Page 74 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2464697071727374757677787984 ... LastLast
Results 1,461 to 1,480 of 2209
  1. #1461  
    This isn't Off-Topic discussion. This is "No-Topic" banter and always at someone else's expense. You and gojeda should just get a room (with a view, of course).
  2. #1462  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    It has as much to do with neoconservatives as it does with global warming.
    No. Much, much moreso.

    How many more sets of zero's would've had to have been added to the deathtoll on 09/11/2001 if Al Queda had genuinely been declaring war by driving just one jet into any 1 of the 3 nuclear reactors they passed over on their way into Manhattan?

    US nuclear plant sealed off after bomb found
  3. #1463  
    Please keep the discussion in this thread on global warming. Thanks.
  4. #1464  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Please keep the discussion in this thread on global warming. Thanks.
    Uummm ... ok.

    Discussion of nuclear energy, outside of simply being mentioned off-handedly, without critical thought, and in passing as an alternative energy source to curb greenhouse gas emissions which exacerbate global climate changes, is now closed.
  5. #1465  
    Very good.
  6. #1466  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    This isn't Off-Topic discussion. This is "No-Topic" banter
    And it's interesting how often you wind up involved in it. I think the wrong one of us is being called out as self-appointed hall monitor.
    and always at someone else's expense.
    And at whose expense did you start this little diversion? Certainly not your own.
    You and gojeda should just get a room (with a view, of course).
    Not that there's anything wrong with that?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #1467  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    And it's interesting how often you wind up involved in it.
    Only if I've been previously involved in the thread and am continuing to take an active interest when I can. May God have mercy on my soul.

    I think the wrong one of us is being called out as self-appointed hall monitor.
    I've had my share of misstatements and the like. Don't take it personally if someone has the unmitigated gall to respectfully clarify.

    And at whose expense did you start this little diversion? Certainly not your own.
    False premise, as my "start" was in response. I simply corrected a false, single-sided premise, that's all. Nothing personal, for God's sake.

    Keeping this non-topic b/s going does nothing for the integrity of this thread, this forum, or this site. Agreed? Can we simply move on without parting shots or baited invites? Unless there's something you'd like to take up in PMs as these types of exchanges have no value on any level.
  8. #1468  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Only if I've been previously involved in the thread and am continuing to take an active interest when I can.
    I don't think which specific threads it occurs in were relevant to my statement.
    May God have mercy on my soul.
    Playing the sarcastic martyr doesn't seem to suit one who claims to have such problems with sarcasm.
    False premise, as my "start" was in response.
    Are rolling eyes a sign of respectful clarification?
    There is no premise in my post. I'm trying to guage where cell is coming from. You yourself seemed to ask a very similar question in the not too distant past. One can only assume that cell answered you in PM, or your dogged determination to repost unanswered questions is as inconsistently applied as your posit towards me.
    Nothing personal, for God's sake.
    Quite the contrary. Your response was directly personal in nature.
    Keeping this non-topic b/s going does nothing for the integrity of this thread, this forum, or this site. Agreed?
    I tend to agree it serves not much useful purpose, but then again, I think anonymous forums have integrity issues to begin with.
    Can we simply move on without parting shots or baited invites?
    As I said, up to you. Considering this response, I'm not optimistic.
    Unless there's something you'd like to take up in PMs as these types of exchanges have no value on any level.
    Then why would I want to take it to PM?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #1469  
    Have a nice day. I am.
  10. #1470  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Have a nice day. I am.
    Me too. Heading to watch a game with friends. It's a really beautiful day for it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1471  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    "Global warming, or human-induced climate change, is one of the most prominent environmental issues of our time. It is generally accepted that increases in the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping (greenhouse) gases, particularly carbon dioxide, may underlie any recent warming currently being documented and may contribute to subsequent global environmental change."
    http://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/carbon_cycle/
    Although predictions about the effects of future global warming are speculative and open to much debate, geologists recognize that there were many episodes of global warming in Earth's history. Better understanding of ancient environments may help us be better able to predict the future.
    Evidence suggests that the Cretaceous period was notably warmer than today, with no polar glaciation.

    http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/coal_poste...ls/global.html

    A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.
    Where is the source for this assertion? What polling has been done in order to make this statement?

    Please provide.

    NASA

    ďI have no doubt that globalóthat a trend of global warming exists. Iím not sure itís fair to say that is a problem we must wrestle with.Ē

    ~NASA Administrator Michael Griffin

    http://www.livescience.com/environme...w_griffin.html

    I agree with the views of the USGS and NASA with regards to possible human influence on global warming.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1472  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    And it's interesting how often you wind up involved in it. I think the wrong one of us is being called out as self-appointed hall monitor.

    And at whose expense did you start this little diversion? Certainly not your own.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that?
    As opposed to Modboy and Shortie's room at the Honeymooner's suite at the Pocono Inn he means?

    Oh gee....more pot shots from the insulated sound room in the peanut gallery. How drool.

    I see Shortie's preoccupation with little 'ol me goes on unabated. Modboy is not far behind Im sure.
  13. #1475  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Way to move on.
    Mocking deflection is clearly your thing when you're at a loss for a direct response. How is that working out for you?
  14. #1476  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Keeping this non-topic b/s going does nothing for the integrity of this thread, this forum, or this site. Agreed? Can we simply move on without parting shots or baited invites?
    It seems you've answered your own question. The answer is, No.
  15. #1477  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Mocking deflection is clearly your thing when you're at a loss for a direct response. How is that working out for you?
    Apparently pretty well. Have a nice day. I am.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #1478  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    It seems you've answered your own question. The answer is, No.
    You must also be including the unfinished on-topic business which Toby has made an issue of, but won't actually directly address, which has brought us to this point.

    At least it's on the record and known for what it is.

    Having a great autumn day!
  17. #1479  
    At this time of the year, which is intended to focus on the consideration of others, let's not forget that we're all connected by this single home we call Earth.

    History shows climate changes led to famine and war

    HONG KONG (Reuters) - Global warming is one of the most significant threats facing humankind, researchers warned, as they unveiled a study showing how climate changes in the past led to famine, wars and population declines.

    The world's growing population may be unable to adequately adapt to ecological changes brought about by the expected rise in global temperatures, scientists in China, Hong Kong, the United States and Britain wrote in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    "The warmer temperatures are probably good for a while, but beyond some level plants will be stressed," said Peter Brecke, associate professor in the Georgia Institute of Technology's Sam Nunn School of International Affairs.

    "With more droughts and a rapidly growing population, it is going to get harder and harder to provide food for everyone and thus we should not be surprised to see more instances of starvation and probably more cases of hungry people clashing over scarce food and water."

    Trawling through history and working out correlative patterns, the team found that temperature declines were followed by wars, famines and population reductions.

    The researchers examined the time period between 1400 and 1900, or the Little Ice Age, which recorded the lowest average global temperatures around 1450, 1650 and 1820, each separated by slight warming intervals.

    "When such ecological situations occur, people tend to move to another place. Such mass movement leads to war, like in the 13th century, when the Mongolians suffered a drought and they invaded China," David Zhang, geography professor at the University of Hong Kong, said in an interview on Thursday.

    "Or the Manchurians who moved into central China in 17th century because conditions in the northeast were terrible during the cooling period," he said.

    "Epidemics may not be directly linked to temperature (change), but it is a consequence of migration, which creates chances for disease to spread."

    HALF THE WORLD AT RISK

    Although the study cited only periods of temperature decline to social disruptions, the researchers said the same prediction could be made of global warming.

    A report last week said climate change will put half the world's countries at risk of conflict or serious political instability.

    International Alert, a London-based conflict resolution group, identified 46 countries -- home to 2.7 billion people -- where it said the effects of climate change would create a high risk of violent conflict. It identified another 56 states where there was a risk of political instability.

    "I would expect to see some pretty serious conflicts that are clearly linked to climate change on the international scene by 2020," International Alert secretary general Dan Smith told Reuters in a telephone interview.

    Near the top of the list are west and central Africa, with clashes already reported in northern Ghana between herders and farmers as agricultural patterns change.

    Bangladesh could also see dangerous changes, while the visible decline in levels of the River Ganges in India, on which 400 million people depend, could spark new tensions there.

    Water shortages would make solving tensions in the already volatile Middle East even harder, Smith said, while currently peaceful Latin American states could be destabilized by unrest following changes in the melting of glaciers affecting rivers.

    Unless communities and governments begin discussing the issues in advance, he said, there is a risk climate shift could be the spark that relights wars such as those in Liberia and Sierra Leone in west Africa or the Caucasus on Russia's borders. Current economic growth in developing states could also be hit.
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1480  
    Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

    There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?


    The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

    But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.


    To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

    If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

    So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

    All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

    Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

    And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.


    Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

    Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5294

Posting Permissions