• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Recommended Posts

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:45 AM, Gouvernail said:

Our local Weatherman pointed out an interesting factoid.'

the top four most powerful hurricanes happened in the last two years.

 

trend? Aberration? Can't say yet 

Irma was only the 7th  (or 17th) most powerful tropical storm ,,,, so ,,, no...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:45 AM, Gouvernail said:

Our local Weatherman pointed out an interesting factoid.'

the top four most powerful hurricanes happened in the last two years.

 

trend? Aberration? Can't say yet 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/8-most-powerful-storms-record-make-landfall-f2D11570756

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones#North_Atlantic_Ocean

 

Find another weatherman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, warbird said:

Irma was only the 7th  (or 17th) most powerful tropical storm ,,,, so ,,, no...

 

Definitely not the most powerful on record, unless you're talking only the Atlantic excluding the Gulf and Caribbean.

http://time.com/4935449/hurricane-irma-records/

Irma set plenty of records, according to a two-page list compiled by Colorado State University researcher Phil Klotzbach:

  • Its 185 mph (297 kph) winds were the highest on record for the open Atlantic ocean, outside the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean sea. Only one other storm in the entire Atlantic basin — 1980's Allen — was stronger.
  • It spent three consecutive days as a top-of-the-scale Category 5 hurricane, the longest in the satellite era.
  • It generated the second most Accumulated Cyclone Energy — a key measurement that combines strength and duration — in the satellite era. Irma generated about as much as energy as entire normal Atlantic hurricane season.
  • It was the strongest storm to hit the Leeward Islands.
  • It's the first Category 5 hurricane to hit Cuba, which regularly gets assaulted by hurricanes, in nearly 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

 

Definitely not the most powerful on record, unless you're talking only the Atlantic excluding the Gulf and Caribbean.

http://time.com/4935449/hurricane-irma-records/

Irma set plenty of records, according to a two-page list compiled by Colorado State University researcher Phil Klotzbach:

  • Its 185 mph (297 kph) winds were the highest on record for the open Atlantic ocean, outside the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean sea. Only one other storm in the entire Atlantic basin — 1980's Allen — was stronger.
  • It spent three consecutive days as a top-of-the-scale Category 5 hurricane, the longest in the satellite era.
  • It generated the second most Accumulated Cyclone Energy — a key measurement that combines strength and duration — in the satellite era. Irma generated about as much as energy as entire normal Atlantic hurricane season.
  • It was the strongest storm to hit the Leeward Islands.
  • It's the first Category 5 hurricane to hit Cuba, which regularly gets assaulted by hurricanes, in nearly 100 years.

"Allen" and "Cuba" also had 185 mph winds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So trump has said Harvey and Irma were the biggest storms ever and his admin was doing a great job dealing with them.  Then when the logical next question is asked about does he think climate change is responsible, he contradicts himself saying that there were lots of storms bigger.  Do trump supporters get nauseous from all the flip flops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More scientists are moderating their positions on warming. Anyone who suspected that the warming threat was overstated has been labeled a denier by the believers around here which raises an interesting question... If a scientist believes that prior predictions overstated the threat does he also become a denier?

"Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

I saw this the other day and though of you :)  Time for a new tractor!

 

 

scan0017.jpg

Ha, yeah you could probably buy 2 new Ferraris for that kit. I'm just a little farm. The only new equipment I have is a 60" Exmark ZTR to mow the yard. Some of my stuff goes back to the 1960s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Rose Fudged Numbers To Claim Climate Scientists "Confess[ed]" To Lower Warming. The Mail on Sunday published an article on September 14 originally titled "World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we thought." In the article, reporter David Rose claimed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set to admit that the world is warming more slowly than previously thought. A climate scientist explained to the UK watchdog group Carbon Brief why Rose's numbers were "completely incorrect" and that the true revision was minor -- from 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade to 0.12 degrees Celsius:

However, three of those four scientists subsequently criticized Rose, with two saying they were misrepresented in the article. Climate scientist Myles Allen said that Rose misrepresented his view by claiming that he now thought the world was on the course for much lower warming than he previously thought. Allen said that he "certainly never suggested to David that my assessment of the odds on any particular level of warming by 2100 had changed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY Times - https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/climate/epa-scientists.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=http://m.facebook.com

 

E.P.A. Cancels Talk on Climate Change by Agency Scientists

excerpt -

The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.

John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence, R.I. He provided no further explanation.

Scientists involved in the program said that much of the discussion at the event centers on climate change. Many said they were surprised by the E.P.A.’s last-minute cancellation, particularly since the agency helps to fund the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which is hosting the conference. The scientists who have been barred from speaking contributed substantial material to a 400-page report to be issued on Monday.

The move highlights widespread concern that the E.P.A. will silence government scientists from speaking publicly or conducting work on climate change. Scott Pruitt, the agency administrator, has said that he does not believe human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate deniers.  Are you confident enough to send me a case of your local good stuff every time I can sail without a dry suit or foul weather gear in November in Ohio?   I’ll send you two cases if I cannot sail at least once.   I’ll sail singlehanded a 2 man dinghy that is easily overpwerered, so I have to pick my days.   If you believe your BS and like Great Lakes beer it’s a safe bet.   If I can sail in December I want a keg.    Here is the ‘normal’ weather from Grandpa’s day.   https://weatherspark.com/m/15863/11/Average-Weather-in-November-in-Dayton-Ohio-United-States

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

NY Times - https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/climate/epa-scientists.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=http://m.facebook.com

 

E.P.A. Cancels Talk on Climate Change by Agency Scientists

excerpt -

The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.

John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence, R.I. He provided no further explanation.

Scientists involved in the program said that much of the discussion at the event centers on climate change. Many said they were surprised by the E.P.A.’s last-minute cancellation, particularly since the agency helps to fund the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which is hosting the conference. The scientists who have been barred from speaking contributed substantial material to a 400-page report to be issued on Monday.

The move highlights widespread concern that the E.P.A. will silence government scientists from speaking publicly or conducting work on climate change. Scott Pruitt, the agency administrator, has said that he does not believe human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet.

 

one would think a whistleblower or something would stand up and expose these corrupt denier shit stains for what they are, many would have his back. if so, pruitt and his cohorts would be cornered like desperate rats, yet meanwhile, they push their agendas with impunity. is the system really that compromised?

people get all wound up and righteous about weinstein and transgender shitter rights, where the fk is the social and political opposition regarding this criminal bs which is an assault on our environment and ultimately our health?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3to1 said:

one would think a whistleblower or something would stand up and expose these corrupt denier shit stains for what they are, many would have his back. if so, pruitt and his cohorts would be cornered like desperate rats, yet meanwhile, they push their agendas with impunity. is the system really that compromised?

people get all wound up and righteous about weinstein and transgender shitter rights, where the fk is the social and political opposition regarding this criminal bs which is an assault on our environment and ultimately our health?

.....or maybe......

The govt will not foot the bill for travel and lodging. The employees may no longer get paid time off for these engagements. ....

Maybe the govt agencies have to now take a meutral stance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, warbird said:

.....or maybe......

The govt will not foot the bill for travel and lodging. The employees may no longer get paid time off for these engagements. ....

Maybe the govt agencies have to now take a meutral stance...

I hope the USDA takes a neutral stance on Mad Cow Disease as well,   It unfairly discriminates against cows with mental disability,   The government must be neutrally in matters of public welfare and scientific evidence.  I’m also concerned about our Ebola policy.   Methods of transmission and infectious period need further research.   We don’t know all the exceptions  and mitigating factors.   More research is needed instead of heavy handed quarantine.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

.....or maybe......

The govt will not foot the bill for travel and lodging. The employees may no longer get paid time off for these engagements. ....

Maybe the govt agencies have to now take a meutral stance...

what a willful fukwhit, are you supposed to be taken seriously? that's such a load of shit it doesn't even merit discussion, and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

I hope the USDA takes a neutral stance on Mad Cow Disease as well,   It unfairly discriminates against cows with mental disability,   The government must be neutrally in matters of public welfare and scientific evidence.  I’m also concerned about our Ebola policy.   Methods of transmission and infectious period need further research.   We don’t know all the exceptions  and mitigating factors.   More research is needed instead of heavy handed quarantine.   

lol, also, the gubmint is taking a 'neutral stance' regarding gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

I hope the USDA takes a neutral stance on Mad Cow Disease as well,   It unfairly discriminates against cows with mental disability,   The government must be neutrally in matters of public welfare and scientific evidence.  I’m also concerned about our Ebola policy.   Methods of transmission and infectious period need further research.   We don’t know all the exceptions  and mitigating factors.   More research is needed instead of heavy handed quarantine.   

You are laboring under a misconception. The cows aren't crazy, they are pissed off. I would be too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Dear..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406

Once were sceptics: What convinced these scientists that climate change is real?

Share

  • Up until a few years ago, Richard Muller was often quoted by sceptics as a credible, high-profile scientist who doubted the consensus on climate change.

    Today, he starts his lectures by stating a few things he believes to be facts.

    "Al Gore has grossly exaggerated global warming. And if you watch his movie you have more misinformation than information.

    "However, global warming is real. It is caused by humans. It is caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases, and I personally feel we have to stop it somehow."

    In 2010, Professor Muller from Berkeley University was funded to carry out a comprehensive study by a group of individuals who doubted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data.

    They believed that urban heat islands, data-selection bias, and inaccurate climate models were being glossed over by scientists.

    'Don't trust us' approach key to convincing sceptics

    Professor Muller and his team — all of whom doubted climate change was happening or that carbon dioxide was its cause — were shocked to find a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and warming.

    "That was the biggest surprise of all," he said.

    "Volcanoes, sunspots, orbital changes, we could all rule out. What we could do is show [that warming] matched the carbon dioxide exceedingly well."

    To address what he sees as a lack of transparency in some IPCC reporting, his team made all their data available online.

    "The teams that did [the previous studies] said 'trust us'. We said 'don't trust us, here's what we did'. And for that reason I think we were able to win over the sceptics," he said.

    However, he said there was still room for scepticism.

    "Yes I am a converted sceptic. However, anybody today who is not a sceptic about the solutions being proposed is not thinking them through."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 11:12 PM, 3to1 said:

what a willful fukwhit, are you supposed to be taken seriously? that's such a load of shit it doesn't even merit discussion, and you know it.

The govt should pay for these speakers who get paid??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Oh Dear..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406

Once were sceptics: What convinced these scientists that climate change is real?

Share

  • Up until a few years ago, Richard Muller was often quoted by sceptics as a credible, high-profile scientist who doubted the consensus on climate change.

    Today, he starts his lectures by stating a few things he believes to be facts.

    "Al Gore has grossly exaggerated global warming. And if you watch his movie you have more misinformation than information.

    "However, global warming is real. It is caused by humans. It is caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases, and I personally feel we have to stop it somehow."

    In 2010, Professor Muller from Berkeley University was funded to carry out a comprehensive study by a group of individuals who doubted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data.

    They believed that urban heat islands, data-selection bias, and inaccurate climate models were being glossed over by scientists.

    'Don't trust us' approach key to convincing sceptics

    Professor Muller and his team — all of whom doubted climate change was happening or that carbon dioxide was its cause — were shocked to find a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and warming.

    "That was the biggest surprise of all," he said.

    "Volcanoes, sunspots, orbital changes, we could all rule out. What we could do is show [that warming] matched the carbon dioxide exceedingly well."

    To address what he sees as a lack of transparency in some IPCC reporting, his team made all their data available online.

    "The teams that did [the previous studies] said 'trust us'. We said 'don't trust us, here's what we did'. And for that reason I think we were able to win over the sceptics," he said.

    However, he said there was still room for scepticism.

    "Yes I am a converted sceptic. However, anybody today who is not a sceptic about the solutions being proposed is not thinking them through."

NOw the shills ... after the evidence is just too much and they look too stupid, have switched to "Yes it's happening but we don't want any changes that affect profits of fossli fuel owners."

The data was available from the previous studies , lying shills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 5:51 PM, Sean said:

 

Definitely not the most powerful on record, unless you're talking only the Atlantic excluding the Gulf and Caribbean.

http://time.com/4935449/hurricane-irma-records/

Irma set plenty of records, according to a two-page list compiled by Colorado State University researcher Phil Klotzbach:

  • Its 185 mph (297 kph) winds were the highest on record for the open Atlantic ocean, outside the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean sea. Only one other storm in the entire Atlantic basin — 1980's Allen — was stronger.
  • It spent three consecutive days as a top-of-the-scale Category 5 hurricane, the longest in the satellite era.
  • It generated the second most Accumulated Cyclone Energy — a key measurement that combines strength and duration — in the satellite era. Irma generated about as much as energy as entire normal Atlantic hurricane season.
  • It was the strongest storm to hit the Leeward Islands.
  • It's the first Category 5 hurricane to hit Cuba, which regularly gets assaulted by hurricanes, in nearly 100 years.

Hitting the entire peninsula must be some kind of record too.

But the climate has changed down here. 60 degrees this morning. We will resume having a miserable climate next June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's been in the 70's here in NY all month long................(it';s fucking October)  the climate will change soon I hope ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, random said:

NOw the shills ... after the evidence is just too much and they look too stupid, have switched to "Yes it's happening but we don't want any changes that affect profits of fossli fuel owners."

The data was available from the previous studies , lying shills.

Balldadash. Utter and complete horseshit. Bollocks. Drivel. 

Why the cult of climate change mate? Wouldn't the Hare Krishna's let you in?  Was the haircut the deal breaker? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Balldadash. Utter and complete horseshit. Bollocks. Drivel. 

Why the cult of climate change mate? Wouldn't the Hare Krishna's let you in?  Was the haircut the deal breaker? 

LB. You gave randy lessons? Yes or no.

You know what I'm talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Balldadash. Utter and complete horseshit. Bollocks. Drivel. 

Why the cult of climate change mate? Wouldn't the Hare Krishna's let you in?  Was the haircut the deal breaker? 

you're in a state self delusion old boy, is overwhelming scientific objectivity insufficient and is ecological guilt that bitter? 

I don't know how you rationalize your stance on this matter, but it's quite an impressive trick, and not in a good way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BigUnot said:

LB. You gave randy lessons? Yes or no.

You know what I'm talking about

Yes for many years I was his yoga sensei. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, warbird said:

The govt should pay for these speakers who get paid??

is this all some political football bullshit to you, mr. substance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

you're in a state self delusion old boy, is overwhelming scientific objectivity insufficient and is ecological guilt that bitter? 

I don't know how you rationalize your stance on this matter, but it's quite an impressive trick, and not in a good way.

It's not difficult. Just takes a bit of that objectivity you mentioned. The climate change cult is the same as all religions. Started by charlatans for personal gain,  driven by fear and kept alive by zealot believers. You know not everything you read on the internet you agree with is true right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

is this all some political football bullshit to you, mr. substance?

Do all tbe countries in Kyoto and Paris get treated exactly the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

It's not difficult. Just takes a bit of that objectivity you mentioned. The climate change cult is the same as all religions. Started by charlatans for personal gain,  driven by fear and kept alive by zealot believers. You know not everything you read on the internet you agree with is true right?

cute fairy tale, wasn't aware it was a sociopolitical issue. 

 

22 minutes ago, warbird said:

Do all tbe countries in Kyoto and Paris get treated exactly the same?

they'd get treated proportionately, or that's the hope. if usa was treated as such, it'd have to eat shit and clean up it's act. such is life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, warbird said:

Do all tbe countries in Kyoto and Paris get treated exactly the same?

No of course not.  The USA demands to be treated better than everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Oh Dear..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406

Once were sceptics: What convinced these scientists that climate change is real?

Share

  • Up until a few years ago, Richard Muller was often quoted by sceptics as a credible, high-profile scientist who doubted the consensus on climate change.

    Today, he starts his lectures by stating a few things he believes to be facts.

    "Al Gore has grossly exaggerated global warming. And if you watch his movie you have more misinformation than information.

    "However, global warming is real. It is caused by humans. It is caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases, and I personally feel we have to stop it somehow."

    In 2010, Professor Muller from Berkeley University was funded to carry out a comprehensive study by a group of individuals who doubted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data.

    They believed that urban heat islands, data-selection bias, and inaccurate climate models were being glossed over by scientists.

    'Don't trust us' approach key to convincing sceptics

    Professor Muller and his team — all of whom doubted climate change was happening or that carbon dioxide was its cause — were shocked to find a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and warming.

    "That was the biggest surprise of all," he said.

    "Volcanoes, sunspots, orbital changes, we could all rule out. What we could do is show [that warming] matched the carbon dioxide exceedingly well."

    To address what he sees as a lack of transparency in some IPCC reporting, his team made all their data available online.

    "The teams that did [the previous studies] said 'trust us'. We said 'don't trust us, here's what we did'. And for that reason I think we were able to win over the sceptics," he said.

    However, he said there was still room for scepticism.

    "Yes I am a converted sceptic. However, anybody today who is not a sceptic about the solutions being proposed is not thinking them through."

where's Rockdog?

Wasn't this guy his go to for all climate fake news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 3to1 said:

cute fairy tale, wasn't aware it was a sociopolitical issue. 

 

they'd get treated proportionately, or that's the hope. if usa was treated as such, it'd have to eat shit and clean up it's act. such is life...

US and Europe are reducing emmisions of CO2 annually!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

No of course not.  The USA demands to be treated better than everyone else.

Well..... we make cars , apparently you dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grow the fuck up WarpedBird.  Your leader thinks the Climate change is a Chinese plot, maybe he should try grabbing them by the pussy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, random said:

Grow the fuck up WarpedBird.  Your leader thinks the Climate change is a Chinese plot, maybe he should try grabbing them by the pussy.

Randumberthanbatshit, sitting from afar you have no perspective or homegrown autos anymore. You rely on foreign news sources for worldly information and foriegn auto manifacturers to get to the pub. You rely on foriegn interests to purchase your cheap coal so you can pay $160,000 for a chevy pick-up (ute). You don 't really see how fucked up that is???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

it's not even a tenth as fucked up as your common human parasite, complete with the mentality of one, who apparently considers matters of ecological stewardship some political game because they're not adept at connecting a couple dots. you must see how truly fucked up that is...

there's something wrong with you, boy, fundamentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Randumberthanbatshit, sitting from afar you have no perspective or homegrown autos anymore. You rely on foreign news sources for worldly information and foriegn auto manifacturers to get to the pub. You rely on foriegn interests to purchase your cheap coal so you can pay $160,000 for a chevy pick-up (ute). You don 't really see how fucked up that is???

Well,  I think it's fucking awesome that chevy trucks cost that much, if it was my call they would be twice that price.  Fuckwits like you drive them around the shopping centre carpark with the big-hat-no-cattle thing going on.

012313_2059_12Signsthat14.jpg

Thanks for reminding me of the good things warpedbird.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an FYI.

There's some new rules being floated around about fuel storage vis a vis coal and nuclear.

http://www.ferc.gov/media/headlines/2017/2017-3/10-04-17.pdf

It's an absolutely terrible rule prima facie and is basically just a back door tax to try and prop up coal and nuclear power plants.  The replies have been particularly humorous - it's a TERRIBLE idea opposed by almost everyone in the energy supply chain.  I support the 'all in' strategies and picking winners and losers is bad policy, regardless of who it benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace

Attention If you believe in the free market.   Moody’s has spoken.  Climate change is real.    Return on investment is more real then belief systems,   Reality intrudes.   People in fire land or flood land will be penalized for their choice of location,    Start at 18 minutes of today’s show.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lark said:

http://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace

Attention If you believe in the free market.   Moody’s has spoken.  Climate change is real.    Return on investment is more real then belief systems,   Reality intrudes.   People in fire land or flood land will be penalized for their choice of location,    Start at 18 minutes of today’s show.   

YES, climate change is real. It has been changeing warmer since 1830!!!!!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, warbird said:

YES, climate change is real. It has been changeing warmer since 1830!!!!!

Has the Orange man confirmed that.  Heresy could result in excommunication.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what everyone says Warbird, I think you will be able to develop a measurable IQ before you die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I don't care what everyone says Warbird, I think you will be able to develop a measurable IQ before you die.

Nope, they still cant measure it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, warbird said:

Nope, they still cant measure it.

Just as you disbelieve climate models,,,   Science is continually improving its ability to resolve minutia.  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lark said:

Just as you disbelieve climate models,,,   Science is continually improving its ability to resolve minutia.  .

I believe all the climate models have been wildly inaccurate and history has proven my belief to be correct. What do you believe?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, warbird said:

Nope, they still cant measure it.

Well obviously, but I hold out hope that you will improve at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

I believe all the climate models have been wildly inaccurate and history has proven my belief to be correct. What do you believe?

WaarpedBird does not understand scientific measurement, or science.

WaarpedBird can only comprehend 'belief' systems.  See how many times he uses the word.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, random said:

WaarpedBird does not understand scientific measurement, or science.

WaarpedBird can only comprehend 'belief' systems.  See how many times he uses the word.

Turns out the climate models are wrong.  Do you believe in the hocus pocus (bad science)  that got all of the climate models wrong.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, warbird said:

Turns out the climate models are wrong.  Do you believe in the hocus pocus (bad science)  that got all of the climate models wrong.

Models are just models, of the most complex system on the planet.

But the climate doesn't care, it just keeps changing as the atmosphere changes.

2016-12_p14.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

I believe all the climate models have been wildly inaccurate and history has proven my belief to be correct. What do you believe?

I thought they used history to make those climate models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I thought they used history to make those climate models.

...and still got the predictions wrong..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

WaarpedBird does not understand scientific measurement, or science.

WaarpedBird can only comprehend 'belief' systems.  See how many times he uses the word.

How is that sea level rise going for you? Have you noticed that regardless of how much you believe in something it won't change reality? The sky fairy worshippers haven't worked that out so I am not holding out much hope for you who pray at the church of climate change. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

Models are just models, of the most complex system on the planet.

But the climate doesn't care, it just keeps changing as the atmosphere changes.

2016-12_p14.png

Oceans gaining heat is normal. The oceans are always been either gaining or losing heat.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

...and still got the predictions wrong..

Do our nut-con's understand why the predictions were off ?

solar output was slightly reduced due to a lack of sun spots and a weak cycle

do they also understand that in every other solar spot minimum cycle the temps were DOWN world wide

but this time they are up but less then the predicted rate without a solar output reduction

can they wrap their stunted brains around the reason why that is ?

hint the big change is the amount of CO2 in the air this time

 

or proof the CO2 EFFECTS HEAT RETENTION in the real world in real time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nota said:

Do our nut-con's understand why the predictions were off ?

solar output was slightly reduced due to a lack of sun spots and a weak cycle

do they also understand that in every other solar spot minimum cycle the temps were DOWN world wide

but this time they are up but less then the predicted rate without a solar output reduction

can they wrap their stunted brains around the reason why that is ?

hint the big change is the amount of CO2 in the air this time

 

or proof the CO2 EFFECTS HEAT RETENTION in the real world in real time

Carefully consider this, Randumberthanshitinabag is your friend!!!!!!!

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, warbird said:

Carefully consider this, Randumberthanshitinabag is your friend!!!!!!!

Compared to you Randumb is a beacon of rational intelligence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Copared to you Randumb is a beacon of rational intelligence.

It does not take intelligence to pay attention to facts. The earth has been warming since the 1800s. The models of the very bestest climatoligists are wrong.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LB 15 said:

How is that sea level rise going for you? Have you noticed that regardless of how much you believe in something it won't change reality? The sky fairy worshippers haven't worked that out so I am not holding out much hope for you who pray at the church of climate change. 

 

Sea level rise is chugging along swimmingly LB.  Now who do I believe, LB or the CSIRO?

2016-13_p15.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look a graph posted on the internet. I guess that proves it. Have you got any pie charts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nota said:

Do our nut-con's understand why the predictions were off ?

solar output was slightly reduced due to a lack of sun spots and a weak cycle

do they also understand that in every other solar spot minimum cycle the temps were DOWN world wide

but this time they are up but less then the predicted rate without a solar output reduction

can they wrap their stunted brains around the reason why that is ?

hint the big change is the amount of CO2 in the air this time

 

or proof the CO2 EFFECTS HEAT RETENTION in the real world in real time

The IPCC disagrees with you. They acknowledge that their models have been running hot due to an overestimation of the warming effect of atmospheric CO2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Oh look a graph posted on the internet. I guess that proves it. Have you got any pie charts?

I proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.  It was referenced to a credible source

LB 0r CSIRO?   MMmmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

The IPCC disagrees with you. They acknowledge that their models have been running hot due to an overestimation of the warming effect of atmospheric CO2.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth.

2016-12_p14.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, random said:

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth.

2016-12_p14.png

There's nothing unusual about the earth gaining heat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

There's nothing unusual about the earth gaining heat.

Please link any information you have that shows that the earth gained heat at this rate in the past.

I guessing we have Holocene graph on the way that cannot show anything like this rate of heating.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, random said:

Please link any information you have that shows that the earth gained heat at this rate in the past.

I guessing we have Holocene graph on the way that cannot show anything like this rate of heating.

 

Please link amy credible information that asserts positively that the earth has never heated at a rate lile this Mr Randumberthanfuckwhopostsgraphsalthefuck8ngtime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m confused.  It isn’t getting hot.  It’s getting hot but it always does this.   It’s getting hot but it’s sun spots.   It’s getting hot despite sunspots but it’s a natural process.   It’s getting hot but it’s All China’s fault.   Its winter, problem solved for half the planet (for now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, random said:

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth.

2016-12_p14.png

5d6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vid on biblical prophecies   ,climate  and destruction of everybody and everything   modern times past times and events .Don't take all the religious stuff too seriously.. its just an interesting montage of imagery put to the music of DM if ur feeling bored sitting in the rain......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 6:39 AM, warbird said:

Please link amy credible information that asserts positively that the earth has never heated at a rate lile this Mr Randumberthanfuckwhopostsgraphsalthefuck8ngtime.

So you got nothing then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 7:58 PM, LB 15 said:

Oh look a graph posted on the internet. I guess that proves it. Have you got any pie charts?

Don't encourage him. Jesus, enough graphs already,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, random said:

I posted a graph from the CSIRO, Dog said it's not unusual, I asked for proof of that statement, because it is very unusual.

So far he ... or you got nothing to backup that claim!  What you got?

I could post a series of gifs with popcorn and pop culture people.

I'll just settle back and go old time and just say you're a fucking idiot. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, random said:

I posted a graph from the CSIRO, Dog said it's not unusual, I asked for proof of that statement, because it is very unusual.

So far he ... or you got nothing to backup that claim!  What you got?

You posted a graph from Bureau O f Metrology. Is that Australian? Are they competent? Is that an extrapolation of all oceans from a small regional dataset? Do they get their data from their own sensors? Where did you find the data on those sensors to assure you of the sensor accuracy and sensitivity? Has any of the older data been normalized to enhance the slope of the graph?

I have more questions after you have completely asnwered these.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites