happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 10, 2015 14:17:34 GMT -5
had nothing to do with my point. you said that "every prediction was wrong", and that is totally false. CO2 levels are quite predictable, and rising. I never said every prediction was wrong. (that was jkapp) Your point doesn't explain how global atmospheric CO2 levels can increase during a decrease of global fossil fuel usage. Are you one of those that only acknowledge the data that pertains to what you believe ? So do you think that the CO2 levels should respond to increases or decreases in global fossil fuel usage as if someone was adjusting a giant thermostat someplace? Krakatoa erupted in 1883. The resulting ash plume caused significant disruption in the global surface temperature and amount of rainfall up until 1888. The problem didn't just stop when the volcano stopped producing ash in 1883. And that was just one large volcano. There's something called the 'carbon cycle' occurring in the atmosphere. Go google it. Carbon can get taken up and released in multiple ways, sometimes being stored a while, sometimes not.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 10, 2015 14:22:57 GMT -5
When the first medical reports came out claiming smoking was bad for you, cigarette companies hired their own research firms to prove that not only did smoking not hurt you, it gave you energy and helped you lose weight. I can remember when the tobacco companies finally came clean in public that yes, cigarettes may not be that good for you - but it's your right to smoke them. I think that was in the late seventies, early 80s? Based on that experience, I would expect Big Oil to admit that use of the product has a harmful impact on the environment in about 100 years. Big oil wouldn't exist if we didn't buy their product. Do you buy their product ? Just because I use products made from petroleum based material doesn't mean I'm not allowed to complain about how the oil companies mislead the public and try to imped production of more sustainable energy and products. In the same way that, being an American doesn't preclude me from being critical of some of our policies and politicians.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 10, 2015 14:29:24 GMT -5
happyhoix, since you are on the opposite side of the fence in this discussion, from me. I have searched the internet up, down back and forth, for an honest answer on how much the sea level has risen in the last 100 years. it is not there. We have a 1000 predictions ( that may be a little high, 998 is a little closer. on what is is going to be in 100 years, Even those differ greatly. 100 years ago, we knew with some accuracy what MEAN Sea Level was. Today they know what Mean Sea Level is with great accuracy. That's all that I am asking for( I can't find it.) An unbiased scientific study showing the Mean Sea Level has risen in the last 100 years. No, NASA and NOAA are not unbiased. Old Coyote I won't be able to provide you with a source that you won't think is unbiased. If the source has data demonstrating a rise in sea level, you will claim that is it biased, so I'd be chasing my tail. NASA and NOAA apparently are not run by scientists but by shills for the global warming crowd, etc.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 14:32:04 GMT -5
the data. all i am saying is that global warming is taking place. that is the width and breadth of my analysis. i have never made any assertions otherwise. if you think i have, you are mistaken. Of course global warming is taking place. It has since the last little ice age. cool. then WE have nothing more to discuss. have a nice day.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 14:33:55 GMT -5
Big oil wouldn't exist if we didn't buy their product. Do you buy their product ? Just because I use products made from petroleum based material doesn't mean I'm not allowed to complain about how the oil companies mislead the public and try to imped production of more sustainable energy and products. In the same way that, being an American doesn't preclude me from being critical of some of our policies and politicians. owning guns doesn't prevent you from complaining about high homicide rates, being a man doesn't mean you can't complain about sexual violence against women, etc.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 14:36:00 GMT -5
Which are you referring to ? Your previous statements on increasing CO2 levels says "AGW" edit: really? where? link please. i try to avoid saying ANYTHING about AGW. i would be surprised if i have done so recently.but you never actually said which one. actually, i have. numerous times. by the way- i am curious why you are riding my ass about this right now, but you never ride Paul's ass when he fails to make the same distinction.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 10, 2015 20:17:04 GMT -5
Really? You don't see evidence of extreme global weather events? Really? What extreme weather events have we had that differ from historical? However, my statement was on predictions, and the climate scientists did not predict severe weather events - they only "predicted" we would get more severe weather AFTER we had a couple of severe storms. Sorry, it's not a prediction if it happens after the fact
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 10, 2015 20:25:02 GMT -5
And what do you call paying government grants to scientists to study global warming, but only if the studies are in SUPPORT of global warming? Kind of sounds the same to me... if the data does not support their conclusions, then i agree. i have seen no evidence that "the government" paid scientists to LIE. edit: happy put it better in post 64. Yet if the scientists came back with: We just couldn't prove our theory and we're not so sure about AGW anymore. Do you think they would get another grant?
