No announcement yet.


This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A contrast in stupid. Drudge Headlines.

    Now 'Warming' Shrinking Reindeer!
    December daily cold temperature records shattered...
    The lost city of Antarctica: Massive ancient civilization lies frozen under ice?
    Shootings down by half during snowy weekend in Chicago...

    The last headline being the only thing positive in this insanity of Progressives.
    “Breaking News,”

    “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”


    • This...
      Shock claims massive ancient civilisation lies frozen beneath mile of Antarctic ice – and could even be Atlantis
      Conspiracy theorists believe that there is a secret city which has frozen over - and it could even be the Lost City of Atlantis

      BY JENNIFER HALE 12th December 2016

      The huge continent is an icy mass, and is currently only inhabited by scientific researchers and penguins thanks to its freezing temperatures.

      Rumours of a hidden city have been floating about for years, as conspiracy theorists and even some scientists claim the freezing continent is actually the home of the legendary Lost City of Atlantis.

      One scientific theory claims that once upon a time Antarctica was ice-free and home to an ancient civilisation.

      The theory, called crustal displacement, alleges that movements in the Earth’s crust meant that large parts of Antarctica were ice-free 12,000 years ago and people could have lived there.


      Is almost as batschist crazy as this...

      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.


      • If a real image and object, this is more intriguing ...
        GREAT PYRAMID OF FREEZER Mysterious ‘pyramid’ is buried in the icy wastes of Antarctica
        The four-sided object, spotted on Google Earth, has scientists baffled


        • "1984"(Orwell) and "Correct Think" in play again;
          Portland Public Schools to Eliminate Curriculum that Questions Man-Made Climate Change
          Tuesday, the Portland Public School board unanimously passed a resolution that would remove all materials from the curriculum that contradict anthropogenic (man-made) climate change theory.

          Portland Tribune quotes Bill Bigelow, a former PPS teacher, current curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools, and one of the proponents of the resolution:
          Despite what Bigelow says, many scientists dispute the idea that there's an “overwhelming consensus” regarding climate change, specifically the idea that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic.

          The study frequently referenced when speaking of an “overwhelming consensus” is one conducted by John Cook. Since its publication, however, the study has been scrutinized and found to be severely lacking.

          Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware, led a study on Cook's paper, and found his methodology to be deeply flawed.

          The Wall Street Journal reports:

          “David R. Legates...and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found 'only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse' the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.”

          Legates said:

          “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis, the true consensus was well below 1%.”

          Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia, said of the study:

          “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

          Several scientists even came forward to say that Cook completely misrepresented their conclusions when he surveyed their work.

          Conversely, George Mason University recently conducted a survey of more than 4000 members of the American Meteorological Society (of whom approximately 37% claimed to be climate “experts”), and found:

          29% believe climate change is “largely or entirely” man-made.
          38% believe “most of the change” is man-made.
          14% believe any changes are “more or less equally” man-made and natural.
          7% believe it's mostly due to natural causes.
          6% believe it's largely or entirely natural.
          That's far from a 97% consensus.

          On a related note and though about two months old;
          Here's the Hurricane Data that 'Global Warming' Alarmists Freaking Out About Matthew Won't Show You


          • Today's Global Warming report from Drudge;
            SUBZERO PLUNGE...

            CHICAGO -30...

            LIVE CHILL MAP...

            The wind has been blowing snow around for days here. When it does warm up to 30*F Friday, we are expecting 6 to 10 inches more snow.

            “Breaking News,”

            “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”


            • Correction: Judge Finds Only Nine Convenient Untruths in Gore's Film

              About nine years old, but still valid.


              • Need to archive this ...

                Global warming on other planets?
                Believers in global warming hold to what I will call the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. This involves multiple claims: (1) anomalous global warming is now occurring on Earth; (2) this warming is the result of anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas emissions; (3) unnatural levels of global warming will occur during the next century; (4) the consequences of this warming will be disastrous; and (5) specific, immediate public policy actions are necessary to mitigate this coming disaster. While some claim that the scientific community agrees with these claims, in reality scientists have come to a variety of conclusions on all five claims, and many scientists may agree with some but reject others. Taken as a whole, the scientific evidence does not support such an extreme position. (For more on this, see this page).

                Observations of several planets and moons in our solar system show climate change is occurring on these bodies. This is held by some skeptics of global warming to prove that climate change is natural, refuting claims about the nearly exclusive role of mankind in climate change on Earth. Believers have countered that none of these observations have any relationship to natural influences on the Earth's climate. Both claims are wrong.

                Part of the problem is a misunderstanding of natural influences on the Earth's climate. The total solar irradiance, or flux of solar energy arriving at the Earth, is well measured and has varied by only about 0.1% in the last few decades. Believers correctly point out that this can only directly produce a temperature change of about 0.07° C on Earth. They err, however, in claiming or implying that this is the only possible Sun-climate link. Considerable evidence supports the hypothesis that solar influences have indirect effects on the Earth's climate, with the potential of contributing to a greater fraction of recent observed climate change.

                Some solar output varies by much more than 0.1%, such as UV solar radiation and magnetic activity. One proposed mechanism in particular suggests that variations in solar magnetic activity affect the amount of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth. This indirectly influences climate because these cosmic rays affect the formation of clouds which reflect more or less sunlight back to space depending on solar activity, consequently changing the Earth's climate. Such indirect mechanisms could in principle produce most of the modern observed change in global temperature. Studies to date show correlations supporting these claimed mechanisms but parts of the casual link have yet to be confirmed (unsurprisingly, research dollars are scarce when it comes to investigating natural influences on climate).

                The relevant point is that the Sun-climate link proposed by scientists skeptical of global warming claims is indirect and involves mechanisms particular to the Earth system. The fact that we have not observed large changes in total solar irradiance, or large climate shifts on other planets, does nothing to refute the claim that the Sun-Earth climate link is significant. At the same time, some and perhaps even all of the extraterrestrial climate shifts are from mechanisms with no bearing on the Earth's climate. This boils down to the fact that we don't fully understand climate change, either here or elsewhere in the solar system. Those that claim we do (and particularly that we can concentrate on a single mechanism for climate change on Earth) are seriously wrong from a scientific perspective.

                Climate change reports in the solar system:


                • Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans
                  Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE

                  A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

                  Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

                  A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

                  The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

                  The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.

                  “Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”

                  “Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution,” Smith said.


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    Correction: Judge Finds Only Nine Convenient Untruths in Gore's Film

                    About nine years old, but still valid.
                    Still very valid

                    Originally posted by Judge Michael Burton
                    "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      Correction: Judge Finds Only Nine Convenient Untruths in Gore's Film

                      About nine years old, but still valid.
                      Man, that judge mustn't have looked very hard... There's way more than that in that movie...


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Man, that judge mustn't have looked very hard... There's way more than that in that movie...
                        I'll agree. The whole concept of ACC/AGW is this era's equivalent of the Earth centric Cosmos of astronomy back in Galileo's time.


                        • Sahara Desert experienced its first snowfall in 37 years



                          • An article by Progressive environmentalists that shows they don't get it...


                            The spill, which occurred at the Gold King mine near Silverton, was an environmental disaster...

                            Some people see what happened as mainly a failure by the EPA.*The spill happened when an EPA contractor trying to remediate the mine accidentally dislodged a rock that was holding back water laden with toxic heavy metals such as cadmium and lead. Publicly-released documents show that the EPA knew about the risks of a blowout in 2014.
                            Got news for you... It is the EPA's fault. They're the equivalent of the general contractor on that site. They were responsible for the safe operation of the subcontractors. That the EPA knew there was risk and didn't mitigate it is also their fault.
                            But, Progressive environmentalists don't want to blame one of their own for the disaster. It has to be someone else's fault, and that would be the evil "contractor" doing the actual work for they are a corporation, and corporations are always evil... Unless they are run by Leftists on Leftist principles...

                            Environmentalists have tried to broaden the discussion. They note that the mine was already leaking toxic waste before the blowout—which is why the EPA was there in the first place.
                            More like environmentalists trying to apologize and excuse the EPA for their failure because they see the EPA as one of their own today.

                            They also say that Congress hasn’t provided enough funding to clean up the toxic legacy left by the hard rock mining activities of the past. According to Earthworks, an environmental group, there are an estimated 500,000 abandoned and un-reclaimed mines in the U.S., many of which are slowly polluting waterways or at risk for a blowout. Earthworks wants Congress to reform mining laws and require currently operating mining companies to pay a fee to raise billions for remediation.
                            Well, who do they expect to clean up old mines that pre-existed before environmental laws? Mining companies today? Apparently, yes...

                            As the Gold King mine disaster shows, it’s hard enough for the EPA, one of the best environmental regulators in the world, to avoid occasional mistakes.
                            Do you buy that? I'd say the EPA is good at forcing onerous regulations down other's throats. When it comes to them doing something themselves, any failures are going to be somebody else's fault or covered up. The EPA is no better at running mine remediation than the Soviet government was at running nuclear reactors. If you want unaccountability hand responsibility to a government agency.


                            • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                              Still very valid
                              "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"

                              Is as idiotic as saying that the models have been "broadly accurate.'"

                              Something riddled with errors is not conditionally accurate.
                              Definition of accurate

                              1: free from error especially as the result of care <an accurate diagnosis>

                              2: conforming exactly to truth or to a standard : exact <providing accurate color>

                              3: able to give an accurate result <an accurate gauge>


                              The models are at least precise in their inaccuracy. Al Gore's fantasy movie is neither accurate nor precise.
                              Last edited by The Doctor; 28 Dec 16, 07:14.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.


                              • How about accurately tampering with data ... ?

                                100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
                                Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

                                The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.
                                The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century
                                The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)
                                The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

                                Lots of charts in the linked article as well ...
                                The inconvenient truth is that there isn't any truth ...
                                ....but will the MSM show this?


                                Latest Topics


                                • casanova
                                  Emanuel Macron
                                  by casanova
                                  The French president Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut, Libanon. He watched the devastation in the city, caused by the Amoniumnitrat explosion....
                                  Today, 01:27
                                • casanova
                                  by casanova
                                  A awful, dedoerate situation for the population in Beirut, Libanon. A Amoniumnitrat-explosion was the cause of the catastrophe....
                                  Yesterday, 23:35
                                • AntiWarmanCake8
                                  by AntiWarmanCake8
                                  One day in the far future I like to visit some Napoleonic battlefields. Does anyone have any ones they would share?

                                  I would like to visit:...
                                  Yesterday, 20:27