|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Old topic, new info /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1391880578 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 02/08/14 at 09:29:38 |
|
Title: Old topic, new info Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/08/14 at 09:29:38 I attended a convention where they asked a scientist from the University of Colorado who believes in manmade CO2 based global warming, "What would need to happen to get you to admit you were wrong?" His answer, "The current cooling trend would have to continue for another 10 to 20 years." http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/global-warming-hype.jpg Yea, go look that up.. I never deny climate change. The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. I simply reject hysteria and theories that suggest catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 based climate change is occurring. There's a reason the left has changed vernacular; Global Warming is now Climate Change, and Sea Level Rise is now Storm Surge. Scientists have not been able to demonstrate a correlation with their radical CO2 warming theories, so they now repackage their movement with even vaguer wording. global warming hype Furthermore, even in theory, if you assumed CO2 was the substantive driver of climate, CO2 abatement schemes large enough to be effective would be unaffordable; and those schemes small enough to be affordable would be ineffective. For example: To reduce the earth's temperature one degree with CO2 abatement would require an investment equivalent to 130 years GDP of the entire planet, or more than $4,000,000,000,000,000 (4 quadrillion dollars). It ain't happening. The question is not whether climate is changing... it has been changing for eons. The proper questions are: Is change exceeding usual cyclical variations? If so, is the variance substantial? Do the negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts? If so, are any changes likely to be catastrophic? If so, what are the true drivers (causes)? Can change be conclusively correlated with any human activities? How large of a component do human activities play? If manmade, can we reasonably abate them? What is the most appropriate coping mechanism? General abatement or focused adaptation? I recommend you read the U.S. Senate Minority Report containing statements from 700 scientists rebutting Climate Change. Several of the scientists were previously involved with the UN-IPCC, and to put it bluntly, they say it just ain't so, and the 52 scientists on the IPCC are wrong. Charts I have seen of worldwide cyclonic energy, worldwide temperatures, etc. do not corroborate CO2 theories. Claims of increased damage from hurricanes and storms are a function of increased development and infrastructure in vulnerable areas... NOT more violent storms. Claims in Maryland of rising sea level are actually a function of settlement of land masses. Furthermore, usual and customary sea level rise elsewhere of 3mm a year (ten inches per century) hardly qualifies as catastrophic. Besides, if Maryland's Governor O'Malley and his Department of Planning REALLY believed this bunk, they wouldn't be constructing more subways underground. Maryland will spend $17 Billion attempting to reduce Greenhouse Gases over the next decade. You'll be pleased to know that this effort, if successful, will reduce the temperature of Maryland by 1/20,000 of one degree. Unfortunately, we have no way of measuring anything this small. So even if the program is a success, we'll have no way of knowing it. I attended a convention where they asked a scientist from the University of Colorado who believes in manmade CO2 based global warming, "What would need to happen to get you to admit you were wrong?" His answer, "The current cooling trend would have to continue for another 10 to 20 years." Bladabling. The "Climateers" argue that most scientific papers support their theories. Of course, nearly 100% of all government research grants are commissioned with a charge to demonstrate global warming exists. Clearly, it should be no surprise when universities and non-profits eager for follow-on grants give the government exactly the so-called science it requests. After all... if they produce conclusions counter to what the government wants, they get no more money. People ask, why do you call them "Climateers?" Simply because they are the only crisis centric group that becomes genuinely disappointed when evidence is produced that demonstrates their fears may be unfounded. Amusing. Environmental exaggeration provides the rubric government needs to scare children, scare adults, and justify unacceptable encroachments on our constitutional freedoms. Of course the smoking gun that says it all was the recent statement by the former undersecretary of the Marxist UN-IPCC and Ottmar Edenhofer who made the statement, "... that we redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy." Ouch!!! I agree with the 700 scientist(s) in the Senate Report who conclude that claims of CO2-based catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on the human race. We need our teachers to take the lead, and start teaching our children both sides of this debate and stop indoctrinating them with one-sided government paid-for propaganda. **************************************************** Hey! Looka there! How many times have I said its easier to pull the wool over someones eyes than pull it off?? ********************************************* And finally, as Mark Twain once said, "It is easier to fool a man than to convince him that he's been fooled." Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/santa-clause-easter-bunnies-catastrophic-global-warming/#wDSIgx1bhXu13K4a.99 But, the kool-aid drinkers wont slow down,, |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/08/14 at 09:32:18 So, I posted the above in another forum,, &, I got this for a reply.. http://www.journal14.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Irena-Sendler.jpg Fat Al Gore got the prize, & this woman got bupkiss.. |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by Dane Allen on 02/18/14 at 11:01:46 Oh, I do remember this, it was a travesty and was the pre-cursor to the Nobel Prize becoming a joke (which came to pass when Obama won it for being a Socialist). The Nobel prize is just another way to reward socialists and redistribute wealth to the "elites". |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by thumperclone on 02/18/14 at 23:21:27 to suggest we are not having an effect on the climate is inept thought |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by mpescatori on 02/19/14 at 00:34:28 You aren't the only ones... Thank Agenda 21, Red Tape and Green sustainability for Somerset floods in UK http://joannenova.com.au/ Christopher Booker explains in The Spectator that it’s not global warming that caused such ghastly floods in the UK, but incompetence and a Green wetland plan. He lives near Somerset, (SW England) so he started investigating the rising water six weeks ago — which has now become widespread inundation there, with damages estimated at over £100 million. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/flood/_72930374_somerset_levels_624-med.gif. As usual, this was a process of small government becoming collectivized big-government. In the Spectator he writes that before 1996, local groups of farmers and engineers managed the drains, but in 1996 the EA (Environmental Agency) took over. Regular dredging stopped happening, the pumping stations were neglected (or stopped...), and the local drainage boards found it hard to get anything done with the EA red tape. Then things got worse. In 2002, “the Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Labour peeress [=Senator], became the agency’s new chief executive”. As Booker goes on to note, she used to run the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Natural England, not that that’s a bad thing per se, just that she had different aims to the people who lived there. The locals saw what was coming, they feared that the river had become choked and silted, they wanted control back. Instead, what they got was some parts of Somerset suddenly “returned to wetland” — but that, it seems, was kinda the goal. Booker and Richard North pored through documents and found remarkable quotes. According to the Baroness, the cheapest way to get a wetland was to “stop drainage” and let “nature take its course”. The rest is current news... :P |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by mpescatori on 02/19/14 at 00:43:29 Since 2009, in ITALY we've been having such rainy winters, rivers just can't hold all the water any more... http://tg24.sky.it/tg24/cronaca/photogallery/2014/01/20/maltempo_allagamenti_esondazioni_modenese.html#3 |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/19/14 at 13:41:25 6C706D75687D6A7B7477767D180 wrote:
I would agree,, BUT,, to what extent? The climate has been in constant flux, look at the Great Lakes,, they are the result of glaciers dragging along,, whose SUV melted them? |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by verslagen1 on 02/19/14 at 14:12:36 It should be obvious that these "scientists" don't know sh!t from shinola. 1st it was global cooling, then global warming, now climate effect. and co2 causes green house, then pollution and contrails. If these guys have such a great handle on the earths climate... why can't they predict the weather with any kind of accuracy? |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by WebsterMark on 02/20/14 at 05:34:57 Excellent points made in the article below. The short version is the climate predictions have all been wrong from the very beginning; some by dramatic amounts. If there were any noticeable differences in weather or real consequences we could see, I think everyone would get on board. I think when the population as a whole sees danger in the future, enough respond to effect change. Global warming has become a political issue because there are no real consequences to make up people's minds for them. Too many people see this for what it is: just another way for a few to grab power over many. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEADTop |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/20/14 at 08:39:09 Too many people see this for what it is: just another way for a few to grab power over many. Some days you truly impress me,, |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by WebsterMark on 02/20/14 at 13:08:16 Some days you truly impress me,, This is either a case of a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then or I'm brilliant all the time. You decide.... |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by pgambr on 02/20/14 at 16:50:16 "Principled Objectivism" 1) Why do we have the great lakes? 2) How many ice ages have we had in the past 10K years? 3) Why did they try to institute a carbon tax? 4) Why did they quit showing pictures of the polar caps? 5) What is the problem if it is self correcting? (regarding the cold weather this winter) :-? |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by Trippah on 02/20/14 at 19:26:46 I think this is what happens to us all:we foolishly think the leaders of our land want to make it better and believe their research cause of course it's not prejudiced. We become old and if we live long enough, fight is an asinine war or three to make a few people richer and note that whoever pays for the research seems, oddly enough, to have a major effect on the results. the Great Inventor of cynicism is long life. :D |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/20/14 at 21:00:55 I realized decades ago their claims of righteousness & desire FOR the people to have good lives were lies. So far, the number of good elected Public Servants Ive seen is well under 20. Those who are for real get shot, their planes blow up, their candidacy gets cut short thru threats, etc.. That Ron Paul didnt get killed amazes me,, |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by GostThumper on 02/20/14 at 22:17:51 Weather you believe it or not would you rather suck smoke stacks or have a few solar panels & wind turbines provide your power? Oh & the east coast & gulf have had hundred year storms every other year for the last 5-10 years... climate change/bad weather whatever is costs lots o $ & we're killin the planet... or mayb it will kill us when the environment gets too out of wack. Harmony w/our home will work better in long run! (& I have solar panels on my roof payin 1/2 my power bill take that Power Co monopoly LOL) |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/20/14 at 22:54:52 No one I know WANTS dirty air, or radioactivity, we HAVE clean coal, but Clinton made it Off Limits. Our Nuke plants are leaking. They were designed to run 20+ years.. theyre mostly around 40..& they LEAK..& bammy is closing coal plants,, genius.. Have you seen those windmills? Theyre horrid & they wipe out the birds. Ive heard nothing really good about them,maybe theyve been victims of lies,, who knows? I wonder what Tesla knew.,, the goobs swept up his papers & declared "Nashnull Suckyouritee" |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by WebsterMark on 02/21/14 at 07:50:17 69415D5A7A465B435E4B5C2E0 wrote:
I'm throwing the bull$h!t flag here.... 15 yard penalty..... the east coast and gulf have NOT had 100 year storms every other year for the last 5-10 years.... Wind turbines & solar are not going to EVER provide enough energy to sustain GROWTH. Wind turbines are fine if you want to go backwards a 100 years. We've been screwing around with those two technologies forever; if they were gonna work, they would have done so by now. There is no magic formula waiting to be discovered that will make wind and solar provide enough energy for the masses. There is just no way to get enough energy density out of them. I've got no problem putting solar panels on your roof, I've got no problem if everyone did and cut down a few coal plants, but don't freaking make me pay thousands more because you wrongly think the 'east coast is having 100 year storms every other year' because I drive an F150 4x4 or I keep my thermostat on 72 in the winter. |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by Dane Allen on 02/21/14 at 10:30:56 192B2C3D3A2B3C032F3C254E0 wrote:
I'm throwing the bull$h!t flag here.... 15 yard penalty..... the east coast and gulf have NOT had 100 year storms every other year for the last 5-10 years.... [/quote] Second that - it's been at a near 30 year low. The sun is going into an extended dormancy period and the weather has been very mild with no increase in real temperature in the past 17 years. We have fallen out of all of the statistical models meaning that there is no global warming model that can be used to explain the current climate situation (or, more accurtately lack there of) so the real big story on the climate is there is no story, business as usual. Except for the billions wasted on some religious fantasy. Quote:
And the Chinese have near ruined the solar panel market. The materials they are using today are soo cheap and unsuitable for solar panels that they previously experienced lifespan of 20+ years is now aroud 3-7 years. Quote:
They are working on an idea where the panels sit vertical in a box (like shelves in a bookshelf) with a special coating that reduces the number of photons bouncing out. Who knows where that is going??? Quote:
Try returning to the days of dredging silt-choaked rivers and live more than a few feet above sea level. |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by GostThumper on 02/23/14 at 23:01:26 Kool-Aid drinkers LOL! @ least U acknowledge that nuclear is probably not a great idea ask Japan or Chernobyl, coal isnt clean ask some people that live in northern NV or near ANY "clean" coal plant. You dont think Katrina & New Jersey are 100 yr storms & the tornado belt has been pretty active, & weather in general is way different in the last 20 or so years Ive been watchin? Who is having you pay thousands, the Republicans/oil barons/bankers & super-rich(not the comfortable that think the Party cares about them) who pat each other on the back with ALL our $s while the Country goes under & they tell you its cheap insurance/everything Obama does fault? Most things that any Prez gets passed dont really have much effect til after they are out of office. Hence Bush's unregulated big business almost destroying our Country as he was gettin out. & I dont know about new solar panel quality(mine are still goin strong after 10yrs), & i agree that wind shouldnt kill birds, but they do have smaller vertical spinning tubines that would cut down on that as they look solid when spinning. But if we could quit subsidizing big oil (who declare record profits EVERY year) & nuclear/coal Co's that make pollution that could outlive our race or minimum just destroy mountains/rivers/towns/etc & spend some of that $ on renewables mayb we wouldnt be so reliant on & paying countries who hate us & we end up fighting wars with to secure oil, to keep polluting? Nature has a way of correcting problems so you can stay in the same circle hoping for a different result or I hope we see some advancement 2 a better world even if it costs me a couple $s before its too late, & no-1s around to blame. We only have 1 Planet, Peace! |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by Pine on 02/24/14 at 09:13:43 I have been following the climate stuff for a while now. At one time, I was sure the humanity and their CO2 was too blame, now... not so much. There are a lot of factors at work, and too be sure, what man has done to earth is not very good, nor sustainable.. but did we change the climate? The sun has been approaching and now is leaving SOLAR MAX, and yet it has failed to provide the level of solar activity associated with Solar Max for the last 5 or 6 of them at least. Now a Solar max hits once every 11 years. So this solar max is weaker than it has been for the last 66 years. And yeah Co2 had nothing to do with it. Theres other considerations as well. Such as "what is the normal temp of the earth"... guess what?? it aint a balmy 70F.. or event 60F... yeah ice age is the NORM. Human kind has enjoyed an extended ( over extended) warm trend ( over 10k years). All that said... hey I am all FOR windmills and solar power.. and thoruim and those cool things for the oceans.. and Thermal for Iceland. The less crap we put in the air... the more my lungs like it. Other tidbits: most effective "green house gas" Water vapor Second most effective green house gas methane fracking uses CO2... CO2 is being drilled for in my state... we let them blow up the rezivoir so they could seismically find it. Funny how nobody is stopping the pumping of that. I really wish it were just Co2... then we could "fix it". How do you fix the sun? How do you fix the earths magnetosphere which has been weakening since 1800s? I dont doubt, that CO2 is hurtful, I do doubt that the harm it does is significant in the grand scheme of things. |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by WebsterMark on 02/24/14 at 10:11:41 Katrina was a category 3 storm, big but not a super storm. It happened to hit in the worst possible place that's why New Orleans got devastated. And since you global warming religious zealots are really nothing but political animals, it's worth pointing out that a Democratically controlled New Orleans was heavily damaged when poorly designed or kept up flood walls failed thanks to typical Democratic corruption.... And as I said before, you CANNOT do anything other than what Rev. Al Gore does which is to shout from your pulpit that storm are occurring more frequently, but when asked to provide proof, you run away. So, I'll put it to you; show me records where there were 100 year storms every other year for the past 5-10 years or simply admit to ....hmmmmm ... let's see...what's a good phrase to use here.... .how about irrational exuberance .... |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by Pine on 02/24/14 at 12:51:53 7B494E5F58495E614D5E472C0 wrote:
now webby... NO is a beast unto itself. To say that either party ran NO is .. well it just aint right. Number one rule in politics in NO: Better the crook you know that the one you dont. Those levees, were pretty much touched by any politician that could.. it makes folks feel warm inside when you "protect them". My wife is from LA ( the state not the city)... her whole family jokes about the croo ... I mean politicians there. apologies to any from LA.... but its not news... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by verslagen1 on 02/24/14 at 13:50:40 The last thing I remember hearing just before the world went silent on the subject was... "we gave you $$$ to repair the levees last year, what did you do with it?" |
|
Title: Re: Old topic, new info Post by WebsterMark on 02/25/14 at 05:17:19 The last Republican mayor of New Orleans was in 1872 so I'd say the Dems had a lock on New Orleans..... But former New Orleans mayors dress snappy......Ray Nagin's getting fitted for a nice pinstripe outfit that he'll get free replacements for 10-20 years or so......depending on his good behavior.... |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |