Who would be foolish enough to attempt to disagree with you and all your "proven fact(s)"? :rofl:
Who would be foolish enough to attempt to disagree with you and all your "proven fact(s)"? :rofl:
If you can prove that those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth I will apologize and say you are correct.
especially from a "scientist at heart"
Who wants acid rain? The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants. (proven fact)
Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Well if perfluorocarbons are the cause of that. (proven fact)
Sulfur hexafluoride and methane are both extremely potent greenhouse gases. (proven fact)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/637
I'm awaiting all the climate change deniers comments here on how great this new law will be on our environment!
Before proposing or finalizing regulations or policies, the Environmental Protection Agency must analyze the net and gross impact of those regulations and policies on employment.
Regulations and policies may not take effect if they have a negative impact on employment, unless they are approved by Congress and signed by the President.
Please explain who said anything close to the statements you attributed to members here.
Then explain why the last line of the bill is anything other than common sense.
There have been many threads on similar issues of humans effecting the environment. Which most members here deny exists. Co2, green house gasses etc. Also it appears most members are anti EPA and environment regulation.
Yes approved by congress and signed by the president. It even making it to a potential law is scary. The president in all his wisdom elsewhere is an idiot on the environment.
There have been many threads on similar issues of humans effecting the environment. Which most members here deny exists. Co2, green house gasses etc. Also it appears most members are anti EPA and environment regulation.
Yes approved by congress and signed by the president. It even making it to a potential law is scary. The president in all his wisdom elsewhere is an idiot on the environment.
Last week, the Animas River, which flows from southwest Colorado to New Mexico, started filling up with a toxic yellow stew from an old gold mine.
It’s changed the color of the river to a mustard yellow, and so far it's stretched more than 100 miles, heading toward the Colorado River.
The Environmental Protection Agency was working on the mine when the spill occurred, dumping millions of gallons into the river.
So how did it happen?
- The Environmental Protection Agency was using heavy machinery to try and make a safe way to get into the old mine. They were hoping to access the contaminated water so they could investigate what was in it.
- The goal was to treat the water so that there was less metal pollution coming out of the mine.
- Ironically, actual iron, copper and zinc began to pour out after a plug holding it all in was released.
- Water tested by the EPA has also come back with higher levels of arsenic and lead.
- About 3 million gallons were spilled into the Animas, which flows into the San Juan River and later meets up with the Colorado River.
- This isn’t the only mine with toxic waste — there are thousands across the western
I disagree. "humans affecting the environment" is not the same as "humans are causing climate change."
my point exactly
one correction, though, he said, "humans effecting the environment"
Yes, one more thing he was wrong about! "Affect" is used as a verb. "Effect" is something that was influenced.
Who wants acid rain? The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants. (proven fact)Since YOU don't know how this bill is going to effect our environment why would anything said here by anyone else be wrong in any way shape form or manner? Don't answer, this is a rhetorical question.
Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Well if perfluorocarbons are the cause of that. (proven fact)
Sulfur hexafluoride and methane are both extremely potent greenhouse gases. (proven fact)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/637
I'm awaiting all the climate change deniers comments here on how great this new law will be on our environment!
Who wants acid rain? I have no idea. Exactly what pH are you referring to? The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants. (proven fact) Okay, I'll take your word for it that it's a "proven fact" that The Clean Air Act required nitrous oxide scrubbers for factories and power plants. Does anyone deny that that requirement was part of The Clean Air Act?
Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Well if perfluorocarbons are the cause of that. (proven fact) Yes, "if perflourocarbons are the cause of that" THEN... WHAT? You write a conditional clause but neglect to include a consequent clause. Are we supposed to guess the consequent? And if the consequent is along the lines of "then the ozone layer will have another/larger hole"? If so, please provide the "proven fact" that the hole in the ozone layer will have consequences that outweigh the costs of eliminating perflourocarbons.
Sulfur hexafluoride and methane are both extremely potent greenhouse gases. (proven fact) How "potent" are they compared to water vapor? What relative percentage of "warming" is due to water vapor compared to those two gases? How do you plan to eliminate the potent water vapor from the atmosphere?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/637
I'm awaiting all the climate change deniers comments here on how great this new law will be on our environment! We didn't want to keep you waiting too long. That would have been seriously impolite.
If you can prove that those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth I will apologize and say you are correct.There is no logical relationship between "prov(ing) [what no one claimed] those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth" and claiming there is a lack of proof that those chemicals, as presently used, will cause catastrophic environmental problems that will risk the survival of humans on the planet. No relationship at all. I.e. "beneficial" is not the same as "relatively harmless". I don't recall anyone claiming that those chemicals were "beneficial" (for the climate. Obviously they are beneficial as a consequence of their various uses that benefit humans).
First, this bill is designed to stop the overpowering overreach of the EPA. Which is a good thing since all the regulations set forth by this department has no congressional oversight. It has over stepped its bounds and caused massive job loss, massive tax loss for the government, and in exchange for that YOU AND I pay higher taxes to make up for that power that one department should never have had under any circumstance in the first place.
-I'm perfectly fine "paying more taxes, getting job losses" for the sake of protecting our environment. Congress isn't some magical system that makes everything right. Half the members are morons on the environment. Would you dictate what parts the mechanic fixes your car with to the state congress?
Second, this bill does not stop any state from enacting their own environmental regulations. If a state wants to hurt their own economy, they are more than welcome to do so. All this bill is doing is pushing some of the responsibilities back to the states where it belongs. The EPA should have never been created without congressional oversight. And it should have never been given as much power as it has. Period. This was an extremely stupid mistake by Jimmy Carter.
-See the problem with this is our politicians are bought by large companies who don't give a flying fuck about our environment. The people elect our government for the best interest of its people. We all live on this earth, breathe its air and drinks its water. You wouldn't trust a congress committee for your personal heath right? You would see a doctor who specializes in your health. Just like the EPA specializes in the environment. You doctor sometimes says stuff you might not agree with and or want to hear, like you need to loose weight, drink less etc. But in the end its for your good. This is just like what the EPA is.
Third, no company is going to start polluting just because this bill was enacted. If they do then they will have to deal with the local and state level residents and governments. And in the case of a gross polluter, the federal government and the EPA. They would be stupid in this day and age to not voluntarily continue to be good environmental citizens.
-No company goes out and tells people its going to start polluting. They just do it and hope no one finds out. It won't happen overnight but it will negatively effect our environment. With this law there can be no gross polluters for those specific chemicals/pollutants.
Fourth, the EPA still can come in and monitor and fine any violators of any federal environmental laws. All the EPA can no longer do is to enact regulation that starves the economy by reducing employment without congressional approval.
-Did you read the bill?
Fifth, this bill does not stop congress from researching and analyzing the data and re-enacting all the deregulation put forth in this bill. All this bill is doing is not allowing the EPA to set forth the regulations without congressional approval. The EPA can request all these things be re-enacted to congress. They just need to provide evidence that these regulations are important enough and won't significantly impact employment. If all of what you say is true then it won't be long before all this regulation is put back, right? Because no one in their right mind can deny climate change, right?
-What? This bill is basically saying everything the EPA researched is wrong and deregulate everything. Its basically saying climate change doesn't exist.
Sixth, all of the issues you mentioned in the first few lines are all pollution issues. And as you already know and cannot argue with is the fact that we humans cannot affect the climate in any significant amount. The numbers just don't lie and you have no argument that can contradict the numbers. And in case you don't remember my posting, here it is again: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26274.msg232658#msg232658.
-Let me just let you know that perfluorocarbons have been documented to fuck up our ozone. Its 100% human made and 100% effected the environment.
Finally, you are doing exactly what the democrats/progressives/socialists/environmentalists want you to do and that is to act hysterically and to panic. JMHO
-What I'm doing is not being a sheep and pretending the world is all good. We need to fight for this earth its our one and only home.
"I’m starting with the man in the mirror
I’m asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change"
Science means questioning everything.
Well, except global warming of course, you can't question that...
because "science!"
Science is to question everything until proven. Please don't tell me you are still questioning that the earth isn't the center of the universe. Or the sun revolves around the earth. Or gravity exists.
There is no logical relationship between "prov(ing) [what no one claimed] those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth" and claiming there is a lack of proof that those chemicals, as presently used, will cause catastrophic environmental problems that will risk the survival of humans on the planet. No relationship at all. I.e. "beneficial" is not the same as "relatively harmless". I don't recall anyone claiming that those chemicals were "beneficial" (for the climate. Obviously they are beneficial as a consequence of their various uses that benefit humans).
Psst. . .
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/ (https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/)
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/)
BTW. Solar/PV isn't all that "clean" as well.
I am aware of the issues but I choose try fund the concept behind it. Hopefully we will move away from l-ion batteries and other harmful manufacturing/mining materials. I'm trying to fund the concept of renewable energy, if no one supports it we will not change.I think it was on this board, but I recall a discussion about "green" energy. The discussion was about solar, PV, wind, etc. and there was some level of miscommunication or misunderstanding between "green" and "renewable" and "sustainable".
I think it was on this board, but I recall a discussion about "green" energy. The discussion was about solar, PV, wind, etc. and there was some level of miscommunication or misunderstanding between "green" and "renewable" and "sustainable".
Anyways, my point is that very POPULAR things in society are electric cars and PV for renewable energy, though not many know that there are a bunch of hazardous materials and other things that are harmful to the environment that go into making those products, their waste, etc. You chose to "fund the concept behind it" and seems like you've done your homework. Your beliefs. In the end, just have to be careful who you are getting your information from and their motives. A large part of my work is in building construction and "green buildings" are all the rage with tons of regulations from the local to federal level requiring it. Without getting too far into the details and detract from the OP, it's all huge racket that these "green" organizations got lawmakers to buy into. Who really benefits? Well, the "green" organizations that twisted the system. Yeah, sustainable buildings are a great idea and what we should be building, but again, a good idea manipulated for profit.
Agreed to an extent. Everyone for profit. Green companies, anti green companies. What we have to do/ what I do is try and steer my money towards the concept of "green". The idea behind green no matter what the current state of product is positive. While it might not be perfect now if people keep funding it through good ole capitalism it will only improve. Like anything else we start off with a product, as more people want the product and competition gets harder the product only improves. Since the idea is "green" the more environmentally friendly the product is the more likely it will succeed. So if a company releases say a carbon nanotube battery that will take over l-ion simply cause its more "green".I see what you're saying, but you're missing (at least I think) my main point is that people tend to go with what they believe and that often times what they are led to believe as beneficial may not be when the bigger picture is taken into context.
-I'm perfectly fine "paying more taxes, getting job losses" for the sake of protecting our environment. Congress isn't some magical system that makes everything right. Half the members are morons on the environment. Would you dictate what parts the mechanic fixes your car with to the state congress?I would rather have hundreds of moron politicians looking at this than one one BIG MORON who is on a power trip with all the power to do what he wants with no one who can stop him. If you agree with socialism then you like that one person has all the power. If you agree with democracy then you prefer to have all of congress take a look at it.
-See the problem with this is our politicians are bought by large companies who don't give a flying fuck about our environment.Even you know that if that was true there are ten times more politicians who are bought by the companies who are making the devices that scrub out the pollutants. Climate change is bigger business than the piddly ass companies you think are buying out the politicians. You are only thinking U.S. Look at the entire world that is brainwashed.
The people elect our government for the best interest of its people. We all live on this earth, breathe its air and drinks its water. You wouldn't trust a congress committee for your personal heath right? You would see a doctor who specializes in your health. Just like the EPA specializes in the environment. You doctor sometimes says stuff you might not agree with and or want to hear, like you need to loose weight, drink less etc. But in the end its for your good. This is just like what the EPA is.The reason the PEOPLE vote instead of having one person in control is so we the people can keep ourselves free so we can make decisions for ourselves. What you said makes no sense and doesn't even apply to what I said. We vote in the congress in order for them to vote on our behalf. We don't allow one person to have all the power which is what happened with the EPA. I would prefer the congress to vote on my behalf than one one BIG MORON who is on a power trip with all the power to do what he wants with no one who can stop him. If you agree with socialism then you like that one person has all the power. If you agree with democracy then you prefer to have all of congress take a look at it. You obviously don't know what was happening in the EPA before the new president was elected.
-No company goes out and tells people its going to start polluting. They just do it and hope no one finds out. It won't happen overnight but it will negatively effect our environment. With this law there can be no gross polluters for those specific chemicals/pollutants.Assuming this is true then it really doesn't matter if we have any laws or not. According to your logic then any company can just start polluting and hope no one finds out. It doesn't matter what laws are in effect. Prove that one company starts letting out gasses that are no longer pollutants and it will affect our environment. You see? You are making assumptions certain things are harmful when you have no proof. As long as the companies continue to abide by our laws you have no say that they are doing anything wrong. The idea here is if they start breaking the law they not only have to deal with the local and state governments, they will have to deal with the feds too.
-Did you read the bill?Obviously you didn't.
-What? This bill is basically saying everything the EPA researched is wrong and deregulate everything. Its basically saying climate change doesn't exist.You obviously didn't read the bill. It says no such thing. The EPA research was flawed to coincide with a power hungry megalomaniac that was in charge of the EPA. It was done so he could justify passing these strict regulations to satisfy the brainwashed masses that believe that we can affect the climate enough to make a difference.
-Let me just let you know that perfluorocarbons have been documented to fuck up our ozone. Its 100% human made and 100% effected the environment.You obviously didn't read and/or comprehend what I said in my post.
-What I'm doing is not being a sheep and pretending the world is all good. We need to fight for this earth its our one and only home.You are just proving my point. More hysteria and panic setting in.
I see what you're saying, but you're missing (at least I think) my main point is that people tend to go with what they believe and that often times what they are led to believe as beneficial may not be when the bigger picture is taken into context.
I'm honestly just BSing here (since I would have to dig up my notes to cite references, which I am not willing to do right now), but lets take PV for example. The system takes solar "energy" and allows humans to harness and power homes. Great all around, right? Surely must be because everyone believes it is. It's been marketed very well. Well, do you know how the components are manufactured? What are in the batteries that are needed for the system? What happens when these elements are discarded because they are replaced by the next generation of more super efficient panels? PV is one scary market in that the market is (or at least was maybe 3-4 years ago when I was researching it heavily for my work that the industry recommended installing the "best they've got" at any given time because in 3-5 years, the next generation panel will be worth it. This was in the context of us trying to find a way for the PV systems to withstand hurricanes. Ok, so their strategy would be to replace every 5 years or so? Is that really sustainable? What's behind all of that? Well, they want to sell more PV panels and supporting equipment.
PV is a good example because of the large market the quality of the systems have improved greatly. Back in the past sure maybe they last 5 years. Now they can last up to 20 years without degrading too much. Batteries are not an issue unless you are completely off the grid. Because of the fact that so many people are buying the technology improves, the magic of capitalism. Now imagine if everyone just saw the downsides early on and no one bought PV systems. We would have nothing like what we have now.You're still missing the point. While the technology may help reduce dependence on fossil fuels and other "burning" energy sources, it's production waste and "after useful life" waste are hazardous. In that case, it's really not sustainable as it does damage in other ways. Well, which is the lesser of two evils is debatable, but the point is it really isn't that "clean" when you consider the whole picture.
I would rather have hundreds of moron politicians looking at this than one one BIG MORON who is on a power trip with all the power to do what he wants with no one who can stop him. If you agree with socialism then you like that one person has all the power. If you agree with democracy then you prefer to have all of congress take a look at it.Even you know that if that was true there are ten times more politicians who are bought by the companies who are making the devices that scrub out the pollutants. Climate change is bigger business than the piddly ass companies you think are buying out the politicians. You are only thinking U.S. Look at the entire world that is brainwashed. The reason the PEOPLE vote instead of having one person in control is so we the people can keep ourselves free so we can make decisions for ourselves. What you said makes no sense and doesn't even apply to what I said. We vote in the congress in order for them to vote on our behalf. We don't allow one person to have all the power which is what happened with the EPA. I would prefer the congress to vote on my behalf than one one BIG MORON who is on a power trip with all the power to do what he wants with no one who can stop him. If you agree with socialism then you like that one person has all the power. If you agree with democracy then you prefer to have all of congress take a look at it. You obviously don't know what was happening in the EPA before the new president was elected.Assuming this is true then it really doesn't matter if we have any laws or not. According to your logic then any company can just start polluting and hope no one finds out. It doesn't matter what laws are in effect. Prove that one company starts letting out gasses that are no longer pollutants and it will affect our environment. You see? You are making assumptions certain things are harmful when you have no proof. As long as the companies continue to abide by our laws you have no say that they are doing anything wrong. The idea here is if they start breaking the law they not only have to deal with the local and state governments, they will have to deal with the feds too.Obviously you didn't.You obviously didn't read the bill. It says no such thing. The EPA research was flawed to coincide with a power hungry megalomaniac that was in charge of the EPA. It was done so he could justify passing these strict regulations to satisfy the brainwashed masses that believe that we can affect the climate enough to make a difference. You obviously didn't read and/or comprehend what I said in my post. You are just proving my point. More hysteria and panic setting in.
You're still missing the point. While the technology may help reduce dependence on fossil fuels and other "burning" energy sources, it's production waste and "after useful life" waste are hazardous. In that case, it's really not sustainable as it does damage in other ways. Well, which is the lesser of two evils is debatable, but the point is it really isn't that "clean" when you consider the whole picture.
20 years is VERY optimistic. Not sure about what is available currently, but yeah, it COULD last 20 years based on performance. But in Hawaii, we have hurricanes or even high wind storms that regularly damage PV. And it's not like you can just replace the single panel that was damaged. Forgive me if that's no longer true as I believe that used to be the case. That's where the industry was just recommending putting up standard panels instead of the industry trying to design panels that were more hurricane resistant.
I do get your point about technology will fail if not enough people support. That said, even in the cases of POPULAR technology, like PV, are people doing more harm than good in the long run. What's going to happen in 20 years when all of the panels need to be replaced? That's not sustainable. Maybe it's better than burning oil and coal, but it really isn't that clean.
The thing is that I used to argue along the same lines as you are now, until I dug deeper into the industry. Again, it's been a while since I've done so, so to be completely honest, I'm mostly BSing here without being able to cite references. That said, my point remains the same that people really need to look into the big picture and not what is popular and "widely accepted".
1) The difference is I'm thinking long term. IF we can solve the material issues, renewable energy benefits FAR out weight the issues. We are on the path and every new product lasts longer and causes less damage to produce. In the end perhaps on day we will have carbon based batteries which have very low environmental impact and other renewable materials. This would be far better than same ole cars using slightly better technology but in the end still using gas.1) So you're good with dumping a bunch of hazardous materials into the market right now based on the anticipated or assumed benefit? Thinking long term also need to think about the waste generated and to be taken care of later. Same argument for nuclear, which some consider actually the cleanest (that is assuming the nuclear material is handled and protected properly). To be honest, I am not sure what is better myself. Just that the same question was asked of me a while ago.
While Hawaii does have issues with hurricanes thankfully they are not a regular occurrence. They are starting to have better attachment methods and 2) yes now you can replace one panel on several systems.
The whole idea of green is to be the lesser of evils. The supply of oil is not infinite we will run out. Say in 20 years we have to replace all the panels which now last 100 years. Slowly over time we will have permanent systems. Its all about progress. Nothing perfect will happen instantly.
1) So you're good with dumping a bunch of hazardous materials into the market right now based on the anticipated or assumed benefit? Thinking long term also need to think about the waste generated and to be taken care of later. Same argument for nuclear, which some consider actually the cleanest (that is assuming the nuclear material is handled and protected properly). To be honest, I am not sure what is better myself. Just that the same question was asked of me a while ago.
2) Didn't know that. When I looked into this last, the mounted panels needed to be replaced as an array or complete circuit. That usually meant a whole row of panels or at times a whole area depending on how the installer set up the circuit. Then there's thin film as well.
The EPA isn't just one guy....I don't think I've ever agreed with socialism. Also one guy having all the power is dictatorship not really socialism. Democracy doesn't mean everyone in the entire country must agree for something to happen. I happen to like experts. I trust experts in the field in which they work. Like I said before you don't want your local congress to dictate your health decisions, you probably much rather have a specialist doctor. Just like how I assume you use a gunsmith for gun decisions not congress. The EPA is made of environmental specialists who entire study is the environment. Politicians do not have these skills. Climate change business is no where near as large as the "status quo" business. Just look at all the power petroleum and coal companies have. Their market share and money FAR exceeds anything the "green" side does/has. IF you don't believe that i'm sorry to say you probably been brain washed. The reason people vote in a democracy is to have representation. We have a republic not a true democracy. The EPA isn't one guy sitting in a chair deciding on whim what he wants to do... The difference between a company polluting and hoping no one finds out and a company polluting and hoping no one finds out its ILLEGAL is large. Having it be illegal to do so tends to have a MUCH larger effect than just public relations. Also I DO have proof all those chemicals/pollutants are bad. Use google find one of thousands of accredited studies that prove it. Yes if they are abiding by our laws they are doing nothing wrong. Now getting rid of all the laws kinda makes this easy for companies to do whatever they want eh? Just like people are not allowed to murder, sure people do it and try and not get caught but in the ends its illegal and if they are found they have huge penalties. This discourages murder. Now imagine congress passed a law that says murder is fine. Not everyone is going to go out and kill people, but some people will.I'm glad you cut and pasted the summary of the "Stopping the EPA Overreach Act of 2017. The title says most of it. Just realize this is NOT the bill. It is only a summary of the bill. What is this bill about? It is about stopping the overreach of the EPA. This bill comes about NOT because the current government wants to deny climate change. Which is the meaning you want to put on it. It comes about because The EPA has no congressional oversight. So the head of the EPA decides the position of the U.S. as far as the environment is concerned. If it is not one person making those decisions, then who is? Does the head of the agency hire people to make those decisions for him? Of course not. The agency has only one head person in charge. The EPA HAS NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. This agency has passed economy stifling regulations for many years and no one can stop them. And who do you think is making all these decisions? You say you don't think it is one person? Then tell all of us who is in charge of the EPA? Go ahead. Tell us. Oh, that's right, you don't know how the EPA has worked for the last 40 years. Too bad you don't see the entire picture here. You are only looking at a very small part of the entire picture.
The bill
Introduced in House (01/24/2017)
Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2017
This bill amends the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride pollution from the scope of that Act.
The bill declares that current law does not authorize or require the regulation of climate change or global warming and nullifies certain final rules relating to: (1) greenhouse gas and volatile organic compounds emissions, including methane emissions, from the oil and natural gas sector; and (2) carbon pollution emissions from the utility power sector.
Before proposing or finalizing regulations or policies, the Environmental Protection Agency must analyze the net and gross impact of those regulations and policies on employment. Regulations and policies may not take effect if they have a negative impact on employment, unless they are approved by Congress and signed by the President.
I'm glad you cut and pasted the summary of the "Stopping the EPA Overreach Act of 2017. The title says most of it. Just realize this is NOT the bill. It is only a summary of the bill. What is this bill about? It is about stopping the overreach of the EPA. This bill comes about NOT because the current government wants to deny climate change. Which is the meaning you want to put on it. It comes about because The EPA has no congressional oversight. So the head of the EPA decides the position of the U.S. as far as the environment is concerned. If it is not one person making those decisions, then who is? Does the head of the agency hire people to make those decisions for him? Of course not. The agency has only one head person in charge. The EPA HAS NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. This agency has passed economy stifling regulations for many years and no one can stop them. And who do you think is making all these decisions? You say you don't think it is one person? Then tell all of us who is in charge of the EPA? Go ahead. Tell us. Oh, that's right, you don't know how the EPA has worked for the last 40 years. Too bad you don't see the entire picture here. You are only looking at a very small part of the entire picture.
I read the whole bill, Didn't copy and paste the whole thing cause its long. Yes it does say stuff about this "over reach". It also DOES deny climate change.
(2) the Environmental Protection Agency was correct not to classify greenhouse gases as pollutants prior to 2009;
(3) no Federal agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under current law; and
(4) no attempt to regulate greenhouse gases should be undertaken without further Congressional action.
(2) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘air pollutant’ does not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride.”.
(2) NO REGULATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in any of the following Acts or any other law authorizes or requires the regulation of climate change or global warming:
It is about time this bill is passed to stop the power of the head of the EPA to excersize all that power without restrictions. That is what this bill is about. Unfortunately, you have decided to ignore this truth and have decided to change the meaning of the bill and make it about climate change denial. Yes, a small portion of this bill makes the statement that the U.S. will no longer acknowledge certain greenhouse gasses as pollutants. But that is only a small portion of the reality of this bill. It is about governent overreach. And giving congress the ability to over turn one mans decisions. It is too bad you can't see the bigger picture as to who runs the EPA and the fact it is run without congressional oversight. Trump promised deregulation and he is doing exactly that with this bill. And I for one approve whole heartedly.
You keep saying government overreach but its governments job to protect the people. These chemicals/pollutants are bad. Not everything needs congressional oversight and more bureaucracy. The entire bill like my earlier paragraphs basically say climate change isn't real. While it doesn't LITERALLY say it, it does however remove all research and un-regulates many green house gases.
Ever hear the term follow the money? You should try doing that here. Obviously you have not done so. You think that big oil is the big money? Then why has big oil been on the losing end of the climate change argument for over 40 years now? That is because there is a bigger picture. With a lot more money than all the big oil companies combined. You think politicians are bought by big oil? Some maybe. But a lot more are bought by where the big money is coming from. Climate change is a much bigger business than the big oil companies combined. Most of the countries in the world are involved in this. Too bad you have decided not to see that. They are the ones buying the climate change scientists. They are the ones buying the politicians. And buying/trading the carbon credits. And they have been winning and are still winning the fight. The ones with the most money wins. That was your insinuation a post or two ago. Well? The big money is winning around the world. But now that we have a president that can't be bought, the U.S. is going to finally regain control of these agencies with no congressional oversight. They have turned into corrupt power brokers and whoever is at the helm rakes in the big bucks. But all that stops now with this bill. The big picture is right in front of you and you refuse to see it. At least the head of the EPA will now have congressional oversight. So if he makes bad decisions, the congess can over rule him.
Big oil has been on the losing end cause they are wrong. Its fairly simple. There is only so much money you can throw at something to seem not wrong. It takes alot less money when you hold the right end of the argument. MANY are bought by big oil and coal. Look at the states that have huge industries, that's where many of the bills come from. Look at who donates to politicians, look who funds commercials. I have followed the money. Clearly you have not. You know why climate change is big money? Cause people are realizing we are fucking this earth up and its time to start fixing it. Its like if your house pipes start to leak, your "friendly well funded water company" wants to convince you that isnt bad. Water is cheap why bother? Now its getting worse and worse and now your house is starting to flood. You desperately try and find a plumber. Now this is happening to millions of houses. The corruption is still with the "water company" (oil) trying to convince people there is no problem. Cause once people fix their pipes they will buy less water (oil) and they will lose profit. We all live on this earth. There is only one earth. Lets not destroy it.
This really is not about climate change. This is about reining in the corrupt EPA agency. An agency with one head person in charge holding and wheeling all the power and no one to hold him accountable is the definition of a dictatorship. That is what this bill stops right here and now. I honestly wish you could see the bigger pictue here.
Its all about climate. Its literally the EPA's job to protect the climate. IF you eliminate the EPA its basically getting rid of the defender. Think of the EPA like an fire insurance company. Its job is to lower risk and save your house. Then comes along a "dangerous candle company" who is trying to convince you to get rid of your sprinkler system. They are saying candles don't cause fires don't worry you don't need that "EXPENSIVE" sprinkler system. Now its the fire insurance companies job to try notify you of the harm of the candles. Try their best to ban these dangerous candles. All to help you in the end, but cause of the dangerous candle companies propaganda you cant even see that you are being manipulated.
I'm done with this conversation. You can get the last word in if you like. I did my best to try and open your eyes to the bigger picture but I have not been successful. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
I like to say I've tried to open up your closed view. Sadly I think you are too far gone O0
electric cars are actually either dead even in environmental impact, or even worse for that environment, than a modern internal combustion gasoline car.
So how much do I get paid?YEAH! ME TOO! Where is this payday? ??? !!
YEAH! ME TOO! Where is this payday? ??? !!
Unless you are living 100% off the land with no house or any modern convenience, clothing, man made item(unless you made it yourself out of all natural materials) you are a hypocrite and paying into the 'climate change' SCAM.We need to tax human farts like Kalifornia taxes cow farts. It's the only way we can continue to afford to support the EPA agency that can pass stupid regulations without congressional oversight. Soon the EPA is going to pay climate scientists to put out a report that says human farts are making the hole on the ozone layer bigger and faster 100%. [/sarcasm]
Simply being alive is polluting the environment and causing 'climate change', so even that is a problem by your reckoning.
Maybe we should all just die off so that the precious earth can go on for all eternity without plague of mankind?
1) No I support regulation for the real hazardous materials. But I don't believe in short term the materials used are far worse than gas alternatives. Most PV systems don't use l-ion battery systems. The amount of waste made from PV systems is far less than a coal or oil burning plant will do to the environment. It's about the lesser of the evils at this point.1) That's great, but until then, the BUSINESS will continue to produce hazardous materials and by products both in production and waste in the end. And it's in the panels themselves, not only the batteries. Again, this is what YOU believe. There are others that don't believe the same way, but that train of thought is going to go the same path as proving climate change. I couldn't find my file folder, but I'll link some articles that I found on the subject. Not vouching for the content, but just offering some reading on the subject. Seems like you've made up your mind on what you believe. My point was that in general, the movement to more sustainable buildings, energy, etc is GREAT, but that essentially greed twists it and so many people are sold on it. That sustainable technologies sometimes aren't that clean on the low end and sometimes could cause more damage than what they are MARKETED to replace.
2) I mainly looked at DIY systems which might be differently done than the major installers.
electric cars are actually either dead even in environmental impact, or even worse for that environment, than a modern internal combustion gasoline car.That was one of my points, but I couldn't find anything that would PROVE that point.
Its all about the trying to lower your footprint. Trying to do less harm to the environment. If I had the money sure I would go 100% off the grid for my electricity needs. Unfortunately I'm not that rich and have to do what I can do in my budget.You are not "lowering your footprint" by doing what you are doing. You are only moving that "footprint" around, and in some cases causing even MORE impact from even MORE people, at the same time wasting your hard earned money doing it.
You are not "lowering your footprint" by doing what you are doing. You are only moving that "footprint" around, and in some cases causing even MORE impact from even MORE people, at the same time wasting your hard earned money doing it.
That was one of my points, but I couldn't find anything that would PROVE that point.
My point was that MARKETING sells stuff like electronic cars as good for environment based on fuel savings, but often times people aren't getting the big picture. Many times, they want to "feel" good about doing something great for the environment by supporting "green technologies" where what they are really doing is fueling the "green machine". IMO (and I can't prove it) is that in general, the "green machine" has corrupted a good idea in principle to make select people rich. It's really a huge racket.
You are not "lowering your footprint" by doing what you are doing. You are only moving that "footprint" around, and in some cases causing even MORE impact from even MORE people, at the same time wasting your hard earned money doing it.Exactly. Or in some cases deferring the footprint until the stuff will his landfills. This has been seen in the disposal of computers and various smart devices entering landfills. There are some pretty nasty stuff in those products.
The difference is with every product in the "green" space it improves the environmental impact. These companies exist to be more environmentally conscious. With the beauty of the free market the company that outputs the "greener" product will get more sales. This drives innovation in the market space. Without people buying into the market early there will be no demand and no improvement.I agree that development needs to continue toward being more sustainable. That said, again, the system is corrupted and what we are trying to point out is the hypocrisy in that. Seems like you understand it and chose to go with what you believe anyways. Which is perfectly fine.
The thing is with current technology there is only so much you can do. But with funding and demand technology improves. IF you ignore tech only cause its current values there will be no demand and no reason to improve. I am funding the IDEA of green technology. With the knowledge that it isnt perfect now but hopefully in the future it will be. It's all about the future. If we didn't care about innovation and improvement we would still all be riding horses to work.
OMG. I've had enough.:shake: :shake: :shake:
See ya later tunnelvision
BINGO!
UNTIL the people telling me I need to
stop using gasoline,
ride a bike or the bus,
stop using A/C,
use solar energy, and
everything else meant to lower MY "foot print" stop
living in mansions,
driving around in gas-guzzling SUVs,
flying around the globe in private jets with staff and family,
and convert all their many homes to wind or solar energy,
I'm not going to take their statements "we have a Global Climate Change Crisis!" seriously.
Heres a simple point that shows that climate change is not settled science and is no where near being proven.
The premise behind the Climate change theory is that Mans actions have a significant influence on the world climate and that we are (currently) accelerating global warming.
If this is true then at what rate are we accelerating at influencing climate change.
To say that humans are a significant/main cause of climate change there must be a measurable amount of change attributed to humans.
I've only read estimates that man contributes to Climate Change at a rate of 8%-12% (10% average). I've also seen it much lower depending on the other factors that negate the impacts.
Think of this like cancer research. Right now to everyone it might appear to be a total waste. We still haven't found the cure yet, and have spent billions making huge cancer research companies rich. But, with only that thinking and if everyone pulled the funding we will never find the cure. But if people keep funding the concept of a cancer free world and research and innovation continue to be done one day it will happen. That's the basic idea behind "green" tech. Its not perfect now, in some cases its worse on the environment but the idea behind it is good. It will only get better and soon (in some cases now) there will be a net positive impact on the environment. In the end everything is about money, greed exists but greed isn't necessarily bad. We live in a capitalist world all sides want to make money. People who make green products do. Companies who sell oil do. Everyone does. What you should do is pressure companies to improve and look long term. Even if you think oil solves everything why change the simple idea that oil is a finite resource should get you to want to change.I don't see cancer research as a waste. Nor do I see investment in green or sustainable energy technology to be a waste. You seem so hell bent on defending and proving what you believe that you end up grasping at anything to support your assertions.
Heres a simple point that shows that climate change is not settled science and is no where near being proven.I think the key here is available data and calls to prove that something doesn't exist.
The premise behind the Climate change theory is that Mans actions have a significant influence on the world climate and that we are (currently) accelerating global warming.
If this is true then at what rate are we accelerating at influencing climate change.
To say that humans are a significant/main cause of climate change there must be a measurable amount of change attributed to humans.
I think the key here is available data and calls to prove that something doesn't exist.
I don't doubt that man has an impact on the environment. That said, as mentioned many times, this planet's history is millions of years. That's like saying I ate a cheeseburger yesterday and today I was 1 lb lighter is proof that cheeseburgers cause weight loss. Reminds me of an experience I had with an elderly family member who is going through some health issues. Recently, he was convinced that a certain treatment causes his nausea. This was after it happening over the course of 3 days. Well, he's been having that treatment for over 2 months without ill effects. But what had changed right before the nausea was the start of an antibiotic. I said that I believe that the antibiotic was the likely cause as they had not had the nausea previously. But no, he was ABSOLUTELY convinced it was the treatment. Sigh. Well, a few weeks later and the antibiotics are done and guess what, no nausea. . .
The short term data may APPEAR to indicate a cause and effect correlation. Could be coincidence or it could really be connected. If the data shows a change, like it does with recent trends in hotter temperatures, sea level rise, shrinking of polar ice caps, etc. It's easy to link those phenomenon to man's recent actions. It seems common sense and easy for anyone to grasp.
Wrong, it's a "proven fact" and we're all too stupid to see it...:grrr:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the key here is available data and calls to prove that something doesn't exist.I read an article a few years ago from the scientific community. And not long after that I could no longer find it. I still can't so everything I am saying here is from memory so I apologize in advance if I don't get everything straight.
I don't doubt that man has an impact on the environment. That said, as mentioned many times, this planet's history is millions of years. That's like saying I ate a cheeseburger yesterday and today I was 1 lb lighter is proof that cheeseburgers cause weight loss. Reminds me of an experience I had with an elderly family member who is going through some health issues. Recently, he was convinced that a certain treatment causes his nausea. This was after it happening over the course of 3 days. Well, he's been having that treatment for over 2 months without ill effects. But what had changed right before the nausea was the start of an antibiotic. I said that I believe that the antibiotic was the likely cause as they had not had the nausea previously. But no, he was ABSOLUTELY convinced it was the treatment. Sigh. Well, a few weeks later and the antibiotics are done and guess what, no nausea. . .
The short term data may APPEAR to indicate a cause and effect correlation. Could be coincidence or it could really be connected. If the data shows a change, like it does with recent trends in hotter temperatures, sea level rise, shrinking of polar ice caps, etc. It's easy to link those phenomenon to man's recent actions. It seems common sense and easy for anyone to grasp.
This fucktard is no environmentalist. Leo owns a private island of the coast of Belize near where I'm from and he has striped the sea bed around it with a dredger barge to fill in his beaches for his deluxe resort. Except dredging the sea around your island and bringing up the sand from the sea bed completely destroys the fish habitats and lobster spawning grounds. Leo cares more about his tan then he does the sea creatures. So fuck Leo.
YouTube comment from a viewer on the above video:All of these so called environmentalists are like that. They don't practice what they preach.
All of these so called environmentalists are like that. They don't practice what they preach.
Also makes you wonder, are they paid somehow to promote this climate change stuff?I am a believer in the climate change is big business. When I saw all the major countries buying, trading and selling carbon credits it struck me as odd until I realized that the countries/government leaders/billionaires are all in the climate change business. Every country/government leader/billionaire is getting rich off the hysteria except those who are hysterical. This is why you see those who create the hysteria (Gore, Leo, etc.) are not worried about climate change at all. You see it not in their words but in their actions.
(This is a counter argument to "paid deniers" -- because obviously these high profile proponents do not ACTUALLY believe in climate change).
You sure love that quote. Yes, I do hold science dear to my heart. I believe in it yet I am not an accredited scientist, so that's all I can really say.
While I think there is some over reach by the EPA I also think they are necessary. Climate change aside, who will regulate harmful chemicals and how they affect the environment, especially when it crosses state lines? I don't think the industry would ever self regulate to a satisfactory degree. The question then is how and who should regulate if not the EPA?Not sure exactly what you are referring to? The EPA is not going away. And their role in monitoring and fining gross polluters is not being being limited unless I missed something? The ability of the EPA to have regulations passed has changed to having to have the regulations approved by congress before they go into effect. So I guess to answer your question is the EPA with approval by congress will continue to regulate.
Science is a method. You don't need to be an accredited scientist to apply the scientific method which is applicable in even day to day life.The problem is where people "use" science only where it supports their argument. Then then when it doesn't, they say stuff like "you can never be sure", "I believe it to be so despite the evidence", "I have faith in _____".
Not sure exactly what you are referring to? The EPA is not going away. And their role in monitoring and fining gross polluters is not being being limited unless I missed something? The ability of the EPA to have regulations passed has changed to having to have the regulations approved by congress before they go into effect. So I guess to answer your question is the EPA with approval by congress will continue to regulate.
The way I see this move is that with the additional requirement of congressional approval it means that the people have a say in what regulations should be passed and which should not.
The executive order that Trump signed saying there have to be 2 regulations removed for every new one has me worried. At some point you are going to run out of bad regulations to remove and you either end up having to take out good ones or can't pass a new good one.
Some people do seem to think the EPA is useless, or at least in political rants they don't seem to recognize any value of the EPA. I would dispute that.
I do like congress oversight into the EPA and agree that an agency effectively creating its own laws (regulations) can be a dangerous combination. Having said that I also recognize that congress can be very inefficient at addressing the smaller things that a department regulation might cover, such as quickly addressing a new found danger from a particular chemical.
The executive order that Trump signed saying there have to be 2 regulations removed for every new one has me worried. At some point you are going to run out of bad regulations to remove and you either end up having to take out good ones or can't pass a new good one.I think that is a valid concern. I would like to think that since EO can be stopped as quickly as they can be signed and started that they have a list of the bad regs and when they reach the bottom of the list they just nullify the 2 for 1 EO. Have you read the order to see what it actually says? I tried looking for the exact EO and I had no luck finding it. There might be some sort of limit. Just guessing.
Some people do seem to think the EPA is useless, or at least in political rants they don't seem to recognize any value of the EPA. I would dispute that.
I do like congress oversight into the EPA and agree that an agency effectively creating its own laws (regulations) can be a dangerous combination. Having said that I also recognize that congress can be very inefficient at addressing the smaller things that a department regulation might cover, such as quickly addressing a new found danger from a particular chemical.
They should also set the regulations they feel are proper for each industry. Of course with congressional oversight.There is the rub, it does not look like the trough feeders in Congress give a damn one way or the other,
Between 2009-2015, the EPA issued NEW, FINAL rules numbering 3,373. That equals 29,770 pages of new regulations.
It'll take them creating over 1,600 more new rules to undo the rules created under Obama's presidency.
I think that is a valid concern. I would like to think that since EO can be stopped as quickly as they can be signed and started that they have a list of the bad regs and when they reach the bottom of the list they just nullify the 2 for 1 EO. Have you read the order to see what it actually says? I tried looking for the exact EO and I had no luck finding it. There might be some sort of limit. Just guessing.
I am not a true conservative as I believe in a small amount of regulation and I know that companies will turn off their scrubbers at night and during a rain to save money. So the EPA has to be there to monitor and fine. They should also set the regulations they feel are proper for each industry. Of course with congressional oversight. I don't think the EPA is useless if properly used to uphold regs and laws for the people. I feel they should just not be able to over step their bounds and become a little kingdom that is run by one person without orversight.
Congress is the very definition of inefficiency. But, there is a methodology (not sure what it is called) that they can put aside normal operations and concentrate on something of major importance. That should be a function of the head of the EPA to go to congress and be able to request an emergency regulation to be voted on.
Overall I believe that every EO, law, regulation etc. has unforeseen consequences that we may never know or see for many years. I am curious to see what unforeseen consequence the job portion of this EO is going to create.
It is difficult to come up with a good solution. Congress could have sub committees and be advised by the EPA allowing congress to have an educated vote. That is the way we do it on our board for our HOA, however when you mix politics into it the method it loses efficiency and truth sometimes. But then again, if congress delegates the ability to make regulations, this can also be abused. Leaving things up to the states is one answer but it gets difficult since animals and environments cross state lines. There really is no easy answer.Your correct, there is no easy answer and it is difficult to come up with a good solution. Any solution that is come up with will never be perfect. The idea is to make sure it falls within the law and constitution. The nice thing about our constitution is that it allows for flexibility. And if we appoint proactive heads of the EPA then any and all regulations can be molded and changed to work the way they should. If a company finds a way around a regulation (and you know they will) then we can plug the hole. We just shouldn't over react and start initiating thousands of pages of new uncharted territory regulations as a hysterical solution. Hopefully, while Trump is prez we will no longer see the EPA used as a political tool to wield the power of the current administration as it was used for in previous administrations.
EPA.EXACTLY!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/27/epa-preparing-to-unleash-a-deluge-of-new-regulations/
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/12/proposed-water-rule-put-property-rights-every-american-entirely-mercy-epa/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/25/epa-land-grab-agency-claims-authority-over-more-streams-wetlands.html
President Trump renewed his call for a $1 trillion infrastructure package during his speech Tuesday to Congress. But if that money is to do any good,
Washington must first get out of the builders’ way. A good example of a shovel-ready project trapped in regulation purgatory is Michigan’s County
Road 595, which has been blocked for years by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The project has its roots in a “eureka” moment eight years ago. A large deposit of nickel and copper was discovered in the state’s Upper Peninsula
at what is now known as the Eagle Mine. This presented Marquette County with a new economic opportunity, but also a dilemma. The mine is only
22 miles from the nearest refinery as the crow flies, but the trip is nearly three times as long via existing roads. The usual route would send processions
of heavy, noisy trucks through commercial and residential areas in small towns, as well as along the edge of campus at Northern Michigan University.
The proposed solution was to construct a new county road, a direct path from the mine to the mill. That would allow the trucks to bypass busy city
streets and groggy college students.
State and local officials in both parties broadly support the project, since they see it as critical for the community’s safety and environmental health.
Both houses of the Michigan Legislature have even passed resolutions backing County Road 595, noting that the direct route would conserve
resources, while building it would create jobs.
The problem is the federal permits. In 2012, the state’s Department of Environmental Quality announced it intended to approve the new road, which
complied with all federal and state laws. That’s when the Obama administration stomped in.
The project required a wetland-fill permit, which the EPA vetoed in December 2012 with a vague warning about dangers to the environment. Agency
officials have never provided the kind of details that would allow their putative concerns to be objectively assessed, but they have stuck to their
objections tenaciously. The county has suggested many compromises: In October 2012, it offered to preserve 26 acres of wetlands for every acre
that the project affected. The EPA refused.
How a Michigan County Road Got Stuck in Regulation PurgatoryHeavy handed, one head in charge agency, big regulations, big government bureaucracy working hard to waste everyone's time and taxes.
Building a direct path to a new mine makes perfect environmental sense, but the EPA hasn’t budged.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-michigan-county-road-got-stuck-in-regulation-purgatory-1488585470
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson snubs UN request for climate change meetingWould like to see the UN kicked off American soil, period.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/us-secretary-state-rex-tillerson-un-snub-climate-change-meeting-united-nations-a7607811.html
(http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-03/198170_5_.jpg)My Mother used to say "For money you get honey". You pay these scientists enough and give them big grants so they work for another 10 years they will tell you anything you want. For another 5er they will put it down on paper and sign their name to it!!!
From an e-mail from Judicial Watch. Sorry, no link was provided so I gave them credit for this article:
Climategate Obstruction Challenged in Court
Here in DC today it is terribly cold for early April. The problem for the “climate change” crowd is that a plethora of cold days such as this have added to one long pause in global warming. In other words, there hasn’t been any “global warming” for years.
This inconvenient truth is at the heart of new Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the U.S. Department of Commerce to get all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Obama-pushed global warming alarmist agenda under the so-called Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).
We filed the lawsuit after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to our February 6 FOIA request seeking:
All records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.
The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.
Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.
Holdren is a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.
According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:
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. …
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.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.
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.
***
In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
This lawsuit could result in the release of emails that will help Americans understand how Obama administration officials may have mishandled scientific data to advance the political agenda of global warming alarmism.
Separately, we are suing for records of communications from NOAA officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models to justify the controversial findings in the “Pausebuster” study. The data documents had also been withheld from Congress. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)).
We previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, we obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.
Forget about “fake news,” with the leftists that have been running our government for years – we have to worry about the potential of taxpayer-funded “fake science.”
Here's an article (with 79 links to sources... no, I didn't read them all) casting doubt on any influence of anthropogenic global warming/"climate change" creating more "extreme" weather events. Yes, the website does have a strong "skeptical" bias, but a person can decide for themselves whether the links they provide to peer-reviewed articles and scientists and organizations (including NOAA) are reliable to what degree.But
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/27/analysis-its-not-just-droughts-but-nearly-all-extreme-weather-is-either-declining-or-at-or-near-record-lows/
Analysis: It’s not just droughts, but nearly all extreme weather is declining or at or near record lows
On Eve of DC climate march, drought drops to record lows in U.S. as nearly all extreme weather is either declining or at or near record lows (See: Climate Bullies Take to the Streets for ‘People’s Climate March' in DC on April 29th’)
"It is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative."
"It is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative."There you go again, dissing a liberal religion with facts............................
Global Quackery: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years, New Study FindsWell, that's why they've had to change their terminology from 1970s "Coming Ice Age" to 1990s+ " (Man Made) Global Warming" to 2010s " (Man Made) Climate Change". They are admitting that they don't have a clue what is going to happen to the earth's climate, but whatever it is, heating, cooling, staying the same, it is BAD, VERY BAD... and therefore governments must intervene in every aspect of human life and productivity and control everything (See: building codes, factory energy use and "pollution controls", etc., etc., etc.). I'm sure they know exactly what they are doing... it's just not what they say they are doing... but surely the ends justify the means and it's all for our own good. :crazy:
Well, that's why they've had to change their terminology from 1970s "Coming Ice Age" to 1990s+ " (Man Made) Global Warming" to 2010s " (Man Made) Climate Change". They are admitting that they don't have a clue what is going to happen to the earth's climate, but whatever it is, heating, cooling, staying the same, it is BAD, VERY BAD... and therefore governments must intervene in every aspect of human life and productivity and control everything (See: building codes, factory energy use and "pollution controls", etc., etc., etc.). I'm sure they know exactly what they are doing... it's just not what they say they are doing... but surely the ends justify the means and it's all for our own good. :crazy:I just want to point out that not all building codes are all bad since the major purpose of my existence as an inspector to protect the public by verifying that the construction is being performed correctly, safely, all for public safety. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I just want to point out that not all building codes are all bad since the major purpose of my existence as an inspector to protect the public by verifying that the construction is being performed correctly, safely, all for public safety. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:I can attest to that being the case with structural portions of the building code. :thumbsup:
Snow in Hawai'i: What does the future hold?
Date:May 4, 2017
Source:University of Hawaii at Manoa
Summary:Researchers, led by climate modelers, used satellite images to quantify recent snow cover distributions patterns on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. They developed a regional climate model to simulate the present-day snowfalls and then to project future Hawaiian snowfalls. Their results indicate that the two volcano summits are typically snow-covered at least 20 days each winter, but that the snow cover will nearly disappear by the end of the century.
I imagine this must live in infamy for building inspectors.I didn't read the article but I know a little something about this project. I actually know the special inspectors that came in after the original special inspectors and the company they worked for was fired from the project. The inspectors I know were the ones that reported all of the items that were visibly wrong and as things were being demolished they reported on how things were built incorrectly. I can't talk too much about what I was told but I was told that the original inspectors lost their licenses and won't be able to work legally as an inspector in the US any more. I don't know if anything came of the company they worked for. Just know, no matter what happened on this project, the general contractor and effected sub contractors are responsible for the incorrect work.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/dec/16/opening-arguments-begin-trial-over-flawed-strip-ho/
I didn't read the article but I know a little something about this project. I actually know the special inspectors that came in after the original special inspectors and the company they worked for was fired from the project. The inspectors I know were the ones that reported all of the items that were visibly wrong and as things were being demolished they reported on how things were built incorrectly. I can't talk too much about what I was told but I was told that the original inspectors lost their licenses and won't be able to work legally as an inspector in the US any more. I don't know if anything came of the company they worked for. Just know, no matter what happened on this project, the general contractor and effected sub contractors are responsible for the incorrect work.Wasn't able to access the file yet. I'll have a read later.
DRCK - This was a PT project, BTW. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I didn't read the article but I know a little something about this project. I actually know the special inspectors that came in after the original special inspectors and the company they worked for was fired from the project. The inspectors I know were the ones that reported all of the items that were visibly wrong and as things were being demolished they reported on how things were built incorrectly. I can't talk too much about what I was told but I was told that the original inspectors lost their licenses and won't be able to work legally as an inspector in the US any more. I don't know if anything came of the company they worked for. Just know, no matter what happened on this project, the general contractor and effected sub contractors are responsible for the incorrect work.Perini disbanded due to the fatalities and the Harmon fiasco. Converse is still around as far as I know. This article has pictures of the poorly wrapped columns. It might be able to support the existing floors but who would ever give them liability insurance, so down it went.
DRCK - This was a PT project, BTW. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Perini disbanded due to the fatalities and the Harmon fiasco. Converse is still around as far as I know. This article has pictures of the poorly wrapped columns. It might be able to support the existing floors but who would ever give them liability insurance, so down it went.Big projects like that need experienced inspectors. Especially experience with dealing with ironworkers/rodbusters. My gut feeling in this situation is that the General and subs ran roughshod over the inspectors. The inspectors didn't communicate with the county inspectors who would have put a stop to it immediately. My friends told me the original inspectors new and poorly trained.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/01/harmon-inspector-lacked-experience/
Big projects like that need experienced inspectors. Especially experience with dealing with ironworkers/rodbusters. My gut feeling in this situation is that the General and subs ran roughshod over the inspectors. The inspectors didn't communicate with the county inspectors who would have put a stop to it immediately. My friends told me the original inspectors new and poorly trained.Back in 2008 if you didn't have a $1B building project on the Strip, you were nobody. Then the market burst and MGM breathed a huge sigh of relief when the column problems came to life and they could blame Perini, et al on why they had to stop the project and eventually demolish the building. I have a friend who's a director at MGM and they had to take back everyone's pay raise in 2010 so they could pay the bank for the City Center project. Now they've made non-guests have to pay at the MGM parking garages and valet so you can't visit for free if you're a local or hop around if your a tourist. I went back to Vegas last February and I'm glad to be here despite the cheaper cost of living in the desert (not to mention CCSC).
Speaking of "the paid climate change" mongers being "at it again"!You should have never posted this. Now the Omnipotent One (Impotent One?) will think this will really work as he prays at the alter of Al Gore. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
A fool's errand: Al Gore's $15 trillion carbon tax
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-fools-errand-al-gores-15-trillion-carbon-tax/article/2622479
Excerpt:
Al Gore wants to reverse modernity and save the world from itself through an elimination of its fossil-fuel-based energy system. During the final week of April, his newly created Energy Transitions Commission released a document setting forth a fool's-errand pathway to "decarbonize" the world's energy system.
If this sounds familiar, it is. Gore's plan features a new, sophisticated, and expensive public-relations campaign, but it's all based on his views on carbon dioxide first broached in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, which he reissued in 2000 for his failed presidential campaign. The subsequent efforts made by Gore during the past 25 years have transformed little from their genesis, and he remains as tragically wrong today as he was when he first surfaced as an opponent of everything linked to carbon-dioxide.
If you scroll through the verbiage surrounding the document, you will find the core policy recommendation is a massive, punishing carbon tax. Gore would start the tax at $50 per ton, which would increase to $100 per ton over time, essentially destroying the market for continued robust development of the world's fossil-fuel base. Our economic growth and personal well-being depends on robust fossil-fuel use, so Gore's plan would destroy these as well.
But, don't worry! The all-in estimated cost to re-engineer humanity is only a mere $15 trillion—enough money to give every man, woman, and child in the United States more than $46,000.
(http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/1060x600-a2ff7ecdffcdd63e38bd372910380052.jpg)
I didn't read the article but I know a little something about this project. I actually know the special inspectors that came in after the original special inspectors and the company they worked for was fired from the project. The inspectors I know were the ones that reported all of the items that were visibly wrong and as things were being demolished they reported on how things were built incorrectly. I can't talk too much about what I was told but I was told that the original inspectors lost their licenses and won't be able to work legally as an inspector in the US any more. I don't know if anything came of the company they worked for. Just know, no matter what happened on this project, the general contractor and effected sub contractors are responsible for the incorrect work.Finally was able to read the article, albeit a pretty quick read.
DRCK - This was a PT project, BTW. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
You should have never posted this. Now the Omnipotent One (Impotent One?) will think this will really work as he prays at the alter of Al Gore. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Look at that picture. Read about Gore's personal enormously huge "carbon footprint". Anyone who worships anything having to do with that guy is... uh... something less than wonderful. Of course that means many millions of people.... no doubt including many of Hawaii's everpresent "progressives".
Speaking of "the paid climate change" mongers being "at it again"!
A fool's errand: Al Gore's $15 trillion carbon tax
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-fools-errand-al-gores-15-trillion-carbon-tax/article/2622479
Excerpt:
Al Gore wants to reverse modernity and save the world from itself through an elimination of its fossil-fuel-based energy system. During the final week of April, his newly created Energy Transitions Commission released a document setting forth a fool's-errand pathway to "decarbonize" the world's energy system.
If this sounds familiar, it is. Gore's plan features a new, sophisticated, and expensive public-relations campaign, but it's all based on his views on carbon dioxide first broached in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, which he reissued in 2000 for his failed presidential campaign. The subsequent efforts made by Gore during the past 25 years have transformed little from their genesis, and he remains as tragically wrong today as he was when he first surfaced as an opponent of everything linked to carbon-dioxide.
If you scroll through the verbiage surrounding the document, you will find the core policy recommendation is a massive, punishing carbon tax. Gore would start the tax at $50 per ton, which would increase to $100 per ton over time, essentially destroying the market for continued robust development of the world's fossil-fuel base. Our economic growth and personal well-being depends on robust fossil-fuel use, so Gore's plan would destroy these as well.
But, don't worry! The all-in estimated cost to re-engineer humanity is only a mere $15 trillion—enough money to give every man, woman, and child in the United States more than $46,000.You should have never posted this. Now the Omnipotent One (Impotent One?) will think this will really work as he prays at the alter of Al Gore. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I 100% support this carbon tax. Tax all the polluters till they change. Make it cheaper to go green. Inspector knows how people work, cause half this site prays to the "trump god".
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the
satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has
largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global
warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The
late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than
they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to
be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the
last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded
by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had
receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high
anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest
polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear
by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar
ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the
ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
May 19, 2015
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#64808dd52892
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
May 19, 2015
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#64808dd52892
You stuff is misleading. I give it "Fake news" title.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/
You stuff is misleading. I give it "Fake news" title.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/
Blindly calling a site fake news without looking at the facts. Oh you guys keep up the ignorance. Hope the earth lasts long enough till you open your minds.
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice RetreatHere's what I've seen with my eyes about climate change. Visited the Blue Glacier in Alaska. From the parking lot to the edge of the glacier, there are signs that mark the location of the edge over the past century. I can see that each decade becomes closer and closer meaning the melting rate has dramatically increased. The Earth has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The question is how much has industry impacted the rate of warming.
May 19, 2015
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#64808dd52892
Multinational Banks and Corporations Trigger Immediate Angst Over Trump Withdrawal From Paris Treaty…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/05/31/multinational-banks-and-corporations-trigger-immediate-angst-over-trump-withdrawal-from-paris-treaty/
Excerpt:
Every word we read, every corporate broadcast, every espoused punditry opinion, every angle that’s visible, everything surrounding the Paris Climate “Treaty”, All.Of.It., is driven by multinational banks and corporations who have a vested financial interest.
The Paris Climate Treaty has nothing to do with “climate” and everything possible to do with economics, globalism and the controlled redistribution of economic wealth as constructed through decades of advanced policies of multinational financial interests.
There are factually TRILLIONS of dollars at stake.
When you consider the pontificating pearl-clutching from the financial and industrial elites, ask yourself this very basic question:
If Elon Musk (Tesla), Tim Cook (Apple), Larry Page (google), Mark Zuckerberg (facebook), or any of the myriad of multinational executives really cared about “climate change”, then why are they doing business in China?
The primary concern for every affiliated entity surrounds economics, not climate. “Climate” issues are the Trojan horse, the false ruse, the talking point, the scheme to get economic systems in place -yes, political systems- to control the distributive flow of larger economic wealth within all nations. Period.
What ObamaCare was to your loss of healthcare individualism, so too is the Paris Treaty a political tool to deconstruct national economic individualism. FULL-STOP.
Any climate agreement has to figure out how to reduce China and India's carbon emissions before the US will commit to reducing or own emissions. Otherwise, the agreement is symbolic. My understanding is that the bulk of the carbon emission comes from these three countries. The EU and Russia are contenders. It's easier in Europe to agree to emission standards because they already can't put anything in their landfill without first having it certified as non-recyclable.
Before any agreements are made, there needs to be empirical, peer-reviewed evidence provided as to the impact of man-made carbon emissions relative to all other sources.
Until that happens, we're merely creating solutions in search of a problem -- solutions which have real negative impacts on economies and freedoms.
Before any agreements are made, there needs to be empirical, peer-reviewed evidence provided as to the impact of man-made carbon emissions relative to all other sources.The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Until that happens, we're merely creating solutions in search of a problem -- solutions which have real negative impacts on economies and freedoms.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Cool It Doc Slams Inconvenient Truth ‘Alarmists’
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/cool-it/
Outstanding.........moonbat heads start popping..........Right on cue...
Right on cue...Click on it to get the full effect...
atleast in the end I will be able to write, "I told you so" to you guys.
Ah, the paid climate scientists heads are going to explode over this WSJ article. The truth is inconvenient to those who are hysterical!!!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-climate-discord-1496272448
WSJ wants money to read that article.That's weird. The first time I clicked on it I got the whole article. Now when I do I get the subscribe screen. Sorry about that.
:wacko:
The Senate's Role in Treaties
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,
provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share
of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and
safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process.
According to the Constitution, 2/3 of those Senators present must concur with treatise negotiated by the President.As that Obama guy once said, ""Elections have consequences. We won." Damn straight! Dismantle that bullshit "legacy"!
Obama set up the Paris Accord on his own ("I have a phone and a pen"). That made it possible for Trump to terminate the agreement on his own.
And that's the name of that tune!
Outstanding.........moonbat heads start popping..........A list has been started, and after just s few hours...
Outstanding.........moonbat heads start popping..........
Let the good times roll!
https://youtu.be/9UmB5kmQoz8 (https://youtu.be/9UmB5kmQoz8)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/13/delingpole-ship-of-fools-iii-global-warming-study-cancelled-because-of-unprecedented-ice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/13/delingpole-ship-of-fools-iii-global-warming-study-cancelled-because-of-unprecedented-ice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social)Beat you to it by about 5 hours:
A global warming research study in Canada has been cancelled because of “unprecedented” thick summer ice.
Naturally, the scientist in charge has blamed it on ‘climate change.’
According to Vice:
The study, entitled BaySys, is a $17-million four-year-long program headed by the University of Manitoba. It was planning to conduct the third leg of its research by sending 40 scientists from five Canadian universities out into the Bay on the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen to study “contributions of climate change and regulation on the Hudson Bay system.”
But it had to be cancelled because the scientists’ icebreaker was required by the Canadian Coast Guard for a rather more urgent purpose – rescuing fishing boats and supply ships which had got stuck in the “unprecedented ice conditions”.
“It became clear to me very quickly that these weren’t just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions,” Dr. David Barber, the lead scientist on the study, told VICE. “We were finding thick multi-year sea ice floes which on level ice were five metres thick… it was much, much thicker and much, much heavier than anything you would expect at that latitude and at that time of year.”
Climate change. It doesn't mean it only gets hot.... people....
You guys don't understand. "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is now "Climate Change", which (caused largely by humans) causes warming, cooling, average temperature, droughts, floods, average reainfall, heat waves, cold waves, greater frequency of weather anomalies (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.), lesser frequency of weather anomalies (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.), increased polar ice, decreased polar ice, average polar ice, increased global temperature, no change in global temperature, etc., etc., etc. It's pretty simple really. Any measured climate or weather event, trend, or reversal of trend is due to the same cause, and the solution is for the United States to sacrifice a significant portion of its economy so that virtually nothing at all will change. Makes sense to me. :shaka:
You guys don't understand. "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is now "Climate Change", which (caused largely by humans) causes warming, cooling, average temperature, droughts, floods, average reainfall, heat waves, cold waves, greater frequency of weather anomalies (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.), lesser frequency of weather anomalies (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.), increased polar ice, decreased polar ice, average polar ice, increased global temperature, no change in global temperature, etc., etc., etc. It's pretty simple really.
https://www.facebook.com/turningpointusa/videos/1329123683803011/ (https://www.facebook.com/turningpointusa/videos/1329123683803011/)Now that U.S. (Largest contributor of paying off climate scientists) is no longer paying off climate scientists to lie to the world, the truth will slowly seep out. The signing of the agreement mentioned in this video by 31,000 unpaid (Not on the take) real climate scientists not supporting the theory of manmade climate change contradicts the lies that the governments of the world have tried to perpetrate on us.
These climate change believers need to hold the feet of the asshats like Al Gore to the fire when their climate change predictions don't come true.Dave, Dave, Dave... Come on, science can't accurately predict every single aspect of anthropogenic climate change (or any of them?), but they know that it's real because it's changing. True, it may be changing the opposite of how they said it would change, but still... any change means their hypothesis is correct. Just ask them. Oh, wait, how it's changing isn't the issue (though they claimed it was almost forever), it's the RATE at which it is changing that matters! And if that rate of change changes, for instance, not changing, well, then THAT proves it. You can't win with these people, because they are not arguing science or even logic, they are arguing an idea, an idea which may be divorced from reality, but when has that ever stopped a progressive/socialist/communist?
Dave, Dave, Dave... Come on, science can't accurately predict every single aspect of anthropogenic climate change (or any of them?), but they know that it's real because it's changing. True, it may be changing the opposite of how they said it would change, but still... any change means their hypothesis is correct. Just ask them. Oh, wait, how it's changing isn't the issue (though they claimed it was almost forever), it's the RATE at which it is changing that matters! And if that rate of change changes, for instance, not changing, well, then THAT proves it. You can't win with these people, because they are not arguing science or even logic, they are arguing an idea, an idea which may be divorced from reality, but when has that ever stopped a progressive/socialist/communist?Damn PP, you are such a downer. :P :P :P
Anybody know if OMNI os okay? Haven't seen him post for a few days, and this issue is his specialty!Probably having a crying jag after Jackoff AKA Pajama Boy, lost bigtime in Georgia.
Maybe he had an aneurysm from the stress of championing an untenable position? :popcorn:
Anybody know if OMNI os okay? Haven't seen him post for a few days, and this issue is his specialty!You feeling lonely? ???
Maybe he had an aneurysm from the stress of championing an untenable position? :popcorn:
You feeling lonely? ???
:rofl:
I'm a concerned forum member.:thumbsup:
One of those Compassionate Conservatives .... :geekdanc:
:thumbsup:No kidding. I do not need an echo chamber, but having the opposition come here just for the sake of arguing every damn thing endlessly is irritating.
If he doesn't post anymore, then I'm ok with that as well.
No kidding. I do not need an echo chamber, but having the opposition come here just for the sake of arguing every damn thing endlessly is irritating.I disagree. I feel that you folks are unfairly purseecuting him.
I disagree. I feel that you folks are unfairly purseecuting him.We could just nickname you Onmi.... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl:
Sorry. Couldn't resist. And BTW, purposely trying to spell badly is actually more difficult. ;D
We could just nickname you Onmi.... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DeNt2zn-4b8/hqdefault.jpg)
Like don't get any Onmi.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DeNt2zn-4b8/hqdefault.jpg)I wish he would have done that...
:rofl:
Pulling an Omni. . .
I came to conclusion that to stop posting here. The conversations have turned too toxic and argumentative for the sake of arguments. It has now transformed into random personal insults. On many issues I hold a minority viewpoint from others on this forum and I don't see a positive outcome of keep trying to argue.Could it be that you are not taking responsibility for your own "too toxic and argumentative for the sake of arguments." and your own "personal insults"??? Insulting Republicans and people of religion on this board with your comments. I would guess 95% of the people who post here are Republicans and yet you started a thread with "idiot republicans..." And just because you don't believe in God/religion you insulted those who do and my guess is that at least 75% or 80% of the people posting here are religious to some extent or another. You cannot deny insulting those who are religious here as all your words here cannot be changed. The bigger man can discuss things like religion without lowering himself by insulting and denigrating that in which others believe. Just because you think you are right doesn't necessarily mean you are. And that doesn't give you the right to put them down because you do.
:thumbsup:
I'll be happy to call a truce with you as long as you realize I am doing this for the good of the entire community and not because I think you won every argument and that it is a sign weakness. Agreed?
Can you see that I haven't had caffeine yet? :crazy:Does the caffeine make you more, or less, pissed off? :shaka: (I'm not a user so it's a little bit of a serious question...).
Does the caffeine make you more, or less, pissed off? :shaka: (I'm not a user so it's a little bit of a serious question...).Neither really. Just a running joke between Inspector and myself.
:thumbsup:I agree about the victim mentality. The thing is they are so into being a victim that they don't recognize (or acknowledge if they do) that they are just as guilty of doing the same things to others. It works when you are dealing with weak minded people. But too many strong minded people here for that to work. In this case my gut feeling says he really doesn't recognize that he was just as bad as what he was complaining about. And he doesn't care to admit it, either. For me, I offered him a chance to come back without an apology. Just an agreement to quit talking to each other and stop the insults. Of course I can't make anyone else do the same.
If people could just be mature adults and have rational conversations, it would really help. There are people that just enjoy going against the grain just to get a rise out of people and I refuse to "help" enable that sort of behavior. Want to act like a petulant child? That's fine by me. I'll just ignore you.
Reminds me of the counter culture folks. They take pride in being different. Going against the grain of a given society "just because they can". Well, it's still a free country and I support your right to express yourself in a manner in which you see fit. However, don't come crying to me when your actions get you ostracized and then you want to claim to be a victim. You did it to yourself. Damn victim mentality. Makes me sick.
Can you see that I haven't had caffeine yet? :crazy:
Does the caffeine make you more, or less, pissed off? :shaka: (I'm not a user so it's a little bit of a serious question...).:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I came to conclusion that to stop posting here. The conversations have turned too toxic and argumentative for the sake of arguments. It has now transformed into random personal insults. On many issues I hold a minority viewpoint from others on this forum and I don't see a positive outcome of keep trying to argue.Oh well, off you go back to HuffPo and Democrat Underground.......
1) I want to argue based on facts not emotions.1) That's whole point. You don't argue based on facts. You speculate based on your beliefs. People call you out on that and ask you to provide backup and that's when the obfuscation comes in and you resort to a "I know what I know" and won't be convinced otherwise. That's not arguing. That's being a petulant child.
2) I do admit my arguments sometimes were not the greatest as I am not an expert on every field. I tend to look at the facts I do understand then base my opinion on that and what the majority of respectable people in that field say. If 9/10 doctors say something I will believe and trust them especially if that sounds correct.
Too bad this place wasn't anonymous then we could all discuss things without putting labels and names on people.
This is why I made my decision to stop posting often.
The easiest way to solve this is just for me step out and post less. I do admit my arguments sometimes were not the greatest as I am not an expert on every field.
I came to conclusion that to stop posting here.
The easiest way to solve this is just for me step out and post less.
I don't treat anyone like a special snowflake. My arguments and beliefs on religion were not diluted down. I am agnostic and will view my opinions and arguments with that. If anyone feels offended so be it. I want to argue based on facts not emotions. If you can back up your religious beliefs with facts that's great we can argue. I didn't tone it down because it would offend you. Maybe I should of.
Yeah no all religions are basically fake. Sure some of the coincidence stores might be sorta rooted in truth but that ain't no sign of a god. Its simple coincidence. Random events that people interpret it as something greater. Then they embellish said stories as some sort of proof of their god. Jesus was probably a real person so what? Anyone can start a cult/religion and make themselves one of the main people in it. Look at cult leaders saying they are the reborn jesus. Sure Mary cheated on Joseph had a kid, said the kid was "gods" son and poor Joseph believed it. Hell this story happens all the time nowdays. But you don't people saying god made this baby anymore cause its crazy. The red sea, wow it got muddy/dried up....must be proof of god. When there are random storms that kill enemy troops. Must be god, no other reason could be plausible right?
Too bad this place wasn't anonymous then we could all discuss things without putting labels and names on people.
I do admit my arguments sometimes were not the greatest
then why make them?
I am not an expert on every field.
but you are an expert-at-heart
Too bad this place wasn't anonymous
this place is anonymous, our names are obviously not "omnigun" and "macsak"
then we could all discuss things without putting labels and names on people.
really? look at the title of this post, and see who is the OP
hello pot, this is kettle, you're black
then we could all discuss things without putting labels and names on people.
really? look at the title of this post, and see who is the OP
hello pot, this is kettle, you're black
I'm awaiting all the climate change deniers comments here on how great this new law will be on our environment!
That was supposed to be my last post but because of replies I continued to post. I may post once in a while but definitely not as frequent. As for the religion thing, I don't believe any of the current religions are correct and thus post as such. Might there be a god? Maybe. Is he one humans thought of/can interpret? No. I did not start off this "offensive" it evolved over time i guess. Like I said before I am also guilty of making these conversations toxic. That quote is one of them. Yes I could of worded that better but at this point I was probably already angry. Part of my weaknesses is I don't show people respect who don't respect me. This is an error on my part. I argue based on other credible peoples facts. If 9/10 scientists say one thing and are accredited I will argue using their theories and facts. It does not mean I fully understand everything they are talking about in details, but I trust their judgement. Using this I form my opinion and will argue with it. I only got "butthurt" because of everyone's replies etc, it just turned the whole convo toxic. I'm trying to improve that side of my personality and show respect to everyone regardless.
I know this place is fairly local I do act a little different in real life than on the internet but that's a bad habit. I'm trying to fix this all up and end this negativity. So hopefully if one day I do meet someone here in rl again there is not all this negativity following. I am semi young and there are things that I am improving. I am sorry to everyone who got swept up in this toxic roller coaster. I'm just trying to end the ride before it gets worse. In the end I wish to get along with everyone and have meaningful positive arguments. But at this point in time I don't see it easily possible with current feelings. One day I hope to return to more constant posting. Until then I plan to post sparingly and let both sides emotions calm down. Maybe I will make some self improvements on the way as I am not perfect either.
This is my view on this whole thing. I came here because I liked guns and 2a. I am passionate and opinionated as a person. Raised by/around lawyers so I am also fairly argumentative. Furthermore I am very blunt. I don't treat anyone like a special snowflake. My arguments and beliefs on religion were not diluted down. I am agnostic and will view my opinions and arguments with that. If anyone feels offended so be it. I want to argue based on facts not emotions. If you can back up your religious beliefs with facts that's great we can argue. I didn't tone it down because it would offend you. Maybe I should of. I do not have opinions just because they are against the majority here. I have opinions regardless of where I am and where I post. If i was on a liberal forum, I would have the same opinions and opposing opinions on 2a etc. I would gladly argue with a liberal about religion or guns, freedoms and social issues. Same as I would argue with a conservative on religion, abortion, climate change etc. I am an independent I don't belong to either party. I don't cater my opinions based on the forum I am on. In the beginning I never singled people out and even towards the end I didn't do it much. As time the conversations became less about facts and more about emotions and calling individuals out and putting random labels on them (liberal etc). Then everything spiraled down from there to being too toxic and not productive. I don't have some victim complex because I too was part of this escalation. While I don't think I was the first one to start individual insults I did end up resorting to some. This is why I made my decision to stop posting often. Its clear at this point the conversation is too toxic and based too much on emotions to be productive for anyone. The easiest way to solve this is just for me step out and post less. I do admit my arguments sometimes were not the greatest as I am not an expert on every field. I tend to look at the facts I do understand then base my opinion on that and what the majority of respectable people in that field say. If 9/10 doctors say something I will believe and trust them especially if that sounds correct.
Too bad this place wasn't anonymous then we could all discuss things without putting labels and names on people.
I know this place is fairly local I do act a little different in real life than on the internet but that's a bad habit. I'm trying to fix this all up and end this negativity. So hopefully if one day I do meet someone here in rl again there is not all this negativity following. I am semi young and there are things that I am improving.
That's not trolling.
If that's not trolling, then I'll eat my dog's dinner tonight!
That's not trolling.
Bon appetit!
Haha
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm glad he's getting steak tonight! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:Lucky dog...
If that's not trolling, then I'll eat my dog's dinner tonight!You forot the millennial kid's choice for thread title:
I'm glad he's getting steak tonight! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:I dunno, a very fresh slab of Ono works for me over steak..........as long as my wife makes her Tarter sauce.
One last post on "off topic". I am admin on another board where discussion on religion and politics are strictly forbidden. Anyways, one member joined us from another site that we came from that did allow discussion on religion and politics. Well, this one guy, who was quite intelligent would constantly try to argue religion, often twisting things as "well they brought in religion". He was actually VERY good at getting people to sound foolish if they weren't on their game with facts. But he did it in an "in your face" and brash way. Well, because it was anonymous. Funny to find out that he has had been forced to eat his teeth quite a few times as he ran his mouth in many a Texas bar. To his credit, he took it and didn't file charges or anything as he knew what he was doing.I allow political and religious discussions on my board. I have deleted most all of it because it was very dated and the board is dying. But I still have rules everyone has to abide by. Here are my forum rules: http://www.konaforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1168
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not to change the subject ;), but here is some idiocy that I've hesitated to post for days, but it's raining outside right now so... From our very own University of Hawaii "researchers"... ETA: Is it a typo, or is the "Geography" department really part of the "College of Social Sciences"? If so, that would explain a lot about this "research". ("...an associate professor of geography in the UH Manoa College of Social Sciences").So let me get this straight? If they cannot change the weather enough to kill people they will just change the definition of killer weather? Will these paid off climate liars do anything to try and create weather hysteria so the naive will believe them? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
They define the range of "killer heat" based upon the relative combinations of temperature and humidity. The writer then notes that according to those "conservative" criteria, last Sunday was a "killer heat" day in Honolulu. He then fails to mention the number of deaths that occurred in the "killer heat" of that day. Why?! Surely this research re the devastating effects of anthropogenic global warming and the professor's appeals to cure it need to be brought to the public's attention by loudly and boldly proclaiming the horrific loss of life caused by these "killer heat' episodes that will be of increasing frequency, intensity, and duration... unless, could it be, no one died due to the "killer heat"? But that would seem to be a contradiction... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif) Perhaps in the name of scientific objectivity, given the consensus and all that, it should be renamed "mildly uncomfortable heat"?
Lethal heat will grow common, climate change study predicts
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/06/19/hawaii-news/lethal-heat-will-grow-common-climate-change-study-predicts/?HSA=49244a8e46eae8138a217efb4b39c4afd8dfc03c
Three-quarters of the world’s inhabitants, including those living in Hawaii, will be exposed to deadly heat waves by the end of the century unless greenhouse gases are not substantially reduced, according to a study published today in Nature Climate Change.
And even if bold action is taken to curtail emissions, nearly half of the world’s population still faces living with the dangerous hot spells, with tropical regions feeling the worst of it, the study said.
“We’re left with a choice between bad and terrible,” said lead author Camilo Mora, a University of Hawaii professor.
* * * * *
Mora, an associate professor of geography in the UH Manoa College of Social Sciences, said that when the project began a year and a half ago, little was known about how common such killer heat waves are, and the researchers were expecting to find relatively few.
That’s because the scientific literature usually describes only a few, including the 2003 heat wave that killed 70,000 people in Europe, the 2010 event in Russia that killed 55,000 and the 1995 Chicago hot spell that killed more than 700.
Digging deeper, Mora’s team found more than 1,900 deadly heat waves going back to 1980.
“That was a big shock, I’m telling you,” he said.
* * * * *
After analyzing the weather conditions during the lethal heat episodes, the researchers identified a threshold of heat and humidity beyond which conditions defeat the body’s natural cooling system. It’s a threshold that’s variable because lower temperatures can become lethal as relative humidity goes up.
According to their data, at 80 percent humidity, killer heat waves have occurred at temperatures above 68 degrees Fahrenheit. At 40 percent humidity, they have occurred when the mercury tops 75 degrees.
But to be conservative, the study used a higher threshold — a curve that includes 81 degrees at 80 percent humidity and 91 degrees at 40 percent humidity.
In Honolulu Sunday, the humidity was 70 percent and the high temperature reached 87 at the Daniel K. Inouye International Airport. That qualifies as killer heat under the study, but the isles also were cooled by an 11 mph breeze.
* * * * *
While Mora said President Donald Trump’s move to pull out of the Paris climate agreement was a step backward for the planet, he remains hopeful the world can still rally to minimize the damage.
“This is something we cannot afford not to fix,” he said. “It’s like climbing a building and choosing between jumping from the second floor or the eighth floor. I prefer to jump from the second floor rather than the eighth floor.”
I'll have to find the thread that we had about green energy. I think we had a couple. One was pointing out that some technologies marketed as sustainable have some really nasty "side effects". Yeah, maybe the energy collection/generation is sustainable, but what is involved in manufacture and disposal of the equipment can be even worse than the net "savings".I do know it costs less to make glass bottles than it is to recycle the glass into new bottles. Recycling here is a joke because the mixed material is shipped in the empty containers back to LA where it is sold to the Chinese and shipped there where it is remade into raw materials which gets sold to the mainland and shipped back to Hawaii. Talk about carbon foot print. It's much better to send all of our recycle material to H-power where it can be burned into energy.
Speaking of chronics. Bulky item pickup where my dad lives was last week. So we put out an old TV and I saw a few others from neighbors as well as other appliances. I noticed that someone came through and ripped out all the power cords. I assume for copper wiring.
More proof of the lies that the climate believers fall for:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/?utm_source=site-share
butt, butt, butt , butt 97%Corrected your spelling.... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Corrected your spelling.... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Should be "butt hurt, butt hurt, butt hurt "
Should be "butt hurt, butt hurt, butt hurt "I stand corrected, sir. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
* * * * *
In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.
Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”
"adjustments" sounds more like "feelings" than "data""Feelings" trump facts to the true believers.
:oOld news....
Old news....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#34b06dff2892
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since,
the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979
average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories.
Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?
Who was talking about polar ice ?Where are these glaciers located, Hound?
Any comments on glacier shrinkage ?
( no comments about my dick in cold water ::) )
Who was talking about polar ice ?
Any comments on glacier shrinkage ?
( no comments about my dick in cold water ::) )
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently
adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of
ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to
2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic
Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year
away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica
in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is
not accounted for.”
Where are these glaciers located, Hound?Most of the world's glaciers are located in the Antarctic (covered in the article) and Greenland. While the article I quoted didn't cover Greenland, Greenland is not losing ice as was reported during the same period referenced in the article. It has lost and gained (recently) ice as has the Antarctic has.
Shrinkage is a bitch ain't it? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Sorry, couldn't help it.
I'm not playing the redirect game.Since the majority of the world's glaciers exist in the Antarctic and in Greenland and neither one is losing ice, and since you refuse to provide a location of where these glaciers are located, and assuming the photos have not been photoshopped and/or faked for nefarious reasons then I can only assume these are corner case glaciers you are trying to push on us here and I won't play THAT game with you.
Get out of Antartica and the arctic circle and check out glacier shrinkage.
Nevermind studies and post photos per above parameter.
Everything else is fake news,
Saw that when I walked into it. :rofl:
And nevermind the redirect questions. ( they're not at the polar caps, although I don't know the definition of polar cap.)
Just answer the fawkin' question. ( brave heart reference )
OK.
"New question mark over global warming: Scientists discover glaciers in Asian mountain range are actually getting BIGGER
Photos taken by a French satellite show glaciers in a mountain range west of the Himalayas have grown during the last decade.
The growing glaciers were found in the Karakoram range, which spans the borders between Pakistan, India and China and is home to the world's second highest peak, K2."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2130184/Forget-global-warming-Scientists-discover-glaciers-Asia-getting-BIGGER.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2130184/Forget-global-warming-Scientists-discover-glaciers-Asia-getting-BIGGER.html)
assuming the photos have not been photoshopped and/or faked for nefarious reasons then I can only assume these are corner case glaciers you are trying to push on us here
Post your photos of the growing glaciers. Anywhere.Well then, if you want me to play, then post the originals of those photos showing that they are not photoshopped or doctored in any way. Also, I need to know the exact location and true dates taken so I can verify your negatives and originals you came up with to prove your case before I'll play with you. If you don't have proof of what you are posting then it's all fake news to me.
I'm not saying man-made change.
Although anyone who has been to LA or Beijing or has seen the forests shrink knows we are inarguably f-ing this planet up.
Don't need a study to tell us that. Just a head in the sand to tell us we're not.
Locusts upon the Earth.....
(Yup. I am one. Not mightier than anyone)
I don't believe anything unless it agrees with me. :Dwasent that the tag line for the Hillary campaign ?
[comparison photos of glacier retreat in 20th century]At least one of those photos is from Glacier National Park. https://petapixel.com/2015/10/25/these-before-and-after-photos-show-how-glaciers-in-the-us-are-melting/
:o
All I know is that last summer was one of the hottest and most humid that I recall. . . ever. Then winter was cooler than I remember.Should've installed air conditioning in my house last year. Or I can just take a bath in ten slurpees. :P :P :P
It's getting hotter and hotter as we approach August. Should've gotten a free Slurpee or ten yesterday. ;D
Should've installed air conditioning in my house last year. Or I can just take a bath in ten slurpees. :P :P :PThe AC in my bedroom busted fall of 2016. I should have blamed global warming. . .
I bet he won't read a single word you posted beneath the picture.That is fine, I stopped reading anything he posts a long time ago after he outed himself.
Thinking of pricing out a Fujitsu or Mitsubishi for the living room and kitchen. Anyone have hook ups, let me know. ;DIf you get hooked up with a good contractor, let me know. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
While ten slurpees sounds great, my conscious is yelling "DIABETES!!!". I've been dieting the past month or so. With about 4 lbs to go before target, the slurpees would have hurt. :(
That is fine, I stopped reading anything he posts a long time ago after he outed himself.Read as
I don't believe anything unless it agrees with me. :DOr maybe I don't read anything that doesn't agree with me.
I'm not saying man-made change.
Although anyone who has been to LA or Beijing or has seen the forests shrink knows we are inarguably f-ing this planet up.
Don't need a study to tell us that. Just a head in the sand to tell us we're not.
I think you missed AieaHound's point. He doesn't want data and facts. He just wants pretty pictures so he can draw whatever conclusions support his environmental whacko beliefs independent of the truth. :wacko:Damn... I wanted to give him the benefit the doubt... but turns out you were right. Oh well... now I know.
I bet he won't read a single word you posted beneath the picture.
:geekdanc:
Thanks for agreeing the Glaciers are shrinking and indicate a period of warming.The whole point was: What about all the other times the glaciers have totally disappeared? You can't post any pictures of those "changes"/warming/cooling because there were no cameras (and no humans). Including the fact that almost all the times the glaciers disappeared no humans even existed. Did prehistoric rodents cause that warming? Or are you only (now) claiming that there is warming (to be followed by cooling, again) but that there is no human element involved? If so, what is your point? If there is no anthropogenic factor, then there is absolutely nothing that humans could do to change the warming (similar to the dozens of times it has happened on both a major scale, and probably hundreds or thousands of times on a minor scale ("Little Ice Age", "Medieval Warming Period", etc.). What's your point?
Since the mid 19th Century the Glaciers at the park have shrunk drastically. ( per the story I quickly glanced at.)
And outed as what ?Perhaps they are accusing you of having sex with glaciers?
Perhaps they are accusing you of having sex with glaciers?Probably. This forum is well-known to be rife with glaciophiliaphobes...
The whole point was: What about all the other times the glaciers have totally disappeared? You can't post any pictures of those "changes"/warming/cooling because there were no cameras (and no humans). Including the fact that almost all the times the glaciers disappeared no humans even existed. Did prehistoric rodents cause that warming? Or are you only (now) claiming that there is warming (to be followed by cooling, again) but that there is no human element involved? If so, what is your point? If there is no anthropogenic factor, then there is absolutely nothing that humans could do to change the warming (similar to the dozens of times it has happened on both a major scale, and probably hundreds or thousands of times on a minor scale ("Little Ice Age", "Medieval Warming Period", etc.). What's your point?
Perhaps they are accusing you of having sex with glaciers?I only did it once. :D
Perhaps they are accusing you of having sex with glaciers?
I only did it once. :D
Can we stop it by stopping cutting down all the trees and burning all the fossil fuels. Probably not.Is the Earth warming? Yes
The ship has set sail.
Each solution seems as harmful as the cause being blamed.
What's the point of arguing against human caused climate change ?
That we can burn every drop and Rock of fossil fuel and it won't make any difference ?
That we can cut down every tree and it won't make a difference so let's just go ahead ?
Now discussion about are we F-ing the Earth up ?
No question.
Even Teddy Roosevelt, great believer of 2A that he was, was a conservationist.
I only did it once. :D
I'm still curious what I got outed as.
I saw that article about Gore the other day. Just made me :rolleyes:Typical hysterics from the left. Gore and all the other hysterical progressives who believed him when he said that unless the world “took drastic measures the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years.” That 10 years has come and gone. Where is the tipping point he is talking about? It never happened. Not even close. Arctic ice would disappear by 2013. Gore also said "... I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea level rise now,” he added. Among other predictions Gore made that never came true was his claim that storms would become more intense and the world would see stronger hurricanes on a more frequent basis. He also claimed Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa would lose it’s snowpack by 2016. But that also hasn’t happened — and it’s not even close.
Appealing to emotions. Sound familiar. Yeah, I don't want to trash this Earth, but there is science available on the matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How can anyone believe this liar?
It has become the religion of the leftists, why no argument is permitted.
Have written many times, the left screwed the pooch allowing this to become a Gore/leftwing thing. Effectively shut out half the US population from paying any attention to them and just rejecting it out of hand.
Strategy is not their strong aspect. They screwed themselves.
Gore made millions.Uh oh. FJ is looking to start his own cult.
I'm looking to screw myself like that, too! :geekdanc:
Uh oh. FJ is looking to start his own cult.
You have to give it a chance to prove itself. You know, like Trump...
(https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2014.02.20/chart3.png)
Hawaiian Electric rates could rise 44% under Green Energy plan OKed by state regulatorsNow that the lies have been exposed. And knowing that the research foisted upon the Hawaii citizens that they based the renewable energy mandate for HECO to move to renewable enrergy is all a lie, how can they in good conscience continue the lie? Yeah, we know the answer to this.... >:( >:( >:(
https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2017/07/17/hawaiian-electric-rates-could-rise-44-under-plan.html
The state’s utility commission has approved Hawaiian Electric Cos.’ latest power-supply improvement plan, which forecasts rate increases of more than 44 percent over the next nine years….
According to the approved PSIP, customers could face average rate increases of between 18 and 25 percent over the next four years across the utility’s service territories, which include Hawaiian Electric Co. on Oahu; Maui Electric Co. on Maui, Molokai and Lanai; and Hawaiian Electric Light Co. on the Big Island.
“Given the substantial increase in rates forecasted in the report, the commission is concerned that the companies have not fully considered the affordability of their plans,” the commission said in its decision…..
“We share our customers’ concern with prices, and we don’t believe in renewables at any cost,” Peter Rosegg, senior spokesman at Hawaiian Electric Company, told PBN in an email. “We will evaluate every future project, which must be approved by the Public Utilities Commission with input from the Consumer Advocate, to achieve a balance between progress on our ambitious renewable energy goals and minimizing costs to customers.” (IQ Test: Did you believe any of that?)
Hawaiian Electric said in the PSIP that it plans to procure almost 400 megawatts of new renewable resources across its service territories by 2021, which collectively represents the largest new generation procurement ever undertaken in the state….
Mina Morita pointed to liquefied natural gas as a potential solution to help mitigate the cost impact.
“This is a where I have a real problem with Gov. David Ige's administration, and the reluctance to have LNG,” she said. “To think that we are going to get off fossil fuel in the near term is crazy.”….
Now that the lies have been exposed. And knowing that the research foisted upon the Hawaii citizens that they based the renewable energy mandate for HECO to move to renewable enrergy is all a lie, how can they in good conscience continue the lie? Yeah, we know the answer to this.... >:( >:( >:(You mean just like the lies that de facto no carry of any kind, ban on greater than 10-round handgun magazines, bans on "assault pistols", waiting periods, firearm registration, bans on stun guns, bans on suppressors, bans on bladed instruments, etc., etc., etc. enhance "public safety", when in fact those measures have absolutely no proven causal relationship to decreasing any crime statistic at all, or if there is any causal relationship it is relatively small and the "controlled/banned" issue actually comes down on the side of making the public safer were it NOT controlled/banned? That kind of lie? Actually, Dave, I'd like to hear your answer, even though I know you were posing a rhetorical question... unless you were implying that they have no "good conscience". I tend to believe that they do have a (however small and distorted) "conscience", and that they justify the deceit as being their elitist superiority enacting tyrannical measures to "save" the ignorant peons by making them totally dependent upon and slaves to the all-knowing and powerful "state". But I really have no idea. :stopjack:
Hawaii has a unique situation compared to the mainland where renewable energy makes more economic sense in the long run. Every tanker of oil we use means more money leaving the state economy that has to be made up somewhere else...more Federal funding or tourism coming in, or less money available to buy other imports. Hawaii has most of the stuff to make renewables work...varied geography for wind power, lots of sun for solar, volcanism and the ocean for geothermal, limited space for landfills which makes HPower feasible, and high energy costs from not being able to import electricity from other States when needed. In addition to renewables, we need to tie all of the island's electrical grids together so we can balance the loads and reduce the need for backup power.I guess you didn't read the article above: Wind and Solar Energy Are Dead Ends
The problem is Hawaii can't make our own power generation equipment so it has to be imported in and installed which creates a high short term cost, but it'll beneficial in the long term once everything is in place.
Hawaii has a unique situation compared to the mainland where renewable energy makes more economic sense in the long run. Every tanker of oil we use means more money leaving the state economy that has to be made up somewhere else...more Federal funding or tourism coming in, or less money available to buy other imports. Hawaii has most of the stuff to make renewables work...varied geography for wind power, lots of sun for solar, volcanism and the ocean for geothermal, limited space for landfills which makes HPower feasible, and high energy costs from not being able to import electricity from other States when needed. In addition to renewables, we need to tie all of the island's electrical grids together so we can balance the loads and reduce the need for backup power.I don't want to argue the merits and downsides to renewable energy solutions. I agree that Hawaii is in a unique position for renewable solutions. But for me the answer is not for replacement of our current solution to present day renewable solutions. To me the answer is to place Hawaii at the forefront of renewable energy development and maybe some manufacturing. I suggest grants from the feds and maybe tax breaks to companies to come here to develop their products. Just like the TMT we have the perfect weather and location for development of new solutions and materials for manufacturing renewable energy products and solutions. In essence I would like to see Hawaii be the literal guinea pigs for future products so we as a society can benefit from the new technology first, and provide high tech jobs for those engineers in the development field. To me this is how the C&C and state can bring in income and high paying jobs and create symbiotic relationships with the companies of the world. And not just rely on tourism for income. Live by sword, die by the sword.
The problem is Hawaii can't make our own power generation equipment so it has to be imported in and installed which creates a high short term cost, but it'll beneficial in the long term once everything is in place.
I don't want to argue the merits and downsides to renewable energy solutions. I agree that Hawaii is in a unique position for renewable solutions. But for me the answer is not for replacement of our current solution to present day renewable solutions. To me the answer is to place Hawaii at the forefront of renewable energy development and maybe some manufacturing. I suggest grants from the feds and maybe tax breaks to companies to come here to develop their products. Just like the TMT we have the perfect weather and location for development of new solutions and materials for manufacturing renewable energy products and solutions. In essence I would like to see Hawaii be the literal guinea pigs for future products so we as a society can benefit from the new technology first, and provide high tech jobs for those engineers in the development field. To me this is how the C&C and state can bring in income and high paying jobs and create symbiotic relationships with the companies of the world. And not just rely on tourism for income. Live by sword, die by the sword.
The probleem with my vision is that it requires our leaders to be proactive and plan for the future. Something our present leaders refuse to do. Our current leaders choose to be reactive instead of proactive. Hawaii will never be anything more than just a tourist attraction unless we vote in new forward thinking leaders. All of this is worth more than switching over to the impossible dream of 100% renewable energy.
Gall Dang DaveYou are not the first person who has said that to me. I have considered running for some sort of office before. However, I no longer have patience for certain types. Plus I cuss like a sailor. So I would not be good for public office. But thank you for saying that as I take it as a compliment. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
I would vote for you on that platform !
It would add construction and maintenance jobs too.
:thumbsup: :shaka:
One question for the fossil fuel advocates.I am not so much a fossil fuel advcate as I feel I am a realist. I like renewable energy products and solutions. If and when I ever get to retire over on the BI I intend to be self sustaining with a full solar system. Off grid completely? Possibly. I would like to see how well the system works before I make that decision. But it is part of my plans. Electricity goes out frequently out that way so I intend to be prepared and be able to survive without it. Now you know where I stand.
(Just drill and frack, Baby)
What happens when it all dries up ?
climate change ?
Personally, I think there is.
Man-made or not I don't care. It's inevitable.
Climate change freaks?
I think they're good for us in that we have to think about sustainability.
Can they derail industry? I don't think so.
Prices go up so big industry can keep or grow their profit margins.
What goes on behind the scenes? No one knows except those who know.
We have not inherited the Earth from our Parents. We are just watching over it for our kids. (Exponentially)
(Still don't know what I outed myself as. :D )
Speaking of investment though, look at all the solar energy startups that have come and gone. Not sure about the how and whys or if government could have helped that more, but there have been a lot that have come and gone. Or maybe they just restructured, got bought out, etc. But the interest is there.
It's a while since I've been involved with sustainable energy facilities, but there are actually a LOT of red tape preventing otherwise good technology from being used more often. Yeah, the technology is continually growing and improving, but that's kind of the whole point. Often, rules and regulations on that end are 5 years or more behind the times.
"Fossil fuel? Where we're going, we don't need fossil fuels. . . "The way I'm going they'll be pumping me outta the ground as fossil fuel. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
(http://www.konbini.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/4/files/2015/07/Cotxes-que-escombraries-Retorn-futur_ARAIMA20150102_0067_5-810x513.jpg)
Speaking of investment though, look at all the solar energy startups that have come and gone. Not sure about the how and whys or if government could have helped that more, but there have been a lot that have come and gone. Or maybe they just restructured, got bought out, etc. But the interest is there.Flapp Jack said most of what I wanted to say so I won't repeat it.
It's a while since I've been involved with sustainable energy facilities, but there are actually a LOT of red tape preventing otherwise good technology from being used more often. Yeah, the technology is continually growing and improving, but that's kind of the whole point. Often, rules and regulations on that end are 5 years or more behind the times.
"Fossil fuel? Where we're going, we don't need fossil fuels. . . "(http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ico/sprays/121_jigawatt.png)
I guess you didn't read the article above: Wind and Solar Energy Are Dead Ends
Or are you claiming the stats in that article are incorrect and "renewables" are 1. capable of replacing fossil fuels, and/or 2. the prohibitive costs are incorrect?
As the PUC members stated, the costs and physical impossibility of meeting an "all renewable" goal are "impossible"/"crazy".
If the initial purchase/installation costs of the equipment, along with maintenance and replacement costs are beyond any possible recoup, then it will NEVER be "beneficial"... at least not to ratepayers... the politicians (who garner "donations" from manufacturers, installers, etc.) and the bureaucrats who get off on imposing their "good deeds" on powerless citizens, sure.
Over the years I've had several individuals/firms analyze the cost effectiveness of converting my HELCO powered home to either grid-tie-in or off-grid/battery storage solar. They all concluded that unless electricity costs rose to double or triple their current rates that it is not cost effective for me to install solar. And then it would be a "break even" affair, and the rates would need to be even higher for me to have a "cost saving" benefit. ("Energy independent" off grid is another matter.) With the worst case scenario at the moment being a 44% increase to fund the pie-in-the-sky renewable fantasy... it won't be worth it for me to convert until the tyrants get even more brazen and bold than they are at the current time (which, given Hawaii's political sheep/slave/dependent culture, will likely happen eventually).
P.S. Ever see those giant wind turbines at South Point? In all my years here I've never seen all of them operational at once. It's more common to see them all inoperational at once. I'd be really surprised if all that down time repair costs renders those things a negative cost (a "money pit") for the life of the system.
Stats are correct for what we know now on a worldwide scale, but irrelevant for Hawaii due to our unique situation and future technology. Hawaii is currently generating about 25% of it's electricity through renewables, probably one of the highest rates in nation and the world. I don't think we'll be at 100% in 2045, but I think we'll get close. We'll need vastly improved electric storage technologies to keep the lights on at any time while most cars should be all electric by 2040 so we'll need more juice for those. Maybe 80% would be a realistic goal. There's more potential energy from HPower but they don't have enough garbage to burn. Solar panel efficiency is increasing while the materials needed to make them are decreasing making them cheaper. Wind turbines are becoming more efficient and easier to maintain. The new windmills on Oahu seem to be running all the time. Connect the electrical grids on all of the islands to balance the loads and create redundancy. Upgrade our powerlines so residential solar can feed energy into it. 23 years is a long time away where a new technology could be discovered in the next 10 years and implemented in the state by 2040.If all this "renewable" "sustainable" "green" energy is, or (supposedly, entirely speculatively) will be, so wonderful, why does the government have to mandate it and then steal from taxpayers to pay for it? Why isn't the (free) market allowed to operate and if someone comes up with a truly "renewable" "sustainable" "green" way to generate energy that is cost effective, wouldn't individuals and/or public utility companies clamor and compete to buy it? It would then result in lower rates for consumers, not higher rates as the current program of "renewable" "sustainable" "green" energy dictates. We can see the insurmountable problems with current such "systems" (claiming "Hawaii is unique" is no answer), and saying "some day they will figure out a cost effective way to do it" is merely passing the buck and falsely justifying current government financing, at taxpayer expense for extremely costly inefficient systems based solely upon some politically correct ideology about the "right" way to produce energy.
I don't know how accurate "up to 44%" is. I'm sure improvements will cost a lot in the short term, but will pay off in the long term. New fossil fuel generators have to be built and current ones are expensive to maintain. Cost of oil is still low even considering the addition of shale oil, so oil costs will eventually rise again and so will electricity rates.
There's more potential energy from HPower but they don't have enough garbage to burn.Yes, that's why we need to stop recycling and selling it to the Chinese. I only halfheartedly fill the blue cans every other week and never recycle glass.
Connect the electrical grids on all of the islands to balance the loads and create redundancy.I didn't know that was a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable
Why isn't the (free) market allowed to operate and if someone comes up with a truly "renewable" "sustainable" "green" way to generate energy that is cost effective, wouldn't individuals and/or public utility companies clamor and compete to buy it?I have one word for you, Enron.
I have one word for you, Enron.False dilemma. There are more real world choices than a fraudulent private corporation or top-down government-mandated inefficient, unnecessarily costly, and wasteful programs.
There's more potential energy from HPower but they don't have enough garbage to burn.Tangentially related:
False dilemma. There are more real world choices than a fraudulent private corporation or top-down government-mandated inefficient, unnecessarily costly, and wasteful programs.
Flapp Jack said most of what I wanted to say so I won't repeat it.Yeah, I got and see all of what you and Flapp said.
When I first bought my home here I had a plan of staying at least 10 years. I ran the numbers and with all the subsidies and tax credits and with the Net Metering I would have broken even after 8 years based on the much higher prices of electricity we were paying and buying the entire system. Then I ran into some financial difficulties at the time and I decided to wait. After a short period of time the panels themselves came down in price and a new model which was slightly more efficient came available. Again, I was going to buy an entire system. And my wife got laid off. So I waited once again and that is when the price of oil dropped, our bills dropped 40%, and the net metering stopped being offered. All of the sudden it didn't make sense any more. I am glad it worked out the way it did.
To me the answer is to place Hawaii at the forefront of renewable energy development and maybe some manufacturing. I suggest grants from the feds and maybe tax breaks to companies to come here to develop their products.
Yeah, I got and see all of what you and Flapp said.Ahhh, makes more sense to me now. I wish more people would realize how regulation and red tape really ruins development and projects.
But what I posted was more in light of what you said below:
Investment in that regard. Not investment of individual home or property owners.
I was looking for ways to implement PV on Guam. Guam has super high design wind forces. The industry is currently geared around Florida being the controlling case, so none of those products meet the Guam design requirements. So instead of taking advantage of a good amount of savings, common sense approach was rejected due primarily to red tape.
Ahhh, makes more sense to me now. I wish more people would realize how regulation and red tape really ruins development and projects.I mean many regulations really (or at least hopefully) start out with good intentions. Like making sure there are minimum standards. It's when people who are so stuck on the process that they forsake common sense is the problem.
...And since burning crap has no effect on climate change, why not?Do you have a link or some proof to support this statement? I would think burning crap would release all kinds of bad shit (pun intended) into the air. Am I missing something here?
Do you have a link or some proof to support this statement? I would think burning crap would release all kinds of bad shit (pun intended) into the air. Am I missing something here?
Flapp, you got sucked down the rabbit hole. :geekdanc: ( geekdance, your favorite whatever-con thing)
Inspector,
I thought the semi-consensus was there is no man made climate change.
For proof see studies posted page 1-13.
( and don't worry I'm following the humor)
So seriously, if burning stuff doesn't affect (effect?) climate change, why not burn all our crap (or stuff for smell effect (affect) :rofl: see the humor?) and have a true renewable resource for energy?
We use it, throw it away, burn it, get energy.
Flapp, you got sucked down the rabbit hole. :geekdanc: ( geekdance, your favorite whatever-con thing)Hound,
Inspector,
I thought the semi-consensus was there is no man made climate change.
For proof see studies posted page 1-13.
( and don't worry I'm following the humor)
So seriously, if burning stuff doesn't affect (effect?) climate change, why not burn all our crap (or stuff for smell effect (affect) :rofl: see the humor? (Use of effect vs.affect for grammatologists on here...see early posts) and have a true renewable resource for energy?
We use it, throw it away, burn it, get energy.
I am not quite at the "...there is no man made climate change." I concede that we cause pollution and our pollution can affect or effect the climate.
As far as burning oil/coal/trash we have electrostatic precipitators (Are you impressed I know what those are) to scrub the air of pollutants. I good with that. But my understanding is if you burn crap it stinks. If the wind blows it in my direction I'm not good with that. I moved away from LA for several reasons. The yellow-brown air was one of them.
Cool to know that. But there seem to be members who believe that
Can't we put technology into air scrubbing instead of wind,solar,hydro to eliminate the stench to an acceptable level?
(I am impressed with electro taters. :shake:)
But seriously what's more perfect than taking all the crap we consume and throw away and burning it to create a truly sustainable fuel ?
https://youtu.be/MLEpZm957jk
The consensus is, there is no scientific evidence providing any estimate of the amount of climate change which can be attributed to man.
We know it's more than zero, so your "thought" is in error. The question has always been "how much of the total does man contribute?" That will give us an idea of whether anything we do can have a significant impact on climate change at all.
Hound,
I am not quite at the "...there is no man made climate change." I concede that we cause pollution and our pollution can affect or effect the climate. My contention is that we affect or effect our climate to such a small amount (at this time) it is not even worth mentioning.
(I am impressed with electro taters. :shake:)
Damn! I gave myself electro-taters that night ! :shake:Did it hurt? :oops: :oops: :oops:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Can you.....you know......Still get a 'tator? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Like hell!!!
I'm sensing ....(dang, can't use the word sensing cause that's a liberal word) I see people admitting man-made climate change is a given, just immeasurable.
https://youtu.be/MLEpZm957jk
Can you.....you know......Still get a 'tator? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Cool to know that. But there seem to be members who believe that
Can't we put technology into air scrubbing instead of wind,solar,hydro to eliminate the stench to an acceptable level?
But seriously (there it is again) what's more perfect than taking all the crap we consume and throw away and burning it to create a truly sustainable fuel ?
Quote from: aieahound on Today at 02:13:58 PM
https://youtu.be/MLEpZm957jk
Quote from: aieahound on Today at 02:13:58 PM
https://youtu.be/MLEpZm957jk
I'm sensing ....(dang, can't use the word sensing cause that's a liberal word) I see people admitting man-made climate change is a given, just immeasurable.
https://youtu.be/MLEpZm957jk
Cool to know that. But there seem to be members who believe that
Can't we put technology into air scrubbing instead of wind,solar,hydro to eliminate the stench to an acceptable level?
(I am impressed with electro taters. :shake:)
But seriously (there it is again) what's more perfect than taking all the crap we consume and throw away and burning it to create a truly sustainable fuel ?
Members here seem to have knowledge of this. Answer?
Seems reasonable in light of this topic.
Exactly. No effect.Hound,
So why not burn the one truly renewable resource we have.
Trash.
We don't need coal or oil, we have trash. Seriously.
(With souped up air scrubbers)
Gets rid of trash problem and fossil fuel problem. 2 birds, 1 stone.
Cars...nevermind electricity. .used cooking oil. We can grow it, cook with it and dispose of it. Renewable.
Nevermind just drill.
Just burn. No effect.
Seriously. ( there it is again)
Note: the whole Al Gore thing is messed up. IMO.
Cars...nevermind electricity. .used cooking oil. We can grow it, cook with it and dispose of it. Renewable.The United States uses 840,000,000 (840 Million) gallons of (fossil/geologically derived) oil per day. Approximately 51% of that is refined to gasoline to power vehicles: 428.4 MILLION GALLONS of cooking oil per day (assuming a one to one correspondence, which I doubt cooking oil is even close to matching the btu rating of gasoline) to power the existing gas powered vehicles. That's a LOT o' firggin' french fries (about 1 1/2 gallons per person per day... and I doubt those under the age of two will be able to keep up... meaning even higher consumption for the actual average)! I'm guessing a significant portion of the American population would very prematurely die of coronary artery diseases if they consumed enough fried foods to recycle enough cooking oil to fuel the vehicle fleet. Maybe that IS the solution! If we can get the average life expectancy down to 42 (or 30) maybe the population would be reduced enough to power the eventually greatly reduced number of vehicles. I suspect this could be accomplished via a government mandate the every person must prove that they daily consume at least one pound (more likely at least 2 or 3 pounds would be required) each of french fries and fried chicken (or other more exotic fried foods such as onion rings or fried green tomatoes). I'm sure Gore could add to his $300 Million net worth (thanks to his carbon tax/trading schemes) by inventing (in addition to the internet) an implantable chip what would automatically verify a person's daily fat intake and put them on double secret probation if they don't consume the societially-beneficial amount daily. I can hardly wait!
Science is to question everything until proven. Please don't tell me you are still questioning that the earth isn't the center of the universe. Or the sun revolves around the earth. Or gravity exists.
Gravity is a theory.....
I wonder if the "97% of scientists" "consensus" is that this case, like the other recently reported one, concur with "officials" that the data "adjustments" were truly due to "equipment error" and that it's purely a coincidence that all the data from several "malfunctioning" recorders that was "adjusted" was all altered in the direction of making it appear as if temperatures were warmer than they actually were? So many coincidences!All these liars getting caught now. It was only a matter of time. It's too bad that the lies were told and believed for so long that we have a whole generation of global warming believers.And no amount of truth and the liars getting caught red handed will change their minds. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/
Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.
Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.
.....
Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are “propaganda” and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.
Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of “dramatic warming” over the past century.
All these liars getting caught now. It was only a matter of time. It's too bad that the lies were told and believed for so long that we have a whole generation of global warming believers.And no amount of truth and the liars getting caught red handed will change their minds. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:Yeah, facts are (mostly) irrelevant to the ideology and creation of the all-powerful state.
Fido And Fluffy Are Ruining The Environment, UCLA Study SaysAl Gore should put his two dogs to sleep to show he is all in on this climate change BS. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
America's beloved dogs and cats play a significant role in causing global warming, according to a new study by UCLA.
https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says
When it comes to global warming, Fido and Fluffy are part of the problem, a new study by UCLA indicates.
Most cat or dog lovers would say they can't imagine living in a world without pets, but as the threat of global warming increases, environmentally conscious pet lovers may need to make some tough choices, according to the study.
Pet ownership in the United States creates about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, UCLA researchers found. That's the equivalent of driving 13.6 million cars for a year. The problem lies with the meat-filled diets of kitties and pooches, according to the study by UCLA geography professor Gregory Okin.
Dogs and cats are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the impacts of meat production in the United States, said Orkin. Compared to a plant-based diet, meat production "requires more energy, land and water and has greater environmental consequences in terms of erosion, pesticides and waste," the study found.
And what goes in, must come out. In terms of waste, Okin noted, feeding pets also leads to about 5.1 million tons of feces every year, roughly equivalent to the total trash production of Massachusetts.
Bob Marley said it best back in 1980:What about Barry McGuire back in 1965 (song written by P.F. Sloan in 1964)?
What about Barry McGuire back in 1965 (song written by P.F. Sloan in 1964)?
But you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
How much does it cost? I'll buy it
The time is all we've lost, I'll try it
But he can't even run his own life
I'll be damned if he'll run mine, Sunshine
I always think of Ten Years After lyrics as a fitting statement for today:
Every where is freaks and hairies,
dykes and fairies;
Tell me where is sanity?
Of course, I would change "Hairies" to Trannies
Gore's "movie" "documentary" sequel to "An Inconvenient Truth", “An Inconvenient Sequel”, has flopped at the box office it's opening weekend. Let the excuses begin.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/07/under-performance-gores-sequel-comes-in-dismal-15th-at-box-office-gore-fans-allege-film-was-sabotaged-by-paramount/‘This was not supposed to happen’: Gore’s sequel comes in dismal 15th at box office – Gore fans allege film ‘sabotaged’ by ParamountClimate activists in shock at Gore sequel bombing at box office: 'This was not supposed to happen'
'Al Gore Gets Ripped Off Again'
'He should have demanded a recount.'
Gore fans reduced to blaming the distributor. 'A botched strategy by Paramount Pictures effectively sabotaged the nationwide release' of Gore's sequel.
Gore had urged followers to ‘fill theaters’ to send message to ‘Trump and the other climate deniers’(http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-07/199516_5_.jpg)
The problem with focusing on temperature is that it allows the paid climate skeptics to point the oil-soaked finger of accusation every time a winter storm comes along and shout "HA! It's all lies!"
The headline here should be destabilization. More heat puts more moisture in the atmosphere creating more intense storms. These storms move both hot and cold air in ways that are wildly unpredictable, but devastating none the less. If you want to see the effects of climate change check out what's happening in the world of insurance and disaster relief programs. A few more years like the last one and most of us will be on our own when it comes to cleanup.
What's more damaging to climate science credibility is that the scientists themselves insist that everybody else needs to do something, but very few of them take steps in their own lives. Is Gore willing to downscale his mansion and stop flying around the world on private jets? Hell no, but he's asking people in coal country to abandon their jobs. No wonder people hate him so much. That goes for every annoying climate science preacher who has lots of nasty words for deniers but refuse to accept responsibility themselves. If they want people to listen they should be leading by example.
Parts of Houston will never be rebuilt an the people who left won't have anything to come back to. They are our country's first climate refugees. Soon other coastal cities will follow the same pattern. Too expensive to rebuild just to have it wash away again. As more of the population gets displaced and essentially services disrupted eventually there won't be any more wealth to hold on to.
You are right about one thing. Political solutions won't help. It's already too late.
The problem with focusing on temperature is that it allows the paid climate skeptics to point the oil-soaked finger of accusation every time a winter storm comes along and shout "HA! It's all lies!"One hallmark of "science" is the falsifiability principle: There must be some data/facts that if discovered would render the proposed hypothesis false. If ALL weather and climate data (cooling, warming, extreme rainfall, extreme drought, more than average extreme weather events, fewer than average extreme weather events, etc. etc. etc.) are ALL claimed to be indicators that verify the "global warming"/"global climate change"/"global climate crisis" hypothesis, that means there is no data of any kind of events that could falsify the hypothesis. No matter what happens, it proves the hypothesis. It is thus unfalsifiable. It is thus not science.
The problem with focusing on temperature is that it allows the paid climate skeptics to point the oil-soaked finger of accusation every time a winter storm comes along and shout "HA! It's all lies!"
The headline here should be destabilization. More heat puts more moisture in the atmosphere creating more intense storms. These storms move both hot and cold air in ways that are wildly unpredictable, but devastating none the less. If you want to see the effects of climate change check out what's happening in the world of insurance and disaster relief programs. A few more years like the last one and most of us will be on our own when it comes to cleanup.
What's more damaging to climate science credibility is that the scientists themselves insist that everybody else needs to do something, but very few of them take steps in their own lives. Is Gore willing to downscale his mansion and stop flying around the world on private jets? Hell no, but he's asking people in coal country to abandon their jobs. No wonder people hate him so much. That goes for every annoying climate science preacher who has lots of nasty words for deniers but refuse to accept responsibility themselves. If they want people to listen they should be leading by example.
The first question is if globally the climate is becoming less stable, which shouldn't be difficult to confirm. Then look for what has changed that might have caused it, which seems pretty obvious when you look at all the evidence.
We burned through more than half the earth's stored hydrocarbons in about a hundred years, and as a result our herd population exploded to levels completely unsustainable without massive energy extraction. It's a huge failure in social planning.
The people pushing junk science are the ones who stand to profit most burning through the other half and maintaining that dysfunctional status quo until it blows up in our face.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/12/in-startling-reversal-scientific-american-counsels-people-to-chill-out-over-global-warming/Hmmm, real science (realists) contradicting fake science (climate alarmists). I think the paid climate alarmists are scared to lose their funding. The OP claimed the climate change denying members are paid, but it is just not true. It is a fact that the climate alarmists are the ones getting the funds. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
In Startling Reversal, Scientific American Counsels People to ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming
Excerpts:
Apocalyptic scenarios attributed to global warming are simply false and the human race will be able to accommodate whatever “climate change” throws at us, claims a remarkably sober new essay in Scientific American.
The essay, penned by John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, analyzes two recent reports by “ecomodernists” who reject climate panic and frame the question of climate change and humanity’s ability to cope with it in radically new terms.
One of the reports, a work called “Enlightened Environmentalism” by Harvard iconoclast Steven Pinker, urges people to regain some much-needed perspective on climate, especially in the context of the overwhelming material benefits of industrialization.
.....
The second report put forward by Horgan is a recent article by Will Boisvert titled “The Conquest of Climate,” which contends that the “consequences for human well-being will be small” even if human greenhouse emissions significantly warm the planet.
Boisvert, who has been described as a “left-wing environmental expert, is no “climate denier,” yet he calls for climate alarmists to take a deep breath and step back from doomsday forecasts that likely have little to do with what will actually take place in the future.
.....
While climate skeptics will welcome this gust of common sense wafting in from the Scientific American, establishment climate alarmists will undoubtedly seek to quash the news, knowing it could affect not only the funding they depend on, but the ideologically driven political programs they seek to impose on the world.
After all, if the world is not under imminent peril from climate change, who will listen to—and fund—the prophets of doom?
Hmmm, real science (realists) contradicting fake science (climate alarmists). I think the paid climate alarmists are scared to lose their funding. The OP claimed the climate change denying members are paid, but it is just not true. It is a fact that the climate alarmists are the ones getting the funds. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Now I wonder when ROBTMC is going to get paid by the OP? :o :o :o
OP was going to bet on conor macgregor vs. Mayweather, so I don't think he has the financial wherewithal to pay all us deniers offI can't imagine why he doesn't have the finances? He works in IT and is an expert (Proved him wrong, of course :rofl:). When I worked in IT I made almost double what I make now. If I were to make double what I make now, I would have more and better guns in my safe. And more safes. And a bigger house. And a nice car. And I could afford to pay off my bets... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
He works in IT and is an expert
Hmmm, real science (realists) contradicting fake science (climate alarmists). I think the paid climate alarmists are scared to lose their funding. The OP claimed the climate change denying members are paid, but it is just not true. It is a fact that the climate alarmists are the ones getting the funds. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
But it wasn't real science. It was a faith-based opinion puff piece promoting the Religion of Progress gospel that "we will figure this out somehow" because we are so good at dominating nature, which is a tragically laughable premise. At least they are able to finally admit it versus flat out denial. At least that's a step in the right direction.
But seriously do you watch the news? Are you really not able to see what's going on? The weather is getting nuts. According to paleoclimatology whenever there's a sudden warming like this we see a corresponding die off in species. Well guess what. This is what a Mass Extinction Event looks like.
"The Great Blizzard of 1888: More than 400 people in the Northeast died during the Great Blizzard, the worst death toll in United States history for a winter storm. On March 11 and March 12 in 1888, this devastating nor'easter dumped 40 to 50 inches (100 to 127 cm) of snow in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Huge snowdrifts buried houses and trains, and 200 ships sank in waves whipped up by fierce winds."
"The Great Blizzard of 1899: From Georgia to Maine, a punishing storm shut down the Eastern Seaboard beginning Feb. 11, 1899. The wintry weather brought record-low temperatures, some of which still stand today, as well as record snowfall. The snow showers started in Florida and moved north, dropping 20 inches (50 centimeters) in Washington, D.C., in a single day and a record 34 inches (86 cm) in New Jersey."
But it wasn't real science. It was a faith-based opinion puff piece promoting the Religion of Progress gospel that "we will figure this out somehow" because we are so good at dominating nature, which is a tragically laughable premise. At least they are able to finally admit it versus flat out denial. At least that's a step in the right direction.I guess you don't see the hypocrisy in what you wrote? One one hand you say we can control the climate enough to cause sudden warming. Then on the other you say it is faith based to think we can somehow figure it out how to deal with it. You can't have it both ways. You can't say we can cause it but not deal with it. If we can cause the climate to change we can certainly figure out how to deal with it and prevent it. The problem is the fake science that states man is causing all of this with no proof to back it up. Only the naive believe that man is causing this until we have real proof of the cause of the weather changes that occur naturally. BTW, anyone can predict mass extinction when it will never happen in our lifetime. It is a nothing burger.
But seriously do you watch the news? Are you really not able to see what's going on? The weather is getting nuts. According to paleoclimatology whenever there's a sudden warming like this we see a corresponding die off in species. Well guess what. This is what a Mass Extinction Event looks like.
I believe in climate change but not an alarmist. In 20 years, the polar bears will be dead, all of the beach sand will disappear because of rising sea levels, and my AC bill will be 50% higher. Nothing to be alarmed about, just a life style change. When the Manhattan subways were flooded, the municipality used it as an excuse to replace the 100 years old electrical systems. Maybe if they have to replace it again within the next 10 to 20 years will they start noticing.Seriously? ???
Seriously? ???Sure, eventually the islands will be surrounded by sea walls after the resorts give up trying to replace the sand that the waves wash away.
I guess you don't see the hypocrisy in what you wrote? One one hand you say we can control the climate enough to cause sudden warming. Then on the other you say it is faith based to think we can somehow figure it out how to deal with it. You can't have it both ways. You can't say we can cause it but not deal with it. If we can cause the climate to change we can certainly figure out how to deal with it and prevent it. The problem is the fake science that states man is causing all of this with no proof to back it up. Only the naive believe that man is causing this until we have real proof of the cause of the weather changes that occur naturally. BTW, anyone can predict mass extinction when it will never happen in our lifetime. It is a nothing burger.I agree that if people caused the climate change then people can fix it. To do so, we have to spend money on research and come up with practical solutions instead of putting caps on oil and gas. I would mention coal but that's a dead resource unless you can figure out how to cheaply make diamonds out of it.
Sure, eventually the islands will be surrounded by sea walls after the resorts give up trying to replace the sand that the waves wash away.Loss of sand isn't a direct result of sea level rise. Yes, continued sea level rise will likely result in construction of more sea walls, then more erosion if not done properly, and then continued erosion can result in the apparent of the "loss" of sand. I guess one could logically get to "all of the beach sand will disappear because of rising sea levels", but it's not like the sand itself just disappears.
I agree that if people caused the climate change then people can fix it. To do so, we have to spend money on research and come up with practical solutions instead of putting caps on oil and gas. I would mention coal but that's a dead resource unless you can figure out how to cheaply make diamonds out of it.That is a huge leap of faith you stated here. IF people cause climate change. There is no evidence that man can effect the climate enough to make a difference. What the scientists say is that climate change is manmade. But they conveniently NEVER SAY what percentage of climate is actually caused by man as compared to naturally occurring climate change. They conveniently leave that out. And when pushed they admit they don't know what percentage of climate change is actually caused by man. Could it be 50% or 0.000000000000000005%??????????? The point is no one knows. Not even the so called climate scientists who are paid to say what they do and leave out some of the facts/evidence.
I guess you don't see the hypocrisy in what you wrote? One one hand you say we can control the climate enough to cause sudden warming. Then on the other you say it is faith based to think we can somehow figure it out how to deal with it. You can't have it both ways. You can't say we can cause it but not deal with it. If we can cause the climate to change we can certainly figure out how to deal with it and prevent it. The problem is the fake science that states man is causing all of this with no proof to back it up. Only the naive believe that man is causing this until we have real proof of the cause of the weather changes that occur naturally. BTW, anyone can predict mass extinction when it will never happen in our lifetime. It is a nothing burger.
I will ask you to go back and read my posts to the OP and please provide the proof I was asking from him for several weeks. He never could provide it because it doesn't exist. I suspect you will not be able to provide it either........ We'll see.
If you are driving a car and you stomp on the accelerator pedal to the floor until you hit the limiter chip, pop the steering wheel off, and throw it out the window then technically you are still driving right up to the moment that the car slams head first into whatever unlucky obstacle gets in the way. You still have the option of taking your foot of the accelerator and hitting the brakes, but that doesn't mean the situation is under control. Quite the opposite, and there's a very similar effect when we collectively treat the atmosphere like an aerial sewer.Well then I guess that settles everything. You cannot provide the proof I have been asking for throughout this thread either.
As far as opinions go I'll stick with the Pentagon and vast majority of scientists vs. the fossil fuel industry's public relations campaigns to keep their billions in energy subsidies.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/31/climate-change-threatens-us-military-bases-pentagon
That is a huge leap of faith you stated here. IF people cause climate change. There is no evidence that man can effect the climate enough to make a difference. What the scientists say is that climate change is manmade. But they conveniently NEVER SAY what percentage of climate is actually caused by man as compared to naturally occurring climate change. They conveniently leave that out. And when pushed they admit they don't know what percentage of climate change is actually caused by man. Could it be 50% or 0.000000000000000005%??????????? The point is no one knows. Not even the so called climate scientists who are paid to say what they do and leave out some of the facts/evidence.I agree.
My position on this subject has been clear. I do believe that man can effect the climate. But my position is since the percentage of how much man can effect the climate as compared to naturally occurring climate is unable to be quantified at this time it cannot be a large enough percentage that it can be measured at this time. When this significant number can finally be determined I will believe or not what the climate scientists have been saying.
I have challenged everyone here to provide me with the scientific evidence that the so called climate scientists have proof of how much (percentage) man actually effects the climate compared to naturally occurring climate change. And so far no one has produced this evidence. I will ask you to do the same.
Here's a direct link to the report.Fake news! Fake news! :rofl:
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf
Here's a direct link to the report.What does this have to do with MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE? I glanced through this report and saw nothing that speaks of anything even close as to mankind influencing the climate in any way. If I am mistaken then please point out which pages link mankind to the climate issues as stated in this report.
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf
What does this have to do with MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE? I glanced through this report and saw nothing that speaks of anything even close as to mankind influencing the climate in any way. If I am mistaken then please point out which pages link mankind to the climate issues as stated in this report.Duuuude. He, like, knows what he knows maaaannn!
You still have not presented any proof that I have been asking for continuously throughout this thread. Climate alarmists such as yourself only provide good value when you have content and proof to add to the subject matter. Otherwise you are just like the little kid who cried wolf too often. This report only describes climate occurrences and losses due to them. Nothing about the subject of this thread. I am honestly trying to link the two together and I fail to see what this report has to do with anything we are discussing here.
Duuuude. He, like, knows what he knows maaaannn!:rofl:
Guns cause climate change. Turn in your gunsI heard a guy on NPR last week say that the aerosolized lead that is emitted from guns are causing environmental damage, and therefore all guns need to be banned.
I heard a guy on NPR last week say that the aerosolized lead that is emitted from guns are causing environmental damage, and therefore all guns need to be banned.:rofl:
(http://a.deviantart.com/avatars/d/i/dinyctis.gif)