Slashdot Mirror
Domain: vrx.net
Stories and comments across the archive that link to vrx.net.
Comments · 153
-
Re:History of medicine, part IV
I've researched this for many years. It's interesting.
I wrote this from memory, not from "google searches". I use Google scholar anyway.
You have not found an incorrect premise or any flaws in he logic. You don't like it. Ok. So fucking what?
Here's the cleaned up copy I sent to JC's people.
-
About those polar maps
You're gonna tell kids the poles are melting?
What happens when they look at a map and see it's expanding?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
What happens if they go to James Bay which is solid ice now and hear it wasn't 30 years ago, check with NASA and find there's more ice now than before?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
What happens if they look at the south pole?
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
When the disconnect between readily available physical evidence and the popular media is this vast you'd hope the educational system would side with science. Odds are these facts aren't in the curriculum (somebody should check).
As you ponder America augering into the ground consider the benefits of being truthful with children. The left bought black science guy and white science guy to brainwash children and Murdoch just bought NatGeo now he's figured it out, reasoning those ads^H^H^Hfacts last 30 years in dentists and doctors offices.
I thought America was all about truth and liberty? Not commercial propaganda and oppression of free thought.
-
Re:-dafuq, Slashdot?
"The evidence is overwhelming: Earth’s polar regions are losing ice at a stunning rate. There’s so much ice being lost from Antarctica, for example, that scientists can detect local changes in gravity."
This is not actually true. NASA points out Antarctic is at an all time high. Snowpack accumulates in the middle and cleaves off from the edges,it's doing what it's supposed to.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
NSIDC data shows increase, not decreae in sea ice:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...NASA sat imagery (URL in image) shows Arctic sea ice unchanged after 30 years:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
(t did half melt, but for 5 years has been growing back)"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...I like Slate but I don't know if theyre being deliberately misleading here or are just unaware.
-
Re:-dafuq, Slashdot?
"The evidence is overwhelming: Earth’s polar regions are losing ice at a stunning rate. There’s so much ice being lost from Antarctica, for example, that scientists can detect local changes in gravity."
This is not actually true. NASA points out Antarctic is at an all time high. Snowpack accumulates in the middle and cleaves off from the edges,it's doing what it's supposed to.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
NSIDC data shows increase, not decreae in sea ice:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...NASA sat imagery (URL in image) shows Arctic sea ice unchanged after 30 years:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
(t did half melt, but for 5 years has been growing back)"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...I like Slate but I don't know if theyre being deliberately misleading here or are just unaware.
-
Re:If Congress is for it
It does not surprise me people you work with know more than you. The model is still wrong and that's still why it can't be used to craft public policy.
-
Re:Regulatory Capture
Care to put money on this?
I've read all that. It's what you haven't read is the problem.
When your opponent starts off with an adhiminem you know they have no data.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i... -
Re:Regulatory Capture
Care to put money on this?
I've read all that. It's what you haven't read is the problem.
When your opponent starts off with an adhiminem you know they have no data.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i... -
Re:Regulatory Capture
Care to put money on this?
I've read all that. It's what you haven't read is the problem.
When your opponent starts off with an adhiminem you know they have no data.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i... -
Re:Regulatory Capture
Care to put money on this?
I've read all that. It's what you haven't read is the problem.
When your opponent starts off with an adhiminem you know they have no data.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i... -
Re:Regulatory Capture
Care to put money on this?
I've read all that. It's what you haven't read is the problem.
When your opponent starts off with an adhiminem you know they have no data.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i... -
Re:Regulatory Capture
Care to put money on this?
I've read all that. It's what you haven't read is the problem.
When your opponent starts off with an adhiminem you know they have no data.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i... -
Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing
Look how much it's grown:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
It did melt, because it was warmer. It grew back because it was colder, not still warming.
NOAA graph showing cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And another:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Who expects it to grow back all thick? Give it time, now that it's reflecting back sunlight it'll happen.
As this point "Skeptical science" has the credibility of "Natural News".
Not one prediction by the IPCC ever came true.
-
Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing
Look how much it's grown:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
It did melt, because it was warmer. It grew back because it was colder, not still warming.
NOAA graph showing cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And another:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Who expects it to grow back all thick? Give it time, now that it's reflecting back sunlight it'll happen.
