Global warming is a hoax. Just like the Dustbowl was.
[quote]CLINK wrote:
Global warming is a hoax. Just like the Dustbowl was.[/quote]
OH SNAP!!
HISTORI-FU!!
Interesting write up about Global Varming.
And there are some basic facts question the thesis that manmade CO2 is causing global warming. As I said in Part I, temperatures actually fell during the peak expansion of manmade greenhouse gas levels from 1940-1970.
Second, if CO2 emissions cause global warming the layer of the atmosphere 5 to 10 km above the earth where CO2 interacts with sunlight should be warming more quickly than the earth?s surface. In fact, temperatures at these levels have been unchanged since accurate balloon measurements became available 50 years ago.
Third, CO2 levels have cycled significantly over the known history, which stretches back 400,000 years. Our planet has survived CO2 levels roughly half of current concentrations and nearly twenty times higher! That certainly makes the commonly quoted claim that a CO2 concentration above 350 ppm leads inexorably to warmer temperatures seem pretty weak.
Fourth, atmospheric levels of CO2 increased from just under 300 ppm in 1900 to 397 ppm today, yet temperatures fell through much of that period and have increased by only 0.7°F overall ? and that?s based on heavily manipulated datasets.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Interesting write up about Global Varming.
And there are some basic facts question the thesis that manmade CO2 is causing global warming. As I said in Part I, temperatures actually fell during the peak expansion of manmade greenhouse gas levels from 1940-1970.
Second, if CO2 emissions cause global warming the layer of the atmosphere 5 to 10 km above the earth where CO2 interacts with sunlight should be warming more quickly than the earth?s surface. In fact, temperatures at these levels have been unchanged since accurate balloon measurements became available 50 years ago.
Third, CO2 levels have cycled significantly over the known history, which stretches back 400,000 years. Our planet has survived CO2 levels roughly half of current concentrations and nearly twenty times higher! That certainly makes the commonly quoted claim that a CO2 concentration above 350 ppm leads inexorably to warmer temperatures seem pretty weak.
Fourth, atmospheric levels of CO2 increased from just under 300 ppm in 1900 to 397 ppm today, yet temperatures fell through much of that period and have increased by only 0.7°F overall ? and that?s based on heavily manipulated datasets.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/not-hot-facts-global-warming-150900216.html[/quote]
Written by Keith Schaefer, editor and publisher of the "Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin? And supplemented with info from Unit Economics, an oil industry lobbyist? Forgive me if I don’t take this too seriously. Lol
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Written by Keith Schaefer, editor and publisher of the "Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin? And supplemented with info from Unit Economics, an oil industry lobbyist? Forgive me if I don’t take this too seriously. Lol[/quote]
I like how liberals don’t look at uncontroverted data and only attack the source. It’s very Saul Alynski and shows an impressive degree of psychological control.
Coop,
Are the statistics accurate, or not ?
Because if you’re suggesting that someone arguing one position on this issue has a vested financial interest, then both sides are guilty of this.
It’s quite telling you fear the numbers this guy is claiming, and if he is full of shit then he is full of shit.
But don’t plant your head in the sand just to avoid hearing the opposing view.
Pseudo scientists predicted ‘ice free’ Arctic Summers by 2013:
‘…you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.’
Ice cover has since expanded by 50%
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Coop,
Are the statistics accurate, or not ?
[/quote]
He’s a fanatic. It wouldn’t make any difference if we were in the middle of an ice age. He’d still be wearing his tin foil hat and listening to Al Gore.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It’s all about cost…water is still relatively cheap, if you own shares.
But it will be gone soon and then shit is really gonna hit the fan…folks back East really don’t grasp how valuable water is here.
However, there is enough fresh water in the Great Lakes and Canada to turn the American West into a complete swamp.[/quote]
Probably true…but would it be easier to convert sea water, or pump fresh water across the country?
/Easier meaning convincing people to do it.[/quote]
You will have one hell of a fight touching the great lakes. They are not just water but also a multi billion dollar shipping and tourist industry.
I like the thought of nukes except what do you do with waste that has a 10,000 year half life? Also it seems a bit problematic to put them in earthquake prone areas.
I’m not completely enamored with California, but I do rather enjoy some of you that live there, so I would rather you not die an agonizing death.
I do believe I heard something about Michigan building Fermi III. I’m not sure where it was I saw it or where it was proposed. I would prefer they didn’t build it 100 yards from a great lake like Palisades.
I thought this article was kind of interesting if accurate and true:
Dishonest global warming reports are good, as long as they promote certain agenda, paper says
Friday, April 25, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes
According to a pair of economists who have recently published a peer-reviewed paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, lying about climate change in order to advance an extremist environmental agenda is a great idea.
As reported by Breitbart News, the authors – Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao – accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues – who flatly deny that any such problem exists – they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.
The abstract of their paper notes:
It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.
Why can’t the truth be enough?
The paper should be good news for climate scientists who work at places like the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and Penn State University; for years now, those institutions have strived to balance academic integrity with generous government grant funding in the face of increasingly obvious evidence that man-made global warming is just a hoax and that, really, they should probably be forced to find legitimate work, instead of continuing to live off taxpayer money.
“Now, thanks to the inspired sophistry of their new friends Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao their various data manipulation, decline-hiding, FOI-breaching, scientific-method abusing shenanigans have been made to seem not evil or wrong but actively desirable for the good of mankind,” wrote James Delingpole at Breitbart News.
Reaction to the paper has been sharp and critical.
“What will shock you is that two professors not only candidly admit it, but published a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting the beneficial effects of lying for pushing nations into a UN climate treaty in Paris next year!” wrote Craig Rucker of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) in an April 4 blog post. “The authors not only believe that their dubious ends justify their shady means, they institutionalize ‘information manipulation’ as a tactic, host panels about it at climate conferences and publish it in journals. They’re shameless.”
David Rothbard, also of CFACT, added: “Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change. Now comes a new paper from two economists in Singapore and Hong Kong that actually advocates exaggerating global warming fears to get countries on board international environmental agreements.”
History of lying about global warming/climate change
Kevin Glass, writing at Townhall.com, says the paper claims that the supposed urgency of climate change makes it alright to lie to and deceive the public about the alleged consequences of global warming. While the economists don’t actually use the word “lying,” they nonetheless call for “informational manipulation and exaggeration,” indicating that they believe the ends of intellectual dishonesty justify the means of climate-related policy changes.
This is not the first time that climate scientists have advocated lying as a means of pursuing the higher cause of additional global regulations, one-world government, economic stagnation and much higher energy prices.
The late Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider wrote in 1989: “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Sources:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Written by Keith Schaefer, editor and publisher of the "Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin? And supplemented with info from Unit Economics, an oil industry lobbyist? Forgive me if I don’t take this too seriously. Lol[/quote]
I like how liberals don’t look at uncontroverted data and only attack the source. It’s very Saul Alynski and shows an impressive degree of psychological control.[/quote]
I like how Jews assume that because I have a particular stance on one issue, I must be a liberal.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Coop,
Are the statistics accurate, or not ?
Because if you’re suggesting that someone arguing one position on this issue has a vested financial interest, then both sides are guilty of this.
It’s quite telling you fear the numbers this guy is claiming, and if he is full of shit then he is full of shit.
But don’t plant your head in the sand just to avoid hearing the opposing view.[/quote]
It’s quite telling that you think I fear the numbers this guy is claiming. Why would I fear those numbers? I should be embracing those numbers and in fear of the other side of the issue. You’re projecting your fears onto me, namely the fear of being wrong. You fear the numbers that might make you wrong on the issue. I hope I am wrong because if I am, we would essentially have nothing to worry about.
As far as the statistics go, the first four items listed in italics clearly shows that the author is confusing the issue. None of those items disproves that climate change is occurring. One of the most basic fundamentals of the movement/relationship that different air masses have is that as one area warms, it can cause much colder weather than normal in another area. The fact that he seems to point to these stats as evidence of “global” cooling and not “localized” cooling as part of a general climate change pattern is evidence that he is either bullshitting you or he is clueless.
As far as the stuff about sunspots goes, the evidence from scientists suggests that solar cycles have little effect on global temperatures and much more of an effect on rainfall. The cycles generally affect regional temperatures and not global temperatures.
And I should be asking YOU if the statistics are accurate. Are they accurate? You’re the one who is on here providing the info as a rebuttal of the climate change argument. Well, tell us about the stats, Max. Why is this guy right? Why is the data “uncovered” by a lobbying firm that does not have a background in science correct?
And I laugh at the notion that I bury my head in the sand. I read that article a week ago of my own accord.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Interesting write up about Global Varming.
And there are some basic facts question the thesis that manmade CO2 is causing global warming. As I said in Part I, temperatures actually fell during the peak expansion of manmade greenhouse gas levels from 1940-1970.
Second, if CO2 emissions cause global warming the layer of the atmosphere 5 to 10 km above the earth where CO2 interacts with sunlight should be warming more quickly than the earth?s surface. In fact, temperatures at these levels have been unchanged since accurate balloon measurements became available 50 years ago.
Third, CO2 levels have cycled significantly over the known history, which stretches back 400,000 years. Our planet has survived CO2 levels roughly half of current concentrations and nearly twenty times higher! That certainly makes the commonly quoted claim that a CO2 concentration above 350 ppm leads inexorably to warmer temperatures seem pretty weak.
Fourth, atmospheric levels of CO2 increased from just under 300 ppm in 1900 to 397 ppm today, yet temperatures fell through much of that period and have increased by only 0.7�°F overall ? and that?s based on heavily manipulated datasets.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/not-hot-facts-global-warming-150900216.html[/quote]
Written by Keith Schaefer, editor and publisher of the "Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin? And supplemented with info from Unit Economics, an oil industry lobbyist? Forgive me if I don’t take this too seriously. Lol[/quote]
Wait…studies funded by environmental groups and liberal think tanks = 90% of scientists?
Dude, seriously?
Studies are influenced by funding, both pro and against global warming. Why is this so hard to understand?
Coop,
Dude, Liberals fucked up on this issue, badly.
You cannot crown yourself the eco guru, then go on and make wild predictions, then complain when people scream that you got it dead wrong.
Not only did the planet not warm any further, but there was more snow than we have seen, in like forever.
I don’t believe anyone can accurately predict shit at this point, I would rather we collect honest data and evaluate at this point.
Do you know where the term “denier” came from ? It was used during WW2, given to people who denied the Holocaust. A rather alarming use of such a term where scrutiny on this issue is more than warranted.
Earth Day 1970 predictions:
‘Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.’ - Harvard biologist George Wald
‘Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.’ - Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
’ Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born? [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s. - Paul Ehrlich
‘It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,’ - Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
‘Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions?. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.’ - North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
‘In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution? by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.’ - Life Magazine
‘At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it?s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.’ - Ecologist Kenneth Watt
‘Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.’ - Paul Ehrlich
'By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, 'Fill ‘er up buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn?t any.’ - Ecologist Kenneth Watt
‘The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.’ - Kenneth Watt
One way to adjust is to deny it as long as possible.
'A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be ‘re-educated’ in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.
Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of self-described ‘eco-fascists’ receptive to his message that the state should enact draconian measures of ‘discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression’ in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.’
He advocates eugenics, genocide, and abortion as possible means to combat overpopulation. He describes the Stalinist and Nazi massacres, as “massive thinning operations,” but which have “not overturned our ethical norms”. He has suggested that big cities should be attacked by “some trans-national body like the UN”, with nuclear weapons or with “bacteriological and chemical attacks”. Linkola has described humans as a cancer of the earth, and he desires that the human population “be reduced to about ten percent of what it is now.”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be ‘re-educated’ in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.
Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of self-described ‘eco-fascists’ receptive to his message that the state should enact draconian measures of ‘discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression’ in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.’
He advocates eugenics, genocide, and abortion as possible means to combat overpopulation. He describes the Stalinist and Nazi massacres, as “massive thinning operations,” but which have “not overturned our ethical norms”. He has suggested that big cities should be attacked by “some trans-national body like the UN”, with nuclear weapons or with “bacteriological and chemical attacks”. Linkola has described humans as a cancer of the earth, and he desires that the human population “be reduced to about ten percent of what it is now.”
[/quote]
So this guy as an example validates what?
You don’t suppose that an equal opposite opinion could be found?
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Coop,
Dude, Liberals fucked up on this issue, badly.
You cannot crown yourself the eco guru, then go on and make wild predictions, then complain when people scream that you got it dead wrong.
Not only did the planet not warm any further, but there was more snow than we have seen, in like forever.
I don’t believe anyone can accurately predict shit at this point, I would rather we collect honest data and evaluate at this point.
Do you know where the term “denier” came from ? It was used during WW2, given to people who denied the Holocaust. A rather alarming use of such a term where scrutiny on this issue is more than warranted. [/quote]
You plead for honest data and evaluations, and yet you post an article written by the editor of an oil investment newsletter that contains info that was willfully misinterpreted to buffet his argument? The rest of the info was provided by a major oil industry lobbyist, and you’re on here asking for honest appraisals of the situation?
Gimme a break.