So the scientists make sure to get results that the grant committees want to hear if they want to continue getting a paycheck...the government doesn't need to make them do anything.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 10, 2015 20:30:37 GMT -5
I believe that the research on global warming and the causes of it IS paid by government grants. What I don't believe is that our government is entirely run by people that wanna push down our throat their own beliefs. Isnt the government suppose to be impartial? I thought that's why we elect our officials.Aren't members of our government of both sides and varied beliefs as to represent us as a nation? If the present government is paying the researchers to be partial to the liberal agenda then why did they have the same claim under all republican/ conservator leadership over the last 30-40 years? Grant proposals are not approved by elected officials...they are made by agencies that hire employees. Look up the political make-up of government employees and you'll see it is pretty far from bipartisan.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 21:38:31 GMT -5
if the data does not support their conclusions, then i agree. i have seen no evidence that "the government" paid scientists to LIE. edit: happy put it better in post 64. Yet if the scientists came back with: We just couldn't prove our theory and we're not so sure about AGW anymore. Do you think they would get another grant? . YES
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Sept 10, 2015 21:48:53 GMT -5
And what do you call paying government grants to scientists to study global warming, but only if the studies are in SUPPORT of global warming? Kind of sounds the same to me... Do you have proof that government scientists are paid to provide data to support the theory of global warming? Proof that didn't come from FOX or one of those far right scientists who believe global warming isn't happening because Jesus loves us and wouldn't let it happen? Well if you cannot trust scientists paid by Exxon then who can you trust? Because in the USA the government only pays scientists to agree with them I suppose- love to see that policy that pays on results- of course you would have to find a Koch study to find that kind of thing. In the real world the government pays for studies- like NOAA- and they need that information- without political bullshit attached to it. Politicians can deny, outlaw climate change terms and responses, but our military has to know the truth- and they do- no matter what the psycho circus blathers on about.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 11, 2015 7:52:59 GMT -5
Doesn't anyone remember the the hacked emails where the Global warming people were blacklisting the people that did not agree with them?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 11, 2015 8:24:55 GMT -5
I came across this, I could not resist posting it. SORRY!! ( not really)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 11, 2015 9:57:03 GMT -5
Doesn't anyone remember the the hacked emails where the Global warming people were blacklisting the people that did not agree with them? nope.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Sept 11, 2015 17:18:52 GMT -5
Isnt the government suppose to be impartial? I thought that's why we elect our officials.Aren't members of our government of both sides and varied beliefs as to represent us as a nation? If the present government is paying the researchers to be partial to the liberal agenda then why did they have the same claim under all republican/ conservator leadership over the last 30-40 years? Grant proposals are not approved by elected officials...they are made by agencies that hire employees. Look up the political make-up of government employees and you'll see it is pretty far from bipartisan. Read the last line on my post again and maybe understand my point?! If say now we have democrats in charge with all this research then maybe we had republicans during republican administrations. Or are you claiming that these organizations are always left wing nut cases? Is that your point or am I mistaking?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 11, 2015 17:57:34 GMT -5
Do you have proof that government scientists are paid to provide data to support the theory of global warming? Proof that didn't come from FOX or one of those far right scientists who believe global warming isn't happening because Jesus loves us and wouldn't let it happen? Well if you cannot trust scientists paid by Exxon then who can you trust? Because in the USA the government only pays scientists to agree with them I suppose- love to see that policy that pays on results- of course you would have to find a Koch study to find that kind of thing. In the real world the government pays for studies- like NOAA- and they need that information- without political bullshit attached to it. Politicians can deny, outlaw climate change terms and responses, but our military has to know the truth- and they do- no matter what the psycho circus blathers on about. And the military (Pentagon) made some of the most outrageous GW predictions out there...post-apocalyptic type shit. Nothing even close to reality. If that's their "truth" then I suppose the whole yellow cake fiasco was understandable.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 12, 2015 9:02:27 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2015 19:31:32 GMT -5
the journal in question was widely discredited in 2006. so, maybe "blacklisting" is not the best term for not wanting to submit material to that journal. "prudent self interest" might have served as well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_%28journal%29edit: in addition, there is no authorship on the wsj article. how do we know that the PR department of Exxon didn't write it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2015 19:36:43 GMT -5
Did you read that showed the moon landing was faked? Never happened. It was filmed at a lot in LA with the close ups on the moon in the desert.
