OCinBuffalo Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 (edited) http://www.npr.org/2015/05/08/405260407/global-carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-milestone Oh WTF is this? Now we are at "the beginning" again? TANS: What troubles me is that we're still headed at full speed in a direction that we should not be going. We are at the beginning of bringing about huge changes in the Earth's climate and ecosystems. The potential is there for us to make life hard, really, for future generations. Hey Assclown: We were "at the beginning", depending on which (*^*&%^$^#made the claim, in 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2006(AL Gore saying NYC's current shores will be covered in 3 feet of water, which is why I will be selling kayaks in Battery Park this time next year). It was "settled" that we were at "the beginning", and headed towards "the end" at least 10 F'ing years ago. birdog: what in the Sam Hell is this? Don't you find it a little hilarious? I'll ask you the same thing I asked GreggyT. Is there a line that these clowns can cross for you, where you call BS on them? Does that line exist, or are you on board no matter how ridiculous this thing gets? Apparently eternally being at "the beginning" is how they explain this *****: New Explanation for The Warming Pause We’ve reported before on various explanations for the current “pause” in global warming that we’re told us not happening, now going on for nearly 18 years. According a study published last week in Nature Geoscience, the culprit may be the Indian Ocean: The Indian Ocean may be the dark horse in the quest to explain the puzzling pause in global warming, researchers report on 18 May in Nature Geoscience. The study finds that the Indian Ocean may hold more than 70% of all heat absorbed by the upper ocean in the past decade. More at the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/new-explanation-for-the-warming-pause.php But remember: it’s all settled science, so shut up and pay up your carbon tax. Hey Baskin, I have a "puzzling"( using that word is the cherry, isn't it?) question for you: Why do we need yet another speculation about what is causing the "pause" in Global Warming? I mean, since you've decided that all of us are "science" illiterate, why do the supposedly enlightened High Priests of Global Warming need to explain what is "settled"? If there is no 18 year pause, why are they offering an explanation for it? Answer the question. You can look down your nose at whoever, that's fine, this is PPP...but...answer the F'ing question. There will be no peace for you here until you do. ---------- I love how instead of "The Ocean", in general, it's now: "The Indian Ocean". "Oh, yeah, well, see, now we've found the culprit, and we are being specific: It's the Indian Ocean! So of course we are right. The Pacific was being framed by the Indian Ocean all along. But now, we've got our man!" Why does this story sound exactly like corrupt cops killing an innocent witness to their crimes, and then planting a "throw away" weapon on him, so that they can claim self defense? The Indian Ocean == the black kid witness, who was gonna be a doctor, dies in the B cop movie, with the environtologists playing the corrupt cops. Now, if only Stephen Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damme is available...we'd have ourselves a movie. What did the Indian Ocean do to deserve such slander? Edited May 25, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/alaska-hubbard-glacier-growth
DC Tom Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Oh WTF is this? Now we are at "the beginning" again? Hey Assclown: We were "at the beginning", depending on which (*^*&%^$^#made the claim, in 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2006(AL Gore saying NYC's current shores will be covered in 3 feet of water, which is why I will be selling kayaks in Battery Park this time next year). It was "settled" that we were at "the beginning", and headed towards "the end" at least 10 F'ing years ago. birdog: what in the Sam Hell is this? Don't you find it a little hilarious? I'll ask you the same thing I asked GreggyT. Is there a line that these clowns can cross for you, where you call BS on them? Does that line exist, or are you on board no matter how ridiculous this thing gets? Apparently eternally being at "the beginning" is how they explain this *****: Hey Baskin, I have a "puzzling"( using that word is the cherry, isn't it?) question for you: Why do we need yet another speculation about what is causing the "pause" in Global Warming? I mean, since you've decided that all of us are "science" illiterate, why do the supposedly enlightened High Priests of Global Warming need to explain what is "settled"? If there is no 18 year pause, why are they offering an explanation for it? Answer the question. You can look down your nose at whoever, that's fine, this is PPP...but...answer the F'ing question. There will be no peace for you here until you do. ---------- I love how instead of "The Ocean", in general, it's now: "The Indian Ocean". "Oh, yeah, well, see, now we've found the culprit, and we are being specific: It's the Indian Ocean! So of course we are right. The Pacific was being framed by the Indian Ocean all along. But now, we've got our man!" Why does this story sound exactly like corrupt cops killing an innocent witness to their crimes, and then planting a "throw away" weapon on him, so that they can claim self defense? The Indian Ocean == the black kid witness, who was gonna be a doctor, dies in the B cop movie, with the environtologists playing the corrupt cops. Now, if only Stephen Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damme is available...we'd have ourselves a movie. What did the Indian Ocean do to deserve such slander? Well, that's an interesting argument. Considering the Indian Ocean is one of the two heat sources (the other being the North Pacific) for the global current system, how is that "70%" not getting redistributed across the entire volume of the oceans? Oh yeah...it's because the "global conveyor" system takes 1000 years to complete one cycle. So all that heat in the Indian Ocean would take 1000 years to distribute itself through the world's oceans. 1000 years...and we're drawing conclusions about global climate on a dataset of 200 years? Or 100 years? Or 35 years?
