Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 61 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      Short article for those concerned about Global Warming.

      https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/2/the-overblown-and-misleading-issue-of-global-warmi/

      Think the writer should have included plastics in the last paragraph.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      That title coming from you… rich

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1309

      A complete idiot posting nonsense.

      Please wait…

    • flashgordon

      Participant
      Post count: 1105

      The deductive logic used by the Greeks to prove, say, the Pythagorean theorem, is different from the Symbolic Logic of the 1800s. Symbolic Logic has continued to evolve, if not be revolutionized, since then. For instance, the three volues all the way up to infinite volued logics of the 1920s, then the Godel incompleteness theorems of 1931, and Symbolic Logic has continued to advance.

      Likewise for science. Newton didn’t derive the inverse square law by drawing a cartesian graph, plotting a lot of points, then performing a mathematical transformation to turn the curve into a straight line and seeing what the resulting equation looks like; he didn’t do any statistical analyses. How did he come up with his ideas? Indeed, how did mathematicians come up with statistical analyses before there was statistical analyses? Certainly not by the cartesian coordinate method described above, and often described in grade schools today.

      I’ll just copy and paste my last write-up about this below . . .

      “People like to think that what they see in terms of visual senses is what the world is really like. James Maxwell’s elucidation of the electromagnetic nature of light is enough to dispel that notion. Maxwell’s discovery showed that light comes in many other wavelength’s as well – infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays. Maxwell’s discovery was the greatest physics discovery since Isaac Newton; but, getting back to the point. We cannot get at nature directly. We have to infer nature indirectly.

      Our eyes see with discreet rods and cones that can only see some wavelengths of light. We’ve had to use facts and logic to straighten out our conditioned perspective. We have to establish boundaries, or error rates for which things apply or not. Scientists use terms like accuracy and precision of measurements. Accuracy refers to how accurate your measurement is to a known or theoretically calculated quantity. Precision is how close each measurement is to one another. Mathematicians have a reversible definitions idea for mathematical definitions. If one can reverse the definition, and mean the same thing, then the concept is well defined. Jacob Bronowski argues, and I agree with him, in his, “Origins of Knowledge and Imagination”, that the universe is this infinitely detailed whole. Any cut in it can only be an artificiality. But, clearly, mathematicians have found that one can restrict the field of applications of a concept to a certain time and place. Of course, in time, as structures, or concepts, influence one another in this energetic universe, things influence one another, and one has to revise, or generalize concepts. Getting back to restricting ideas in a certain time and place . . .

      Jacob, once again in his ‘Origins’ book mentioned above, suggests that when one makes a cut, establishes a boundary, for however fleeting a moment of applicability, certain undefined terms fall out. He considers concepts like inertia, electron, atom, the sun centered solar system really, are of this nature. We didn’t first build a spaceship, launch it to some polar position, look down, and say, “look, the sun is the center of the universe.” As described above, we decoded it out of noticing that the Sun seemed abnormally large compared to the other ‘planets’. The phase of the moon seemed to point to the Sun. And, the planets seem to precess; they stop their forward movement, loop backward, and then move back forward again. What one does is dam up nature – like a hydro-electric dam. And in so doing, one generates electricity. I’ve noticed an analogy between Jacob Bronowski’s ideas in his ‘Origins’ book and some connections ideas in James Burke’s ‘Connections’ book and video series.

      In James Burke’s Connections(and this is an idea in archaeology and anthropology long before), agriculture leads to technologies. Clearing the fields(I mean like ‘slash and burn’ to remove everything except the plants desired to grow) and having to farm introduces one to problems of irrigation, pest control, and fertilization. I’m equating these to the new undefined terms that Jacob Bronowski is pointing out above. Also, agriculture, once it gets established frees up the populace to do other jobs, or ideas. Jobs/Ideas . . . like a military, a scribe to keep track of taxes, business people, priests, rulers, and mathematicians. The farming is predicated on the seasonal cycles. So, one needs a calendar, and an astronomer and mathematicians.

      James Burke notes some more things in episode/chapter two and three. In episode 2, Guericke is found producing the first vacuum, and doing all sorts of amazing things with it. He keeps two hemisphere’s of a ball together by a vacuum. A vacuum so strong that two horses can’t pull it apart. He then notes that Guericke presents his vacuum to a German prince. And he shows that mice suffocate in it/bell’s don’t make a sound when you try to ring it/fire goes out. In episode 3, he shows how the horse takes center stage for all kinds of technologies and is the basis for the second half medieval Europe economy. There’s the horseshoe, the neck brace for the Horse, and the stirrup and saddle for the Horse rider. Then, there’s the Knights armour. But, these are all very concrete technological ideas. What’s the connection between the concrete technological world and abstract mathematical ideas such as number, one-dimensional lines that don’t really exist beyond our heads?

      I’d suggest as Susanne K. Langer, in her “Introduction to Symbolic Logic” does, the difference between constituent relations and logical relations. Constituent relations are like the verbs in a sentence. Logical relations are like conjunction/disjunction/inclusion of deductive reasoning. These are similar relations to set theory relations of union/intersection and equality of sets. And, as mathematicians noted in the eighteen hundreds, numbers are like equivalent sets.

      Numbers are the abstract identity of equivalent, or analogous sets – apart from there concrete manifestations. Like there’s a couple of apples, and a couple of oranges. The apples and oranges are concrete manifestations of the abstract concept of number two. Everything has a structure. a Relation with parts that makes sense with respect to that relation. There’s binary relations, and relations that can take on three parts, or terms. For instance, between is a triple relation because something is between two other things. You would never say ‘love between john’. But, within a given relation, say Jane loves John, there’s a whole set of terms, or parts, that makes sense with the love relation. You could even say Ferrari loves racing. But, taking the relation, the binary form from all it’s concrete manifestations is what Symbolic Logicians and Mathematicians call an abstraction.

      When we present a specific instance of a concept, we’re thinking of it in a very specific context. If I just mention some verb like running, you think of either Paul is running away from something. Or Paul is running the show. Something very time specific. Only by noting the general concept, does the concept go beyond the very time specificity of this or that structure. When humanity first started noting ideas, the ideas were very provincial. The number two was associated with male and female properties. As ideas are generalized, they strip themselves from imprints of their origins.”

      Please wait…

      Bobby Blue Bland I Pity The Fool (1961)

    • flashgordon

      Participant
      Post count: 1105

      As for Global warming, we have the statistics(already argued; remember the whole wiki global warming thing?).

      But, in relation to what’s said above, about how mathematical concepts arise, we have things like greenhouses to tell us that heating happens when you confine light. You can have a situation, whether through a glass medium, or a chemical gas, that allows light to come in, but not emit back out. This is a basic physics law that can be domonstrated in the lab, anywhere in the world.

      No dooubt, there’s complications to hide the affects. Pro-global warming scientists will point out the oceans for instance.

      Please wait…

      Bobby Blue Bland I Pity The Fool (1961)

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      As for Global warming, we have the statistics(already argued; remember the whole wiki global warming thing?).

      But, in relation to what’s said above, about how mathematical concepts arise, we have things like greenhouses to tell us that heating happens when you confine light. You can have a situation, whether through a glass medium, or a chemical gas, that allows light to come in, but not emit back out. This is a basic physics law that can be domonstrated in the lab, anywhere in the world.

      No dooubt, there’s complications to hide the affects. Pro-global warming scientists will point out the oceans for instance.

      That is why water vapor is the primary global warming compound in the atmosphere.
      The ultimate source is of course the Sun and its activity correlates the best with global warming cycles.

      What % of CO2 comes from mankind compared to other sources? What % of C02 is in the atmosphere compared to other gases or water vapor?

      Please wait…

    • flashgordon

      Participant
      Post count: 1105

      As for Global warming, we have the statistics(already argued; remember the whole wiki global warming thing?).

      But, in relation to what’s said above, about how mathematical concepts arise, we have things like greenhouses to tell us that heating happens when you confine light. You can have a situation, whether through a glass medium, or a chemical gas, that allows light to come in, but not emit back out. This is a basic physics law that can be domonstrated in the lab, anywhere in the world.

      No dooubt, there’s complications to hide the affects. Pro-global warming scientists will point out the oceans for instance.

      That is why water vapor is the primary global warming compound in the atmosphere.

      The ultimate source is of course the Sun and its activity correlates the best with global warming cycles.

      What % of CO2 comes from mankind compared to other sources? What % of C02 is in the atmosphere compared to other gases or water vapor?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

      “Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have produced a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), from 280 ppm in 1750 to 406 ppm in early 2017”

      Please wait…

      Bobby Blue Bland I Pity The Fool (1961)

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Runole preaching science is like Trump preaching the sanctity of marriage

      Please wait…

    • TheChronicHotAir

      Participant
      Post count: 4907

      Thank you Honorable President Donald J. Trump for inventing Science in 1937.

      More Winning!

      ( Suck It chop )

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      Gas Name Chemical Formula Percent Volume
      Oxygen O2 20.95%
      *Water H2O 0 to 4%
      Argon Ar 0.93%
      *Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%

      Please wait…

    • flashgordon

      Participant
      Post count: 1105

      Gas Name Chemical Formula Percent Volume

      Oxygen O2 20.95%

      *Water H2O 0 to 4%

      Argon Ar 0.93%

      *Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%

      I point to that global warming wiki; but, anyways, here’s the latest global warming article on physorg – Polar vortex outbreaks,

      https://phys.org/news/2019-01-science-polar-vortex-outbreaks.html

      Please wait…

      Bobby Blue Bland I Pity The Fool (1961)

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1309

      Runole, you are certainly full of hot gas.

      Please wait…

    • Havok904

      Participant
      Post count: 13021

      Runole’s idiot role model

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Understanding the difference between climate and weather is hard!

      Please wait…

    • Havok904

      Participant
      Post count: 13021

      https://twitter.com/chipfranklin/status/1090321539147284480?s=09

      Please wait…

    • Havok904

      Participant
      Post count: 13021

      Nah Nah Nah
      This Artic Vortex is caused by Sunlight hitting water particles in the air.

      Runnyhole wouldn’t lie

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      Nah Nah Nah

      This Artic Vortex is caused by Sunlight hitting water particles in the air.

      Runnyhole wouldn’t lie

      <twitter-widget class=”twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered” id=”twitter-widget-0″ style=”position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 550px; min-width: 220px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;” data-tweet-id=”1090430959634313216″></twitter-widget>
      <script async=”” src=”https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js&#8221; charset=”utf-8″></script>

      Don’t disagree at all good to see that you realize the major greenhouse gas is Water vapor.

      Now for the real crisis facing America. When does the left see the reality of their agenda of open borders?

      https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/29/northern-u-s-city-that-welcomed-asylum-seekers-overwhelmed-by-influx-quickly-running-out-of-resources-718854

      The reality what happens when you have open borders and they come for just a hand out and no reason to assimilate. It is a life style and they are the dregs of society. They can’t be saved because they refuse to save themselves.

      Why the MSM and the hard left (democratic party) refuse to see the sheet hole developing before their eyes is a national disgrace.

      24/7 Trump Hate is not a rational narrative for America.

      It must be Hell feeling miserable everyday over what someone says.

      Almost feel sorry for the Left sycophants whose only defense is Hate and calling everyone a bigot or racist that doesn’t agree with their socialistic dream that will turn America into a Sheet Hole.

      Please wait…

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13938

      Lol

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      Watch and Learn.. I realize someone already put this up there but it needs to be shown again to CULT WARMING!

      Please wait…

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13938

      Lolz…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Envoking the “I know you are but what am I” retort per usual.

      The a fox news clip from YT! Yay

      Please wait…

    • flashgordon

      Participant
      Post count: 1105

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9oPUNaqXE

      The Earth’s continents lit up, visible from space by city lights; they’ve turned on twenty four hours a day, for decades, almost a century now. And, also, scientists can measure co2 levels rising since the beginnings of the industrial revolution with all those train tracks built, running across continents for a century before. All the shipping lanes, the worlds militaries, and those hugh cargo ships going to hugh loading docks. Ever see those hugh loading docks that the those tankers and cargo ships go to?

      I was at one in Saudi Arabia or there-abouts. Seeing those hugh cargo ships with all those trailers that get put on eighteen wheeler trucks to drive across whole continents. I was on watch on the U.S.S. Roosevelt aircraft carrier. I watched those ships go in and out. I watched hugh cranes hoisting these, what looked compared to everything else to be little lego bricks. But, there were full sized trailers that would be picked off these cargo ships, and placed on a stream of eighteen wheeler trucks that you would see driving off to the horizon. This is just one such place out of thousands around the world.

      You can’t imagine the thousands of oil and cargo ships running around the world, and millions of eighteen wheeler trucks driving through the night – in cold and hot whether.

      And then, you’ve got the maybe hundreds of millions of airliner jets(i’mn tempted to say millions, but, I can’t believe that. I need to check out how many airliner jumbo jets are criss-crossing the skies at any one time).

      Please wait…

      Bobby Blue Bland I Pity The Fool (1961)

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Good post, flash… makes you think

      Please wait…

    • flashgordon

      Participant
      Post count: 1105

      Good post, flash… makes you think

      I can’t believe I said millions of airliner jets. Well, I did kind of stop myself while typing there I checked how many Boeing 777 there are sold around the world, and I’m shocked at how low the number is – like 400 plus some. But, that’s just 777. There’s lots of other types of Airliners and cargo planes -737, 747(very large airplane, larger than even the 777), and lots more after that. I’d say there’s probably at least a few ten thousand Airliner jets around the world.

      Please wait…

      Bobby Blue Bland I Pity The Fool (1961)

    • flashgordon

      Participant
      Post count: 1105

      Good post, flash… makes you think

      I can’t believe I said millions of airliner jets. Well, I did kind of stop myself while typing there I checked how many Boeing 777 there are sold around the world, and I’m shocked at how low the number is – like 400 plus some. But, that’s just 777. There’s lots of other types of Airliners and cargo planes -737, 747(very large airplane, larger than even the 777), and lots more after that. I’d say there’s probably at least a few ten thousand Airliner jets around the world.

      there’s also 787’s, which is an advance beyond the triple 7’s; that could be why there’s not that many 777’s.

      Please wait…

      Bobby Blue Bland I Pity The Fool (1961)

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      for the short attention span left 2 short videos

      about that 98 %?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      You are such a fucking moron…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      When the “scientists” were busted altering climate data, I decided to dig in myself. Prior to this, it seemed rather logical that oil companies and the like would do their best to debunk global warming to shed themselves of liability. So I thought about who would not have a political dog in the fight and would keep accurate records of temperatures … USAF… I tracked temp readings at MacDill AFB from 1950 – 2016 June-July. Guess what, no trend. Interesting … found a few other AFB records in Hawaii, Washington State, California, New York, Texas. Same. “Global Warming” is a scam.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      I love that those calling it a “scam” will be dead, and future generations will look back and ask why we didn’t do something… so obvious.

      I still don’t understand why there is a such a resistance to renewable energy and cleaning the planet. Yet we spend billions on weapons of mass destruction.

      We are doomed to destroy ourselves because the ignorant are the loudest.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      I love that those calling it a “scam” will be dead, and future generations will look back and ask why we didn’t do something… so obvious.

      I still don’t understand why there is a such a resistance to renewable energy and cleaning the planet. Yet we spend billions on weapons of mass destruction.

      We are doomed to destroy ourselves because the ignorant are the loudest.

      Stop being a lazy F and look into it yourself.

      https://www.almanac.com/weather/history

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Gosh you got it all figured out… I know nothing! Let’s keep ignoring the scientific consensus and promote non-renewable energy and keep up our dependence of foreign oil in the middle east. So American!

      You have all figured out! Congrats on the smarts!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      Gosh you got it all figured out… I know nothing! Let’s keep ignoring the scientific consensus and promote non-renewable energy and keep up our dependence of foreign oil in the middle east. So American!

      You have all figured out! Congrats on the smarts!

      Has nothing to do with smarts other than realizing there are interests out there that may not align with the truth. From there it’s up to you to either be a spoon fed sheep that is told what to think, or dig in and find the truth for yourself.

      https://www.almanac.com/weather/history

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Yes a link to the farmer’s Almanac. So clever. Would you like a cookie?

      Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      Do you understand trends and correlation? Do you know how to use a spreadsheet and generate a chart? Never-mind. You are a typical spoon-fed moron.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      A you are a typical bigot cunt.

      I work in excel, graphs, and correlation planning all fucking day. Show me your pivot table of data that clearly outlines global warming as hoax, CK…der I mean Chefo.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      A you are a typical bigot cunt.

      I work in excel, graphs, and correlation planning all fucking day. Show me your pivot table of data that clearly outlines global warming as hoax, CK…der I mean Chefo.

      So then pick a location and get to work. Don’t take my word or anyone else’s.

      https://www.almanac.com/weather/history

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      But that is precisely what I will do… in what world do I have time to work 50 hours a week and raise a family and then be a climate scientist just for fun? I strive to be an expert in my field, and I’m going to listen to experts in other fields. Nobody has time to do this… maybe you do? Are you gainfully employed?

      Show me your data you’ve compiled

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      But that is precisely what I will do… in what world do I have time to work 50 hours a week and raise a family and then be a climate scientist just for fun? I strive to be an expert in my field, and I’m going to listen to experts in other fields. Nobody has time to do this… maybe you do? Are you gainfully employed?

      Show me your data you’ve compiled

      You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. Only one way to know for sure. If you truly care about the subject and have the means to find out, have at it. As I said, I was truly concerned. I was a lifelong Democrat that believed the company line on everything. Why would they lie?

      Then I started digging.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Show me your data that you’ve compiled

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      My data is irrelevant. Obviously I’m biased, and untrustworthy. Compile your own. Just be sure you look at that second link first … It’s really handy when proving man is causing “global warming”. Let me know when you pick your jaw up off the floor after you find no correlation.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Surrender noted. Thanks for the laugh

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      Very simple with data from a trustworthy organization with cited (not sighted) sources.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      Very simple with data from a trustworthy organization with cited (not sighted) sources.

      Shit data with an agenda. Again, I did my research with an open mind, but expecting to find lower temps in the 1950’s. When I did not find data which supported this, I went to another site figuring Tampa was an anomaly. I wasn’t. I checked all four corners of our Country, then stepped outside the landmass to gather data at Alaska and Hawaii. None correlates to what one would expect with a population boom and ever increasing Oil consumption.

      I’m not going to upload a bunch of data and charts, but I’ll let you fact check me (as I’m sure you’d love to prove me wrong)
      July 16th 1951 high 98
      July 23rd 1956 high 98

      These are MacDill temps. I tracked July (hottest month) every day so as to make sure that weather anomalies wouldn’t alter the picture one way or the other.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      Here’s a few more:
      NY,NY zip 11371
      July 22nd 1955 high 100
      July 22nd 1957 high 100
      July 3rd 1966 high 103

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Lol… you obviously never took statistics.

      Oh look I have snow, thus it must be cold everywhere.

      Oh look I have food so there can’t be world hunger.

      Oh look I have a job so there can’t be poor people.

      But yeah, your “data” is far better than whatever NASA can put together. NASA has an agenda… totally. Science and pursuit of the truth is an agenda! Ironically Trump’s anti science and anti truth is the only real agenda we are talking about here…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      Lol… you obviously never took statistics.

      Oh look I have snow, thus it must be cold everywhere.

      Oh look I have food so there can’t be world hunger.

      Oh look I have a job so there can’t be poor people.

      But yeah, your “data” is far better than whatever NASA can put together. NASA has an agenda… totally. Science and pursuit of the truth is an agenda! Ironically Trump’s anti science and anti truth is the only real agenda we are talking about here…

      Surrender noted. A sad one at that.

      As I said, I’m a lying POS. I hate the environment and can’t wait until every polar bear and penguin is baking in the desert sun. Prove me wrong with your own research

        .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      So again, you aren’t providing anything of substance and your only argument is that NASA has an agenda.

      Can’t fix stupid. I guess you’re smarter than NASA. Golly gee…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      I gave you spot temps proving I’ve done my research. Specific times, dates, and locations. I know you’re smart enough to prove me wrong, have at it. Prove that I’m a liar. Show the chart clearly correlating to oil usage. It should be a pretty clear ramp in temps as that oil usage chart sure as F is…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Lol. Sit down you look stupid. Try to grasp statistics 101 before you open your mouth again

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      Lol. Sit down you look stupid. Try to grasp statistics 101 before you open your mouth again

      Well, with your vast knowledge and your single link to NASA you’ve obviously proven your case.

      Eventually when you see “An Inconvenient Truth part 17” and the ocean is still at the same level it was when you were a kid, you might start to question some of the bullshit that has been fed to you your whole life. Maybe. As is, you’re too fucking lazy and brain-washed.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      How convenient for you that you’ll be dead by the time the effects are felt. You’ll get to die happy knowing you stuck it to science and NASA!

      Lucky for me I live in a place that values the environment, renewable energy, and where rising oceans won’t have an effect.

       

       

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Participant
      Post count: 333

      How convenient for you that you’ll be dead by the time the effects are felt.

      And so will your grandkids, Timmy ….

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      For schiano only little over 3 minutes only need to listen to a minute or so

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Lol @runole – another YT clip. How…expected.

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      Lol @runole – another YT clip. How…expected.

      Can’t accept the truth on a complete money grabbing hoax..

      Don’t you have a AOC rally and clairvoyant speech to attend! lol The new face of the Democrap party

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      Failed Prognostications
      By Robert L. Bradley, Jr.

      June 22, 2018
      “If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”

      — Philip Shabecoff, “Global Warming Has Begun.” New York Times, June 24, 1988.

      It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for manmade global warming caused by modern industrial society. And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world.

      The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988—and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff—constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).

      Erroneous Predictive Scares

      Consider the opening global warming salvo (quoted above). Dire predictions of global warming and sea-level rise are well on their way to being falsified—and by a lot, not a little. Meanwhile, a CO2-led global greening has occurred, and climate-related deaths have plummeted as industrialization and prosperity have overcome statism in many areas of the world.

      Take the mid-point of the above’s predicted warming, six degrees. At the thirty-year mark, how is it looking? The increase is about one degree—and largely holding (the much-discussed “pause” or “warming hiatus”). And remember, the world has naturally warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, a good thing if climate economists are to be believed.

      Turning to sea-level rise, the exaggeration appears greater. Both before and after the 1980s, decadal sea-level rise has been a few inches. And it has not been appreciably accelerating. “The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades, noted climate scientist Judith Curry. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.”

      The sky-is-falling pitch went from bad to worse when scientist James Hansen was joined by politician Al Gore. Sea levels could rise twenty feet, claimed Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, a prediction that has brought rebuke even from those sympathetic to the climate cause.

      Now-or-Never Exaggerations

      In the same book/movie, Al Gore prophesied that unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gasses, we would hit a “point of no return.” In his book review of Gore’s effort, James Hansen unequivocally stated: “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”

      Time is up on Gore’s “point of no return” and Hansen’s “critical tipping point.” But neither has owned up to their exaggeration or made new predictions—as if they will suddenly be proven right.

      Another scare-and-hide prediction came from Rajendra Pachauri. While head of a United Nations climate panel, he pleaded that without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet. In the same year, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, predicted “global disaster” from the demise of Arctic sea ice in four years. He too, has gone quiet.

      Nothing new, back in the late 1980s, the UN claimed that if global warming were not checked by 2000, rising sea levels would wash entire countries away

      There is some levity in the charade. In 2009, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that the world had only 50 days to save the planet from global warming. But fifty days, six months, and eight years later, the earth seems fine.

      Climate Hysteria hits Trump

      The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers.

      Heading into the 2016 election, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson warned that “a vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.” In Mother Jones, professor Michael Klare similarly argued that “electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil fueled ultranationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.”

      Trump won the election, and the shrill got shriller. “Donald Trump’s climate policies would create dozens of failed states south of the U.S. border and around the world,” opined Joe Romm at Think Progress. “It would be a world where everyone eventually becomes a veteran, a refugee, or a casualty of war.”

      At Vox, Brad Plumer joined in:

      Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States…. We’re at risk of departing from the stable climatic conditions that sustained civilization for thousands of years and lurching into the unknown. The world’s poorest countries, in particular, are ill-equipped to handle this disruption.

      Renewable energy researcher John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve “missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.” Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding “the destruction of organized human life.”

      Falsified Alarms, Compromised Science

      If science is prediction, the Malthusian science of sustainability is pseudo-science. But worse, by not fessing up, by doubling down on doom, the scientific program has been compromised.

      “In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’” Judith Curry told Congress, “the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem.” She continued:

      This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.

      Even DC-establishment environmentalists have worried about a backfire. In 2007, two mainstream climate scientists warned against the “Hollywoodization” of their discipline. They complained about “a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” To which Al Gore (the guilty party) responded: “I am trying to communicate the essence [of global warming] in the lay language that I understand.”

      “There has to be a lot of shrillness taken out of our language,” remarked Environmental Defense Fund’s Fred Krupp in 2011. “In the environmental community, we have to be more humble. We can’t take the attitude that we have all the answers.”

      Most recently, Elizabeth Arnold, longtime climate reporter for National Public Radio, warned that too much “fear and gloom,” leading to “apocalypse fatigue,” should be replaced by a message of “hope” and “solutions” lest the public disengage. But taxes and statism don’t sound good either.

      Conclusion

      If the climate problem is exaggerated, that issue should be demoted. Enter an unstated agenda of deindustrialization and a quest for money and power that otherwise might be beyond reach of the climate campaigners. It all gets back to what Tim Wirth, then US Senator from Colorado, stated at the beginning of the climate alarm:

      We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

      “Right thing” in terms of economic and environmental policy? That’s a fallacy to explode on another day.

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      We have seen the most hilarious doom and gloom predictions of The End Of The Earth from environmental/Population alarmists for decades, going back to the…yes, of course….the Sixties. They are always wrong, most of the time wildly so…

      And most of these were from (gasp!!) SCIENTISTS back in 1970!!

      1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

      2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

      3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

      4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Professor Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

      5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

      6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

      7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

      8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

      9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

      10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

      11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

      12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

      13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

      14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

      15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

      16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

      17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

      18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

      And the enviro-whackos are so desperate, they will turn to that great rocket scientist, Ocasio-Cortez, to lead the way for yet another round of alarmism…

      Take NOTHING they say as the gospel.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Quoting predictions from 40 to 50 years ago and comparing it to modern prognostications? How… stupid. We were supposed to by flying around in hover cars by now and have settlements on the moon. Guess we better ignore science in favor of the failed predictions of the bible! Or the failed predictions of QANON or of Trump’s robust economy…

      Explain to me this “money grab” you speak of? Are you implying that you don’t support American workers creating renewable energy? Do you enjoy have dependency on middle eastern oil?

      What is NASA’s agenda and end game to support a made up global warming? It’s basic math…

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      Quoting predictions from 40 to 50 years ago and comparing it to modern prognostications? How… stupid. We were supposed to by flying around in hover cars by now and have settlements on the moon. Guess we better ignore science in favor of the failed predictions of the bible! Or the failed predictions of QANON or of Trump’s robust economy…

      Explain to me this “money grab” you speak of? Are you implying that you don’t support American workers creating renewable energy? Do you enjoy have dependency on middle eastern oil?

      What is NASA’s agenda and end game to support a made up global warming? It’s basic math…

      Sad to see someone so brainwashed by nothing more than a money grab to redistribute wealth from the American taxpayers wallet to someone else.

      The problem with NASA… When did the record keeping begin? Kind of hard to declare any predictions or quantification’s on such a small blip in the earths history.

      If you had watched the video… How does NASA explain the total absence of an ice sheet at the pole in the 20’s? Oh that’s right! There was no NASA! lol

      Continue with your sky is falling narrative. Silly boy! With Trump Hate you have lost your ability to have any logic and reasoning. You really need to go back and take some basic science courses. Lesson number #1… There is no such thing as “Settled Science”.

      In answer to a couple more of your questions.. The US no longer has to depend on Mid Eastern energy. Due to Trump we now are the major energy producer of the world.

      As to renewable energy jobs? Nothing wrong with that and the country will continue to support them unless they turn out like Solyndra.

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/

      Quit listening to the 29 year old idiot.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Again, what is the money grab?

      Again, why do you want to continue our dependence in foreign oil?

      Two simple questions. No need for YT videos or cut/paste. I want your answer

      Please wait…

    • Runole

      Participant
      Post count: 2143

      Again, what is the money grab?
      The us pays a carbon tax and China the worst polluter gets a pass

      Again, why do you want to continue our dependence in foreign oil?

      US is no longer held hostage by that dependence.

      Two simple questions. No need for YT videos or cut/paste. I want your answer

      Hey I tried but you are so filled with TDS that the last 2 answers are like speaking to a brick wall Perhaps you should just stick with your guru Ocasio-Cortez she has the answers that agree with your beliefs.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6698

      Let’s focus on one thing at a time. You are calling the Carbon Tax a money grab. Aren’t these more efficient than direct regulations? If this is your only example of a money grab it is pretty freaking weak, even for you.

       

      Please wait…

Viewing 61 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.