1 > 1 - Global Warming

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed May 07, 2014 12:19 pm

The 'Cure' for Climate Change Is Far Worse than the Disease


Nicolas Loris

May 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm

Manmade greenhouse gas emissions already are causing gloom and doom and adversely affecting our way of life. That’s the conclusion of the National Climate Assessment released today by the Obama administration. But before we trade our Buicks for bikes, it’s important to highlight the climate realities and show that the administration’s proposed policy solutions will drive up the cost of energy for Americans and have no meaningful impact on climate.

Although the planet has warmed over the past six decades and a broad consensus exists that part of that warming is attributed to manmade emissions, what we’re seeing and where we’re headed is not toward climate catastrophe. As my colleague David Kreutzer writes, the climate threats do not match up with reality. Sea levels are rising but not as fast as projected. There have been no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes. Although the report does not address hurricanes, it does admit that “other trends in severe storms, including tornadoes, hail, and thunderstorms, are still uncertain.”

The report has a variety of serious problem. Many of the models the federal government relied on to promulgate these regulations projected a 0.3-degree Celsius warming over the past 17 years, when in reality no warming occurred (although CO2 emissions have increased). Since 2011, 16 experiments published in peer-reviewed literature found the equilibrium climate sensitivity (the effect that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have), is 40 percent lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the NCA project. In other words, a lot of variability exists in projecting what impact increased GHGs will have on the planet, which has serious implications not just for future temperature projections but all the other scary scenarios NCA outlines.

What’s most troubling is, even if climate change were occurring at an unsustainable rate, the administration’s policy prescriptions will not fix anything but will further harm the economy. The proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions essentially would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants and force existing ones into early retirement, driving up the cost of energy on American families and businesses. Higher energy prices shrink production in consumption, resulting in less income for families, more people in the unemployment line and less economic growth. And even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gas emissions entirely, we would not moderate the Earth’s temperature more than a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the end of the century.

Some of the NCA’s policy solutions are even more invasive. The report says greenhouse gas reductions is one of the co-benefits of replacing short vehicle commutes with biking or walking and reducing your red meat intake to reduce the amount of methane emitted from the animals we eat. Not that federal government nudging and taking away choice from consumers and businesses is new. Over several decades the Department of Energy now has set efficiency regulations for more than 50 commercial and industrial products, including everything from dehumidifiers to illuminated exit signs. DOE touts these regulations not only as ways to save energy and money for consumers but as greenhouse gas reducers as well.

What today’s report and the latest data show are that the cure for climate change, as envisioned by the Obama administration, is far worse than the disease. Congress needs to step up and stop the administration’s costly and ineffective solution to a non-problem.


The biggest fraud of the 21st century continues. This will be another Obama legacy that is seen as a joke. Billions wasted on a non-issue will be what people remember about this part of his agenda.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am


Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Rat Creek » Wed May 07, 2014 1:17 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The biggest fraud of the 21st century continues. This will be another Obama legacy that is seen as a joke. Billions wasted on a non-issue will be what people remember about this part of his agenda.


I know what you are saying and agree for about half the population. But to the anti-God left, their religion, which cannot be challenged, is global warming, climate change and now, climate disruption. :bow: They want to believe, therefore, they do believe. There are no facts that will ever change their minds, so until they take their last breath, they will go on believing that Obama really was trying to save the planet from becoming hotter than the sun. :rolleyes:

Three things jumped out at me.
(1) They reported warming when no warming has occurred for some time. Oh well, hide the decline because the facts do not fit the narrative. :no:
(2) Forty percent variability in the affects, depending upon which “science is settle” organization you ask. Now that is what I call precision. Nothing like give or take 40% on something that is so darn settled. :lol3:
(3) You have to love it when the organization they look to for credibility has climate change in its name. IPCC. What next? Ask the Organization of Chicago Cubs Fans which team has the best chance of winning next year? :oops:

Of course this is about Big Gov control of people’s lives. When Hussein and the Mooch stop firing up the 747 to fly around sipping organic fruit smoothies, and Al Gore turns off his coal powered house, I will stop rejecting 100% of what they say simply based upon their blatant hypocrisy. :no:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Indaswamp » Wed May 07, 2014 1:34 pm

Here it is plain and simple...

This means we should aggressively pass laws and restrict emissions, right?

Wrong.

Why?

Because the United States is not only no longer the largest CO2 emitter the nation that is, China, is not going to stop economic development that leads to those CO2 emissions even if we do.

Nor will India, which is rising fast in CO2 output.

Nor will the rest of the developing world.

In other words our alarmism is immaterial because we cannot compel other nations to do anything, and they won't act as we demand.

They won't act for one simple reason: Behind every unit of economic output is a unit of energy.

The more that energy costs the fewer units of economic output you obtain, net-net.

And irrespective of our angst or screaming, they are not going to stop their development.

That's the beginning and end of the discussion in that regard.


And some more truth...
At the same time the whackjob left wants to play CO2 games those very same people refuse to put forward alternatives that could resolve some of these problems. So-called "renewables" in fact often have a worse environmental impact, when measured end-to-end, than simply burning fossil fuels! This is particularly true for wind and solar, both of which tend to rely heavily on rare earth elements that must be mined -- an act that inherently has cost to the environment (never mind the fossil fuels consumed in doing so, extracting the metals from the dug-up raw ore and processing them into usable forms.)

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228992
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58795
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed May 07, 2014 1:57 pm

My personal favorite note in the article was the reference to 16 peer reviewed reports that disagree with the general consensus on global warming. Giving the lie to the constant barrage of 9,176 to 1 argument we keep hearing. Any fool knows that there is no possible way 9176 real scientists agree on anything.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Indaswamp » Wed May 07, 2014 4:33 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:My personal favorite note in the article was the reference to 16 peer reviewed reports that disagree with the general consensus on global warming. Giving the lie to the constant barrage of 9,176 to 1 argument we keep hearing. Any fool knows that there is no possible way 9176 real scientists agree on anything.

:lol3: I missed that! Where is dhunt now???? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58795
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby High Sierras » Wed May 07, 2014 5:30 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The biggest fraud of the 21st century continues. This will be another Obama legacy that is seen as a joke. Billions wasted on a non-issue will be what people remember about this part of his agenda.

Oh, come on Scaup! That was supposed to Algore's legacy... Well, that and inventing the internets. The Portland DA took away Al's chance to be remembered as a philanderer when they dropped the charges for harrassing the massause, and obama upstaged Al's nobel peace prize, without even having to earn it. Don't take Algore's legacy of global warming/coolling/climate shifting away and give it to obama too. And AOL pretty much robbed Al of the whole internets thing.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby dudejcb » Thu May 08, 2014 2:50 pm

This is what I was referring to when I posted Paul Krugman's article on the other thread. It's okay for Scaup or others to post stuff form Niclas Loris (a very conservative person) and act as though it's gospel. Yet anyone who has a more progressive or different slant is laughed at.

Can you boys say, Blind DOUBLE STANDARD?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 08, 2014 4:06 pm

dudejcb wrote:This is what I was referring to when I posted Paul Krugman's article on the other thread. It's okay for Scaup or others to post stuff form Niclas Loris (a very conservative person) and act as though it's gospel. Yet anyone who has a more progressive or different slant is laughed at.

Can you boys say, Blind DOUBLE STANDARD?

Image

BTW, we have determined who is to blame for global warming.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/harry-reid-koch-brothers-climate-change-106441.html

“While the Koch brothers admit to not being experts on the matter, these billionaire oil tycoons are certainly experts at contributing to climate change. That’s what they do very well. They are one of the main causes of this. Not a cause, one of the main causes,” Reid said.

Yep, the man the Democrats elected to be their leader in the U.S. Senate claims that the Koch brothers are "one of the main causes" of global warming.

And dude, there is video there for you, so you can see for yourself how Image in the head the Democrat majority leader is.

He clearly thinks these guys are pure evil. Is there any other way to describe people that are "waging a war against anything that protects the environment" as Harry Reid claims? This is absurd of course. He knows that his supporters are so stupid they will eat this up. He has no plans to work with people he disagrees with. This is how authoritarians speak of their political opponents. They have no right to exist. Can we truly afford to allow someone that is waging a war against anything that protects the environment to walk free? Clearly they are violating all kinds of laws and endangering us all.

Dude, if you want some credibility, you have got to stop supporting nutjobs like Reid. He is not Maxine Waters or some other nut from some local legislative district. This is the man chosen by the Democrats in the U.S. Senate to lead them. If that is their chosen leader, what does it say about them?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Indaswamp » Thu May 08, 2014 4:33 pm

dudejcb wrote:This is what I was referring to when I posted Paul Krugman's article on the other thread. It's okay for Scaup or others to post stuff form Niclas Loris (a very conservative person) and act as though it's gospel. Yet anyone who has a more progressive or different slant is laughed at.

Can you boys say, Blind DOUBLE STANDARD?

I have numerous posts destroying Krugman's idiotic positions on the economy....It's has NOTHING to do with right/left.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58795
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu May 08, 2014 4:58 pm

dudejcb wrote:This is what I was referring to when I posted Paul Krugman's article on the other thread. It's okay for Scaup or others to post stuff form Niclas Loris (a very conservative person) and act as though it's gospel. Yet anyone who has a more progressive or different slant is laughed at.

Can you boys say, Blind DOUBLE STANDARD?



Yes we can. We can also say dogmatic blind dumb azz liberal in a hallelujah type high volume voice! :lol3:

I have repeatedly stated in threads I am not an R. You are to befuddled to hear it. I have blasted both side for different things. Yes I blast liberals more often. Mainly becuase they are such a bunch of control freak idiots. That and always whining and crying like a 3 year old. Frankly it is sickening. The SKY IS FALLING, The SKY IS FALLING! YOU ARE EVIL! NO DON'T ARGUE OR ASK WHY! JUST ACCEPT IT AND KNOW I SAY IT SO IT IS TRUE! Bunch of thieving, communist loving, freedom hating morons. The lot of you! :umm:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby cartervj » Thu May 08, 2014 7:07 pm

ruh roh shaggy :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Wind-Farms-Severely-Harmful-to-Wildlife-New-Study-Finds

A new study from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, combining an impressive six hundred other studies, describes the severe effects wind turbines can have on wildlife. Not only are the disturbances and noise of the building of turbines an issue but also the sound of the windmills rotating and electromagnetic fields (EMF) caused by transferring the electricity produced to the mainland.

At the construction phase, for example, "extreme noise from pile-driving" is observed to cause "significant avoidance behaviour in marine mammals" and "highly likely to cause mortality and tissue damage in fish."
On the noise of the blades there was "avoidance of the offshore wind farm (OWF) area by harbor porpoise, and possibly a habituation over time."

EMF affects “cartilaginous fish, which use electromagnetic signals in detecting prey” and EMF could also disturb fish migration patterns.”

The OWF “may also alter local biodiversity patterns and lead to undesired effects.”
Onshore wind farms also have severe effects on animals and birds. A paper published in 2013 from Poland looked at domestic geese (Anser answer f domestica) bred 50m from a wind turbine against 500m for the control group.

After twelve weeks monitoring noise levels and the stress measuring cortisol levels the researchers concluded: “Lower activity and some disturbing changes in behavior of animals from group I (50m) were noted.
“Results of the study suggest a negative effect of the immediate vicinity of a wind turbine on the stress parameters of geese and their productivity.”

In Portugal a study also found that foals born near wind turbines developed Equine Flexural Limb Deformities.
Biologist Dr. Lynne Knuth, in a letter to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, testified: “The problems with animal reproduction reported in the wind farms in Wisconsin are lack of egg production, problems calving, spontaneous abortion (embryonic mortality), stillbirth, miscarriage and teratogenic effects:

In chickens: Crossed beaks, missing eyeballs, deformities of the skull (sunken eyes), joints of feet/legs bent at odd angles. In cattle: missing eyes and tails.”

While these effects seem to occur in the immediate vicinity of a wind turbine they are hugely important to humans. It has long been reported that those living near wind farms suffer from ill health. Sleep deprivation, headaches, tinnitus, balance problems, motivational difficulties and depression are just some of the alleged effects.

Wind farms continue to be a controversial subject both on and offshore. Not only is the power in need of government subsidies, the comparative cost of producing a Megawatt (MWh) of power ranges from £60 to £65 for coal and gas through to £90 to £150 respectively for onshore and offshore wind farms. Certainly in the UK there is increasing resistance from the population, being the proverbial blot on the landscape.

Many wind farm proponents point to psychogenesis and its subset psychsomaticism, where the person has the real symptoms but they are psychological induced, rather than physically induced. One has to say with animals it is highly unlikely.
When the West Country band The Wurzels release a new record bemoaning wind farms, resistance has to be taken seriously.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7366
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri May 09, 2014 8:24 am

I love the efforts to push psychological effects off on people when they have a gigantic noise and electricity making machine right next to them. No your sleep is not disturbed by noise. Nope you are not a giant electric circuit running a billion or two functions a day to stay alive. That giant amount of electricity doesn't affect you at all! :lol3:

When you break any living thing down far enough we are just a giant circuit. We have insanely complex interactions going on inside of us at all time. Introduce things that were not part of the normal function and you have a broken system at one or many levels. It is of course because those people just think they are sick, not because the systems has been disrupted. :huh:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Indaswamp » Fri May 09, 2014 1:56 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:I love the efforts to push psychological effects off on people when they have a gigantic noise and electricity making machine right next to them. No your sleep is not disturbed by noise. Nope you are not a giant electric circuit running a billion or two functions a day to stay alive. That giant amount of electricity doesn't affect you at all! :lol3:

When you break any living thing down far enough we are just a giant circuit. We have insanely complex interactions going on inside of us at all time. Introduce things that were not part of the normal function and you have a broken system at one or many levels. It is of course because those people just think they are sick, not because the systems has been disrupted. :huh:

Voltage matters Scaup.....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58795
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri May 09, 2014 2:41 pm

My friends have called me nuts for not buying houses near high voltage wires, cell towers, power stations, etc...... Call me paranoid if you want. I have read to much information supporting disruption of human and other animal systems by high levels of electricity to want to live anywhere near one of them.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri May 09, 2014 3:19 pm

EMF is something that is so easy to control in a laboratory and I've never seen a study where they have harmed people or animals under controlled conditions. If the effects were significant, it would be easy to produce in the lab. I just don't see that.

I can easily design experiments to give animals cancer with radiation in the lab. Now these are at levels generally far beyond anything ever experienced outside the lab, so it doesn't resolve the question of what is happening at levels that may occur from a nuclear accident like Fukushima, much less at much lower levels. If I couldn't produce clear repeated effects under lab conditions, I would be highly suspicious of any results from epidemiological studies done outside the lab in uncontrolled conditions.

Even when there are no effects at all, the typical standard is that false positives will be seen 5% of the time. This sounds low, but if you look at 20 different potential effects, on average you will get 1 false positive every time. On top of that is publishing bias. Do researchers publish studies when they get real negative results or when they get false positive results? All false positive results are published. The real negative results, well that's not exactly very interesting, not for the author to write, nor for the journal to publish. It is only after the false positive does the real negative become interesting.

What happens to the false positive that is later proven as nothing more than a statistical aberration? It stays in the journal. They don't go back and pull them out of all the journals. They stay just as the ones proven accurate. It is up to the experts to be sure they are up to date on the latest state of the art.

That being said. If it worries you, you are not crazy to avoid it. Even if proven absolutely safe, if it worries you, it worries you and avoiding that has real value. It's when the liberals turn their worries into laws imposed upon me that there is a problem. Not everything we do has to be rational. It is only when we wish to impose upon others must it be rational in addition to not violating the rights of other free and equal individuals nor should anyone try to force you to be rational.

Now certain things are harder to test.

EMF affects “cartilaginous fish, which use electromagnetic signals in detecting prey” and EMF could also disturb fish migration patterns.”


The first should be easy to test. The second very hard.

At the construction phase, for example, "extreme noise from pile-driving" is observed to cause "significant avoidance behaviour in marine mammals" and "highly likely to cause mortality and tissue damage in fish."

This I don't really think is in doubt. Stress is well established as harmful.

A lot of others in the article, I am highly suspicious because these are things false attributed to radiation where it was not even possible. I am amused at the some accusations used against the greenies.

The disruption of land, the disruption of construction, and the disruption of operation are a big part of why thermal power plants are far better. Per unit energy generated, these effects are so much less than for these low density intermittent power sources. It is easy to generate as much energy as 10,000 wind turbines at ONE, yes ONE, thermal power plant. I wonder which will be better for the environment in practice? 10,000 wind turbines scattered over a vast area or 1 area of heavy industry? :huh:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri May 09, 2014 4:58 pm

Nicely put spinner. I for one don't care if there is real danger from EMF's or not. I know I don't want to live near anything creating them for extended periods. I also know I don't use natural gas in my house. It is simply a time bomb waiting to happen. Odds of ever loosing that dice roll. almost zero. Odds of being dead if I do loose it well over 75%. It is just not something I am willing to risk personally. I know lots of folks that use it, and more power to them. I also won't buy a house in a flood plain, on a major roadway, or near a major gas transmission line. Fortunately I live in an area where it is easy to avoid these kinds of things when buying a house. Lots of room and homes available away from things that bother my subconscious. As mentioned stress is a killer. Being able to walk out my door while feeling comfortable and safe has a value for me.

I agree fully that the problem comes in when you have people deciding they can regulate what I do and do not need.

I fully support a major increase in nuclear reactor use for energy production. It is the single most reasonable alternative energy to use. Handled properly it is safe enough in many areas to be viable, and is very cost effective in the long run.

Mind I wouldn't buy a house near a plant myself. I know more than a few folks who lived out near the old Trojan plant in my area.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Indaswamp » Fri May 09, 2014 7:03 pm

:lol3:
"My interest in Al Gore's pronouncements could fit into a gnat's navel & still leave room for a Liberal's sense of humor."-Pat Sajak; Wheel of Fortune Game show host
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58795
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby nitram » Sat May 10, 2014 8:42 pm

I think, regarding the climate issue, objective journalists today need to have an old school “lick of guts and an ounce of smarts” when reporting on this. (There are those that are beyond objective.)

First: You should not be reporting on “climate change.” The climate is always in a state of change. There have been glaciers in New York City, and most of what is now our most densely populated areas of the East Coast as well as the fertile lower Mississippi Valley was under water at one time. Right off the bat you should be asking, “Well, why is 4 -8 inches of sea level rise in 100-150 years a big deal compared to what has actually happened?” Alarmists said global warming. They own it. And journalists should make them own up to it. Why in the world are you letting them get away with switching horses mid-stream – climate change is obvious and natural – and not holding their feet to the fire?

Second: You should do the work yourself to see what is going on. The journalists of the ‘70s and '80s understood their job was to question authority, not obey it. I think part of the problem is that some of the great journalism of those days past made stars out of journalist. This granted them access to some of the glitter of stardom, and in a way, became a perk that many are seduced by today. I don’t know if it’s intentional. The current governor of Ohio, John Kasich, once told me to never let being on TV get in the way of what you are really made to do. (I used to love Saturday nights when he asked me to be on his show “Heartland.”) He said it can be seductive. I pooh poohed it for awhile, but then started noticing that if there were stretches no one asked me to be on, I started getting mad. He was right. Being in the media can be seductive.

Third: You are supposed to be liberal in the true sense of the word. That is akin to being able to think with your head and pursue with your heart, and to do that you need a lick of guts and an ounce of smarts. Use the head first – not the heart! Being sheeplike is not the answer for a journalist. They go where they are told without thinking twice about it. Is this what journalism has become? I am not advocating you being wolves; perhaps more like a fox is better. But on this issue, one that is sapping our nation’s strength like heat out of a drafty house, we need true liberal-minded people to discern what is right and wrong. And that means taking you wherever the path of truth leads, not where it is you might want to go based on some high-minded abstract that can never be defined nor measured!

Let me give you just one example – global sea ice. Global warming was supposed to produce shrinking sea ice, right? How is that working out?


We are currently well above normal globally.

This is largely because of the expansion in the Southern Hemisphere, even more impressive since it’s expanding into an area that is almost all water, and it’s tougher to move the temperature of the oceans than land masses around it, such as the Arctic.


The coming Southern Hemisphere winter could result in record breaking sea ice extent. Last time that happened, the Northern Hemisphere was at record low levels in what AGW hysteria was promoting as “The Arctic Death Spiral.” My side pointed to the warm Atlantic Multi Decadol Oscillation (AMO) as the reason for this, and once it flipped to cold, as it was through the 1980s, sea ice would expand. Please remember that the Pacific has flipped to its colder mode, but only at the very start of this graphic was the Pacific and Atlantic in their cold modes together. So the start of the measurement here was at the height of what was the best set up for the expansion of Arctic sea ice.


Again, as long as the Atlantic was in its cold overall mode, sea ice was more or less above normal.

So I made a forecast back in 2007 that the Arctic would return to normal and above once the Atlantic flipped to its cold mode for good, which is around or after 2020. We can already see evidence now. The Atlantic has cooled some. (Even in warm periods, we see ups and downs go on, just like we see El Ninos – like we will this year – in the colder times of the Pacific, but they are short lived overall and preceded and followed by longer periods of cooling.) Look what the forecasted Arctic sea ice anomaly is for the height of the melting season this year now that the Atlantic is a bit cooler.


It’s nowhere near as low as previous years. It’s the summer min. that is what the sea ice death spiral people have been jumping on, yet this minor turn to colder overall – again, we are not ready to shift completely out of the dedadol warm mode – has it near normal for this melt season and increasing against the anomaly from the level it’s at now!

So what do you think is going to happen when the AMO turns cold overall again?

I am directing this at the vast majority of journalist out there that may not understand there is so much contrary information to the missive that you are constantly bombarded with on man-made global warming. I am not asking you to charge a beach into a hail of machine gun fire and go cut bob-wire in a maze of hedges. Nor do you need to go win three NCAA titles and be undefeated in college. But I think what my Coach Koll said is needed here – “a lick of guts and an ounce of smarts.” I am not insulting you since I believe that is what is in you, since the very nature of this vocational calling means that is a given. But you have to get a little old school, think with your head and pursue with your heart. The truth in this matter, and all it implies for freedom and the ability for untold amounts of people to have a chance at a better life, depends on it. It’s no different than the great “liberal” lights that is shown before you to give you this chance to do what you do.

Sometimes being a “hero” is simply the situation you are in and the ability to fight for the answer. And that takes a lick of guts and an ounce of smarts. - Joe Bastardi


http://www.newsmaxtv.com/cmspages/newsm ... 2vXjO71dcb

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun May 11, 2014 7:37 am

dudejcb wrote:This is what I was referring to when I posted Paul Krugman's article on the other thread. It's okay for Scaup or others to post stuff form Niclas Loris (a very conservative person) and act as though it's gospel. Yet anyone who has a more progressive or different slant is laughed at.

Can you boys say, Blind DOUBLE STANDARD?


What she is posting is a writing by a gentleman named David Kreutzer, who is employed by the obviously non-biased Heritage Foundation. The goal of the Heritage Foudation, as stated by its founders is, "Weyrich and Feulner sought to create an organization that would supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers."

Now what's that sound strangely similar to? How about the e-mailed "talking points" supplied to Susan Rice? Could they be considered as "concise, timely POSITION papers" supplied to policymakers?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby On the X » Sun May 11, 2014 9:29 am

First: You should not be reporting on “climate change.” The climate is always in a state of change. There have been glaciers in New York City, and most of what is now our most densely populated areas of the East Coast as well as the fertile lower Mississippi Valley was under water at one time. Right off the bat you should be asking, “Well, why is 4 -8 inches of sea level rise in 100-150 years a big deal compared to what has actually happened?” Alarmists said global warming. They own it. And journalists should make them own up to it. Why in the world are you letting them get away with switching horses mid-stream – climate change is obvious and natural – and not holding their feet to the fire?

There's a lake 150+ miles inland in central NC where I hunt for arrowheads when the water levels low, I found a sharks tooth once while looking. I don't believe the tooth fell thru a hole in the guys pocket who walked there before me. Humans had nothing to do with the ocean water level covering this area at that time nor did they have any influence on the shark losing its tooth.
On the X
hunter
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun May 11, 2014 11:15 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
dudejcb wrote:This is what I was referring to when I posted Paul Krugman's article on the other thread. It's okay for Scaup or others to post stuff form Niclas Loris (a very conservative person) and act as though it's gospel. Yet anyone who has a more progressive or different slant is laughed at.

Can you boys say, Blind DOUBLE STANDARD?


What she is posting is a writing by a gentleman named David Kreutzer, who is employed by the obviously non-biased Heritage Foundation. The goal of the Heritage Foudation, as stated by its founders is, "Weyrich and Feulner sought to create an organization that would supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers."

Now what's that sound strangely similar to? How about the e-mailed "talking points" supplied to Susan Rice? Could they be considered as "concise, timely POSITION papers" supplied to policymakers?

Position papers have substances.

Talking points are buzz words and bullet points.

One is a paper and one is a few points. They don't sound similar at all. Position papers are something that are normal part of scientific investigations. These imply a series effort. Talking points do not.

http://hps.org/hpspublications/positionstatements.html
Position statements of the Health Physics Society (HPS) are prepared by or under the direction of the Scientific and Public Issues Committee (S&PIC) and approved by the Board of Directors in accordance with the Bylaws and Rules of the Society. The S&PIC is comprised of five members—the immediate past president (chair), president, president-elect, and two most recent president emeriti.


These really don't sound like talking points at all if you know what a position paper is supposed to be. They are a very serious effort precisely because the are trying to supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers.

Any serious organization takes position papers very seriously. They are nothing like talking points.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun May 11, 2014 8:15 pm

"Rhodes’ email was dated Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi attack. It was obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department. The White House has previously released email correspondence detailing how “talking points” vetted by the CIA had shaped Rice’s comments. '

So apparently the information vetted by the CIA "shaped" Rice's comments. Well, just a few posts ago, the CIA was being lauded as the truth tellers in the
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby Gunnysway » Sun May 11, 2014 9:15 pm

Snow in Nebraska... In May...

Yup... Global warming at its worst... :grooving:
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3318
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: 1 > 1 - Global Warming

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon May 12, 2014 8:17 am

Gunnysway wrote:Snow in Nebraska... In May...

Yup... Global warming at its worst... :grooving:

While I find this funny to poke the warmer nuts, but what happens when next year its record highs?

Neither means a damn thing as proof that man-caused detrimental impact is real. Another Dust Bowl doesn't prove warming any more than another little ice age would disprove the opposite. Of course, the next event like the Dust Bowl and we are screwed :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: The Dems will magnify the harm dramatically. Just think how screwed we would be if the Dust Bowl drought were to happen now. They'd do all the wrong things and damage the economy even worse than Obamacare, the Porkulus Bill, and all the other massive regulations we have imposed recently.

Glimmerjim wrote:"Rhodes’ email was dated Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi attack. It was obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department. The White House has previously released email correspondence detailing how “talking points” vetted by the CIA had shaped Rice’s comments. '

So apparently the information vetted by the CIA "shaped" Rice's comments. Well, just a few posts ago, the CIA was being lauded as the truth tellers in the

What do you think vetted means? Here's the talking points from the President, he wants you to sign off on this. What do you do? You are not that naive.

We know that there were NO demonstrations. Never were and this was known immediately. How long before the American people knew this was true? Why? :huh:

It's is very easy to mislead without even lying. Rewrite the talking points to leave it muddled and what is a bureaucrat going to do? Resign in indignation over politicians being politicians? :lol3:

I know you want to convince yourself that Obama and his administration is not a lying sack of $hit, but sorry. If you like this President, you'll really have to keep his lying ways. And not in the way you get to keep your insurance policy if Obama likes it.

I've done this kind of thing over the years. You know how opinionated I am. When vetting something, the standard is not is this the God's honest truth, but the question is "can you live with this?" For someone not in politics, this part of the job sucks. All this insane wordsmithing and obsession over just the right phrase, you know me, that's not my style. It's probably part of what I like about the Controversial Issues forum. Image it if I offend somebody. BTW, while I hate doing it. I'm actually pretty good at this kind of thing when I have to be. That's why I get stuck doing quite a bit of it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests