify, you intentionally took an article from over two years ago (ignoring all new information that has since been published) that happened to be at the same time perioid as the low point of the scale to make your argument... Quote:
Let's not gloss over the dishonesty here, coupled with righteous idignation and scorn, that this individual dismissed an article from 9/7/2013 solely based on the messenger to tout an article from 2/29/2012 that was, coincidentally, published during a low point on the scale. Speaking only for myself, it is THIS kind of fraud that prevents me from taking seriously the various iterations of DOOM that are intended to take my attention away from how badly this countrty has been mismanaged. If the Fantasy Warmists could bring an honest debate then they would get more support but, sadly, deception is all that is in the "settled science" bag of tricks. On a side note, they are only measuring a certain time period each year such that January may not always be the coldest month of any particular year but I guess that wasn't important enough to disclose. Gotta keep up appearances!!! |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/12/14 at 14:25:55 2921203E3036530 wrote:
::) Quote:
Oh, so it's mankind-enhanced now, instead of man-made. Science sure is flexible!! ;) I think some volcanoes and bovines are feeling a little scorn.. Quote:
WOW!!! ;D ;D ;D Reagan killed 250 Marines...also, your intollerance of "fundies" or anyonw else who thinks differently form you is par for the course. And did you forget about a little place called Afganistan? I guess we can call that Obama's perpetual Afgan war of ultimate super death!! Quote:
Success ;D ;D ;D Trillion dollars, fewer people with health insurance, skyrocketting costs, loss of doctors and plans and all to sign up almost 2 million paid plans for people who did not have health insurance before. But almost 3 million who had insurance before now do not have it but I guess you gotta break a few eggs and such. Quote:
Then why the cover up? As they say, the truth will set you free. Quote:
TAKE THAT, STRAWMAN!!! ;D ;D ;D Quote:
I get that it amazes you, as it should. ;) Quote:
How dare people on Social Security express an opinion!!! Don't they know they exchanged their rights for that pittance of an income??? Quote:
Yes, let's make association and assembly an arrestable offense and we can all vote on who gets to suck from the government teat!! It will be like Wellfare Survivor. This guy needs to stop caring for his country and just let it implode. Quote:
Oh, I know what kind of mentality I am dealing with now, for sure!!! Quote:
Wasn't there mention of your time here being brief... Quote:
So, everyone who doesn't suck the government unit is a terrorist...but the snipers who came to round up cattle are upstanding Americans... Quote:
And there it is. Quote:
Now this is the burning hatred you liberals truely feel inside and try to cover up with pleasantries like "sir" and misinformation and such. We were all just waiting for the inevitable to happen and here it is. Thanks for meeting our low expectations. Quote:
Ahhh!!! Not using HAM radio without a license!!! Start up the gas chambers!! I think George Soros still has the originals and has kept them at the ready for just the right moment. Quote:
Al Sharpton, huh, is that your neutral source? Quote:
Wait, I thought we were arresting people for following the Constitution... Quote:
I find it funny how public lands aren't available to the public, I guess if all 300 million of us can't use it at the sme time then none of us can. Seems fair. I wonder whose lands they were before they became public... Quote:
Where have you been??? Quote:
Truth is never a disservice!! Quote:
Corporate interests have never been more powerless!! They are kicked around by the royal politicians just like the rest of us and those who don't provide the proper alms are in for a bitter harvest. Quote:
It is the enemy and always has been. Quote:
Your ignorance is mindblowing!! Quote:
First off Ronald McDonald and Chuck E Cheese are not real people and shouldn't be taxed. All that does is tax me twice, income and when I buy something. Quote:
Wow, if Maine is too Conservative then may I suggest Cuba or N Korea? Quote:
How do you think we feel??? Quote:
MSNBC, Huffpo, Dailykos...I am sure I am missing some... Quote:
True, when will you begin posting logic, reason and facts? |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by verslagen1 on 05/12/14 at 14:26:17 Jog found a good site for current status, but this pic is more informative... http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by raydawg on 05/12/14 at 16:22:18 If the effort of posting logic, reason, and scientific fact to morons brings no compensating gain it is a total waste of time. Gee.....why do I hear lil' voices from decades ago on the school playground chanting, " It takes one to know one" I have vowed to spend less and less time here as it is a devotion of my time to a useless activity. Would you like help in keeping your vows? BTW, I showed my wife the verbiage NC uses in chastising the opposition, she (my wife) thinks she, is a he, based on her, he, its...... vile anger. Further stating it sounds exactly like a man, who, if he had the ability (resources) he would start a war, just to prove his manliness. My wife is smart, very smart..... I needn't brag up her schooling, she married me ;D |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by North Country on 05/12/14 at 17:13:23 “She (my wife) thinks she, is a he, based on her, he, its...... vile anger.” he, she, it?.. sounds like your wife is a nut sir, and a vile nasty one at that. May I please ask; what’s in it personally for those of you who deny the science of climate change? I’ll never change anyone’s closed and locked minds here as it’s an exercise in futility. If you don’t see that you are parroting the profitable propaganda of corporate America, it’s your loss not mine. We are already seeing the consequences of global warming AKA climate change, in extreme weather patterns, particularly droughts, floods, and ever increasing severe killer storms. Ah well, whatever. Here’s the gist of another article if anyone cares to read it (which I doubt) because it contains scientific facts. All carbon dioxide molecules contain one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The atoms are connected in a relatively straight line with the carbon in the middle, O=C=O. There are NOT two different kinds of carbon dioxide that are either with or without shoulders. When a unit of infrared energy (photon) hits a carbon dioxide molecule it can be