Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[B-Man]

Of Course..................

 

 

 

Those Dakota Access Pipeline protest camps were a potential “environmental disaster”

 

There are a couple of updates from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests to keep an eye on this week. One has to do with the process of finally getting all of this red tape out of the way and getting back to the business of doing business. In keeping with that, the acting Secretary of the Army has given the word that a final easement should be issued so we can get this done.

 

There will no doubt be additional court action from the protesters, but up until now it was really the Obama administration which was holding up the works. With that little matter out of the way, the easement should provide the relief needed to move forward. Any protesters who choose to stand in the way after this should really be quickly escorted to a jail cell where they won’t be inadvertently injured by any construction equipment.

Really guys… enough. It’s for your own good.

And speaking of the protesters, what of those massive camps that had been running for the past year or more? Sadly, they made a massive mess of the place and somebody is going to have to clean it up. (You didn’t expect them to police the area themselves, did you?) The state needs to move quickly because, in what may be one of the most ironic orders ever, the area is such a dump that the protesters who wanted to save the environment were on the verge of creating an “environmental disaster.”

Edited February 2, 2017 by B-Man

[ExiledInIllinois]

did you know that pass the dutchie was really supposed to be pass the kutchie, which is south African slang for weed. But they chose dutchie, which is a type of south African dutch oven to avoid censorship?

 

I'm just going to respond to your posts with **** like this because its as effective as taking you seriously. Not that I ever want to be taken seriously myself

[B-Man]

Then:

 

FLASHBACK: Obama wanted our thermostat at 72 degrees, no SUV (May 17, 2008)

 

 

Now:

 

Back to reality! The Obamas take off in Richard Branson’s private jet from their ten day island getaway—after taking a helicopter to the airport.

 

 

 

.

Edited February 5, 2017 by B-Man

[B-Man]

Not really surprising...................there's a lot of money in pushing Climate Change

 

CLIMATE “SCIENCE” ROCKED BY ANOTHER SCANDAL

 

A just-retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has blown the whistle on a scandal of epic proportions involving fake news ginned up by climate “scientists.” Dr. John Bates, who until the end of 2016 was one of NOAA’s top scientists, told the story to the Daily Mail:

 

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

 

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

 

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

 

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

 

 

 

NOAA violated its own rules by publishing the report without subjecting it to required verification procedures–procedures that were designed by Dr. Bates himself.

 

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

 

 

 

Of all the “fake news” stories that emerged in the last two years, this is probably the most important.

Edited February 5, 2017 by B-Man

[B-Man]

More...................

 

 

Whistleblower: World leaders duped over manipulated global warming data

 

 

The UK Daily Mail just published startling evidence that the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to release a widely-cited paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the Paris Agreement on climate change.

 

(more…)

[/dev/null]

More...................

 

 

Whistleblower: World leaders duped over manipulated global warming data

 

 

The UK Daily Mail just published startling evidence that the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to release a widely-cited paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the Paris Agreement on climate change.

 

(more…)

 

I beg to differ that world leaders were "duped." If anything they were willfully duped as the prescribed remedy to Global Warming Cooling Climate Change Disruption Chaos is increased power to Government.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The US military still thinks it is on:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/?google_editors_picks=true

 

 

Who's Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military

Despite political gridlock over global warming, the Pentagon is pushing ahead with plans to protect its assets from sea-level rise and other impacts. Here's how.

 

By Laura Parker

PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 7, 2017

NORFOLK, VIRGINIATen times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing from one side of the base to the other becomes impossible. Dockside, floodwaters overtop the concrete piers, shorting power hookups to the mighty ships that are docked in the worlds largest naval base.

 

 

All it takes to cause such disarray these days is a full moon, which triggers exceptionally high tides.

 

Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

 

This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Departmentand seems as good a setting as any to consider the fate of climate science and the military in the new political era in Washington that will set the bar for how climate science is pursued by the government.

 

The Defense Department has been planning for climate change for more than a decade, often in the face of roadblocks set up by climate science skeptics in Congress. In 2014 and again last year, Republicans in the House of Representatives added language to Defense Department spending bills prohibiting funds from being spent to plan or prepare for climate change. Terrorism is the greater threat, the authors of those prohibitions declared, and federal funding should be steered towards snuffing out ISIS instead. Both times, the restrictions were nullified by the Senate. It is too early to say whether efforts to bar defense spending on climate change will be tried again..."

[Greg F]

The US military still thinks it is on:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/?google_editors_picks=true

 

 

Who's Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military

Despite political gridlock over global warming, the Pentagon is pushing ahead with plans to protect its assets from sea-level rise and other impacts. Here's how.