OCinBuffalo Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Well, that's an interesting argument. Considering the Indian Ocean is one of the two heat sources (the other being the North Pacific) for the global current system, how is that "70%" not getting redistributed across the entire volume of the oceans? Oh yeah...it's because the "global conveyor" system takes 1000 years to complete one cycle. So all that heat in the Indian Ocean would take 1000 years to distribute itself through the world's oceans. 1000 years...and we're drawing conclusions about global climate on a dataset of 200 years? Or 100 years? Or 35 years? Don't worry, we're only at "the beginning" of those 1000 years. Baskin is only at the beginning of explaining why an 18-year pause, that doesn't exist, needs an explanation. And finally, we are only at the beginning of my plan to sell kayaks, for charity of course, at Battery Park next year. I'm thinking Paper Mache, using the New York Times. But I don't know. It may be more fun to use plastic bottles. Either way, goal #1 is to find a way to sucker MSNBC into putting us on their air, and for one of us to explain that the reason we need kayaks is the water..."don't you realize you're standing in 3 feet of water? It's just like Al Gore said it would be!".
unbillievable Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 We've had unusually high amounts of rain here in the Southwest. However, California is still declaring a drought emergency. Global warming is targeting liberals.
Gary M Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Climate change is to blame for everything. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/mr-obama-climate-change-didnt-create-isis-boko-haram.html
B-Man Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 President Obama, quick to lecture everyone else about their carbon footprint, is off to Miami in his carbon-spewing 747 this afternoon for two DNC fundraisers and a meeting at the National Hurricane Center where he’ll receive a briefing on the 2015 hurricane season: But if he’s so concerned with excess carbon emissions, why not just read the briefing and, you know, not pollute the environment? Especially since the briefing he’s attending is going to say that the forecast is “below normal”: Flashback to last year From The Hill: Obama warns of ‘devastating’ hurricanes from climate change President Obama warned Friday that storms like Hurricane Sandy will become more frequent as climate change intensifies. While being briefed by emergency response officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters, Obama urged the public to prepare now for this year’s hurricane season. “The changes we’re seeing in our climate means that, unfortunately, storms like Sandy could end up being more common and more devastating,” Obama said. “And that’s why we’re also going to be doing more to deal with the dangers of carbon pollution that help to cause this climate change and global warming. And that’s why we’re also, with the terrific help of these departments, thinking of how we can build more resilient infrastructure,” he added. But we know the reason he has to pollute our planet and be in Miami in person. Who would pay big bucks to hear the president Skype it in? Fundraisers Awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ! .
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 rick santorum takes on the pope over climate change FOX news (Yes,Fox news) bites back: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/fox_news_chris_wallace_slams_rick_santorum_if_the_pope_cant_talk_about_climate_change_why_can_you/ bahahaha!!! i'm thinking this is rick's maccaca.