As this point "Skeptical science" has the credibility of "Natural News".
Not one prediction by the IPCC ever came true.
-
Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing
Look how much it's grown:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
It did melt, because it was warmer. It grew back because it was colder, not still warming.
NOAA graph showing cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And another:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Who expects it to grow back all thick? Give it time, now that it's reflecting back sunlight it'll happen.
As this point "Skeptical science" has the credibility of "Natural News".
Not one prediction by the IPCC ever came true.
-
Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing
Look how much it's grown:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
It did melt, because it was warmer. It grew back because it was colder, not still warming.
NOAA graph showing cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And another:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Who expects it to grow back all thick? Give it time, now that it's reflecting back sunlight it'll happen.
As this point "Skeptical science" has the credibility of "Natural News".
Not one prediction by the IPCC ever came true.
-
Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing
"What matters is volume, not surface area."
Newsflash: if it's white it reflect back sunlight regardless of the thickness.
It all grew back in a "warming world" with rising Co2 in five years and isn't a mile thick. No shit. It'll thicken, don't you worry about it.
Gore said it would be gone by now. The opposite happened.
-
Re:If Congress is for it
"An earlier version of this general effort used language that would forbid reference to models in policy making."
Hi. Math major here. Let me explain something about models.
They are a mathematical simulation of a natural phenomenon.
The test of a model is how well it tracks reality. If if predicts behaviour correctly we can have some confidence in the model.
The error bars of the climate models are 75%. That means a chimp tossing a coin could guess better. You can't make public policy from that.
75% error looks like this: 2 + 2 = 7
The climate models are 25 years old now and with refinements over the years should be pretty good. But they're not, they're so bad you can pretty much throw them out.
Freeman Dyson warned about this:
"Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu...NASA pointed out they were wrong (and confirnmed Dyson) in 2010.
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...Here's a graph of all the climate models compared to actual temperature measurements. See the divergence?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i..."When your hypothesis doesn't agree with nature, it's wrong" - Richard Feynman.
-
Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing
My god yes, look what it's done to Arctic sea ice in 30 years:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Oh crap, there's no change.
Damn you NASA and your pesky satellites, get with the program here.
-
Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing
"There is ample evidence of Ocean acidification to suggest that CO2 needs to be treated as a pollutant."
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem providing that evidence of this and of any harm..
I can tell you ahead of time corals have genes that switch on to handle heat and co2 and they have survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past and that this is not affecting reefs which by some miracle are only dying near man where he pollutes; in the open ocean coral is fine.
Tree of life with time scale
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Historic co2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...Corals can turn certain genes on and off to cope with heat
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...Dr. Bruce Carlson produced a wonderful video demonstrating the resilient capacity of coral reefs if humans would simply stopped interfering with nature.
http://www.advancedaquarist.co...Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....Total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely
http://www.advancedaquarist.co...For cold water corals, warming is beating acidification to drive a growth spurt
http://arstechnica.com/science... -
Re:Seems he has more of a clue
It's not up to anyone to deny global warming (or "Climate Cringe" us it's not called) it's up to those who believe in it to prove it's true.
The arctic sea ice all grew back - how does that happen in a "warming world"
Source: NASA.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And it did this when Co2 was rising. If it was true that the loss of ice would make the world warmer because less is reflected back what does it mean now it's all back? Cooler yet maybe?
CO2 stopped rising:
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...NOAA data shows cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...NASA PR guys mislead if not flat out lie:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...For most of earths history it's been about 8 degrees warmer. In historical context we're in a temperature trough and have nowhere to go but up:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...The polar bears are fine. One nutjob saw two cubs swimming and that was enough to start that alarmism. The latest monograph on the bears shows their population is increasing. It was down by 2/3 till we stopped most hunting, but look at what's still taken. Anyway the ice is back so who cars?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Sadly this means that nutjob Cruz is right and Obama and Sanders are dead wrong, although I suspect they really mean "fight pollution" but it's better for optics for the worst polluters to say "we're fighting climate cringe" than "yeah we still pollute like crazy. Notice the regulatoin address pollution andnohtin gelse.
