Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[/dev/null]

Sorry to interrupt ,

 

 

New report undercuts global warming alarmists.

 

 

 

Climate Countdown: T-Minus 1

 

Rodeo clown

[DC Tom]

Sorry to interrupt ,

 

 

New report undercuts global warming alarmists.

 

 

 

Climate Countdown: T-Minus 1

 

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/157039-hilarious-attempt-to-spin-global-not-warming-data/#entry2771498

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/157039-hilarious-attempt-to-spin-global-not-warming-data/#entry2772426

 

 

Someday I might be wrong about something. Someday. Not today.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Tom:

 

That would have been an impossibility. There wasn't a leadership structure in the First Crusade, which is why it's success was so miraculous. Were there a structure, or a battle plan, you might be correct, but there was no strategy, and no commanded arms to be sent.

Edited September 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

Tom:

 

That would have been an impossibility. There wasn't a leadership structure in the First Crusade, which is why it's success was so miraculous. Were there a structure, or a battle plan, you might be correct, but there was no strategy, and no commanded arms to be sent.

 

That wouldn't even make sense in the correct thread.

[B-Man]

EPA Admits New Power-Plant Regs Won’t Affect Climate Change

 

The EPA recently announced new regulations limiting the carbon produced by power companies as part of a greater effort to curb climate change. However, on the 346th page of the 463-page report, under a section entitled “Impacts of the Proposed Action,” the EPA admits that it doesn’t think the new rules will reduce emissions of CO2, a major greenhouse gas, in any major way.

 

According to the report, “The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes.” They released a press statement the same day the report was made public announcing their decision to “cut carbon pollution from new power plants in order to combat climate change.”

 

Last month, President Obama directed the EPA and the EPA’s new chief administrator, Gina McCarthy, to make climate change their top priority.

 

Regulations the agency itself thinks won’t help are an interesting start.

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2013 by B-Man

[B-Man]

The Great Global-Warming Disappointment A new report undercuts the alarmists’ predictions.

 

By Michael Barone

 

Events have failed to fulfill the prophecy. Preachers have suddenly been struck dumb by uncertainty. Believers are understandably nervous and some, under their breath, are abandoning the dogma.

 

These sentences could have been written at the end of the day on October 22, 1844, about the Millerites, a religious sect started in upstate New York. Preachers had told their followers that Jesus would return to earth that day. He failed to show.

 

But the subject here is not Millerism, but another kind of religious faith: the faith of the global-warming alarmists. And while it’s not likely to have the impact of the Millerites’ Great Disappointment, we could be seeing the beginning of something similar on September 27, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues its fifth assessment report in Stockholm.

 

 

A preview is provided by science writer Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal, who has “had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document.”

 

“The big news,” Ridley writes, “is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.”

 

Ridley admits that the change is small. And he does not deny that increased carbon emissions could increase global temperatures by some significant amount. They would certainly do so if carbon emissions were the only thing affecting climate.

 

But there may be other things, such as variations in sun activity. “The most plausible explanation of the pause,” Ridley writes, “is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback.”

The pause referred to is the fact that global temperatures haven’t increased over the last 15 years. Global-warming models predicted they would. The models’ failure is not as stark as the Great Disappointment, but it’s a failure nonetheless.

 

The religious analogy is appropriate because belief in global warming has taken on the trappings of traditional religion. Alarmists like to say the science is settled — which is nonsense, since science is a series of theories that can be tested by observations. When Einstein presented his theory of relativity, he showed how it could be tested during astronomical events in the next decade. The theory passed. Saying the science is settled is like demanding what religions demand — that you have faith.

 

Religion has ritual. Global-warming alarmism has recycling and Earth Day celebrations. Some religions persecute heretics. Some global-warming alarmists identify “denialists” and liken them to Holocaust deniers. Religions build grand places of worship. Global-warming alarmists promote the construction of windmills and solar farms that uneconomically produce intermittent electricity. Global-warming alarmism even has indulgences like the ones Martin Luther protested. You can buy carbon offsets to gain forgiveness for travel on carbon-emitting private jet aircraft.

 

Some religions ban vulgar pleasures, as the New England Puritan sumptuary laws did in banning luxuries. Some global-warming alarmists want to force most Americans out of big-lawn suburbs and into high-rise apartments clustered around mass-transit stations. This last element seems to be dominant among many global-warming alarmists. Stop the vulgar masses from living their tacky lifestyles of driving those horrid SUVs. They must be made to repent, conform, and then be saved.

 

{snip}

 

History teaches that climate can change, and it makes sense to fund research to determine how to mitigate possible harms (and capitalize on possible benefits). Unfortunately, most government and nonprofit funding has gone to global-warming alarmists. But apparently even these priests understand that their prophecies have not been fulfilled. Redemption is possible. Some Millerites formed the Seventh-day Adventist church, which has built fine medical schools and hospitals. Global-warming alarmists might consider their example.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh, don't worry B-Man. Long before you got here, we knew that Global Warming was an exercise in leftist religion.

 

This is why I've been calling them Environtologists(Scientologists) since 2006. This is why dev/null's standard response to these articlses is "Heretics! Burn them!"

 

They demand faith from us, and refuse to explain themselves with data. They attempt to ostracize any scientist (and any engineer, like me) who disagrees. I have been called a "denier" on this very board. IF they had the power, they'd "excommunicate" the skeptics of their theory, by making sure those skeptics never see any more research money, and that all of their work is discounted. IF they had the power, I'm sure they'd ban me from this board.

 

They have to silence us. How totalitarian of them. They don't care that it's a losing battle. See the "Popular Science removed comments" thing. Losing battle.

 

The reason? Global Warming is simply too good a vehicle for implementing socialism on a world scale. They want it to be true, they need it to be true, they "know" it just has to be true. Otherwise? The aging populations of most of the 1st world say: Socialism is going down. We cannot support, or sustain, these Big Government models any longer....without a major, redefining event, like Global Warming, that says we must. Global Warming is perfect for this.

 

IF the left loses Global Warming as a viable issue, then they HAVE to deal with their economic failures, and that means: either admit to them and say they have new ideas that are better(which means, SSI/Medicare/Medicaid WILL be reformed), or, continue to deny reality. Neither choice is a political winner for the left. In fact, they stand to lose significantly as a result, regardless.

 

Thus, there is nowhere for the left to go, but Global Warming. They have to have it. If they lose it, they are done.

[OCinBuffalo]

Any chance we can refrain from illegal actions regarding securities on public forums please?

 

Talking up individual stocks (pumping) is illegal. For that reason it should actually be a permanently banable offense.

Upon further review, I completely missed this.

 

And, I had no idea this was true. I ain't lying. I tell the truth. I am clueless on this issue.

 

I spent my junior manager wonderboy years working for Valley startups....whose shameless internent pumping of stocks was done contnuously, by apparently bad actors, including myself. Should I have done time? We spammed the schit out of people. That was called: doing the job.

 

What exactly defines pumping, in an internet setting?

Edited September 28, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

 

 

 

LOL

 

[B-Man]

Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report is ‘hilariously’ flawed.

 

“They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

 

 

 

 

GLOBAL CHORTLING: Ed Driscoll on a weatherman’s Twitter meltdown.

[OCinBuffalo]

Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report is ‘hilariously’ flawed.

 

“They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

 

 

 

 

GLOBAL CHORTLING: Ed Driscoll on a weatherman’s Twitter meltdown.

 

Yep, hence the title of this thread.

 

 

The difference between:

 

The observational data supports our models

 

and

 

The observational data doesn't support our models

 

is virtually indistinguishable, in terms of the IPCC's report.

 

What would that report say, if there was no 15 year lack of warming? What would it say if the models were accurate? How would it be any different at all?

 

 

Liberals, bested by logic, again!

[Gary M]

The Blizzard no one heard about!!

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/10/a-record-setting-blizzard-killed-75000-cows-and-you-might-not-have-even-heard-about-it/

 

I'm sure it's just because they are too busy covering how Obama is making life hard on regular Americans.

[KD in CA]

The Blizzard no one heard about!!

 

 

http://www.theblaze....heard-about-it/

 

I'm sure it's just because they are too busy covering how Obama is making life hard on regular Americans.

 

Don't worry, I'm sure the media will wake up the first time we get a 6" snowfall on the east coast.

[/dev/null]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/29/global-cooling-are-we-headed-into-a-little-ice-age/

 

Heretic! Burn the Sun Worhipper!

[B-Man]

http://dailycaller.c...little-ice-age/

 

Heretic! Burn the Sun Worhipper!

 

What are you talking about ?

 

ANY variation in the weather is PROOF of Climate change......................lol

 

 

Plus:

Atlantic Hurricane Season Quietest in 45 Years

[Nanker]

Wonder what Bill deNye makes of it.

[TheMadCap]

 

EDIT: The entire theory of AGW is now predicated upon the speculation that: either pollution is preventing effects of pollution, or, energy is temporarily disappearing at the bottom of the ocean. Think about that for a second...ALL of the modeling, ALL of the data, ALL of it...is only valid if one of these two speculations proves correct.

 

So much for "settled science". The theory is now 100% dependent upon speculation, for it to have a chance of being true.

 

You know what this is called in poker? Being short on chips, and going all in, because...there's nothing else you can do.

 

I am not about to go into this over and over again, but it is true that this issue has become, unfortunately, a political issue rather than one of pure science. I have no doubt OC that the article you quoted (mocked) was written by someone with a political agenda, and I have no desire nor the energy to read it. I'd rather talk to my colleagues in this field who are doing the actual research, and my own former research on this topic. That being said, here is the real bottom line (stated by me for at least the 7th or 8th time):

 

There is no way to prove, no empirical evidence that supports, anthropogenic inputs to Earths atmosphere in the form of so called Greenhouse gases and other pollutants have any effect on global mean temperatures.

 

Now, that being said, the corollary is also true. There is no evidence that proves anthropogenic does NOT have an effect on global temperatures.

 

Before either side brands me a heretic, let me explain. We simply have not been studying this long enough to tell. We just haven't, we don't have the data either way to prove one way or the other which is true. However, it is incontrovertible that reducing anthropogenic inputs are in our long term best interest, provided we do so in an Economically feasible way.

 

OC, I did not read the article, so I can only guess at the claims based on your points. Here is what I can tell you, in actual scientific truth, and I allow you and everyone else to come to your own conclusions.

 

1. CO2, Methane, water vapor, etc (so called greenhouse gases) will absorb in the infrared spectrum, which is another way of saying they heat up. Putting more into the atmosphere Would cause heating of the atmosphere if we didn't have elimination mechanisms like

 

2. Carbonate system - the ocean is in fact, thought to be a sink or repository for excess atmospheric CO2. What we don't know is how much it can handle and what the final environmental fate of the bound carbon is. I don't have the energy to explain the carbonate system, anyone who is interested can find this in any atmospheric chemistry or general chem book. Look up carbonate system, pH, environmental fate, thermohaline circulation etc.

 

3. Pollutant substances are classified as such based on WHERE they are located. For example, one would not normally consider water vapor to be a "pollutant", but when it is in the atmosphere, it can be characterized as such, since it causes an environmental impact (see item 1) above. Another example is ozone,which is beneficial in the upper atmosphere but classified as a pollutant at near the Earths surface.

 

Pollutants like NOx, sulfer, and other ejecta from a volcanic eruption, not to mention water vapor and dust particles, do cause

Temporary cooling of the atmosphere, as they block out, once again, infrared radiation from the sun. Put another way, sunlight is blocked from reaching the planet. This is why you will hear that clouds also cause cooling, they reflect sunlight. Now there are natural elimination mechanisms the Earth has for getting rid of this type of pollutants, namely wind and rainwater. Again, overtaxing this elimination mechanism is not in our best interest.

 

In short, we know much about how our planet functions, but we are adding a new variable into the equation that is nearly unknown: us. We just don't know yet how much, if any, we are truly affecting earths chemistry. What we do know is that we should responsibly manage our inputs and influences.

 

That's it, I am officially done with this subject. Let the politics continue on, I have no input on that issue...

Edited October 29, 2013 by TheMadCap

[/dev/null]

Pollutants like NOx, sulfer, and other ejecta from a volcanic eruption

 

Heheheheheh, Hey Beavis. He said ejecta

 

That was cool

[TheMadCap]

against my better judgement, I turned on MSNBC on XM while I was in the car last night, and low and behold, there was some personality who is an activist for an environmental group, who invited a "climate science expert" who just so happens to also be apart of the personalities little enviro group, and a Democratic congresscritter from NY. They should have read my post above, it was SO blatently politicized and dead wrong. So many generalizations and over reaching statements without scientific merit. For example, this clown stated it was a concrete FACT that major storms would get more prevalent with warmer temperatures! He was arguing for Cap and Trade to fix it! See what I wrote about solutions that will not cripple us economically? I give up!

 

ah what's the use? this subject is a retard rollercoaster, as much as I hate to use that description. Not sure how else to describe it...

[IDBillzFan]

against my better judgement, I turned on MSNBC on XM while I was in the car last night, and low and behold, there was some personality who is an activist for an environmental group, who invited a "climate science expert" who just so happens to also be apart of the personalities little enviro group

 

Most progressives rely on this type of talking head "science expert" to push their agenda.

 

I find the fastest way to make these ridiculous arguments disappear is to ask them what science says about a 24-week-old fetus which they have no problem aborting.