row_33 Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 Don't forget the bogus "acid rain" chicken little campaign, whereby all the lakes in Canada would be like battery acid in the 80s and 90s.
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 Don't forget the bogus "acid rain" chicken little campaign, whereby all the lakes in Canada would be like battery acid in the 80s and 90s.Acid rain was real. It wiped out entire lake ecosystems in the Adirondacks. They are coming back due to regulations.
unbillievable Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) I think Russia-Trump collusion might be number one. Nobody misses the days when gender specific bathrooms, the wage gap, and global warming were deemed the biggest threats to National Security by the President. Edited July 27, 2017 by unbillievable
row_33 Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 Nobody misses the days when gender specific bathrooms, the wage gap, and global warming were deemed the biggest threats to National Security by the President. You get what you ask for, nobody should have been shocked this was Obama's important points.
B-Man Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 CHARLIE MARTIN ON STEPHEN HAWKING AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOMS: “That, I think, is the biggest problem with this, and most other science reporting. Follow science reporting in the legacy media, and you’re continuously seeing stories about a famous scientist predicting impending doom, or a study that shows something we’re eating or drinking will kill us all. They know that impending doom will sell papers, so impending doom is what we get.” Read the whole thing. If climate change scientists (and those who play them on TV, such as Bill Nye, the Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering Guy) and their enablers in the DNC-MSM wonder why they’ve been tuned out by much of the country, perhaps because It’s been nearly 50 years since Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb began the left’s doomsday cult, and it’s been nothing but “Temples of Doom” since. How many different ways – and how many times – can you say the sky is falling and still be taken seriously? https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/271469/
B-Man Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 NO. WAY. Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers. Meteorologist Lance Pidgeon watched the 13 degrees Fahrenheit Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. The temperature readings fluctuated briefly and then disappeared from the government’s website. “The temperature dropped to minus 10 (13 degrees Fahrenheit), stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10.4 (14 degrees Fahrenheit) and then it disappeared,” Pidgeon said, adding that he notified scientist Jennifer Marohasy about the problem, who then brought the readings to the attention of the bureau. The bureau would later restore the original 13 degrees Fahrenheit reading after a brief question and answer session with Marohasy. “The bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman told reporters Monday. BOM added that there are limits placed on how low temperatures could go in some very cold areas of the country. Now why would that be?
row_33 Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 Number-mixing in Australia? Dog bites man story on Climate Change kooks manipulating the real evidence to make it fit their little model...
DC Tom Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 NO. WAY. Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers. Meteorologist Lance Pidgeon watched the 13 degrees Fahrenheit Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. The temperature readings fluctuated briefly and then disappeared from the government’s website. “The temperature dropped to minus 10 (13 degrees Fahrenheit), stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10.4 (14 degrees Fahrenheit) and then it disappeared,” Pidgeon said, adding that he notified scientist Jennifer Marohasy about the problem, who then brought the readings to the attention of the bureau. The bureau would later restore the original 13 degrees Fahrenheit reading after a brief question and answer session with Marohasy. “The bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman told reporters Monday. BOM added that there are limits placed on how low temperatures could go in some very cold areas of the country. Now why would that be? 1) That's not manipulating "climate" data. It's manipulating real-time weather data. 2) That's not "manipulating" data. It's simply not displaying data that may not be accurate. 3) Setting a hard floor to filter out spurious values of a real-time continuous series? That's not "manipulating" data either. That's just being gatorman-level stupid.
ALF Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Earth Overshoot Day: We’ve just exhausted a year’s worth of the planet's resources The earliest-ever Earth Overshoot Day on Aug. 2, 2017, means that humans are pushing the planet to its ecological limit at an accelerated pace. Previously known as Ecological Debt Day, it’s when the global population’s demand exceeds the amount of resources that Earth can produce for the year. The date has slowly crept up from Dec. 21 in 1971. https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/earth-overshoot-day-weve-just-exhausted-a-years-worth-of-the-planets-resources/70002351 interesting article
4merper4mer Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Earth Overshoot Day: We’ve just exhausted a year’s worth of the planet's resources The earliest-ever Earth Overshoot Day on Aug. 2, 2017, means that humans are pushing the planet to its ecological limit at an accelerated pace. Previously known as Ecological Debt Day, it’s when the global population’s demand exceeds the amount of resources that Earth can produce for the year. The date has slowly crept up from Dec. 21 in 1971. https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/earth-overshoot-day-weve-just-exhausted-a-years-worth-of-the-planets-resources/70002351 interesting article A new pile of crap to digest. Should we stop breathing until 1/1/18 because we breathe out carbon dioxide? The ones who "care" about "this issue" the most can volunteer to go first.
boyst Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 A new pile of crap to digest. Should we stop breathing until 1/1/18 because we breathe out carbon dioxide? The ones who "care" about "this issue" the most can volunteer to go first. can we nominate for this?
