Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Namewithheld, Feb 9, 2012.
Same theme different prespective:
In reply to:
This is preposterous. No one would believe this phony, regardless of how many scientific accolades adorn his mantel. Just listen to Al Gore and move along.
He's one of those sinister Germans as well. Clearly untrustworthy.
Who is going to save us from these lunatics?
Video of media reaction to climate deal being reached
They act like it's the first moon landing or it was just announced the war ended
What sane person could argue they are objective, or unbiased?
Whatever happened to the press' skepticism of people of power and political agreements?
This is why I'm a climate change agnostic.
This Paris deal will have the US paying $42,000 per MINUTE for "Climate Research Spending"
Enough to pay 67,000 researchers $365K salaries
I guess we did it?
Well done people
Al Gore was and is full of ****.
I recently talked to my doctor who just returned from a trip back to India. His comments reflect that there is a sharp rise in the population numbers and that there is a a much stronger interest in the people in regards to basic necessities like electricity and water availability. The USA's leadership in global warming is like an ant crossing a 6-lane freeway to get to the other side during rush hour traffic. Nobody is willing to stop the traffic to let the ant get across and meet his goal. It does not matter in practical terms whether there is an Obama waving a flag to stop the traffic.
SO, THEREFORE, LET US only STOP THE CANADIAN TAR SANDS OUTPUT FROM BURNING HERE INSTEAD OF IN CHINA !! Obama's leadership in rejecting the pipeline will only redirect the thick oil to travel west instead of south to the USA. He has succeeded in shutting down one ramp to the freeway while others are entering it via a dirt access without his permission.
so funny that everyone is still convinced about climate change after almost 30 years of very little change.
"Did you know that the Earth is getting greener, quite literally? Satellites are now confirming that the amount of green vegetation on the planet has been increasing for three decades. This will be news to those accustomed to alarming tales about deforestation, overdevelopment and ecosystem destruction.
This possibility was first suspected in 1985 by Charles Keeling, the scientist whose meticulous record of the content of the air atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii first alerted the world to the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mr. Keeling's famous curve showed not only a year-by-year increase in carbon dioxide levels but a season-by-season oscillation in the concentration.
During summers in the Northern Hemisphere, the Earth breathes in carbon dioxide as green plants (most of which are north of the equator) absorb the gas and turn it into carbohydrate. In the northern winter, the Earth breathes the gas out again, as the summer's leaves rot.
Mr. Keeling and colleagues noticed that the depth of the breathing had increased in Hawaii by 20% [by 1995] since the 1960s: The Earth was taking in more carbon dioxide each northern summer and giving out more each winter. Since the inhalation is done by green leaves, they reasoned, the amount of greenery on the planet must be growing larger. In the 1980s forest biologists started to report striking increases in the growth rates of trees and the density of forests: in Douglas firs in British Columbia, Scots pines in Finland, bristlecone pines in Colorado and even tropical rain forests.
Around the same time, a NASA scientist named Compton Tucker found that he could map global vegetation changes by calculating a "Normalized Difference Vegetation Index" (NDVI) from the data produced by a satellite sensor. The data confirmed Mr. Keeling's suspicion: Greenery was on the increase. At first, this was thought to be a northern phenomenon, caused by faster growth in the great spruce and birch forests of Siberia and Canada, but the satellites showed it was happening all over the world and especially strongly in the Amazon and African rain forests.
Using the NDVI, one team this year reported that "over the last few decades of the 20th century, terrestrial ecosystems acted as net carbon sinks," i.e., they absorbed more carbon than they were emitting, and "net greening was reported in all biomes," though the effect had slowed down in recent years. see also here.
The latest and most detailed satellite data, which is yet to be published but was summarized in an online lecture last July by Ranga Myneni of Boston University, confirms that the greening of the Earth has now been going on for 30 years. Between 1982 and 2011, 20.5% of the world's vegetated area got greener, while just 3% grew browner; the rest showed no change.
What explains this trend? Man-made nitrogen fertilizer causes crops to grow faster, but it is having little effect on forests. There are essentially two possibilities: climate and carbon dioxide itself. Warmer, wetter weather should cause more vegetation to grow. But even without warming, an increase in carbon dioxide should itself accelerate growth rates of plants. CO2 is a scarce resource that plants have trouble scavenging from the air, and plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2 to inhale.
Dr. Myneni reckons that it is now possible to distinguish between these two effects in the satellite data, and he concludes that 50% is due to "relaxation of climate constraints," i.e., warming or rainfall, and roughly 50% is due to carbon dioxide fertilization itself. In practice, the two interact. A series of experiments has found that plants tolerate heat better when CO2 levels are higher.
The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates."
I think I've found your kindred spirit: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/entertainment/rapper-bob-earth-flat-theory/index.html
As I've said before, I'm a climate change agnostic. However, regardless of the issue, if your position is truly incontrovertible, then you shouldn't have to do things like this.
quote]Mike Rosen, who introduced the resolution to the school board, also leads a project focused on environmental curriculum standards, but put that work on hold.
"I have become concerned about its ability to make progress and not have a conflict with being a school board member," Rosen told the Portland Tribune. "I don't want there to be a conflict between my school board work and this nonprofit."[/quote]
WELL THEN! Problem solved. No further questions, no conflict there whatsoever. Moving along...
The climate change scare is a plan for government to convince the populace to give over to them more power over the economy. They are whittling away at excuses for not have a planned economy. What a better way to gain complete control over us and the economy than by dictating exactly how much power can be generated and then rationed strictly to whom they deem acceptable.
On the radio today they were discussing a large RICO lawsuit against the big oil companies for selling a defective product--defective for lack of a product warning that global warning was a side effect. Kind of like the tobacco litigation.
Maybe you guys have discussed it already; I stay off West Mall these days.
I have read about the RICO law suit. Attorney's general from several states are using private law firms to investigate oil companies for "generic wrongdoing". The law firm also has a conflict of interest in that they will be paid by the States for finding and prosecuting these companies.
I actually think the tobacco litigation had much more merit.
This is one of the next great waves for them -- criminalizing everything they disagree with.
I've studied CAGW (catastrophic manmade global warming) for about 10 years now. I'm every bit as qualified as the lunatics (climate scientists). Bottom line: 40 yrs of satellite data shows the earth warming 1 C per century, which is pretty much the same since the end of the little ice age. The effect of CO2 could be as low as 0.5 C per century. Sea level rise has been going since the end of the last ice age. There has been no "acceleration". Anyone who claims otherwise or predicts catastrophe is using magical thinking. That is all.
Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice
"A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.
The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”
There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn’t exist in summer months, according to Real Climate Science....."
I have to ask...what's your day job?
He's obviously a con man.
I think people don't realize just how big our solar system is. If they did they'd realize we are just one grain of sand on a beach. No way we affect global warming or climate change at all. There isn't any proof that the climate is changing. Yes slightly one way or other but that's called the weather. This is more laughable than when they use to think the world was flat.
I have studied CAGW as a hobby for the past 10 years. I have PhD in Chemical Engineering from UT where my thesis was in SO2/NOx removal from coal-fired power plants. My skills and background (e.g., chemistry, fortran programming, kinetic modeling, heat transfer, etc.) makes me more qualified on a skill basis than many climate scientists (although they do have more experience in the field). In certain key aspects, such as global dimming from aerosols, they are making **** up. I can see through their BS. Does that answer your question?