|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:17:25 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote: As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled "2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present. Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland. The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following: 1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, carry right on as if the Hockey still stands. 2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted. 3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda that claims industrialisation is to blame. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. That's why the Mann-IPCC-Global Warming Hysteria tried to beat sensible people who know their history with the Hockey Stick to submit to the lie that there were no Roman and Medieval Warm periods, warmer than today, and no Little Ice Age, because those three events prove that Global Warming, if any, are natural. 4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming? 5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them....) 6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? You didn't know that, did you, because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome. In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters on how flat the earth is. At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts. Andre Jute Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus You and slow tom seem to have a real hard-on for dr.spencer. Here's another opinion: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011...lunder-part-1/ AFAIK Spencers support of "intelligent" design shows he has little regard for following the science. Looking for data to support a conclusion isn't science. |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On 6/17/2019 10:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2019 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:18:08 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote: Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle. I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural climatic variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA have actually counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that the Weather Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't show any heating and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the weather satellite program, finally resigned when he could no longer stand the blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He expressed the belief that these two would very soon begin counterfeiting the satellite records to match their computer models and that is now exactly what they have been doing. Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search the daily newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has computerized their records. This gives pretty good records back to the 1850's. But actually looking at the daily records in spots all over the world you can see that NASA has actually lied about practically everything. They have been working VERY hard to make the actual records look like their worthless computer models. You and he obviously do not understand the physics of temerature recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an excellent explanation on the web if you want to search for it. FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I live and the actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often varies from the average be a significant amount. There is also another report on the web lookng at the "variation" of those readings and ointig out that whie the actual "readings" seem to be similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot more "shuddering/ oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature. Which fits in the the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is now more energy in "the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not peaks) extremes. Not to mention that "ice caps" and glacier are melting and seas are rising. But than, there are people who believe that the earth is flat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies https://www.livescience.com/24310-fl...th-belief.html https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/some-p...world-is-flat/ What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play along with someone's pet theory: https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...ction-1688833/ Specific deadlines and the like are notoriously difficult to predict. That's true of everything. But it certainly doesn't disprove the overall effect. See https://skepticalscience.com/himalay...rs-growing.htm or dozens of other sources. Ever been to Glacier National Park? The photos and views comparing past and present are pretty startling. Change is normal. Under the retreating Greenland glaciers are farmed fields with stone borders from ~1000AD. Maybe we'll discover some in Glacier Park one day; you never know what you don't know. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:14:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
Change is normal. Correct. It is the changing rate of change that is the problem. If farmers can not get reliable/predictable weather, then you don't get food. Under the retreating Greenland glaciers are farmed fields with stone borders from ~1000AD. That is a known. It was covered in any decent history of the world. It is all the other events/activities that are causing concern. Maybe we'll discover some in Glacier Park one day; you never know what you don't know. Sure, but you can be reasonable sure what is real and likely. You can also hazard 'worst case scenarios" and I'm someone that considers "insurance" a wise investment in this world. YMMV. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On 6/18/2019 9:05 PM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:14:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote: Change is normal. Correct. It is the changing rate of change that is the problem. If farmers can not get reliable/predictable weather, then you don't get food. Under the retreating Greenland glaciers are farmed fields with stone borders from ~1000AD. That is a known. It was covered in any decent history of the world. It is all the other events/activities that are causing concern. Maybe we'll discover some in Glacier Park one day; you never know what you don't know. Sure, but you can be reasonable sure what is real and likely. You can also hazard 'worst case scenarios" and I'm someone that considers "insurance" a wise investment in this world. YMMV. "worst case scenarios" would be me reliving 2010, when I'd find, as Al Gore wrote in his 1992 book, major world cities under water and widespread famine from mass crop failu http://www.peopleandtheplanet.com/image.php@id=1535 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On 6/18/2019 9:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2019 10:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2019 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:18:08 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote: Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle. I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural climatic variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA have actually counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that the Weather Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't show any heating and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the weather satellite program, finally resigned when he could no longer stand the blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He expressed the belief that these two would very soon begin counterfeiting the satellite records to match their computer models and that is now exactly what they have been doing. Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search the daily newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has computerized their records. This gives pretty good records back to the 1850's. But actually looking at the daily records in spots all over the world you can see that NASA has actually lied about practically everything. They have been working VERY hard to make the actual records look like their worthless computer models. You and he obviously do not understand the physics of temerature recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an excellent explanation on the web if you want to search for it. FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I live and the actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often varies from the average be a significant amount. There is also another report on the web lookng at the "variation" of those readings and ointig out that whie the actual "readings" seem to be similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot more "shuddering/ oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature. Which fits in the the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is now more energy in "the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not peaks) extremes. Not to mention that "ice caps" and glacier are melting and seas are rising. But than, there are people who believe that the earth is flat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies https://www.livescience.com/24310-fl...th-belief.html https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/some-p...world-is-flat/ What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play along with someone's pet theory: https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...ction-1688833/ Specific deadlines and the like are notoriously difficult to predict. That's true of everything. But it certainly doesn't disprove the overall effect. See https://skepticalscience.com/himalay...rs-growing.htm or dozens of other sources. Ever been to Glacier National Park? The photos and views comparing past and present are pretty startling. Change is normal. Some change is normal. Some change is abnormal. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On 6/15/2019 5:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
snip Yes, CRV (California Refund Value). https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer/programinfo/faq The remaining recycling centers continue to accept CRV recyclables, as long as the state continues to pay them for the collected materials. However, since nobody wants the PET bottles, it's unlikely that this practice will continue. The state isn't paying for the collected materials, the money comes from the CRV fee paid when you buy the product. The original goal of the whole CRV program was to reduce litter of glass, plastic, and aluminum bottles. The state benefits financially when a CRV container is tossed since they don't have to refund the deposit. The problem with recycling is that the amount of energy and money it takes to properly recycle is very high. Wash out that plastic food container with hot water, sort it, pick it up in a separate truck, pay the sorting cost at the recycling center, ship it to where it can be used to make something useful, is all more costly than using virgin plastic or steel or glass. Aluminum is still worth recycling. Not generating so much plastic waste in the first place would be better. I was just in Europe. The countries I was in have safe tap water. But you'll rarely find it available in a drinking fountain, most everyone's buying drinking water in single-use plastic bottles. In San Francisco, just past security there's a station to fill a water bottle. In the Vienna airport there was no such animal. We finally found one drinking fountain hidden in a hallway in one terminal. Also, we were told to leave empty containers (water, beer, etc.) next to a garbage can where they would be picked up by people that make their money doing recycling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Protecting the head ... | Nick Kew | UK | 24 | December 30th 06 10:19 AM |
Protecting my shins | pkplonker | Unicycling | 8 | November 19th 06 10:02 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | firisfirefly | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:43 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | mornish | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:40 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | Jerrick | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:39 AM |