 

By Laura Parker

PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 7, 2017

NORFOLK, VIRGINIATen times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing from one side of the base to the other becomes impossible. Dockside, floodwaters overtop the concrete piers, shorting power hookups to the mighty ships that are docked in the worlds largest naval base.

 

 

All it takes to cause such disarray these days is a full moon, which triggers exceptionally high tides.

 

Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

 

This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Departmentand seems as good a setting as any to consider the fate of climate science and the military in the new political era in Washington that will set the bar for how climate science is pursued by the government.

 

The Defense Department has been planning for climate change for more than a decade, often in the face of roadblocks set up by climate science skeptics in Congress. In 2014 and again last year, Republicans in the House of Representatives added language to Defense Department spending bills prohibiting funds from being spent to plan or prepare for climate change. Terrorism is the greater threat, the authors of those prohibitions declared, and federal funding should be steered towards snuffing out ISIS instead. Both times, the restrictions were nullified by the Senate. It is too early to say whether efforts to bar defense spending on climate change will be tried again..."

What a bunch of ignorant crap.

 

Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built.

 

Just plain wrong. The author is either ignorant, a liar, or both. The relative sea level has risen due in large part to the fact the land is sinking.

 

Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region

 

Relative sea-level rise measured at four National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tidal stations (fig. 2; table 2) averaged 3.9 mm/yr from about 1950 through 2006. At the Sewells Point tidal station in Norfolk, Va., rising sea levels have been recorded since 1927 (fig. 14; table 2). Sea level at Sewells Point rose at an average rate of 4.4 mm/yr from 1927 to 2006, with a 95 percent confidence interval of ±0.27 mm/yr (Zervas, 2009). In comparison, global average sea levels have been rising at about 1.8 mm/yr. Although rates of absolute sealevel rise (rise due just to increases in ocean volume) can vary substantially from one location to another and change over time (Boon and others, 2010; Sallenger and others, 2012), the global average rate of 1.8 mm/yr from 1961 to 2003 is a widely accepted global benchmark rate (Bindoff and others, 2007, p. 410). The difference between the average sea-level rise computed from the four NOAA tidal stations in the study area (3.9 mm/yr) and the benchmark global rate (1.8 mm/yr) is 2.1 mm/yr, which is an estimate of the average rate of land subsidence at the four NOAA stations. These numbers indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the southern Chesapeake Bay region. Rates of land subsidence vary with location, as can be seen from the different rates of sea-level rise at the four NOAA stations and the variable rates of subsidence measured by Holdahl and Morrison (1974).

While the land is sinking it has nothing to do with CO2. In fact, the sea levels were rising at the same rate prior to the time when CO2 was suppose to start having an effect (1950). Then again, sea levels have been rising for the last 20,000 years.

 

 

Surely you don't think the Defense department is so stupid that they don't know the land is sinking. So keep posting crap by a wordsmith with no scientific training and accepting it as gospel.

 

By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

</sarc> Now there is a real credible organization. </sarc>

Why just last week the preeminent scientist Kenji Watts joined The Union of Concerned Scientist.

 

 

Seems all you need is a credit card and your dog too can join.

 

If perhaps your public school education failed you on how science is suppose to be done this lecture by the late professor Feynman might be helpful.

 

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Not really surprising...................there's a lot of money in pushing Climate Change

 

CLIMATE “SCIENCE” ROCKED BY ANOTHER SCANDAL

 

A just-retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has blown the whistle on a scandal of epic proportions involving fake news ginned up by climate “scientists.” Dr. John Bates, who until the end of 2016 was one of NOAA’s top scientists, told the story to the Daily Mail:

 

 

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

 

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

 

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

 

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

 

 

NOAA violated its own rules by publishing the report without subjecting it to required verification procedures–procedures that were designed by Dr. Bates himself.

 

 

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

 

 

Of all the “fake news” stories that emerged in the last two years, this is probably the most important.

 

I had a giggle-fit when I saw this. 11 years of this crap, and here we are, just as many of us said we'd be. I was too busy to come here when it broke, but I was thinking about it plenty. Then: "I wonder if we can measure the propensity of B-Man to post a killer article like this in the Global Warming thread / time". I suppose we'd have to come up with a brand new graduation for it.

 

1 B-Man == lethality to global warming scam / (time of B-Man's post at PPP Thread) - (time from original article post)

 

with lethality to global warming scam == (importance of article's publication (1-10 scale)) * (veracity of source(s) (1-10 scale))) * ((# of undeniable facts provided) + (# of "standardized" myths busted))

 

This works because importance is in the numerator with true reaction time in the denominator. A less important story should take longer to post, and the inverse is true as well. It also works as a fine performance indicator...although I imagine we'll have to get down to the seconds in order to maintain appropriate precision, as (time of post - article post) is pretty granular for B-Man.

 

Think of it! Then we can say things like: "The average Global Warming article moves at 30.5 B-mans, but hey, this whistleblower article, man, that's gotta be moving at 150."

 

Really, it's applicable in all threads. But, we just try it here for testing/calibration first.

[grinreaper]

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=GtN3bNer&id=D08551D667F52190901F902F9BE9B9E121769C29&q=nasa+aerial+images+of+changes+oroville&simid=608030348130388550&selectedIndex=15&ajaxhist=0

 

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article132154774.html

 

The first link is what I've seen in my news feed often in the last year. It was slanted to show global warming. I wonder if the second link disproves that?

Edited February 12, 2017 by grinreaper

[DC Tom]

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=GtN3bNer&id=D08551D667F52190901F902F9BE9B9E121769C29&q=nasa+aerial+images+of+changes+oroville&simid=608030348130388550&selectedIndex=15&ajaxhist=0

 

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article132154774.html

 

The first link is what I've seen in my news feed often in the last year. It was slanted to show global warming. I wonder if the second link disproves that?

 

Nope, the second link proves it. Global warming caused the spillway to fail.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Nope, the second link proves it. Global warming caused the spillway to fail.

Did you see the water elevations @ Oroville a few years ago. Like we didn't see this coming!

 

Remember a bunch of years ago when we were having drought here in east? I think it was StuckInCincy that posted a good write-up/link ABOUT keeping the foundation around your home wet.

 

You know a lot about foundation work Tom... ;-)

 

Slow, fill, slow empty... Heck slow & steady at anything! Amazing looking at that rez before and how full it is now! Over the course of the last few years, had to fill in record time!

Edited February 12, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois

[DC Tom]

You know a lot about foundation work Tom... ;-)

 

Exactly why I posted that. Engineers have been finding and patching cracks in that spillway for almost ten years. That there were cracks developing in the spillway during an increasingly severe drought is just about all you need to know about why it happened.

 

Fixing that spillway is going to be a B word. It'll be more than $200M, I'm sure.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Exactly why I posted that. Engineers have been finding and patching cracks in that spillway for almost ten years. That there were cracks developing in the spillway during an increasingly severe drought is just about all you need to know about why it happened.

 

Fixing that spillway is going to be a B word. It'll be more than $200M, I'm sure.

Is that a Corps site? Well, there goes our funding up here. Same story the last 60 years... "Infrastructure triage" And rightly so! We do have industry trust fund paid into by fuel surcharge ($.29/gallon)... I wonder where that went to? (don't even get me started).

 

 

That $200+ million @ Oroville... How about recreational fee hikes @ lake facilities, docks, fuel, etc... That will go over like a lead zepplin! ;-)

[B-Man]

DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

 

They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

[DC Tom]

Is that a Corps site? Well, there goes our funding up here. Same story the last 60 years... "Infrastructure triage" And rightly so! We do have industry trust fund paid into by fuel surcharge ($.29/gallon)... I wonder where that went to? (don't even get me started).

 

I think it's state-built and -run, actually. I could be wrong - I'm inferring it from the authorities mentioned in all the recent stories, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

 

 

That $200+ million @ Oroville... How about recreational fee hikes @ lake facilities, docks, fuel, etc... That will go over like a lead zepplin! ;-)

 

It certainly woudn't get a whole lotta love, that's for sure. Nobody wants to pay until the levee breaks, then they all just stand there like fools in the rain.

[Azalin]

It certainly woudn't get a whole lotta love, that's for sure. Nobody wants to pay until the levee breaks, then they all just stand there like fools in the rain.

 

 

Nicely done.

[ExiledInIllinois]

http://trib.al/7OAmfsm

 

EMERGENCY EVACUATION ORDER ISSUED: Officials are anticipating a failure of the Auxiliary Spillway at Oroville Dam within the next 60 minutes. Residents of Oroville should evacuate in a northward direction, toward Chico. Other cities should follow the orders of their local law enforcement.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

http://trib.al/7OAmfsm

 

EMERGENCY EVACUATION ORDER ISSUED: Officials are anticipating a failure of the Auxiliary Spillway at Oroville Dam within the next 60 minutes. Residents of Oroville should evacuate in a northward direction, toward Chico. Other cities should follow the orders of their local law enforcement.

 

Wonder how far the flood waters would reach...Oakland/BERKELY maybe? One can hope, indeed.

[TH3]

Wonder how far the flood waters would reach...Oakland/BERKELY maybe? One can hope, indeed.

Hopefully the kill count is in the tens of thousands