NASA owed Hollywood big time for that, and agreed to trump up "Global Warming" in return. i am so sick of this line of reasoning, i can't even laugh about it any more.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 14, 2015 15:58:20 GMT -5
Doesn't anyone remember the the hacked emails where the Global warming people were blacklisting the people that did not agree with them? You say 'global warming people' like that's a club or something. There are a whole range of people who think climate change is happening, from those who believe "the Day After Tomorrow" (where New York freezes over in about 30 minutes) is really going to happen (and happen tomorrow) all the way to the scientists who are tracking what is actually happening, who are calculating various possible scenarios using complex computer modeling programs based on actual data. You can't define a group of people just by the nut jobs. Otherwise we would have to believe all Christians believe what the Branch Davidians believe.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 14, 2015 16:03:11 GMT -5
I believe that the research on global warming and the causes of it IS paid by government grants. What I don't believe is that our government is entirely run by people that wanna push down our throat their own beliefs. Isnt the government suppose to be impartial? I thought that's why we elect our officials.Aren't members of our government of both sides and varied beliefs as to represent us as a nation? If the present government is paying the researchers to be partial to the liberal agenda then why did they have the same claim under all republican/ conservator leadership over the last 30-40 years? Grant proposals are not approved by elected officials...they are made by agencies that hire employees. Look up the political make-up of government employees and you'll see it is pretty far from bipartisan. You mean like how the politicians in the pro-gun lobby were able to threaten to defund the CDC if they didn't stop doing studies about the impact of gun ownership on mortality?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 14, 2015 23:01:58 GMT -5
So what was the CDC going to study? Lead poisoning?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 14, 2015 23:08:40 GMT -5
Has anyone found where the Mean Sea Level was 100 years ago?
How much has the Ocean risen in that last 100 years?
I don't know what is going on with the Mean Sea Level. I do know there is almost nothing about it.
I also know there are a bunch of predictions about the level in 50, or 100 years.
Since it is so hard to find this, is it possible that there is very little change in the sea level?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 14, 2015 23:35:32 GMT -5
Has anyone found where the Mean Sea Level was 100 years ago? How much has the Ocean risen in that last 100 years? I don't know what is going on with the Mean Sea Level. I do know there is almost nothing about it. I also know there are a bunch of predictions about the level in 50, or 100 years. Since it is so hard to find this, is it possible that there is very little change in the sea level? oc- i am not sure the technology existed to measure ocean levels 100 years ago.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 15, 2015 1:05:20 GMT -5
If it weren't for the yetis and the sasquatches (is that the plural for sasquatch?) none of this would even be happening!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 15, 2015 6:00:58 GMT -5
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 15, 2015 6:10:45 GMT -5
Has anyone found where the Mean Sea Level was 100 years ago? How much has the Ocean risen in that last 100 years? I don't know what is going on with the Mean Sea Level. I do know there is almost nothing about it. I also know there are a bunch of predictions about the level in 50, or 100 years. Since it is so hard to find this, is it possible that there is very little change in the sea level? oc- i am not sure the technology existed to measure ocean levels 100 years ago. I was attempting to do a little research on Ft. Jefferson, in the Keys. going through old docs. relating to expenditures on this and other projects there several references to Mean Sea Level.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 15, 2015 7:12:09 GMT -5
OC where do you find these stories? I've never heard of Quartz, but it looks fairly heavily Green/liberal. You have to be careful with the internet. If I want to find stories about the moon being hollow and being used to house millions of UN soldiers waiting for the signal to race back to Earth to overcome the world for the new One World Order I can - that doesn't mean it's true. I know they are fairly dry and science-y, but stick with websites like the NOAA site on climate change to see what actual scientists think about the issue, because there is a lot of silly blather on both the far edges of this issue that can be really distracting.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 15, 2015 21:08:19 GMT -5
Wow I guess it must be happening, Google Earth showing the North Pole almost free of Ice! All you climate change people are right! Now all the polar bears are going to die, the earth is doomed the sea has overflowed half of the low lying areas. because of all the melted ice! Hmmm, I haven't seen any reports of Florida being completely under water, If all this ice is gone, Why do we need all the icebreakers Obama says we need?? Surely google could not be fudging the truth a little here would they?? Oh, for Christ's sake! I can prove it in two words. Northwest Passage.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 15, 2015 21:14:57 GMT -5
ABOARD THE COAST GUARD CUTTER ALEX HALEY — In the vast Arctic, melting ice caused by global warming is bringing new opportunities, and new problems, to a region that could be the next front in a very cold war — a battle that some say America is losing to the Russians. *** Rising temperatures have brought more sea traffic to the northern quarters of the planet - along with warnings that nearly 150 years after the United States purchased Alaska from the Russians, it's fallen behind in the race to dominate the Arctic. Dozens of commercial ships now traverse the Northwest Passage connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Using the route, which skirts the top of Alaska and Canada, is estimated to be 30 percent cheaper than hauling goods via the Panama Canal. Next summer, a U.S.-flagged cruise ship, the Crystal Serenity, plans to take more than 1,000 passengers through the passage, which not long ago was considered too treacherous because of nearly year-round ice pack. The big melt has also made the natural treasures — oil, gas and fish that were frosted over for centuries - newly accessible to the eight countries with territory in the Arctic. www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fight-for-the-arctic/where-u-s-race-arctic-n425831
All of a sudden, everyone is scrambling for rights to the Arctic. Why do you suppose that is? Because it's finally accessible. Or is it all in our imaginations? Maybe a leftist plot? Propaganda by the tree-huggers? No, no and no. Booyah!
|
|