Xtra News Community 2
March 19, 2024, 02:36:58 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 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 55   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”  (Read 35256 times)
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #750 on: September 05, 2017, 08:00:14 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Donald
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 898



« Reply #751 on: September 05, 2017, 08:17:10 pm »

Can ya please tell me how I can speed up global warming....I want to grow mangos😜
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #752 on: September 05, 2017, 08:21:54 pm »

"I'll be able to post my chart again."

Picnic. Sandwich. Short. 😁
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #753 on: September 05, 2017, 08:34:51 pm »

Donald China and India will help watermelons grow very nicely by increasing Co2 in the atmosphere. See, plants evolved when Co2 levels were much higher than today so they love the extra co2😊
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #754 on: September 05, 2017, 10:28:15 pm »


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 #755 on: September 05, 2017, 10:41:53 pm »

Hello? Knock knock. Anyone home in there? 😁
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #756 on: September 05, 2017, 10:45:30 pm »


from The Washington Post....

In a changing Arctic, a lone Coast Guard icebreaker
maneuvers through ice and geopolitics


Once an unforgiving no man's land, the melting Arctic and
its rich resources are now the focus of great power rivals.


By DAN LAMOTHE | 10:00AM EDT - Monday, September 04, 2017

Ice floes surround the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the Arctic Ocean on July 29th. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
Ice floes surround the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the Arctic Ocean on July 29th. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.

ABOARD THE USCGC HEALY IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN — Coast Guard Ensign Ryan Carpenter peered north through a front window of this 420-foot-long ship, directing its bright-red hull through jagged chunks of ice hundreds of miles north of Alaska.

It was only the second time that Carpenter, 23, had driven the 16,400-ton USCGC Healy, one of the U.S. military's two working polar icebreakers. He turned the ship slightly to the left in the sapphire-blue water, and a few seconds later, the ship's bow rumbled through the crusty white ice floe at about 10 mph. Metallic shudders rippled throughout the vessel, a feeling that Arctic rookies often find unnerving.

Carpenter is part of an increasingly pointed U.S. strategy to prepare for competition — and possible conflict — in what was once a frosty no man's land. The warming climate has created Arctic waterways that are growing freer of ice, and with China and Russia increasingly looking toward the region for resources, the United States is studying how many new icebreakers to build, whether to arm them with cruise missiles, and how to deal with more commercial traffic in an area that is still unpredictable and deadly.

Admiral Paul Zukunft, the Coast Guard commandant, recently warned that Russia and China are already encroaching on Arctic waters over the extended U.S. continental shelf. The region is about the size of Texas and rich with oil, minerals and other resources that could be extracted as technology improves.


Ensign Ryan Carpenter and Ensign Taylor Peace navigate the USCGC Healy on July 31st in the Arctic. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
Ensign Ryan Carpenter and Ensign Taylor Peace navigate the USCGC Healy on July 31st in the Arctic.
 — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.


The Healy's route is recorded on a nautical chart on July 28th during a voyage to the Arctic Ocean. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
The Healy's route is recorded on a nautical chart on July 28th during a voyage to the Arctic Ocean.
 — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.


Zukunft said last month in Washington that the situation in the Arctic could someday resemble the contentious disputes in the South China Sea, where China has built man-made islands and military installations over the objections of its neighbors. Russia already has made contested claims that stretch to the North Pole and possesses more than 25 icebreakers, with more on the way.

The next generations of Russian icebreakers aren't being built just to transit polar ice but to fight in it. One kind of ship in the works, the 374-foot Project 23550-class, is designed to be nimble in this environment while carrying naval guns and cruise missiles. The Kremlin also has disclosed plans to build or expand numerous bases along the northeastern Russian coastline, north of the Arctic Circle, including on Wrangel Island, Kotelny Island and at Cape Schmidt.

Meanwhile, China also has arrived in the Arctic, sailing research and exploration vessels while arguing that no nation has sovereignty over these waters and the natural resources below. Chinese military officials have said that sovereignty disputes in the Arctic could require the use of force, according to an assessment written for the Naval War College Review.

The Obama administration proposed building new icebreakers in 2015, citing the warming seas and concerns about Russia's intentions. But the effort to do so has gained new attention in recent months. Despite President Trump's skepticism about climate change, he marveled at the power of polar icebreakers during a May 17th commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy and promised his administration will build “many of them.”


Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Brandon Arciello, a boatswain's mate, slings an anchor to tether a small boat during dive exercises on July 30th in the Arctic Ocean. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Brandon Arciello, a boatswain's mate, slings an anchor to tether a small boat during dive exercises
on July 30th in the Arctic Ocean. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.


Zukunft said that a fleet comprising three new medium icebreakers and three heavy icebreakers would allow the service to retire its older ships and keep one icebreaker perpetually patrolling in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

The Healy was commissioned in 1999, but the other working polar icebreaker, the USCGC Polar Star, is more than 40 years old. It deploys each year to Antarctica, but crew members have resorted to searching eBay for some parts because they are so hard to find, according to Healy crew members familiar with the sister ship.

The cost of the new icebreakers is uncertain at this point. Estimates are often reported to be about $1 billion each because of the reinforced hull and robust engines needed to operate in ice, but Zukunft said he thinks it will be less. A report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published in July recommended that a single class of four heavy icebreakers be purchased in one block buy to save money and suggested that time is running out to do so.

“The nation is ill-equipped to protect its interests and maintain leadership in these regions and has fallen behind other Arctic nations, which have mobilized to expand their access to ice-covered regions,” the report said.


Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Randle Groves, center, participates in a joint Coast Guard-Navy dive operation July 30th off the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Randle Groves, center, participates in a joint Coast Guard-Navy dive operation July 30th off the U.S. Coast Guard
Cutter Healy. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.


Chief Petty Officer Chuck Ashmore, a Coast Guard diver, waits for his dive partner to enter the water to explore beneath the ocean's icy surface on July 30th. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
Chief Petty Officer Chuck Ashmore, a Coast Guard diver, waits for his dive partner to enter the water to explore beneath the ocean's icy surface
on July 30th. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.


Into the ice

A Washington Post reporter and photographer sailed on the Healy from July 28th through to August 6th, arriving on a Coast Guard helicopter off Alaska's Cape Lisburne and departing on a small seacraft in the port of Nome, Alaska. In between, the ship meandered at least 230 miles northeast of Point Barrow, the northernmost point in the United States, before turning back.

The Healy, which travels annually to the Arctic, deployed this year on June 27th from its home port in Seattle with about 85 Coast Guardsmen and 40 scientists. It will make several trips to and from the Arctic Circle this summer, with stops in Alaskan port cities such as Seward to swap out scientists and gather supplies.




Missions on the Healy vary, based on what the scientists aboard need. On this trip, the ship carried members of the Coast Guard Research and Development Center as they tested unmanned boat systems among the ice floes, including an oil skimmer, a quadcopter and a 10-foot yellow vessel that was named the “Minion”, after the popular cartoon characters.

Scot Tripp, the chief civilian scientist on the mission, said that when he started coming to the Arctic in 2012, there was ice nearly all the way south to Alaska's northern shores until June or July. That is no longer the case, prompting the service to evaluate what kind of new equipment it might need if a crisis emerges.

“There was no need for the Coast Guard to be up here,” Tripp said. “This was frozen, and now it's not. So now there are waterways and cruise ships coming up, so you run into the possibility of disaster with one of those.”

Even with the warming climate, the Arctic environment is unforgiving. The summer water and air temperatures are about 30 degrees Farenheit, and winds often howl at 30 to 40 mph. Coast Guard members work the decks in thick snowsuits, steel-toed boots and hard hats, and anyone leaving the Healy on a smaller seacraft used for exploration must wear a winter suit with a rubberized shell to extend how long they can survive if they fall in the water.

Officers piloting the Healy said that they do their best to avoid ice, but in areas where it is inevitable, it is considered safer to use the reinforced front of the ship to punch straight through it, rather than “shouldering it” and taking a glancing blow. Even then, sticky situations still emerge.


Drift ice floats past the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy on July 29th. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
Drift ice floats past the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy on July 29th. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.

Navy and Coast Guard members play bingo July 30th on the USCGC Healy. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
Navy and Coast Guard members play bingo July 30th on the USCGC Healy. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.

Ensign Taylor Peace, 23, who is on her second Arctic tour, said that last summer, the Healy spent four days wiggling out of an ice floe that wouldn't let go of the ship.

“No one flipped out,” said Peace of Fairfax, Virginia. “You just keep trying. All you’re doing is waiting for the wind to change direction so it can relieve the pressure, or so you can at least make five inches in an hour.”

The harsh environment was on full display July 29th, as the Healy carried out two consecutive missions on the water in a smaller sea craft. In the first, the Healy lowered a small landing craft carrying members of the scientific team to examine the usefulness of the Minion and other equipment as the drone boat bounced between craggy ice floes. The banana-yellow vessel, carrying solar panels and a camera, got stuck only after its battery died, prompting the crew to tow it back to the Healy.

“This is a good chance to try it in a harsh environment, coming out here to work these vehicles,” said Jason Story, a Coast Guard naval architect who designed the Minion.

Winds picked up and fog thickened during the second mission of the day as divers marked a return to something that had not occurred in the Arctic since August 17th, 2006: Coast Guard ice diving. The long hiatus followed the deaths of two Healy crew members — Lieutenant Jessica Hill, 31, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Steven Duque, 26 — during an ice dive that a service investigation found was poorly supervised.


A record of diving activity on a window August 1st in the Healy's bridge. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
A record of diving activity on a window August 1st in the Healy's bridge. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.

The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy navigates fog and ice on August 1st in the Arctic Ocean. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.
The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy navigates fog and ice on August 1st in the Arctic Ocean. — Photograph: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post.

The Coast Guard subsequently started its own ice-diving school and made diving a primary occupation, rather than a collateral duty. The divers can perform maintenance on the ship, assist other vessels that are in trouble or perform salvage operations involving ships that have sunk.

“When we deploy to the Arctic, there is no bench strength nearby,” said Captain Greg Tlapa, the Healy's commanding officer. “No one is coming to save us. So, the more self-sufficient you are in terms of underwater inspection and hull repair, the less risk there is to a deployment.”

On a bone-chilling afternoon, teams of two divers dove among the floes while a third diver sat ready in case his help was required. The sea craft was anchored to a hulking piece of ice on the ocean's surface.

The divers marveled at the clearness of the water and the crystallized ice — about 85 percent of the sea ice floating in the Arctic is beneath the surface.

“It's like diving in outer space,” said one of the divers, Chief Petty Officer Chuck Ashmore. “I think that's the closest comparison I could make. You're seeing some just incredible structures down there.”


• Dan Lamothe covers national security for The Washington Post and anchors its military blog, Checkpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-a-changing-arctic-a-lone-coast-guard-icebreaker-maneuvers-through-ice-and-geopolitics/2017/09/03/dfad84d4-7d12-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_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 #757 on: September 05, 2017, 11:21:25 pm »

As I've shown you, today's Arctic conditions are nothing new. All normal. Best not to blindly believe the braindead lefty media.
Report Spam   Logged
Donald
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 898



« Reply #758 on: September 06, 2017, 06:49:18 am »

It's summer in the arctic....ice is melting.....well there's  a surprise😳
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #759 on: September 06, 2017, 10:29:44 am »


Yep....Tweedle DUMB and Tweedle DUMBER have been posting again.
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 #760 on: September 06, 2017, 10:47:15 am »

Meanwhile in Antarctica, steadily growing overall ice volumes.

Meanwhile in the ocean, sea level rise continuing as it did for the last roughly 12000 years. No dramas except in lefty propaganda land.
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #761 on: September 06, 2017, 04:33:58 pm »


from the Los Angeles Times....

EDITORIAL: How President Trump and the EPA's Scott Pruitt
are making America's environment deadly again


“Trump's proposed EPA budget would cut 31% of the agency's funding, kill 3,200
of the agency's 15,000 jobs, and cut $129 million from federal enforcement.”


By the LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD | 4:00AM PDT - Tuesday, September, 2017

President Donald Trump shakes hands with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington on June 1st. — Photograph: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press.
President Donald Trump shakes hands with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington
on June 1st. — Photograph: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press.


WHEN Donald Trump ran for president, one pledge he made repeatedly was to reduce regulations and limit the hurdles businesses face when trying to build, expand or operate — including when they affect the environment. You know, pollute. And there is a legitimate argument to be made that outdated, ineffective or counterproductive regulations should be amended or withdrawn; that's why every presidential candidate promises to do just that. But there is absolutely no persuasive argument to be made that the federal government should ignore its responsibility to enforce environmental regulations.

But that appears to be just what is happening under Environmental Protection Agency director Scott Pruitt, whose coziness with the oil-and-gas industry makes him among the least-appropriate people in the country to ensure the right balance is struck between promoting economic and industrial activity and preserving the environment. Pruitt stepped into the national political spotlight when, as attorney general for Oklahoma, he sued the EPA at least 14 times. Now he's in charge of it, and he has moved aggressively to undo or dismantle core aspects of EPA enforcement. In fact, the Environmental Integrity Project reports that the Trump administration collected 60% less in civil penalties from polluters through to July 31st than any of the previous three administrations collected over a similar time frame. Pruitt has filed only 26 civil actions to resolve violations, 30% fewer than the three previous administrations filed on average during the same time period.

Pruitt also has targeted more than 30 rules and regulations for rescission or rollback, and, according to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility advocacy group, has significantly reduced enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act — which provided the “most active dockets” under previous administrators. But his aim is broad. He overruled his own staff and refused to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that mounting scientific evidence suggests can affect development of the brain and nervous systems in young children. He dropped an Obama administration requirement that oil and gas drillers collect and report data on emissions. He also tried to freeze an Obama rule restricting methane emissions from new oil and gas wells, but a federal appeals court held that Pruitt couldn't do so unilaterally and must follow federal regulatory procedures — a decision that should hearten environmentalists who hope the courts will be the firewall against the administration's attack on environmental protections.

And make no mistake — this is an attack. During the campaign, Trump said: “Environmental protection, what they do is a disgrace; every week they come out with new regulations.” His proposed budget, which Pruitt endorses, would cut 31% of the agency's funding, kill 3,200 of the agency's 15,000 jobs, and cut $129 million from federal enforcement and an additional $482 million in aid to states to support their enforcement efforts, among other environmental programs. The Republican-led Congress told Trump it will not go along with such a devastating budget, but the spending plan still evinces how much value Trump places on environmental protection. Given the president's abject disinterest in the nuts-and-bolts of policy, Trump's priorities are by default set by Pruitt, a man who went to Washington planning to collapse from within an agency he had fought so hard from the outside.

And Pruitt is doing it largely out of sight. Career employees say they rarely interact with him, and when they do, note-taking is not allowed, limiting creation of government records. Policy decisions — such as they are — are made in consultation with a coterie of political appointees and industry representatives, a practice that led several Senate Democrats on Thursday to accuse Pruitt of “taking deliberate steps to thwart transparency”, including taking care not to leave a paper trail of the decision-making process. Tellingly, Pruitt moves through the EPA offices with a bodyguard detail, a message that he sees himself as treading in enemy territory. Not surprisingly, morale is toxic and career employees are looking for the exit — which, in fact, helps speed up the agency's decline.

While it's true that any of the other Republican candidates for president last year likely would have targeted the EPA for some cuts, it's hard to imagine any of them doing it with this level of aggression. Congress has yet to set federal spending levels for the next fiscal year, so it's hard to tell what the EPA's budget ultimately will look like. But what is clear is that even if Congress appropriates money, Pruitt won't necessarily use it. Congress has an oversight role here, and it must ensure that Pruitt, left to his own devices, doesn't single-handedly dismantle the nation's strongest force for environmental protection.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-epa-environment-pruitt-20170905-story.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Donald
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 898



« Reply #762 on: September 06, 2017, 04:48:45 pm »

Hey ktj....I'm trying to grow mangos in Northland but need it to be about 2 degrees warmer...you got any tips on how I can maximize global warming asap🙄
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #763 on: September 06, 2017, 05:07:16 pm »

Trump draining the swamp of loony left ideologues as promised 🙆
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #764 on: September 06, 2017, 05:09:16 pm »

Word on the street is mangos love extra co2 😁
Report Spam   Logged
Donald
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 898



« Reply #765 on: September 06, 2017, 05:15:12 pm »


Adj..."Word on the street is mangos love extra co2 😁"

...really...just as well China and India are starting  up new coal fired power stations every week😜
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #766 on: September 06, 2017, 11:01:55 pm »


And another BIG one....



from The Washington Post....

Catastrophic Hurricane Irma — now a Category 5 — is on a collision course with Florida

Infrared satellite image of Hurricane Irma as of 12:45 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. — Picture: NOAA.
Infrared satellite image of Hurricane Irma as of 12:45 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. — Picture: NOAA.
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 #767 on: September 07, 2017, 12:12:02 am »

Yep it's a ripper. No evidence that it's related to the eco zealot creation that is the global climate apocalypse though. 😊
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #768 on: September 07, 2017, 12:31:40 am »

Yep should do those mangos a treat. All that yummy CO2 has already been shown to be significantly greening the planet. The alarmist moonbats are funnily enough always very quiet about that(or any good news).
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #769 on: September 08, 2017, 01:41:48 pm »



CLICK ON THE MAP TO READ THE LATEST INFO.


And there's another HUGE hurricane tagging along right behind it.

I wonder how the flat-earthers/anti-warmalists/climate-change-deniers explain away multiple 500-year storms in such a small period of time?

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Donald
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 898



« Reply #770 on: September 08, 2017, 05:44:08 pm »

Can you please tell me how to speed up global warming...just that I am trying to grow mangos😜
...Started investing in companies who are developing new coal fired power stations in China....but is that really enough?

...is there more I could do🙄
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 882


« Reply #771 on: September 08, 2017, 06:08:13 pm »

KTJ the flat earther/deniers are those who deny the global storm records of the last approx 150 years. No rising trend for global storm/hurricane frequency or severity. Look it up yourself.
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #772 on: September 08, 2017, 07:21:55 pm »


Tell that to the insurance companies who have looked at the peer-reviewed science and decided that human-caused global warming is a major issue for the human race.

They will be looking at climate-change deniers like you are rolling their eyes, just like every intelligent person is.
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 #773 on: September 08, 2017, 09:18:19 pm »

Yeah right 😁

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
Donald
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 898



« Reply #774 on: September 09, 2017, 07:21:48 am »

....a lot of very very smart people there.....proves that global warming propaganda is global warming propaganda🙄
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 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 0.077 seconds with 14 queries.