Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

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

  • That's the Left for you. Criminalize the opposition. Nothing new here, just the same old tactics the Communists used, the Sandinista's used, Socialists in places like Venezuela used, and many Leftist dictators have used.
    Don't argue with your opposition. Arrest them and throw them in prison so they are permanently shut up.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      These people need to be tarred and feathered...
      Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

      As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

      We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

      The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

      Sincerely,

      Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
      Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
      Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
      Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
      Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

      David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
      Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
      Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
      Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
      Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
      William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
      Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
      T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
      Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
      Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
      Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
      Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
      Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
      Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
      Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/1...lence-critics/

      If this "gate" were to be used, it swings both ways. "Fair and equitable" application means that all those engaged in promoting the yet to be proven hypothesis of ACC/AGW also need to be investigated for attempted fraud and deception of the public, especially for personal gain and/or profit.

      That's what RICO is about and how the FED guv'mint is supposed to operate.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        That's the Left for you. Criminalize the opposition. Nothing new here, just the same old tactics the Communists used, the Sandinista's used, Socialists in places like Venezuela used, and many Leftist dictators have used.
        Don't argue with your opposition. Arrest them and throw them in prison so they are permanently shut up.
        Anyone engaging clear minded, objective and logic thinking would reason that if a subject is under such prohibitions of opposing arguement, then what is being defended with censorship is likley a fraud.

        Not surprising from the left and similar immature and obtuse thinking is how we wound up with "Hate Speak/Crimes".

        Look for the next move of the gorebots to be making opposition to the hucksterism pseudo-science of ACC/AGW a "hate crime~speach".

        Comment


        • In 12 minutes, it's pretty much over -

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

          Agreed?
          I hope even Doc got something out of that.
          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
            In 12 minutes, it's pretty much over -

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

            Agreed?
            I hope even Doc got something out of that.


            Not enough graphs, but spot on.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • None Dare Call It Conspiracy: Obama's Coordinated Climate Campaign
              BY CHRISTOPHER C. HORNER

              09/22/2015 06:25 PM ET

              Hypocrisy, thy name is Barack Obama. The president has singled out industrialists Charles and David Koch for supposedly orchestrating a movement to undermine his agenda, especially the various "climate change" policies that he's pushing via unprecedented federal regulation.

              These policies represent a massive tilting of the playing field toward wealthy and well-connected renewable-energy companies — special interests that now receive billions of taxpayer dollars every year.

              This makes it all the more notable that President Obama has failed to mention the actual coordinated campaign in favor of this agenda — a campaign coordinated with the White House.

              This massive effort is laid out in a new report — "Private Interests and Public Office" — by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. For the past year, E&E Legal used state and federal public-records requests to uncover whom the White House worked with to promote its environmental agenda, especially its newly unveiled "Clean Power Plan."

              Unveiled in August, this sweeping regulation will force states to slash their carbon dioxide emissions by between 7% and 48%, potentially costing families and businesses some $366 billion in higher electricity costs over the next 15 years. Yet EPA-funded models show that it will have no detectable impact on climate, if it has any impact at all.

              E&E Legal unearthed documents showing systemic collusion to promote this scheme. The coordination involves the White House, state governors and attorneys general, and a host of nongovernmental organizations affiliated with "major environmental donors" — especially billionaire Tom Steyer.

              The campaign quietly began in December 2013, when the White House met with aides to Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif.; Gov. Jay Inslee, D-Wash.; and then-Gov. John Kitzhaber, D-Ore. (Kitzhaber has since resigned following revelations about his office's unethical conduct while promoting green energy policies.)
              ....
              This sort of political advocacy requires money, so the governors' offices reached out to Michael Bloomberg, the Rockefeller family and other wealthy liberal benefactors. They especially focused on Steyer, who was preparing to spend $100 million promoting environmental issues in the 2014 election.

              Emails show Steyer's managing partner touting their priorities and "independent but coordinated entities." He also noted: "Affiliated groups that we founded and fund (including NextGen Climate Action and Advanced Energy Economy) will be taking the lead for us on this."

              Billionaires such as Steyer fund the advocacy, research and outreach efforts crucial to building public support for the president's plan. The ultimate goal is for every cog in this well-greased machine to move in the same direction — without seeming like they're coordinated.
              ....
              Absent a complete record, we can conclude only that the campaign to promote the Clean Power Plan is even larger than we discovered. But it is already certain that public servants from the White House to state capitals, advocacy groups across the country and the billionaires who underwrite them are involved.

              The only real mystery is why it isn't nefarious when Barack Obama is involved.
              ....
              http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ign.htm?p=full

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                In 12 minutes, it's pretty much over -

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

                Agreed?
                I hope even Doc got something out of that.
                Interesting but one item I'm not clear on ... it states that every doubling of CO2 amount would raise temperature by 1.1 degree C.
                What is the starting amount/level of CO2 from which to double to get the temp increase?
                Is this temp increase of the whole atmosphere, or just of the CO2?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  Interesting but one item I'm not clear on ... it states that every doubling of CO2 amount would raise temperature by 1.1 degree C.
                  What is the starting amount/level of CO2 from which to double to get the temp increase?
                  Is this temp increase of the whole atmosphere, or just of the CO2?

                  The starting level doesn't matter. It's a logarithmic function.

                  A geometric increase in CO2 yields a linear rise in temperature. Each doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases the net radiative forcing by 3.7 watts per meter squared at the Earth's surface.

                  All other things being equal, this equates to about 1 °C per doubling. However, all other things are never equal.

                  The Gorebots have assumed that feedback mechanisms, primarily water vapor, would triple or quadruple the direct forcing (Feedbacks = 3x to 4x). All of the actual observations indicate that the the feedbacks are minimal, possibly even dampening (Feedbacks = 0.5x to 2x).
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    The starting level doesn't matter. It's a logarithmic function.

                    A geometric increase in CO2 yields a linear rise in temperature. Each doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases the net radiative forcing by 3.7 watts per meter squared at the Earth's surface.

                    All other things being equal, this equates to about 1 °C per doubling. However, all other things are never equal.

                    The Gorebots have assumed that feedback mechanisms, primarily water vapor, would triple or quadruple the direct forcing (Feedbacks = 3x to 4x). All of the actual observations indicate that the the feedbacks are minimal, possibly even dampening (Feedbacks = 0.5x to 2x).
                    I got the part on the feedback not working per models as presented in the video, this doubling sounds a bit whacky.

                    If we start with 1ppm and double to 2ppm atmospheric temp goes up 1*C.
                    Double from 2ppm to 4 ppm and another bump of 1*C for the WHOLE atmosphere. -? -!
                    Double from 4ppm to 8ppm and again the WHOLE atmosphere is up another 1*C ?!
                    That's a 3*C rise in just going from 1 ppm to 8 ppm.
                    Sounds like

                    Progression continues;
                    8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - 256 - 512
                    So now we have CO2 having caused a 9*C increase, in the WHOLE atmosphere after going from 1 ppm to 512 PPM ???

                    And at this level the CO2 is only about 0.05% of total atmosphere, so the other 99.95 % is just soaking up all this heat caused(retained) by the CO2 ?

                    Is there some tutorials on this somewhere on the net that make it understandable to layperson citizens and taxpayers like me whom are expected to support this ACC/AGW stuff that sounds like snake-oil being sold by flim-flam con artists?

                    BTW, sounds like the way to make my home heating more efficient is to increase the level of CO2 in the house.

                    BTW, anyone actually demonstrated this like say in a huge vacuum chamber?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      I got the part on the feedback not working per models as presented in the video, this doubling sounds a bit whacky.

                      If we start with 1ppm and double to 2ppm atmospheric temp goes up 1*C.
                      Double from 2ppm to 4 ppm and another bump of 1*C for the WHOLE atmosphere. -? -!
                      Double from 4ppm to 8ppm and again the WHOLE atmosphere is up another 1*C ?!
                      That's a 3*C rise in just going from 1 ppm to 8 ppm.
                      Sounds like

                      Progression continues;
                      8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - 256 - 512
                      So now we have CO2 having caused a 9*C increase, in the WHOLE atmosphere after going from 1 ppm to 512 PPM ???

                      And at this level the CO2 is only about 0.05% of total atmosphere, so the other 99.95 % is just soaking up all this heat caused(retained) by the CO2 ?

                      Is there some tutorials on this somewhere on the net that make it understandable to layperson citizens and taxpayers like me whom are expected to support this ACC/AGW stuff that sounds like snake-oil being sold by flim-flam con artists?

                      BTW, sounds like the way to make my home heating more efficient is to increase the level of CO2 in the house.

                      BTW, anyone actually demonstrated this like say in a huge vacuum chamber?
                      The doubling starts at 1 ppmv because you can't double "0."
                      • 1 ppmv = 1 °C
                      • 2 ppmv = 2 °C
                      • 4 ppm = 3 ° C
                      • 8 ppmv = 4 °C
                      • 16 ppmv = 5 °C
                      • 32 ppmv = 6 °C
                      • 64 ppmv = 7 °C
                      • 128 ppmv = 8 °C
                      • 256 ppmv = 9 °C
                      • 512 ppmv = 10 °C
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Could somebody please explain why we, as an entity of any label, are spending all this damned money on the predicable consequences ofclimate change when we have massive trouble predicting our own weather patterns 72 hours in advance?

                        I am personally going to play idiots advocate here, being a climate change information idiot myself.( i don't want my progeny to follow in my footsteps..she's no idiot!)

                        COMPETITION: EXPLAIN "CLIMATE CHANGE" (FOR OR AGAINST))

                        Criteria for answers? Less than 25 words, 'buzz' words/phrases are not permitted......(why? I've got to explain this to my 5 year old daughter. She will switch off her attention (and I think i'll join her) if any of the following are used.....

                        Not permitted

                        Al Gore
                        Leftist
                        Conservative
                        Right-wing
                        looney
                        political
                        dialogue
                        market forces
                        Barack Obama
                        speculate
                        proof
                        conclusive
                        conspiracy
                        plot
                        researcher
                        any numerical figure...(this is for her, not me. she is only just learning maths concepts...getting there, but not quite.)
                        mommy wants
                        big nanny
                        con
                        flippant
                        unsustainable
                        sustainable
                        biofeedback....(in fact, can we have a kybosh on 'bio' anything?...Biodiversity particularly gets bandied around, and all the spinoffs are appalling. I thought we were a diverse Earth as it was, without adding BIO as a prefix to everything)
                        advocate
                        military-industrial-complex
                        fair
                        equitable
                        correctness
                        overwhelming majority
                        overwhelming minority


                        The winner gets a rep point from me every time I come across him/her in another part of the forum....hows that for incentive...

                        My daughter's research project thanks you all

                        And definately no..... ..... concepts please!!
                        Last edited by Drusus Nero; 24 Sep 15, 22:21.
                        My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                        Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                        GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                        Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                        Comment


                        • The current climate models have proven inaccurate enough that a serious reinvestigation of the relationship between co2 levels and atmospheric warming is needed.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • Ohhhh......if you had just substituted Carbon dioxide for Co2...You would have won it first pop!!!!

                            that was GREAT though.....

                            No politicalspeak, no politicians...no meaningless numbers and tables...just opinion pure, and unrefined...

                            So refreshing.....

                            AND it was BANG on twenty four words...so close to the cigar you can SMELL the smoke!!!!
                            My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                            Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                            GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                            Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                              Could somebody please explain why we, as an entity of any label, are spending all this damned money on the predicable consequences ofclimate change when we have massive trouble predicting our own weather patterns 72 hours in advance?

                              I am personally going to play idiots advocate here, being a climate change information idiot myself.( i don't want my progeny to follow in my footsteps..she's no idiot!)

                              COMPETITION: EXPLAIN "CLIMATE CHANGE" (FOR OR AGAINST))

                              Criteria for answers? Less than 25 words, 'buzz' words/phrases are not permitted......(why? I've got to explain this to my 5 year old daughter. She will switch off her attention (and I think i'll join her) if any of the following are used.....

                              Not permitted

                              Al Gore
                              Leftist
                              Conservative
                              Right-wing
                              looney
                              political
                              dialogue
                              market forces
                              Barack Obama
                              speculate
                              proof
                              conclusive
                              conspiracy
                              plot
                              researcher
                              any numerical figure...(this is for her, not me. she is only just learning maths concepts...getting there, but not quite.)
                              mommy wants
                              big nanny
                              con
                              flippant
                              unsustainable
                              sustainable
                              biofeedback....(in fact, can we have a kybosh on 'bio' anything?...Biodiversity particularly gets bandied around, and all the spinoffs are appalling. I thought we were a diverse Earth as it was, without adding BIO as a prefix to everything)
                              advocate
                              military-industrial-complex
                              fair
                              equitable
                              correctness
                              overwhelming majority
                              overwhelming minority


                              The winner gets a rep point from me every time I come across him/her in another part of the forum....hows that for incentive...

                              My daughter's research project thanks you all

                              And definately no..... ..... concepts please!!
                              Why spend money studying climate change?

                              It's the same reason we spend money studying plate tectonics, meteorology and all other natural processes which affect humans, our civilization (or lack thereof) and our economic & agricultural activities.

                              16 words...
                              The better we understand actual and potential geophysical hazards, the better we can adapt to them.


                              The problem with climate science, in its current form, is that it has been hijacked by politicians and bureaucrats. Rather than operating from Chamberlin's Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, it is operating from a Ruling Paradigm, a seriously flawed paradigm.

                              Biodiversity is a meaningless word...

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

                              Comment


                              • That was actually a great post doc...16 words....

                                But i DID ask for an opinion, for or against.

                                Undoubted inteelectuals such as your good self are sitting on the fence, and we are still spending money going round in circles.

                                I would like to award the gong to someone from whose posting's i bellieve is the smartest individual on this forum...but...fence sitter are a no go...

                                Sorry. My daughter has to have SOMETHING to tell her class!
                                My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                                Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                                GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                                Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X