TH3 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Oh WTF is this? Now we are at "the beginning" again? Hey Assclown: We were "at the beginning", depending on which (*^*&%^$^#made the claim, in 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2006(AL Gore saying NYC's current shores will be covered in 3 feet of water, which is why I will be selling kayaks in Battery Park this time next year). It was "settled" that we were at "the beginning", and headed towards "the end" at least 10 F'ing years ago. birdog: what in the Sam Hell is this? Don't you find it a little hilarious? I'll ask you the same thing I asked GreggyT. Is there a line that these clowns can cross for you, where you call BS on them? Does that line exist, or are you on board no matter how ridiculous this thing gets? Apparently eternally being at "the beginning" is how they explain this *****: Hey Baskin, I have a "puzzling"( using that word is the cherry, isn't it?) question for you: Why do we need yet another speculation about what is causing the "pause" in Global Warming? I mean, since you've decided that all of us are "science" illiterate, why do the supposedly enlightened High Priests of Global Warming need to explain what is "settled"? If there is no 18 year pause, why are they offering an explanation for it? Answer the question. You can look down your nose at whoever, that's fine, this is PPP...but...answer the F'ing question. There will be no peace for you here until you do. ---------- I love how instead of "The Ocean", in general, it's now: "The Indian Ocean". "Oh, yeah, well, see, now we've found the culprit, and we are being specific: It's the Indian Ocean! So of course we are right. The Pacific was being framed by the Indian Ocean all along. But now, we've got our man!" Why does this story sound exactly like corrupt cops killing an innocent witness to their crimes, and then planting a "throw away" weapon on him, so that they can claim self defense? The Indian Ocean == the black kid witness, who was gonna be a doctor, dies in the B cop movie, with the environtologists playing the corrupt cops. Now, if only Stephen Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damme is available...we'd have ourselves a movie. What did the Indian Ocean do to deserve such slander? Since you asked me...Dude - you are clearly, clearly so bent out of shape there is no data, no nothing, is going to register with you - you are clearly convinced that it is all some conspiracy- and I mean all - the whole world....good luck with your life...it looks from here to be a miserable experience....
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Since you asked me...Dude - you are clearly, clearly so bent out of shape there is no data, no nothing, is going to register with you - you are clearly convinced that it is all some conspiracy- and I mean all - the whole world....good luck with your life...it looks from here to be a miserable experience.... i don't understand why this is such a partisan issue. if it were really about the science, then one would expect that conservatives and liberals would be similarly divided on the issue (discounting the fact that so many conservatives are scientific illiterates). but they clearly are not. i wish someone could tell me why conservatives lean so strongly towards instinctively denying this. do they really like being controlled by unelected industtrialists with no concern for their well being or anyone elses? doesn't make any sense.
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 rick santorum takes on the pope over climate change FOX news (Yes,Fox news) bites back: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/fox_news_chris_wallace_slams_rick_santorum_if_the_pope_cant_talk_about_climate_change_why_can_you/ bahahaha!!! i'm thinking this is rick's maccaca. Ha ha! Then there's this http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/republican-climate-change-jay-faison-118755.html?hp=rc1_4
Azalin Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 i don't understand why this is such a partisan issue. if it were really about the science, then one would expect that conservatives and liberals would be similarly divided on the issue (discounting the fact that so many conservatives are scientific illiterates). but they clearly are not. i wish someone could tell me why conservatives lean so strongly towards instinctively denying this. do they really like being controlled by unelected industtrialists with no concern for their well being or anyone elses? doesn't make any sense. It's a partisan issue because politicians have taken it up and made a cause out of it, and any proposal for dealing with the issue that I've ever heard involves either greater regulation, increased taxation, or both. Whenever either side adopts a position on a given issue, the issue tends to become polarized. People will take a stand based on their political philosophy, not upon the facts. While somewhat reasonably stated, the wording of your question reveals these same biases in you. You said "discounting the fact that so many conservatives are scientific illiterates" - where do you come off making a claim like that? How far up your own backside do you have to be to actually believe nonsense like that? In addition, you go on to say "do they really like being controlled by unelected industtrialists with no concern for their well being or anyone elses?", when a similar claim can be made against progressives who really like being controlled by elected officials and their appointees who are driving an economic agenda disguised as science. What your question completely ignores is that a large segment, if not a majority of those questioning AGW do so not as deniers, but as skeptics, who demand evidence, not consensus, of AGW before economic or regulatory legislation is enacted upon.
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Ha ha! Then there's this http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/republican-climate-change-jay-faison-118755.html?hp=rc1_4 “The problem with Republicans — a lot of Republicans, not all — they just don’t understand the issue,” said Andrew Sabin, owner of a New York-based precious-metal refining business and a longtime GOP donor. “If they saw some of the things they could do that wouldn’t affect the economy and in fact increases jobs and cleans the air, they’re all for it.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/republican-climate-change-jay-faison-118755.html#ixzz3cZpdq8Gg It's a partisan issue because politicians have taken it up and made a cause out of it, and any proposal for dealing with the issue that I've ever heard involves either greater regulation, increased taxation, or both. Whenever either side adopts a position on a given issue, the issue tends to become polarized. People will take a stand based on their political philosophy, not upon the facts. While somewhat reasonably stated, the wording of your question reveals these same biases in you. You said "discounting the fact that so many conservatives are scientific illiterates" - where do you come off making a claim like that? How far up your own backside do you have to be to actually believe nonsense like that? In addition, you go on to say "do they really like being controlled by unelected industtrialists with no concern for their well being or anyone elses?", when a similar claim can be made against progressives who really like being controlled by elected officials and their appointees who are driving an economic agenda disguised as science. What your question completely ignores is that a large segment, if not a majority of those questioning AGW do so not as deniers, but as skeptics, who demand evidence, not consensus, of AGW before economic or regulatory legislation is enacted upon. this is how i justify it: http://www.thenation.com/blog/bushs-war-science. many more example, in fact entire books on republican anti science positions, exist.
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 “The problem with Republicans — a lot of Republicans, not all — they just don’t understand the issue,” said Andrew Sabin Yep. That's always the problem with this issue. Partisan or not...one side believes the billion-dollar "science" of it all, and the other side is just too stupid to understand. Gee. No one saw that coming.
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Yep. That's always the problem with this issue. Partisan or not...one side believes the billion-dollar "science" of it all, and the other side is just too stupid to understand. Gee. No one saw that coming. not so much stupid as greedy: "Preference is also given to those with big business pedigrees. As Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out in a Nation cover story last March, Bush's agenda is "to systematically turn government science over to private industry by contracting out thousands of science jobs to compliant consultants already in the habit of massaging data to support corporate profits." This Administration's war on science "is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition," he argued. In the last few weeks alone, Bush's assault on science has intensified. In an unprecedented move, the White House has announced that scientists now need approval from senior Bush political appointees to participate in World Health Organization (WHO) meetings. This has outraged the WHO and others in the scientific community, who believe this decision opens the door for the Administration to blackball scientists who don't follow the line on controversial health issues."
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 not so much stupid as greedy: "Preference is also given to those with big business pedigrees. As Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out in a Nation cover story last March, Bush's agenda is "to systematically turn government science over to private industry by contracting out thousands of science jobs to compliant consultants already in the habit of massaging data to support corporate profits." This Administration's war on science "is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition," he argued. In the last few weeks alone, Bush's assault on science has intensified. In an unprecedented move, the White House has announced that scientists now need approval from senior Bush political appointees to participate in World Health Organization (WHO) meetings. This has outraged the WHO and others in the scientific community, who believe this decision opens the door for the Administration to blackball scientists who don't follow the line on controversial health issues." Sounds like what the other Bush did to the CIA in run up to the war in Iraq
Azalin Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 this is how i justify it: http://www.thenation.com/blog/bushs-war-science. many more example, in fact entire books on republican anti science positions, exist. So, you believe that republicans are the only ones politicizing science? If you're so against one side injecting their dogma into the issue, why do you give the other side a complete pass? There are entire books written on bigfoot, too. I guess you believe them as well.
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 So, you believe that republicans are the only ones politicizing science? If you're so against one side injecting their dogma into the issue, why do you give the other side a complete pass? There are entire books written on bigfoot, too. I guess you believe them as well.
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 not so much stupid as greedy: So when an authoritative voice you cite says the problem with some people in the GOP is they don't understand the false sciences that get thrust upon everyone in an effort to receive more funding, what he really means is the GOP is greedy? Wow. I bet you're one of those people who believes the Democrats who fought to keep slavery were really just Republicans who just didn't know it.
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) So when an authoritative voice you cite says the problem with some people in the GOP is they don't understand the false sciences that get thrust upon everyone in an effort to receive more funding, what he really means is the GOP is greedy? Wow. I bet you're one of those people who believes the Democrats who fought to keep slavery were really just Republicans who just didn't know it. he's a major republican donor. that's how he interprets the situation. i on the other hand see more greed than stupidity, especially at the top. Edited June 9, 2015 by birdog1960
Recommended Posts