absorbed, causing stretching motions of the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms. If the infrared photon was traveling toward outer space a carbon dioxide molecule that absorbs it will take on the heat energy of the photon. The energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide can then be released to continue traveling as a photon, but there is a good chance it will be released back toward Earth instead of heading onward to outer space. If there are more carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, there is a greater chance for each infrared photon to be caught and sent back to Earth instead of continuing toward outer space. The heat of these infrared photons traveling back toward earth will then be available to warm our planet. All carbon dioxide molecules contain one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The atoms are connected in a relatively straight line with the carbon in the middle, O=C=O. There are NOT two different kinds of carbon dioxide that are either with or without shoulders. When a unit of infrared energy (photon) hits a carbon dioxide molecule it can be absorbed, causing stretching motions of the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms. If the infrared photon was traveling toward outer space a carbon dioxide molecule that absorbs it will take on the heat energy of the photon. The energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide can then be released to continue traveling as a photon, but there is a good chance it will be released back toward Earth instead of heading onward to outer space. If there are more carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, there is a greater chance for each infrared photon to be caught and sent back to Earth instead of continuing toward outer space. The heat of these infrared photons traveling back toward earth will then be available to warm our planet. Climate Deniers’ Strategy of Confusion October 27, 2013 The fossil-fuel industry has invested billions of dollars in propaganda – funding phony “scientists” and bankrolling politicians – to confuse the public about the threat from global warming. The deception is aided and abetted by the mainstream media’s misguided “balance,” as Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang explain. By Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang Half a century ago, the tobacco industry tried to preserve its market by misleading Americans about the scientific validity of research demonstrating that smoking causes cancer. To weaken efforts to fight global warming, the “climate change denial machine,” in the words of the Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, has been using that same strategy. For more than 20 years it has sought to cast doubt on the science that demonstrates that the climate is changing and pollution is to blame. The Los Angeles Times has announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor that state “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change,” because they are factually inaccurate. Now, it is time for reporters and editors across the country to follow suit. To avoid misleading readers with a false “balance,” they should also stop paying attention to the deniers. Hurricane Sandy as it approached the U.S. coastline. (Credit: NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab) Hurricane Sandy as it approached the U.S. coastline. (Credit: NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab) The denial lobby is using pseudo-science and cherry-picked data to present the fringe view that global warming is nothing more than what Sen. James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, famously called “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” Just last month it reprised its tired — and false — arguments to debunk the premier scientific assessment of global warming, produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. On Sept. 27, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization declared with near certainty that human activity is causing the climate to change. The panel’s previous assessment, issued in 2007, was only slightly less certain — 90 percent versus the 95 percent in the new report. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists endorsed it. In short, the global warming deniers are as wrong as the smoke-blowers who said in the 1960s that a pack a day was fine. No one seriously argues today that tobacco isn’t bad for you — and if they did, no one would listen. But the Marlboro Men of global warming still draw attention as they deny the consensus conclusion that burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and factories is trapping heat in the atmosphere. They deny that this will raise sea levels, bring more violent storms, and worsen droughts and heat waves. What are they smoking? Do we have a dog in this fight? Absolutely. We just think the debate should be about fact, not fiction. We are not trying to muzzle those who disagree with us. There will be plenty to disagree about in deciding what actions to take. But it is time for journalists to ignore false and misleading statements that mask the source’s bias and scam the public. With the new attention that the I.P.C.C. report brings to the science of global warming, in coming weeks and months more than a few serious news reporters will be tempted in the name of “balance” to quote the deniers — journalists call them “skeptics” – who have presented increasingly discredited messages: Global warming is not happening. Or if it is, it is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions or other human activity. Or, well, it won’t have an impact — we’ll be fine. Who is saying what? –Bob Carter, Heartland Institute: “Currently the planet is cooling.” Wrong. The last decade (2000-2009) was the hottest on record; 2010 was the hottest year recorded. –Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project: “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.” Oh, yeah? Acting under U.S. Supreme Court direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that CO2 is a pollutant because of the harm it causes. –Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute: “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.” Misleading, to say the least: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. For those who write about global warming, spreading the pronouncements of fringe “skeptics” doesn’t show balance. For those who read about global warming, it equates serious climate science and evaluation of peer-reviewed reports with the declarations of individuals, most lacking background in climate research, who are often funded by those standing to profit if the United States fails to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Exxon, for example, gave $2.8 million to the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute alone from 1998 to 2012, according to corporate tax records cited in a Greenpeace report. The attention paid to the deniers has real consequences. For one, it puts pressure on the I.P.C.C. to censor its conclusions. Climate “skeptics” have vilified the U.N. panel, made up of several hundred of the world’s leading climate scientists, subjecting them to “abusive language on blogs, comparisons to the Unabomber, e-mail hacking, and even occasional death threats,” Justin Gillis wrote in The New York Times. “Who could blame the panel if it wound up erring on the side of scientific conservatism,” he wrote. The clear implication: The criticism could lead the panel to pull its punches when, he wrote, most would want “an unvarnished analysis” of global warming’s risks. More broadly, relying on the deniers to provide so-called “balance” also helps create political pressure that makes it all the more difficult to act against global warming. It fuels efforts in the House of Representatives to thwart sensible measures to fight climate change. A solid majority of House Republicans denies that global warming is even occurring, pointing to the alleged disagreements among scientists to justify siding with the fossil-fuel industry. At a minimum, good journalism — and the readers’ right to be fully informed – requires identifying a source’s stake. Is the source an environmentalist or coal or oil spokesperson? Their interests are clear. But what about those claiming expertise or academic credentials in climate science who are supported by think tanks and front groups funded by oil, coal and others with a financial stake in the debate? The reader deserves to know their potential for bias. Better yet, it’s time to toss the denial machine into the bin of discredited ideas. It can keep Joe Camel company. Dan Becker directed Sierra Club’s Global Warming and Energy Program for 18 years before founding the Safe Climate Campaign, which advocates strong measures to fight global warming. James Gerstenzang is the campaign’s editorial director. During four decades as a journalist, he covered the environment and the White House for the Los Angeles Times. [A version of this article previously appeared in USA Today.] |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by raydawg on 05/12/14 at 17:37:51 Boy howdy.....broken vows already :-? I have vowed to spend less and less time here as it is a devotion of my time to a useless activity. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/12/14 at 18:12:21 Is, today current enough?... :-?... West Antarctica Glaciers Collapsing, Adding to Sea-Level Rise http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140512-thwaites-glacier-melting-collapse-west-antarctica-ice-warming/ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?_r=0 - Keep in mind,.. just a 1ft rise in sea levels will displace 11 million people... - Many of the Earth's major cities are coastal ports... - If you believe you are okay because you live at 10ft, or 20 or 30,.. that may not be so... ... storm surges could rise much more... Nobody in the scientific community is even talking about being able to stop it... .. but, we may be able to not make it worse... .. we may also be able to prepare ourselves... by limiting growth in coastal areas, investing in storm walls, better weather monitors, etc... http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/new-report-finds-that-west-antarctica-is-warming-at-an-alarming-rate/266623/ http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/assets_c/2012/12/ngeo1671-f1-thumb-615x642-109231.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/12/14 at 20:20:45 Sew, go back a few years.... Wasn't this already suppose to have happened by now? How many times do we have to hear, if we don't do this, then that will happen in "x" number of years? Miami should have been the new Lost City of Atlantis by now. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/12/14 at 20:24:12 We are already seeing the consequences of global warming AKA climate change, in extreme weather patterns, particularly droughts, floods, and ever increasing severe killer storms. All false. Prove it. Don't give a single sentence from Obama. Give me decades of actual data..... Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble. Don't bother, cause you won't find it. What you will find is projections, always projections, of what will happen if we don't change our ways.... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/12/14 at 20:25:46 BTW, I showed my wife the verbiage NC uses in chastising the opposition, she (my wife) thinks she, is a he, based on her, he, its...... vile anger. Further stating it sounds exactly like a man, who, if he had the ability (resources) he would start a war, just to prove his manliness. Wise woman. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by North Country on 05/12/14 at 20:29:08 Mr. Sero, you are the voice of reason and common sense here. I have the greatest respect for you. Thank you for the post sir, and thank you for your presence here. ************************************** Mr. Mark, Why did God make you so stupid? It can't just be about giving the rest of us something to laugh about! |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/12/14 at 20:57:31 Re: Hot Earth... Reply #71 - Today at 04:24:12 Alert Board Moderator about this Post! Quote We are already seeing the consequences of global warming AKA climate change, in extreme weather patterns, particularly droughts, floods, and ever increasing severe killer storms. MMM Hmm,, Droughts AND floods,.,Ohh & severe killer storms,, HORSE CRAP.. Hurricanes are down, & how is it that DRY & WET are both my fault? Kinda like the "potential side effects" of drugs I see on TV. May cause constipation/diarrhea/vomiting |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/12/14 at 22:13:41 373F3E202E284D0 wrote:
And there it is, the real you ;) |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/12/14 at 23:26:55 Anybody got anything intelligent to say?... I doubt it... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by verslagen1 on 05/12/14 at 23:27:16 'splain sumtin to me... north pole ice is 12,000,000 km2 south pole ice is 1,349,000 km2 earth is... 510,072,000 km2 148,940,000 km2 (29.2%) land 361,132,000 km2 (70.8 %) water How does 1/500th of the earth in ice cover the earth with a foot of water? BTW, antartic ice is at a 30 year high. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/12/14 at 23:56:01 Rather than ask any of us dumbasses... ;D... ... why not ask these guys, and get back to us with the answer?...(.. they can probably explain it better than me)... ... and, they have a Q/A tab... http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ My point being... I don't have to know the climate better than you guys... (although, I believe I do... because I listen to people that know much more than me)... I just have to turn to 97% of climate experts... You guys,... have to convince the world that you know more than all of those experts... Then. Would you care to argue string theory with Stephen Hawking?... ...or challenge Kasparov to a game of chess?... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/13/14 at 03:29:56 & yet, the architects & engineers who try to explain to the people who want to buy the politicians lies on 9/11 are idiots. & NO, Unless you can show me 97%, there arent anywhere NEAR 97%. No one wants to talk about the Scientists who USED to sell the GW thing.. Is the climate changing? YEAH, It IS, We Used to have HUGE Glaciers in North America. Did we cause them to go away? Are we having some impact on the climate? Most likely. What part is "ours"? What part is just Earth Changing? NOW ONE More TIME How will paying carbon taxes to Gore fix it? Lets hear some answers to the problem,, |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by raydawg on 05/13/14 at 04:02:02 My last post on the matter.....too ugly to play here anymore. Is sumtin up re: GW......???? I dunno :-X What I do know: The planet has never been this age before, is it a normal occurrence for it to warm as it ages? No one knows the answer to that, period. If Al Gore, the poster boy of GW believed the extreme, and dire consequences of his prophecy, he would NOT live with such a giant green footprint. Watching this video of him makes me wonder if he "tipped his hand" and used fear as the motivation to address the green issue, except his green of concern was not the green, of greenhouse gas, no, but green in his pocket. >:( The first video upper left corner http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=al+gore+yelling+they+played+on+our+fears&ei=UTF-8&hspart=w3i&hsimp=yhs-synd1&type=W3i_DS,221,0_0,Search,20140208,19669,0,IE11,7635 And finally, if I was really concerned of the welfare of friends, I would never deal with them from anger, belittling, or ultimatums, in trying to convince them of the risk they expose themselves too...... Kinda like the Crusaders, in justifying their actions in saving the heathen...... dawg out |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/13/14 at 04:37:37 North Country wrote: he, she, it?.. sounds like your wife is a nut sir, and a vile nasty one at that. North country wrote: Mr. Mark, Why did God make you so stupid? It can't just be about giving the rest of us something to laugh about! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I have NEVER seen posts here attacking a member's family until now north country promised to go away, why do the posts continue? :-X |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by mpescatori on 05/13/14 at 04:41:06 OK, boys and girls, we have two choices here: 1. Open Wikipedia and read the page on the Science of Studying the Climate, "PALEOCLIMATOLOGY", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology You will learn there is a "Greenhouse Earth" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth but also an "Icehouse Earth" ... 2. Go to Washington, D.C., and visit the Museum of Natural History www.mnh.si.edu and while you're at it, see the most interesting conference on "Climate Change throughout the Past" http://www.mnh.si.edu/calEvents/one-time-events.asp?trumbaEmbed=eventid%3D108680274%26view%3Devent%26-childview%3D Now, all, please bear in mind we are talking about a Planet which is quite a few BILLION years old, and whose cycles are in the range of THOUSANDS of years to achieve anything worthwhile... ...to claim "the sky is falling!" because there have been 10 years of "whatever", followed by another few years of "whatever else", is like a 13-y.o. teenage girl screaming she'll be ugly for life because she has ONE PIMPLE. LAST. As North Country is so good at copy&pasting from Wikipedia, may I please attempt a try myself. Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of 2 oxygen atoms each covalently double bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.04 per cent (400 ppm) by volume, as of 2014.[1] As part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product. The environmental effects of carbon dioxide are of significant interest. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth and its concentration in Earth's pre-industrial atmosphere since late in the Precambrian eon was regulated by photosynthetic organisms. Plants require carbon dioxide to conduct photosynthesis. Greenhouses may (if of large size, must) enrich their atmospheres with additional CO2 to sustain and increase plant growth.[24][25] A photosynthesis-related drop (by a factor less than two) in carbon dioxide concentration in a greenhouse compartment would kill green plants, or, at least, completely stop their growth. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 400 parts per million by volume[1] (or 591 parts per million by mass). The total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.16×1015 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes).[citation needed] Its concentration varies seasonally (see graph at right) and also considerably on a regional basis, especially near the ground. In urban areas concentrations are generally higher and indoors they can reach 10 times background levels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Before the advent of human-caused release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, concentrations tended to increase with increasing global temperatures, acting as a positive feedback for changes induced by other processes such as orbital cycles.[39] There is a seasonal cycle in CO2 concentration associated primarily with the Northern Hemisphere growing season.[40] Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[41][42] Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[43] Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide.[44] It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130–230 million tonnes (145–255 million short tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Carbon dioxide is also produced by hot springs . Now, please read the yellow enhanced again. Now, please tell me where SUVs, Al Gore and the Carbon Tax fit in this picture. >:( |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 05:04:23 22303F223E3F3436510 wrote:
Two points on that Shorty: 1) there was a "man" on here before who spun a bizarre rape/murder scenario using my daughter as the victim. I see a lot in common with "ms. North country" here.... 2) when will Galactic Emperor of Censorship smack the little girl on the hand? I get post deleted if I'm just a bit harsh on his favorite "girl".... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 05:16:36 I just have to turn to 97% of climate experts... Here's what we should do with this debate. Pick one and only one "fact" and examine it (and nothing else) until it's exhausted. Sorry JOG, but this is how I know your 9/11 ideas are wrong. When I narrow down to one item and research all the possibilities, your conspiracy completely falls apart. So, along those lines, I suggest anyone interested research the 97% consensus claim. Is it really 97%? I seem to recall reading something a while ago saying 400 scientist in this field signed a letter saying they did not agree with the IPCC. I'm no math genius, but that means there has to be at least 13,500 who do agree. How many freaking climate scientist are in this world anyway......! Seriously, is it really 97%? Sounds like we have homework to do. Sew? You in or do you plan on repeating what President Hopey tells you? |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/13/14 at 06:36:20 I do enjoy a well turned phrase.. ...to claim "the sky is falling!" because there have been 10 years of "whatever", followed by another few years of "whatever else", is like a 13-y.o. teenage girl screaming she'll be ugly for life because she has ONE PIMPLE. & the CO2 concentration has been demonstrated to have been higher in ice cores. Its just incredible that people continue to accept the fear mongering. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/13/14 at 09:26:37 6F5D5A4B4C5D4A75594A53380 wrote:
I posted some links regarding this, the alarmists came up with the 97% (kinda like Saddam Huisein's re-election numbers) and is a junk figure. Maybe they are including TV weather personalities as scientists... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 09:39:19 I posted one as well... Pointless... nobody watches or reads... ...or they watch just enough to say it's not true... Not true because it disagrees with them... :P... Basically,.. the reason the "32,000" scientists sounds too big is because it is... There are not that many... The dissenting number includes any person with a degree in any subject, and even those are taken on their word... Here you have people with BA's in accounting, and Sports medicine claiming to be climate experts.... Among actual climate experts, there is 97% consensus... 5A4C5B465E4B465D290 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 10:02:00 okay, watched it. Point 1) I have plenty examples of the exact information as this video in a paper format from 'the other side' (minus the cancer scare tactics) that very specifically shows scientist were 'tricked' the same way as this video showed into being counted as endorsing 100% the IPCC's position. here's a article in Forbes . in fact, the guy who started the weather channel for one, but plenty of others. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ ) and I could literally find dozens others. point 2) and this is important, your video says this guy and others who oppose IPCC's position are tied to industries which rely on fossil fuel so therefore these scientist are not reliable since they have been corrupted by money. I would ask you honestly, do you think scientist on the other side are immune to corruption? I can find story after story of scientist who have lost grants and appointments because they did not endorse the IPCC's position. Furthermore, the 'business' side of climate change is exploding. (Try finding a conservative professor in many of the nation's leading universities.) I say it's clear the majority of scientist agree with the statement mankind has some influence over the climate. I don't think anyone would argue with that fact. But the two key questions are: 1) do a majority of scientist in this field agree with the IPCC's model of predicted warming? and 2) do a majority of scientist agree this warming is primarily (90%+) caused by human activity related to greenhouse gas creating? I think it is certain that the % answering yes to both those questions is not 97% which is what Obama and the UN imply. Furthemore, it seems likely the number of people answering yes to both those questions is decreasing, not increasing. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 10:13:34 5D6F68797E6F78476B78610A0 wrote:
So,.. let's say 85%... or 80%... I wouldn't say all science is incorruptible...but, it is scrutinized through peer revue... This cannot be said of the opposing view... I spent years working around egghead scientists... and I know they love nothing more than to disagree with each other, and shoot down theories... They are questioning and sceptical by nature... ... and their consensus is not in decline,.. it is growing... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by thumperclone on 05/13/14 at 10:18:53 nasa has an interesting page on climate change satellite images and loads of data |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 10:31:32 7365726F77626F74000 wrote:
So,.. let's say 85%... or 80%... I wouldn't say all science is incorruptible...but, it is scrutinized through peer revue... This cannot be said of the opposing view... I spent years working around egghead scientists... and I know they love nothing more than to disagree with each other, and shoot down theories... They are questioning and sceptical by nature... ... and their consensus is not in decline,.. it is growing... [/quote] Peer revue has been shown to be very corruptible , see the Climategate emails. Publications that published papers disagreeing with IPCC's official position were threaten; leading authors would not submit their papers for review in those magazines which would lower their standing in the scientific community. Remember love canal? Remember the Alar apple scare? Both were heavily supported by the scientific community but years after the fact after the limelight and publicity has gone away, both were proven to be wrong all along. There was never a higher incidence of cancer at love Canal and there was no problem with the apples. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 10:36:29 Okay so let's say 80%. You are now 17% less than what you originally started at. If it's so easy to determine the 97% number is wrong, doesn't it bother you that your side of this argument is repeating a figure they all know to be false? The biggest issue for me is simply this: every single prediction the IPCC has made from the very beginning has been wrong. They have been forced to scale back every one. Now this latest climate assessment is doubling down. The claim now is it's even worse than they ever predicted before and it's going to get disastrous in the next 10 years if we don't do something astounding right now. Sorry, but I just don't see that being true. The way I see it, I have far more facts on my side then you have on your side. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 11:01:08 Not really,.. because I'm only saying 80% for the sake of arguement... I base it on no evidence... other than the fact that 97% is a high percentage. The facts say, 97%... wrong or right, it is the number stated by others that know more than you or I... My compromise of the figure does nothing to the facts... My point is,.. is it more reasonable to believe a 20% minority opinion than a 3% minority, in a field of expertise in which none of us are at all knowledgeable?... I'm just assuming that experts know more than us... ...and that's a very safe assumption... ;D... Science also says that there are at least 10 dimensions... I can't even grasp the idea of it,.. but, I will assume that they can... Because they are in some consensus on this... I also can't figure out how excited particles can run down a wire and make my toaster work,.. but they do... Some things you just have to believe, even if you don't understand them, because wiser men than you agree... and the evidence supports them... I believe the globe is warming because those that study it, say so... I don't believe these people are as motivated to lie as their detractors... The money points the other way... The same as "Tobacco science" did a few decades ago... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 11:21:21 3620372A32272A31450 wrote:
But the facts do not say 97%. You're ignoring that. In fact, it's likely impossible to figure out what the real percentage is but it's 100% certain it's not 97%. As I stated, the overwhelming consensus was love canal was a cancer-causing disaster, but after-the-fact, that was not the case. Doesn't that mean something to you? Should we look at other publicity fueled scientific discussions and see which ones over the years have proven to be false? What's the percentage of homosexuals in the general population? You'll probably answered 10% because that's what you've always heard. But that percentage has never been true. it was always proven to be false but publicity has caused it to spread everywhere and now it's accepted as fact when it is not. Matthew Shepard was not killed by anti-gay cowboys. He was murdered by a drug crazed lover. Look at all the social commentary written on that episode, but it was all based on falsehood. Now there has been a lot of good that came out of those discussions about Matthew Shepard and the way society treats gay people. Just like there's a lot of good that comes out of the climate change discussion in regards to pollution, renewable energy and generally being a better steward of the earth's resources. However, this climate change discussion is going to ridiculous lengths. We are ready to leave poor countries in poverty for what could turn out to be completely incorrect science. The United States and United Nations work against building utility companies in Africa for example so as to limit greenhouse gases. Instead we send them bicycle powered generators. Same thing with DDT. We limit shipments of life saving DDT to Africa because of junk science done in the past which means we basically condemned hundreds of thousands of African children to death due to malaria. And now we are continuing this with climate change. The economy will not grow by switching to renewable energies based upon legislation. It hasn't happened yet and it will not happen. So here we are, about to lower our overall standard of living, based upon predictions that have not proven to be even remotely accurate. Doesn't it concern you and all that every prediction that has been made has been wrong? |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 11:27:48 I don't believe these people are as motivated to lie as their detractors... The money points the other way... but again, the facts say otherwise. Do you know what the Climategate emails said? did you read them or read summaries of them? They point to the exact opposite of what you said. The money flows in the both directions. Which side has more to lose? Not sure, I'll bet the stack of money available to either side is pretty close to the same. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 11:47:03 I know,.. cut n' paste... but no use rehashing old news... Read it... it does explain... (just need to skim it, really)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 12:24:28 About a carbon tax... Would it be so bad, if those industries that pollute the planet were taxed,.. and that money was used to remedy some of the negative effects?... Invested in storm retaining walls, tornado alert systems, repair of beach erosion... etc... These costs will be born by someone... make no mistake... Things like fossil fuel would go up in price,... but like I said, the costs will be born in some way... This is the "social engineering"... bugaboo...(we would be encouraged to drive smaller cars)... So what?... Home mortgage deductions are also "social engineering"... As are tobacco and liquor taxes... Does anyone object to hunting license moneys being used to manage wildlife and forests?... Auto registration funds used for road repair?... Airline fees used to maintain airports?... Seems like sensible stuff to me... relative taxation... Better than random... :-?... ...or,.. how would you suggest these costs be paid for?... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 12:24:41 There's a difference between "rehashing old news" and ignoring the facts on the ground after they've changed. That's would be like saying to you Bush beat Gore in 2000 fair and square. I doubt you would agree with that, in fact, if you were wearing a heart monitor, it just took a big spike! It would be like me saying we went into Iraq because the UN said they had weapons of mass destruction. Bottom line; it is a FACT that climate scientist are no more or less 'holy' than anyone else. Human nature is what it is. So someone else needs to weigh in...... is the 97% figure true or false? |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 12:39:09 112324353223340B27342D460 wrote:
We started speaking civilly,... and lost our audience... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by shorty on 05/13/14 at 13:51:25 no fun unless somebody is red-faced mad ;D just kidding gentleriders |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Pine on 05/13/14 at 14:26:08 2432253820353823570 wrote:
We started speaking civilly,... and lost our audience... ;D... [/quote] Nope... just nothing to add. There are certainly things I could get behind in a big way. For instance, private power generation (aka solar or wind). A big problem in our state ( and think a flat out lie) is that the power companies insist that such devices COST them money. So far... ZERO privately owned devices have been ALLOWED to hook up to the power grid. ZERO. Why?/ Because then the power company would have to accept the power.. and they will not concede even one inch!! Want to pass a law to help EVERYONE... force the dern power company to accept privately generated power. PS: MS is building a COAL powered generating plant!!! How stoopid is that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( and tax payers are footing the bill) So maybe I am not for higher taxes on fuel... but stop building 1920's style plants! see drama! |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 15:39:02 Here in Az,... they must allow you to connect to the grid, and they must pay you for any excess power you generate... I do understand they need to maintain the grid and cover those costs, but eventually, I think the power companies will be a distribution service more than a producer of power... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/13/14 at 16:09:14 Ummm, I didn't post this but it's under my name.... :-? :-? :-? The part attributed to JOG is a small part of my reply to him and then the "bunch of Phd's" thing is not me, I didn't write that...what the heck?? |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 16:16:21 4C69666D4964646D66080 wrote:
Sorry Dane,.. I deleted it... I button malfunctioned again... not intentional... I think I'm having a Linux/firefox compatibility problem... Sometimes I type a single letter,... and sentences jump around, and buttons get pressed that I didn't touch... It's doing it as I type this now... :P... I hate Linux... it just don't work right... >:(... I'm hoping the next Firefox update will correct it... It's being a real PIA...:-/... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/13/14 at 16:25:49 1107100D15000D16620 wrote:
Sorry Dane,.. I deleted it... I button malfunctioned again... not intentional... I think I'm having a Linux/firefox compatibility problem... Sometimes I type a single letter,... and sentences jump around, and buttons get pressed that I didn't touch... It's doing it as I type this now... :P... I hate Linux... it just don't work right... >:(...[/quote] Is it Mint? Try the Opera browser.... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Serowbot on 05/13/14 at 17:28:22 Eeeek!.. another new thing to learn?... Maybe I will,... it might be worth it... It's just I'm addicted to all my FF add-ons... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Dane Allen on 05/13/14 at 18:17:54 697F68756D78756E1A0 wrote:
Opera has those too, many of the same ones as FF...you can run them side-by-side as you get used to the new browser. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by raydawg on 05/13/14 at 18:44:21 2533243921343922560 wrote:
We started speaking civilly,... and lost our audience... ;D... [/quote] I know you jest (mostly)..... but I can still read without commenting. A relaxed environment (no pun intended) is a good place to savor, and digest, the opposing viewpoints. I already shared I don't know one way or the other about the topic, but what turns me off is when it becomes a wedge issue. Case in point, it seems to me carbon offset is punitive in nature, does nothing to remedy the claim, and is based on what appears to be suppositions of scenarios when you factor in all the climate change(s) this sphere has seen, which, can be documented as fact. It reminds me of the "bible belt" and laws against homosexuality, etc, based on "their" beliefs of what God wants them to do, so they (homosexuals) won't perish to hell...... So please, continue in the spirit of exchange, I can appreciate it. I would even venture to say the best outcome of conflict resolution is when both factions reverse their beliefs 180 degrees, now that is powerful :-* |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by North Country on 05/13/14 at 19:30:27 One more red-faced angry post here, and then lets indeed have a cooler environment to continue our dialog. North Country wrote: he, she, it?.. sounds like your wife is a nut sir, and a vile nasty one at that. “I have NEVER seen posts here attacking a member's family until now.” Mr. Shorty, if your wife wishes to chime in and spew such a vile attack toward me (a part of a family myself) such as: “She (my wife) thinks she, is a he, based on her, he, its”….then I suggest sir that you are living in a glass house (if you get my drift). Perhaps your wife should head back to her kitchen. Whaaa, sob… always the victim aren’t you sir. ******************************************************** “Matthew Shepard was not killed by anti-gay cowboys. He was murdered by a drug crazed lover.” Mr. Mark …have you no shame sir! Revisionist history really pisses me off. I put as much stock into this particular bullsh!t as I do any of your bullsh!t... That is to say, none. Note: Journalist Stephen Jimenez's The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Shepard makes the bombshell claim that illicit drug use, not homophobia, was the central factor in the gay University of Wyoming student's brutal 1998 murder. Shepard truthers in the right-wing media have pounced on the book to assail hate crime legislation and the larger push for LGBT rights. But Jimenez's argument is tainted by its reliance on wild extrapolation, the use of highly questionable and often inconsistent sources, paranoia that critics of his work are engaged in a "cover-up" of politically sensitive truths, and the cavalier dismissal of any evidence that runs contrary to his central thesis. The truth about Matthew's murder is that ignorant hateful juvenile redneck boys playing a lethal game of "Smear the Q---r", a game that they learned in the third grade schoolyard as societal instruction on how to hate the LGBT individuals, decided that they would roll Matthew because "everybody knows those people ain't like us, and deserve what they get, haw haw". Aw, ma, we was just havin' a little fun with the f*g, haw haw". It's a classic case of brutal gay rolling. End of story. Why anyone would even pay attention to this deranged, hateful lying drivel Jimenez is profiting on is beyond comprehension, except that in the twisted, deluded conservative minds of gay haters. It is so tiring to refute the bizarre notions of those who live in an alternate reality… Think/believe whatever floats your boat people…the earth is only 6000 years old, the moon is made of green cheese, we know this because the moon landings were a hoax. Climate change is not happening, it’s just an attempt to fool people because________ (fill in the blank). Drug crazed homo’s murdered Matthew Shepard, liberals hate America, Bush was the best president ever! Saddam had WMD and caused 9/11..And God only knows whatever else you guys believe . Go for it. This TT thread is a joke. A fool’s paradise occupied by the useful and gullible tools of corporate America propaganda. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/14 at 20:25:16 I'm ignoring you. Go away. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/14/14 at 05:06:51 We've beat the 97% thing to death. Personally, I believe I scored a technical knockout on sew because I presented more evidence that the 97% is false than he did it was true. He did come up with good evidence against the 32,000 report, I'll give him that. However, I found credible reports with hundreds of names saying they do not agree with IPCC. If these represent 3%, then that means there are hundreds of thousands of climate scientist which doesn't seem reasonable. Secondly, the Climategate emails remove the "holier than thou" high ground the scientist retreat to when challenged. This is how you debate topics, take one small section and beat the snot out of it. Need a new GW (sorry, climate change) topic to hash out. (Not the kind you smoke). |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/14/14 at 07:27:26 If science is what ya want.. Here, now , accept it./ http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/may2014/140514warm.png |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/14/14 at 08:57:08 I've seen the no warming for 17 years before, but I've never seen a rebuttal from climate change scientist to explain this. anyone have a readable explanation?... |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by mpescatori on 05/14/14 at 10:01:30 437176676071665975667F140 wrote:
May I quote that all-American Philosopher, Danny deVito: http://images.moviepostershop.com/other-peoples-money-movie-poster-1992-1020247722.jpg :D |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by thumperclone on 05/14/14 at 12:05:37 sea temps are rising under mining the ice |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by verslagen1 on 05/14/14 at 12:21:05 766A776F726770616E6D6C67020 wrote:
That's a myopic view of the problem. Yes warmer water is melting the ice. where did it come from? have the currents changed? drop an ice cube into a glass of water, sure it melts, but the water is cold. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Paraquat on 05/15/14 at 06:11:04 http://https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/10383645_827113240643022_7398508208530630898_n.jpg --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by Pine on 05/15/14 at 10:20:04 4A594E4F505D5B59520D3C0 wrote:
That's a myopic view of the problem. Yes warmer water is melting the ice. where did it come from? have the currents changed? drop an ice cube into a glass of water, sure it melts, but the water is cold.[/quote] As to rising sea temps... The larger issue seems to be that the current "97% model" does not take into consideration ANYTHING but rising CO2 as causation. So while all agree that the sea ice is being melted from underneath, there is no modeling to incorporate that fact. Instead only human created CO2 is being considered. The findings of the IPCC are not finalized by scientists, but by politicians. The politicians decided what methods could be used and what the resulting facts are... not the scientists. Thus we can say: 100% of the countries that sent politicians to IPCC are in agreement that human caused CO2 explains 100% of causation of global warming. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/14 at 13:18:32 This might get me a 15 yard penalty for piling on or perhaps un-sportsmanship for a late hit, but going back up the post a bit, we were discussing how the climate change scientist were able to influence 'consensus' by bringing mafia style or union thugary pressure on those scientist that stepped out of line. The guy listed below is no one I've heard of (other than Al Gore, how many of us can name a 'climate scientist) but apparently in his field, he was a big shot. Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position. His views on the weakness of the "consensus" haven't changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer. Bengtsson's recruitment by the GWPF (the London-based think tank set up by former Chancellor Lord Lawson) represented a huge coup for the climate realist cause. The Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - was by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides. But this, of course, is why he has been singled out for especial vitriol by the climate alarmist establishment - as he describes in his resignation letter. I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time. This is more shameful conduct by the climate "community". As a general point, it seems to me that, if climate change is as serious a problem as the climate "community" believes, then it will require large measures that need broadly based commitment from all walks of our society. Most "skeptics" are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk. These are people that the climate "community" should be trying to persuade. Bengtsson’s planned participation in GWPF seemed to me to be the sort of outreach to rational skeptics that ought to be praiseworthy within the climate "community". Instead, the "community" has extended the fatwa. This is precisely the sort of action and attitude that can only engender and reinforce contempt for the "community" in the broader society. |
|
Title: Re: Hot Earth... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/16/14 at 08:25:57 Most "skeptics" are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk. What was that guy thinking? There are none as vindictive as the left. Cross those people & youll get the shaft. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |