Xtra News Community 2
March 19, 2024, 03:26:49 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 55   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”  (Read 35266 times)
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #725 on: September 05, 2017, 08:09:55 am »

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #726 on: September 05, 2017, 08:10:12 am »


from the Los Angeles Times....

Hurricane Harvey offers lessons Republicans will probably ignore

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PDT - Monday, September 04, 2017



HURRICANE HARVEY has exposed the weakness of the three shibboleths that have been the guiding political philosophy for two generations of Republicans. Those three shaky imperatives are that 1) lowering taxes is always a good idea, 2) government programs can always be cut and 3) economic growth must always be given priority over environmental concerns.

Until the hurricane hit, House Republicans were all set to chop $876 million from the disaster relief budget for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). That reduction would not produce a savings for taxpayers since the expectation was that the money would go toward buying President Trump's border wall — the wall that Mexico, no matter what Trump claims, will never pay for. Now, reality has set in and the GOP congressmen realize there is a reason government needs to set money aside for disaster relief: Disasters always happen.

It is wishful thinking, I know, but this moment really should provide a broader object lesson to Republicans. There is a deep flaw in the way they put together budgets both at the national and state levels. They start with the premise that any governmental function can get by on less — that national parks, for instance, will not be hurt by continuous reductions in funds for basic maintenance or that quality educators can be attracted to public schools even if salaries are kept so low that teachers become eligible for poverty programs (as has happened in Republican-ruled Oklahoma). Then, after trimming money for vital services, they cut taxes for big corporations and wealthy individuals on the theory that the economy will thereby be stimulated and eventually more tax revenue will pour in.

As folks in places like super-red-state Kansas have learned, when you budget this way, the government begins to run out of money, government services grow shabby, the economy actually suffers and legislators are left with the choice of raising taxes or making even more draconian cuts. Or, on the national level, the federal debt keeps going up because even the deepest reductions to programs like food stamps and environmental protection and diplomacy and disaster relief will not be enough to balance the books as long as trillions of dollars are still being spent on the military, Social Security and Medicare — particularly if tax cuts for the rich are tossed into the mix.

And, of course, sharply reducing taxes is currently at the top of the Republican agenda. They euphemistically call it tax “reform”. Trump went to Missouri a few days ago to sell the illusion that such reform will benefit workers and the middle class, but, in truth, it will simply give back even more federal dollars to big corporations and very wealthy people who already have more money than they know what to do with. One may ask where exactly does Trump plan to get the money for his wall and for a big infrastructure program and for a rebuilding plan for the hurricane-hammered region of Texas if these high-end tax cuts are enacted?

Another lesson from Hurricane Harvey is that allowing decades of sprawling growth to pave over the landscape and subvert natural processes will, sooner or later, produce dire consequences. In Texas, folks do not like regulations. They do not like government telling them where to build a housing subdivision or a chemical plant or a highway. Houston has famously grown to be the fourth-largest city in the United States by dispensing with zoning laws as the metropolis expanded across the flat, clay soil plain with little regard for wetlands and bayous. You can see the result of those policies in all the photographs of Houston neighborhoods drowned in a vast lake of brown water. Now all those government-hating Texas libertarians expect the federal government to bail them out.

Under the Obama administration, new rules were imposed that required federally supported rebuilding efforts to take into account the effects of climate change. In other words, hurricane-ravaged buildings and bridges and roads needed to be built to withstand the bigger floods and storms to come. But the Trump administration, operating on the prevailing Republican supposition that climate change can be denied or ignored, has revoked those rules. That means the infrastructure of Houston will be restored to the same old standards. The certain result is that, when the Gulf of Mexico warms even more in the years to come, the temperature rise will multiply the destructive power of future hurricanes and taxpayers will be stuck paying for yet another disaster that could have been mitigated if common sense, prudence and science had been followed.

This kind of governance is idiotic but, sadly, it will take more than a monster storm to blow away the erroneous notions of today's Republican Party.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-hurricane-lessons-20170903-story.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #727 on: September 05, 2017, 10:07:19 am »

Didn't read the spam article. The picture is a typical stunt by the bullshit brigade lefty media. It's know as the straw man. Flood victims are calling for smaller government? Nope just the lefty bullshit brigade media using the propaganda techniques they learned from the soviets and the Nazis.
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #728 on: September 05, 2017, 10:13:11 am »

Advocates of less bloated govt bureaucracies want emergency services rendered ineffective? Nope. Just more lies from the lefty bullshit brigade media.
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #729 on: September 05, 2017, 11:47:02 am »

Meanwhile in the hot dry apocalypse known as Australia...
Record ski seasons and spring snow in low lying areas, yet again 😂
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #730 on: September 05, 2017, 11:53:13 am »

Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #731 on: September 05, 2017, 03:55:19 pm »

Bullshit-brigade alarmist models vs observed reality....

Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #732 on: September 05, 2017, 04:19:37 pm »


1, 2, 3, 4, 5 posts in a row again.

You really need to do something about your short-attention span (ie....think before you post and put it all in one post), or before we know it, this thread will be up to reply #749 and I will be posting that brilliant graph again to begin the next page of the thread with reply #750.
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #733 on: September 05, 2017, 04:42:33 pm »

Hey if you actually pay attention you'll notice I think about what I'm doing, as opposed to just mindlessly spamming out the same copy and paste shit over and over 😁
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #734 on: September 05, 2017, 05:29:33 pm »

One day KTJ all these graphs will sink in and you'll have light bulb moment of "actually the theory of catastrophic human caused global warming doesn't make sense and is most likely a crock of shit". I'm not holding my breath but maybe if you give the bong and the shrooms a rest 😁...
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #735 on: September 05, 2017, 05:49:04 pm »


The vast majority of climate scientists don't agree with you. And they have plenty of peer-reviewed research on their side.

Desperate people, such as YOU, drag out all sorts of dodgy science which hasn't been peer-reviewed and present it as gospel, because people like you don't give a stuff about trashing the planet. You don't care if you leave a scorched earth for your grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren, because basically you are selfish and live entirely in the here & now.
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #736 on: September 05, 2017, 06:12:59 pm »

Science isn't about consensus. Even it was, do you believe "the majority" of climate scientists believe humans are causing catastrophic warming because of some "97% consensus" meme you heard about?
Report Spam   Logged
Donald
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 898



« Reply #737 on: September 05, 2017, 06:14:05 pm »

Can you please tell me how to speed up global warming..I want to grow tomatoes in the winter😜
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #738 on: September 05, 2017, 06:16:37 pm »

Unfortunately climate science has become like wimmins studies. A mad echo chamber where if you dare question their batty conclusions you'll be "no platformed". Sort of like nazi Germany or the soviet union.
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #739 on: September 05, 2017, 06:19:36 pm »

Donald just leave the lights on all night and drive a bigger car. Then you'll be in the tropics in a flash 😁
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #740 on: September 05, 2017, 06:25:29 pm »

"Peer review" is a quick check for obvious mistakes. Science climate science peer review has gone mad and been infected by green/left activism it can no longer be trusted.
Report Spam   Logged
Donald
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 898



« Reply #741 on: September 05, 2017, 06:41:54 pm »

And...."just leave the lights on all night and drive a bigger car. Then you'll be in the tropics in a flash 😁"

...I've been doing that for the past 5 years....to no evail...thinking about buying a couple of coal mines...yeah in China and India they have new coal fired power stations starting up every month😉
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #742 on: September 05, 2017, 07:13:52 pm »

https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/50-former-ipcc-experts/
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #743 on: September 05, 2017, 07:24:25 pm »

Here's 50 climate profs actually appointed by the IPCC as climate experts. Think about it....

50 former IPCC experts
1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #744 on: September 05, 2017, 07:57:16 pm »


Oooooooh.....goodie.....the message count is rapidly building up towards the next page.

I'll be able to post my chart again.
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #745 on: September 05, 2017, 07:59:02 pm »




FIVE
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #746 on: September 05, 2017, 07:59:12 pm »




FOUR
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #747 on: September 05, 2017, 07:59:27 pm »




THREE
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #748 on: September 05, 2017, 07:59:38 pm »




TWO
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #749 on: September 05, 2017, 07:59:54 pm »




ONE
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 55   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.065 seconds with 16 queries.