Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Floridian]

I'm just speechless lol so utterly shocking that special interests may alter their findings for a specific result.Unheard of says I!I'm totally aghast!Ohh I've been wanting to use that word for awhile now.I think what they are trying to say isss..Hey warm this one time!!

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Yes special interest groups are just that.

But what exactly is a base that is for unfettered carbon emissions if not a special interest group with massive funds and a limited time and product?

Seems to me both sides have something to gain... but one has more to lose.

What's the angle on clean emissions?

What profit are these scientists gaining?

Healthy posterity and breathable air sound more profitable than unwavering greed... at least to me anyway.

 

[Floridian]

Boy this kid must've had him a whacky whisky buzz last night looking at my last post lol,Please Lord let be able to get a cannabuzz soon so that I may relieve myself of this alcoholic madness!Fuckin stupid decisions and the consequences that follow.mmmustard healthy posterity can't ride on the back of a ruined economy and the suffering that this would cause the average American if the climatologists get their way. It's not about climate change anyway that's even obvious to me! It's about changing sociological and economic systems to level some utopian playing field,our country doesn't even deserve prosperity any more after what we've done to the earth!What a joke and a pile of kaka.Who has more of an agenda?Is it the climatologists that want to make a name for themselves and become David taking on and whooping goliath?Or maybe it's the wealthy that have so much so that keeping the status quo would make little difference in their lives.These and other questions inquiring minds would like to know

 

[Floridian]

And another thing..I just pulled three and a half hours of ancient aliens and the north pole has nothing to worry about..the advanced alien/alien hybrid society residing there that's made it their home can effect climate change at will!!Takin care of an 86 year old mamasita,either too much action or just boring as hell lol..

 

[bombadil.360]

Yes special interest groups are just that.

But what exactly is a base that is for unfettered carbon emissions if not a special interest group with massive funds and a limited time and product?

Seems to me both sides have something to gain... but one has more to lose.

What's the angle on clean emissions?

What profit are these scientists gaining?

Healthy posterity and breathable air sound more profitable than unwavering greed... at least to me anyway.

Hey man, long time no see, hope all is well!

Just want to make a specific comment about one of your questions regarding what do scientists have to gain...the more credibility they can muster up for a certain theory, the more funds they get, and yes, believe it or not, scientists love money over facts as much as any corporation does, it's part of human nature, greed. Studying science does not make a man ethical nor moral, in other words.

A good exanple is how in Haifa, Israel, there are big polluting industries destroying the air and as a result you have higher diseases related to air pollution; so scientists got that government $$$ they love, started the study and before the deadline, decided that they had made a data error and needed to start all over again, and of course, they needed that funding again lol...shit if that were scientitists that had to deliver tech in the business world, they'd be fired.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

stupid decisions and the consequences that follow

My thoughts are more centered around the right choice not being about monetary value at all.

Rather than worry about taxes we could dust off an ancient term: morals.

And not that it matters in the least but I've been beer only for some time and have quite a nice strain to sip on.

Good day sir.

 

[DocTim420]

Just ask yourself, "who is driving this "climate change" thing?"

Politicians or science?

And then ask yourself, "should politics influence science--or should science influence politics?"

What we have here--imo, is a political driven agenda, to that I say "no bueno".

And why is NOAA still withholding information from several FOIA requests? What are they hiding?

 

[DocTim420]

...double post???

 

[armedoldhippy]

Just ask yourself, "who is driving this "climate change" thing?"

Politicians or science?

And then ask yourself, "should politics influence science--or should science influence politics?"

What we have here--imo, is a political driven agenda, to that I say "no bueno".

And why is NOAA still withholding information from several FOIA requests? What are they hiding?

politics should have zero influence on science, only FACTS. it would be nice if science/facts had any influence on politics, but i think we all know how that works. this is where the "snowball in hell" cartoon would be at...

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[Floridian]

mr.mustard I think we had a communication breakdown looking back on this thread.My comment on stupid decisions and consequences that follow concerned the reason I've been drinking so much lately,because I'm on probation for a stupid decision and am paying the price having not to be able to get high since Nov.,it sucks to say the least.I'm not sure what you think I was talking about looking back on your response but I meant nothing by it in reference to the subject matter.Sorry for the confusion.Good day sir lol

 

[kickarse]

Look up in the sky
Its a bird
Its a plane
No
Its a climate scientist

 

[DocTim420]

I think we have more collaboration the "climate change" agenda is more about "politics" and very little to do about "science".

Some of my friends argue Earth's climate problem are scientific, but require more of a political solution and less of a scientific solution. To that I say, "bullshit"; history has shown that politics and science make strange bedfellow$.

Let's start by reading the father of "climate change" (Al Gore) closing words from his speech at EcoCity 2017 World Summit, Melbourne Australia – July 13, 2017 https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/13/full-transcript-of-al-gores-speech-to-australian-climate-summit/:

...The climate movement, not least in cities, is right now in the tradition of all the great moral causes that have improved the circumstances of humanity throughout our history. The abolition of slavery. Women’s suffrage and women’s rights. The civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. The late Nelson Mandela said it was always impossible until it was done. The movement to stop the toxic phase of the nuclear arms race and more recently the gay rights movement. Some of you may disagree with that. I don’t. I did earlier in my life. But all of these movements have one thing in common. They all have met with ferocious resistance and have generated occasional feelings of despair from those who knew the right direction and wondered whether we could ever get there. The late Martin Luther King Jr once said to a supporter in the bleakest hours who asked, How long is this going to take? He replied, How long? Not long. Because no lie can live forever. Because the moral arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice. How long? Not long. The late economist Rudy Dornbusch said things take longer than you think but then they happen much faster than you believed they could.

I see a few problems: First those "moral causes" he refers to were "political problems" with "political solutions" (nothing scientific about slavery, civil rights, apartheid, or the right for women to vote). Secondly, those noble causes were more grassroots in their origin...driven from bottom up (common folks), not top down (elites). Finally, those "moral causes" were not designed to control/redistribute massive amounts of money--Paris Accord requires 37 developed countries to give away $100 BILLION to non-developed countries. (Follow the money I say).

Tugging constituents shirt tales with memories of slavery, civil rights, women and gay rights--does not make your cause more noble or justified--instead it is a simple persuasive marketing technique that uses past memories as justification for you to open up your wallet and give them your hard earned ca$h.

Oh yeah, just how important does Al Gore think the Paris Accord really is? He basically admits the Accord is nothing but a symbolic "powerful signal"--that will not reduce the world's temperature 0.05°C by 2100 (that is two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction--a little less than the "margin of error" allowed when making those particular calculations). Imagine that--creating a numerical goal that is smaller than the MOE (margin of error). Impossible to verify a "win" or "loss" with those rules; can you spell "$100 BILLION participation trophy"?

From Al Gore's interview with Chris Wallace from June 4, 2017 https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/06/04/pruitt-defends-decision-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-deal-al-gore-weighs-in.html:

...WALLACE: Even if you believe in greenhouse gas and climate change, there’s some questions about how effective the Paris Accord is --

GORE: Yes.

WALLACE: In dealing with it. Here's what EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said on Friday about the effectiveness of the U.S. target, which is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by a quarter under 2005 levels. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRUITT: Paris, it set targets at 26 to 28 percent with the entire agenda of the previous administration, we still fell 40 percent short of those targets. It was a failed deal to begin with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: You would agree that even if all 195 nations, now 194, met their targets, it still wouldn't solve the problem.

GORE: That is correct. However, it sends a very powerful signal to business and industry and civil society, and countries around the world. And since the Paris agreement was reached, look at what has happened. You talked about China earlier. China has now reduced its emissions four years in a row. It's reduced its coal burning three years in a row. India is now in the midst of a massive shift from coal to solar. Unbelievably, India just announced two weeks ago that within 13 years, 100 percent of their automobiles are going to have to be electric vehicles. We’re seeing this in this country as well. I went to one of the most conservative Republican cities in America, Georgetown, Texas, in an oil state. They have just completed a transition to 100 percent renewable energy.

WALLACE: But -- but -- but that’s part of the argument, Mr. Vice President, and it's a philosophical argument, do you need government regulations or will the economy -- will the market work? And -- and we took the case of solar, which has now doubled, pretty astonishing.

GORE: Yes.

WALLACE: Well, actually, we got some stats here, so we’ll do it. Greenhouse gas emissions already declined 12 percent below 2005 levels.Between 2004-2015, investment in green, clean energy rose from $10 billion to $56 billion. And as we point out now, twice as many jobs in solar as in coal. Isn't the country, isn’t the world going green on its own? Does it need this government -- this international regulation?

GORE: The -- the answer is yes and yes. We’re in the midst of a sustainability revolution that has the magnitude of the industrial revolution, but the speed of the digital revolution. But, yes, we still need good policies because we have to move faster. We’re in a race against time here. We’re seeing very encouraging changes. But we have to change faster.

The late economist Rudi Dornbusch, I’m sure you knew him, he once said, things take longer to happen than you think they will and then they happen much faster than you thought they could. And the Paris agreement was a successful effort to send the signal, this train is leaving the station, everybody on board. The U.S. should be on board. States and cities and businesses and civil society leaders are on board. If we had the president onboard an end good policy, we could move even faster.

WALLACE: I fact-checked Mr. Pruitt. I’m going to fact-check you.

GORE: OK.

WALLACE: After your movie "An Inconvenient Truth" came out in 2006, you made the following comments as part of our publicity for the -- the movie. You said unless we took, quote, "drastic measures," the world would reach a "point of no return" within ten years and you called it a "true planetary emergency." We’re 11 years later.

GORE: Oh.

WALLACE: Weren’t you wrong?

GORE: Well, we have seen a decline in emissions for the first -- on -- on a global basis for the first time they've stabilized and started to decline. So some of the responses of the last ten years have helped.

But, unfortunately, and regrettably, a lot of serious damage has been done. Greenland, for example, is losing 1 cubic kilometer of ice every single day. I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea level rising. Now, we are going to suffer some of these consequences, but we can limit and avoid the most catastrophic consequences if we accelerate the pace of change that’s now beginning.

WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, we should point out, you have a sequel coming up called "An Inconvenient Sequel," in July, and I understand that you’re going to have to rewrite the ending because of the decision the president was made -- just made.

GORE: The -- the -- the directors, Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, are putting a -- a new segment at the very end of the movie and I think that’s appropriate....

 

[Floridian]

Boy Algore is so full of shit it's unbelievable that some people believe him at all.I've lived in Tampa Bay over 20 years,just miles from the bay itself.I have never ever heard of rising sea levels being of any consequence at all,and our news outlets here are pretty damn liberal.Fish swimming in Miami streets?If that did happen and I doubt it,it would have been because of a storm surge or other weather pattern causing it,not rising levels from global warming.How can anyone even come close to taking this rich piece of shit seriously with his mansions and private jets?And believe me I have nothing against the successful,that would make me a liberal dumbass which I'm not,but if you're going to tell people how they should live day to day,maybe you should start with the way that you live first.Ya think???

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvCNF0vCUoI

[youtubeif]SvCNF0vCUoI[/youtubeif]

another post to make me feel better...

I clicked the link you posted for the Willie Soon video and watched it several times (Willie Soon - Could it be The Sun?). It is odd how Mr. Soon hints that scientists who focus upon Arctic sea ice changes without giving equal attention to Antarctic sea ice, are being deceitful. It's an observed fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are much higher in the northern hemisphere (more industrial activity) and so it would be expected that human caused warming should be greater in the Arctic. You don't need some nefarious scientific plot to explain this. And irregardless of Mr. Soon's efforts to show that Arctic sea ice has been at low levels before, there are no records of anyone piloting a ship across the northern polar waters until very recent times. Sailing across the Northeast Passage is a regular occurrence nowadays.*

The paper he discussed which examined the record of temperature sensitive plankton found in Arctic Ocean sediments, was very interesting. But overall I feel that he really failed to explain very much. From his comments and audience reactions this seemed to be more of a presentation for the general public. As a scientific presentation it didn't seem like much. But I'm a nobody, so check out the opinion of an astrophysicist who has interacted with Willie Soon if you're interested in this subject;

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2...-depressing-day-with-a-famous-climate-skeptic

But what really seemed odd were Mr. Soon's repeated statements that he was receiving no outside funding for his work, that real science doesn't require money, and that he and his collaborators were doing this all for nothing but the honest love of good science. His audience loved it. And the whole affair seemed more of a political event than scientific presentation. So I looked into Mr. Willie Soon and found that he has received significant funding from the fossil fuel industry and has failed to disclose this conflict of interest in his publications. The guy is a shill...

"Soon has received more than $1.3 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a Greenpeace report[3] based on FOIA requests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, he has has received at least $230,000 from Koch Family Foundations ."

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Willie_Soon

Since I have some familiarity with his work, I watched the presentation by Don Easterbrook at the same conference Mr. Soon's video was from. Easterbrook has studied the ages of more recent glacial deposits near Puget Sound, and thinks he has found a repeating pattern of glaciations that he believes were caused by cyclical variations in solar intensity. What caught my attention was Easterbrook's throwaway statement that increasing atmospheric CO2 couldn't be responsible for warming because CO2 is just a minor trace gas in our atmosphere. That statement has always bothered me, because the transparency of CO2 to infrared radiation is a matter of physics that should be well understood. The concept of CO2 induced warming was developed from studies of the atmosphere of Venus. Did these guys really get their physics all wrong?

So I searched a bit and found what I was looking for. Scientists have now developed the technology to directly measure the radiant heat emitted from atmospheric CO2.

Scientists in the US have made the first direct measurement of the increase in the greenhouse effect caused by rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Their ground-based observations were carried out over a period of 11 years at two different locations – Oklahoma and Alaska – and show that infrared emissions from carbon dioxide have increased during that time in agreement with theoretical predictions for man-made climate change. Their study also includes the first direct observation of the large annual dip in greenhouse heating that occurs in spring, when there is a sharp increase in the uptake of carbon dioxide by plants.

Feldman and colleagues examined a total of 8300 measurements made in Oklahoma and 3300 made in northern Alaska between 2000 and 2010. They found that radiative forcing by carbon dioxide has increased in both locations at a rate of about 0.2 W m–2 per decade. To put that into perspective, scientists have calculated that the total forcing today caused by human-related carbon-dioxide emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution is about 1.82 W m–2.

https://physicsworld.com/cws/articl...n-to-greenhouse-effect-monitored-in-real-time

https://www.nersc.gov/news-publicat...reasing-greenhouse-effect-at-earth-s-surface/


So warming caused by human generated CO2 emissions is an observable and measurable fact. And the quantifiable observations that have been made support the theoretical predictions regarding CO2 induced climate change.

Earth climates have undergone significant changes over geologic time. There were times when it was much hotter than today, and times when it was much cooler. It's generally accepted that the repeating glacial periods of the last million and a half years were caused by changes in Earth's orbit and orientation to the sun. Meteor strikes and volcanic events have caused changes. Plate tectonics result in continental drift which opens and closes ocean current passages and uplifted mountain ranges change atmospheric circulation. And yes, changes in solar emissions will change climate. A period of lower solar radiance in the 1600s and early 1700s, called the Maunder Minimum, is thought by many to have been responsible for the Little Ice Age, though Earth's cooling then seems to have preceded the sun's changes.

18,000 years ago much of North America was covered with glacial ice. 6,000 years ago much of western North America was probably uninhabitable because of the heat. And there have been many many other changes. In his video Don Easterbrook pointed out that the Earth record shows that climate changes precede changes in atmospheric CO2. I'm not aware of anybody who argues differently (for what that's worth). But we are now in a completely new situation. Humans are taking the carbon trapped for millions of years within fossil fuels and burning it for the energy. And the waste carbon dioxide that results is rapidly accumulating in Earth's atmosphere. This atmospheric CO2 increase is having an observable directly measurable effect upon Earth's atmospheric and oceanic energy balance. It's a fact. And irregardless of all the other effects which change climate; the changes in astronomical position, volcanic, plate tectonic, and solar activity changes, which have been going on for eons and will continue to do so... the heating effects of human caused CO2 emissions will now be superimposed upon whatever is going on with Earth's climatic systems.

If you look at Willie Soon's chart "Arctic warming & cooling = driven by sun?" at the 13.47 mark you'll see the line representing solar activity dropping while the Arctic temperature trend line continues to climb. Though there seems to be a scientific consensus that solar radiance has diminished, the Arctic regions are experiencing significant warming. The Arctic regions are also experiencing very high levels of atmospheric CO2. It's not a stretch to propose that the CO2 levels and warming are related. And it doesn't matter that Al Gore got fat and lives in a big house... that relationship between atmospheric CO2 and heating will still be there. It doesn't matter if some predictions from years ago have not panned out. CO2 induced atmospheric warming is still continuing. It's an observed fact.



*edit; Failed to do my homework. The Northeast Passage was possibly first transited during an unusual warm spell in the 1600s. The polar sea routes have a long history. The current boom in traffic has been attributed to a lack of ice from climate change but there are also economic and political factors. Technological advances in marine vessels is an important factor, including real time use of satellite images to pick ice free routes. In 2016 the cruise ship Crystal Serenity transited the NW Passage with 1,700 passengers.

The gray whale Eschrichtius robustus has not been seen in the Atlantic since it was hunted to extinction there in the 18th century, but in May 2010, one such whale turned up in the Mediterranean. Scientists speculated the whale had followed its food sources through the Northwest Passage and simply kept on going. Wikipedia

 

[trichrider]

 

[GMT]

Someone caught a tuna off the coast of the UK, and other warm water sea life is replacing our tradition fish. Regardless of what cognitive dissonance makes you feel better, things are changing in noticeable ways.

 

[armedoldhippy]

ice-breaker makes earliest ever Northwest Passage trip. "nothing to see here folks, move along..."

 

[Guest]

The climate change yahoos still dont get it. Follow the money. I love the smell of dead dinosaurs coming out my exhaust on my premium grade gas guzzling hot rod.
And the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the electric car brigade is music to my ears.

 

[GMT]

Your lack of understanding of the term yahoos betrays you! If you follow the money, you find the shareholders of oil companies. The vast majority of fossil fuel is vegetation, not animal life. Man your education was poor!