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Earth Overshoot Day: We’ve just exhausted a year’s worth of the planet's resources The earliest-ever Earth Overshoot Day on Aug. 2, 2017, means that humans are pushing the planet to its ecological limit at an accelerated pace. Previously known as Ecological Debt Day, it’s when the global population’s demand exceeds the amount of resources that Earth can produce for the year. The date has slowly crept up from Dec. 21 in 1971. https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/earth-overshoot-day-weve-just-exhausted-a-years-worth-of-the-planets-resources/70002351 interesting article Good thing the global warming crowd is so focused on CO2 emissions that they forget every other environmental concern such as this one.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Good thing the global warming crowd is so focused on CO2 emissions that they forget every other environmental concern such as this one. What is the "global warming crowd"? This has always confused me. Are all of us who are worried about human-caused climate change a bunch of enviro-nuts with an anti-business, tree-hugging agenda? The science is uncertain. What if there is a 30% chance that humans are causing the planet to warm up at a dangerous rate? Can we afford to bet the odds? It's possible to be anti-regulation, centrist, and deeply concerned about man-made climate change and the effect it will have on our children. The labels and snark around here are tiresome.
boyst Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 What is the "global warming crowd"? This has always confused me. Are all of us who are worried about human-caused climate change a bunch of enviro-nuts with an anti-business, tree-hugging agenda? The science is uncertain. What if there is a 30% chance that humans are causing the planet to warm up at a dangerous rate? Can we afford to bet the odds? It's possible to be anti-regulation, centrist, and deeply concerned about man-made climate change and the effect it will have on our children. The labels and snark around here are tiresome. before this can be answered. What is climate change you speak of?
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 What is the "global warming crowd"? This has always confused me. Are all of us who are worried about human-caused climate change a bunch of enviro-nuts with an anti-business, tree-hugging agenda? The science is uncertain. What if there is a 30% chance that humans are causing the planet to warm up at a dangerous rate? Can we afford to bet the odds? It's possible to be anti-regulation, centrist, and deeply concerned about man-made climate change and the effect it will have on our children. The labels and snark around here are tiresome. The "we have to do everything we can do reduce our carbon footprint" people who think CO2 emissions are the end-all and be-all of environmentalism but have only the shallowest understanding of it. Like my sister, who bought "sustainable, carbon-neutral" book bags for her kids...without understanding that "shipped from Tibet" is not carbon-neutral. Or the !@#$s that think my Prius is ecologically friendly because it's low-emission, without understanding that the manufacturing and disposal processes are very carbon-intensive and horribly polluting asides (nickel mining for the Prius batteries is one of the most ecologically destructive practices on Earth.) Basically, the "global warming crowd" is the bag of !@#$s that have turned "environmentalism" in to "carbonism" at the expense of environmentalism. They're the dickheads that worship at the altar of Rachel Carlson without realizing that Rachel Carlson loathes them for what they've done to the environmental movement.
row_33 Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Coach Tuesday: The science is uncertain. Right there "they" equate you with Holocaust Denial. It's really a good thing I'm never really ASKED about my opinion in life, so I'm not FORCED to say something that triggers a lunatic.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Coach Tuesday: The science is uncertain. Right there "they" equate you with Holocaust Denial. It's really a good thing I'm never really ASKED about my opinion in life, so I'm not FORCED to say something that triggers a lunatic. There is no "they" - that's a fiction you've invented to avoid the merits of the argument.
Magox Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 The "we have to do everything we can do reduce our carbon footprint" people who think CO2 emissions are the end-all and be-all of environmentalism but have only the shallowest understanding of it. Like my sister, who bought "sustainable, carbon-neutral" book bags for her kids...without understanding that "shipped from Tibet" is not carbon-neutral. Or the !@#$s that think my Prius is ecologically friendly because it's low-emission, without understanding that the manufacturing and disposal processes are very carbon-intensive and horribly polluting asides (nickel mining for the Prius batteries is one of the most ecologically destructive practices on Earth.) Basically, the "global warming crowd" is the bag of !@#$s that have turned "environmentalism" in to "carbonism" at the expense of environmentalism. They're the dickheads that worship at the altar of Rachel Carlson without realizing that Rachel Carlson loathes them for what they've done to the environmental movement. Damn! This is why people respect you.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 The "we have to do everything we can do reduce our carbon footprint" people who think CO2 emissions are the end-all and be-all of environmentalism but have only the shallowest understanding of it. Like my sister, who bought "sustainable, carbon-neutral" book bags for her kids...without understanding that "shipped from Tibet" is not carbon-neutral. Or the !@#$s that think my Prius is ecologically friendly because it's low-emission, without understanding that the manufacturing and disposal processes are very carbon-intensive and horribly polluting asides (nickel mining for the Prius batteries is one of the most ecologically destructive practices on Earth.) Basically, the "global warming crowd" is the bag of !@#$s that have turned "environmentalism" in to "carbonism" at the expense of environmentalism. They're the dickheads that worship at the altar of Rachel Carlson without realizing that Rachel Carlson loathes them for what they've done to the environmental movement. There are idiots everywhere (no offense to your sister). But painting everyone who is concerned as a hypocrite or a hack is unproductive and inaccurate.
row_33 Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 There is no "they" - that's a fiction you've invented to avoid the merits of the argument. I can give you 8 names right now that "with all the due respect towards them I can muster" are affiliated quite directly with the climate change environment. As much as Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio are New York Yankees. To argue otherwise is trolling.... Who peed in your Bran Flakes this morn, Coach?
Recommended Posts