Home Mail Chat Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > Washington DC and The Holy Land

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-24-2018, 08:36 PM  
HonestChieffan HonestChieffan is offline
Seeking the Truth daily
 
HonestChieffan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Country in MO
Casino cash: $34409
Global Cooling, Could this be real?

This is probably another climate Change scam like the last one. Don't buy this stuff on face value.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#1b15efc72800

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.


Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.

The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.

Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.

The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,

“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years - and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a "Mini Ice Age." Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”

Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”


A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.” The news report summarized,

“Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.”

Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.

Yet, just last week, there was Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson telling us, by way of attempting to tutor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, “For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no ‘great amount of uncertainty’ about whether the planet is warming and why.” If you can read, and you have gotten this far in my column, you know why Robinson’s ignorance is just another Washington Post abuse of the First Amendment. Mr. Robinson, let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!

Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?”

But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.
Posts: 42,661
HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 11:28 AM   #76
Over Yonder Over Yonder is offline
Veteran
 
Over Yonder's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: North Missouri
Casino cash: $1500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
Pollution and environmentalism are separate issues. Scientists aren't "Selling" anything. They're doing science and reporting results. Which overwhelmingly shows a rapidly changing climate. It's only political because of a climate change denial lobbying effort over the last 50 years to make it political.

Al Gore is not leading any charge. Gore is a moron politician. Don't listen to him.

The tide is turning though. Effects of climate change are undeniable. Even the Pentagon has accepted it and is actively planning for climate change adaptation. A recent Pentagon report showed that 50% of US military sites were already experiencing climate change related effects. This is why you cannot limit climate change to just pollution. Do you think the DoD is "Selling" BS with reports like these:

Department of Defense
Climate-Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure
Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey
(SLVAS) Report


The Impact of Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change on
Department of Defense Installations on Atolls in the
Pacific Ocean (RC-2334)
The bolded is the part of this whole topic myself and many others disagree with. You can't just state it as a fact then go on to the numbers of the argument. Many of us don't believe the numbers BECAUSE we don't trust the sincerity of the scientist/research.

Not that I blame the scientist, this is their paycheck. I'm in the pork industry, if a group come up with the idea that pigs are somehow bad, I'm gonna deny deny deny...... because that's where my check comes from. I don't trust the Chevy dealer when he says Ford sucks, his paycheck is talking. And so on.

For me to ever take this topic seriously, the money would have to be separated from the science. And quite frankly, I wouldn't even know how that could be done.

And FTR, leaning on government numbers is probably worse than the scientist for hire numbers. The government without doubt has an axe in the fire. Government's whole purpose is to grow government if left to it's own devices. This is an excellent place for the gov to swell itself
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Lee View Post
Few things Democrats profess to love more than a failed Republican.

From Ford and Papa Bush down through Dole and Kemp, McCain and Romney, they universally exclaim 'why can't more be like THEM!!'
Posts: 3,442
Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 11:43 AM   #77
Randallflagg Randallflagg is offline
Veteran
 
Randallflagg's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Olathe
Casino cash: $7256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Over Yonder View Post
The bolded is the part of this whole topic myself and many others disagree with. You can't just state it as a fact then go on to the numbers of the argument. Many of us don't believe the numbers BECAUSE we don't trust the sincerity of the scientist/research.

Not that I blame the scientist, this is their paycheck. I'm in the pork industry, if a group come up with the idea that pigs are somehow bad, I'm gonna deny deny deny...... because that's where my check comes from. I don't trust the Chevy dealer when he says Ford sucks, his paycheck is talking. And so on.

For me to ever take this topic seriously, the money would have to be separated from the science. And quite frankly, I wouldn't even know how that could be done.

And FTR, leaning on government numbers is probably worse than the scientist for hire numbers. The government without doubt has an axe in the fire. Government's whole purpose is to grow government if left to it's own devices. This is an excellent place for the gov to swell itself

You hit the nail right on the head there…..

"Climate Change" has become a religion with the "enlightened" regressive. Want to lose your job? Your mind? Your friends? Openly express your doubt about "climate change" and watch what happens to you.

It makes the Inquisition look like a day at the water park…..
Posts: 2,714
Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.Randallflagg wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 11:51 AM   #78
Fish Fish is online now
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Over Yonder View Post
The bolded is the part of this whole topic myself and many others disagree with. You can't just state it as a fact then go on to the numbers of the argument. Many of us don't believe the numbers BECAUSE we don't trust the sincerity of the scientist/research.
I can state it as fact because that's what the results show. Global results done by scientists all over the world, many of which have no ties to the US government. To say that it's some kind of US government scam for money ignores the scientific results through the rest of the world. If you have any evidence to show otherwise, that would be a good reason to doubt the science. Your distrust isn't based on anything tangible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Over Yonder View Post
Not that I blame the scientist, this is their paycheck. I'm in the pork industry, if a group come up with the idea that pigs are somehow bad, I'm gonna deny deny deny...... because that's where my check comes from. I don't trust the Chevy dealer when he says Ford sucks, his paycheck is talking. And so on.

For me to ever take this topic seriously, the money would have to be separated from the science. And quite frankly, I wouldn't even know how that could be done.

And FTR, leaning on government numbers is probably worse than the scientist for hire numbers. The government without doubt has an axe in the fire. Government's whole purpose is to grow government if left to it's own devices. This is an excellent place for the gov to swell itself
That's telling. You assume that money is the main motivation, but you admit you wouldn't know how to separate the money and the science. That's because the big money is not there. There's no big money in climate science. Show me proof of a climate scientist millionaire. You can't. That's one of the biggest misconceptions about the topic, and there's simply zero proof of it. Climate change funding has went down over time even as support for climate change had went up.
__________________
Posts: 35,500
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 11:54 AM   #79
Fish Fish is online now
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randallflagg View Post
You hit the nail right on the head there…..

"Climate Change" has become a religion with the "enlightened" regressive. Want to lose your job? Your mind? Your friends? Openly express your doubt about "climate change" and watch what happens to you.

It makes the Inquisition look like a day at the water park…..
The same thing happens when openly expressing your doubt about the Earth being spherical. Or the Earth being billions of years old. Weird...
__________________
Posts: 35,500
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 11:58 AM   #80
Over Yonder Over Yonder is offline
Veteran
 
Over Yonder's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: North Missouri
Casino cash: $1500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randallflagg View Post
You hit the nail right on the head there…..

"Climate Change" has become a religion with the "enlightened" regressive. Want to lose your job? Your mind? Your friends? Openly express your doubt about "climate change" and watch what happens to you.

It makes the Inquisition look like a day at the water park…..
That's no crap. It's kinda funny, yet kinda scary to watch. When climate change is even mentioned, you can almost see the columns forming and the goose stepping starting.

Of all the nonsense the left clings to, this might be the golden goose. I don't know this for a fact but I suspect the reason they cling sooo tightly to this issue is there is almost no way they can ever be wrong. Let's say that today's prediction is global cooling is coming next Tuesday. Tuesday comes and nada. Well, we meant the next Tuesday that occurs after a lunar eclipse during the month of October during a year that Venus is aligned with Saturn's largest moon. Then before that can happen, some big research shows now, in fact, we are facing run away global warming by next month..... and the cycle continues
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Lee View Post
Few things Democrats profess to love more than a failed Republican.

From Ford and Papa Bush down through Dole and Kemp, McCain and Romney, they universally exclaim 'why can't more be like THEM!!'
Posts: 3,442
Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 11:59 AM   #81
Beef Supreme Beef Supreme is offline
MVP
 
Beef Supreme's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2010
Casino cash: $19660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
I can state it as fact because that's what the results show. Global results done by scientists all over the world, many of which have no ties to the US government. To say that it's some kind of US government scam for money ignores the scientific results through the rest of the world. If you have any evidence to show otherwise, that would be a good reason to doubt the science. Your distrust isn't based on anything tangible.



That's telling. You assume that money is the main motivation, but you admit you wouldn't know how to separate the money and the science. That's because the big money is not there. There's no big money in climate science. Show me proof of a climate scientist millionaire. You can't. That's one of the biggest misconceptions about the topic, and there's simply zero proof of it. Climate change funding has went down over time even as support for climate change had went up.
Nobody said big money. But it is their livelihood. Show me the pig farmer millionaire. Climate scientist didn't exist as a career until quite recently. You think these guys don't care if that career goes away? And Randallflag isn't wrong, either. Their career WILL go away if the research they are doing doesn't result in a view walks in lock step with the "consensus." Tell me how that is science.

The most telling thing is the claim that climate science is settled science. There is such a small baseline of data that there is no possible way that can be the case. I'm all for continuing to research and monitor the climate, and I'm all for cleaning up our act as a species. But don't expect me to sign off on "settled" science with the amount of data we have.

Last edited by Beef Supreme; 06-28-2018 at 12:08 PM..
Posts: 7,138
Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:08 PM   #82
Over Yonder Over Yonder is offline
Veteran
 
Over Yonder's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: North Missouri
Casino cash: $1500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
I can state it as fact because that's what the results show. Global results done by scientists all over the world, many of which have no ties to the US government. To say that it's some kind of US government scam for money ignores the scientific results through the rest of the world. If you have any evidence to show otherwise, that would be a good reason to doubt the science. Your distrust isn't based on anything tangible.



That's telling. You assume that money is the main motivation, but you admit you wouldn't know how to separate the money and the science. That's because the big money is not there. There's no big money in climate science. Show me proof of a climate scientist millionaire. You can't. That's one of the biggest misconceptions about the topic, and there's simply zero proof of it. Climate change funding has went down over time even as support for climate change had went up.
I admit that because the minute you separate the science and the money, the science disappears. Not because there is no big money in climate science. Nobody is gonna continue to stir the pot if they don't get a bowl of the soup.

Also, I never said the rest of the world doesn't have governments. Their governments are no different than ours. They look to grow from this as well, (although they would like to do their growing while the American taxpayer foots the bill)

I've got to go to work or I would love to continue this discussion. Have a good day man
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Lee View Post
Few things Democrats profess to love more than a failed Republican.

From Ford and Papa Bush down through Dole and Kemp, McCain and Romney, they universally exclaim 'why can't more be like THEM!!'
Posts: 3,442
Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.Over Yonder wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:14 PM   #83
Fish Fish is online now
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Supreme View Post
Nobody said big money. But it is their livelihood. Show me the pig farmer millionaire. Climate scientist didn't exist as a career until quite recently. You think these guys don't care if that career goes away? And Randallflag isn't wrong, either. Their career WILL go away if the research they are doing doesn't result in a view walks in lock step with the "consensus." Tell me how that is science.
It's their livelihood no differently than a surgeon's livelihood is performing surgery. That doesn't automatically cause people to distrust surgeons. It also ignores how and why climate scientists are paid. They get paid for what they do, no differently than a surgeon. They don't get paid more or less based on what the results of their studies show. That's the point you and others seem to miss. The study of climate doesn't go away no matter what happens. To allude that is pretty silly. There are thousands of uses for climate data, and all you are focused on is political. Which is the most irrelevant.

If a climate scientist produced verifiable data today showing that climate change is not occurring at an incredibly accelerated pace, that scientist would be quite popular. Energy corps would throw all kinds of funds at that scientist. Their career would go away? LOL.... hardly. That would be very valuable to energy corps dependent on the unrestricted burning of fossil fuel.
__________________
Posts: 35,500
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:18 PM   #84
Beef Supreme Beef Supreme is offline
MVP
 
Beef Supreme's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2010
Casino cash: $19660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
It's their livelihood no differently than a surgeon's livelihood is performing surgery. That doesn't automatically cause people to distrust surgeons. It also ignores how and why climate scientists are paid. They get paid for what they do, no differently than a surgeon. They don't get paid more or less based on what the results of their studies show. That's the point you and others seem to miss. The study of climate doesn't go away no matter what happens. To allude that is pretty silly. There are thousands of uses for climate data, and all you are focused on is political. Which is the most irrelevant.

If a climate scientist produced verifiable data today showing that climate change is not occurring at an incredibly accelerated pace, that scientist would be quite popular. Energy corps would throw all kinds of funds at that scientist. Their career would go away? LOL.... hardly. That would be very valuable to energy corps dependent on the unrestricted burning of fossil fuel.
Their career in academia would go away. And they would be called shills for the big oil company and ostracized by their "peers". Tell me I'm wrong.
Posts: 7,138
Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:22 PM   #85
Fish Fish is online now
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Over Yonder View Post
I admit that because the minute you separate the science and the money, the science disappears. Not because there is no big money in climate science. Nobody is gonna continue to stir the pot if they don't get a bowl of the soup.

Also, I never said the rest of the world doesn't have governments. Their governments are no different than ours. They look to grow from this as well, (although they would like to do their growing while the American taxpayer foots the bill)

I've got to go to work or I would love to continue this discussion. Have a good day man
That's simply not true though. Again, there are many different uses for climate data. Most are not political in any way.

Just take a scroll through this list in the link..

Quote:
Uses Of Weather And Climate Data

This is a list of some of the applications/uses of weather and climate data based on approximately 35,000 to 40,000 requests for information received at the Oregon State Climate Office from 1982 to 1989, and additional requests received at the Western Regional Climate Center from 1989 to 1996.

https://www.nap.edu/read/6197/chapter/11
__________________
Posts: 35,500
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:23 PM   #86
Fish Fish is online now
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Supreme View Post
Their career in academia would go away. And they would be called shills for the big oil company and ostracized by their "peers". Tell me I'm wrong.
You're 100% wrong. If they could provide actual evidence, it couldn't be brushed away no matter what their peers said.
__________________
Posts: 35,500
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:36 PM   #87
banecat banecat is offline
Warped Nihilist
 
banecat's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: I35&K10
Casino cash: $500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
The same thing happens when openly expressing your doubt about the Earth being spherical. Or the Earth being billions of years old. Weird...
It's not a sphere. It's flat
Posts: 2,930
banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.banecat would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:48 PM   #88
Beef Supreme Beef Supreme is offline
MVP
 
Beef Supreme's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2010
Casino cash: $19660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
You're 100% wrong. If they could provide actual evidence, it couldn't be brushed away no matter what their peers said.
What does it take for you to consider it actual evidence? I have seen the climate scientists you seem to champion go from "the next ice age is coming," to "the earth will turn into Venus," and back to "Global cooling" over the course of about 40 years. And their evidence is good enough for you, but some other researcher's viewpoints are not.

Sorry if I don't agree that the science is settled yet.
Posts: 7,138
Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:24 PM   #89
Fish Fish is online now
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Supreme View Post
What does it take for you to consider it actual evidence? I have seen the climate scientists you seem to champion go from "the next ice age is coming," to "the earth will turn into Venus," and back to "Global cooling" over the course of about 40 years. And their evidence is good enough for you, but some other researcher's viewpoints are not.

Sorry if I don't agree that the science is settled yet.
I think you're being over dramatic. I don't believe any climate scientists have said anything like that. I'm not sure what evidence you're referring to either.

Nothing in science is ever considered settled. But the consensus on climate change is very strong.

NASA does a good job of explaining why: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Do you know of any scientific source that claims otherwise?
__________________
Posts: 35,500
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:47 PM   #90
Beef Supreme Beef Supreme is offline
MVP
 
Beef Supreme's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2010
Casino cash: $19660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
I think you're being over dramatic. I don't believe any climate scientists have said anything like that. I'm not sure what evidence you're referring to either.

Nothing in science is ever considered settled. But the consensus on climate change is very strong.

NASA does a good job of explaining why: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Do you know of any scientific source that claims otherwise?
I agree that nothing in science should ever be considered settled, but I sure keep hearing that claim about climate science. Obviously some provable, repeatable experiments tend to make some areas of science more or less settled, but climate science isn't one of those areas. We just don't have enough data to make that claim.

I'm not saying the current consensus is wrong. I'm saying we can't really know. And since predictions from climate scientists have varied wildly and none of the predictions that were supposed to have happened by now have actually happened, maybe we shouldn't throw our economy*in the shitter in the name of footing the bill for trying to save the planet while other countries don't do shit.

That said, we shouldn't shit in our own nest. I like living on earth, and I think future generations should get to enjoy it, as well. I wonder how many "save the earth" types drink the shit out of water that comes in plastic bottles and run their AC at meat-freezer temperatures in the summer. And then they get up in my face because I don't think climate science is settled.
Posts: 7,138
Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Beef Supreme has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:41 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
Fort Worth Texas Process Servers
Covering Arlington, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie and surrounding communities.
Tarrant County, Texas and Johnson County, Texas.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.