Don't tell me it's warming, show me your evidence and I'll tell you if it's warming or not. Notice they never post temperatur graphs any more? Just weasel words like "10 of the warmest years occured in the past 20 years" - that's equally true with descending temperatures too. What they don't say is "each year is warmer than the previous one". Alti they's using outliers here, who cares about transitory peaks the trend is what matters and that's downward.
-
Re:Seems he has more of a clue
It's not up to anyone to deny global warming (or "Climate Cringe" us it's not called) it's up to those who believe in it to prove it's true.
The arctic sea ice all grew back - how does that happen in a "warming world"
Source: NASA.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And it did this when Co2 was rising. If it was true that the loss of ice would make the world warmer because less is reflected back what does it mean now it's all back? Cooler yet maybe?
CO2 stopped rising:
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...NOAA data shows cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...NASA PR guys mislead if not flat out lie:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...For most of earths history it's been about 8 degrees warmer. In historical context we're in a temperature trough and have nowhere to go but up:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...The polar bears are fine. One nutjob saw two cubs swimming and that was enough to start that alarmism. The latest monograph on the bears shows their population is increasing. It was down by 2/3 till we stopped most hunting, but look at what's still taken. Anyway the ice is back so who cars?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Sadly this means that nutjob Cruz is right and Obama and Sanders are dead wrong, although I suspect they really mean "fight pollution" but it's better for optics for the worst polluters to say "we're fighting climate cringe" than "yeah we still pollute like crazy. Notice the regulatoin address pollution andnohtin gelse.
Don't tell me it's warming, show me your evidence and I'll tell you if it's warming or not. Notice they never post temperatur graphs any more? Just weasel words like "10 of the warmest years occured in the past 20 years" - that's equally true with descending temperatures too. What they don't say is "each year is warmer than the previous one". Alti they's using outliers here, who cares about transitory peaks the trend is what matters and that's downward.
-
Re:Seems he has more of a clue
It's not up to anyone to deny global warming (or "Climate Cringe" us it's not called) it's up to those who believe in it to prove it's true.
The arctic sea ice all grew back - how does that happen in a "warming world"
Source: NASA.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And it did this when Co2 was rising. If it was true that the loss of ice would make the world warmer because less is reflected back what does it mean now it's all back? Cooler yet maybe?
CO2 stopped rising:
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...NOAA data shows cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...NASA PR guys mislead if not flat out lie:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...For most of earths history it's been about 8 degrees warmer. In historical context we're in a temperature trough and have nowhere to go but up:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...The polar bears are fine. One nutjob saw two cubs swimming and that was enough to start that alarmism. The latest monograph on the bears shows their population is increasing. It was down by 2/3 till we stopped most hunting, but look at what's still taken. Anyway the ice is back so who cars?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Sadly this means that nutjob Cruz is right and Obama and Sanders are dead wrong, although I suspect they really mean "fight pollution" but it's better for optics for the worst polluters to say "we're fighting climate cringe" than "yeah we still pollute like crazy. Notice the regulatoin address pollution andnohtin gelse.
Don't tell me it's warming, show me your evidence and I'll tell you if it's warming or not. Notice they never post temperatur graphs any more? Just weasel words like "10 of the warmest years occured in the past 20 years" - that's equally true with descending temperatures too. What they don't say is "each year is warmer than the previous one". Alti they's using outliers here, who cares about transitory peaks the trend is what matters and that's downward.
-
Re:Seems he has more of a clue
It's not up to anyone to deny global warming (or "Climate Cringe" us it's not called) it's up to those who believe in it to prove it's true.
The arctic sea ice all grew back - how does that happen in a "warming world"
Source: NASA.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And it did this when Co2 was rising. If it was true that the loss of ice would make the world warmer because less is reflected back what does it mean now it's all back? Cooler yet maybe?
CO2 stopped rising:
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...NOAA data shows cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...NASA PR guys mislead if not flat out lie:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...For most of earths history it's been about 8 degrees warmer. In historical context we're in a temperature trough and have nowhere to go but up:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...The polar bears are fine. One nutjob saw two cubs swimming and that was enough to start that alarmism. The latest monograph on the bears shows their population is increasing. It was down by 2/3 till we stopped most hunting, but look at what's still taken. Anyway the ice is back so who cars?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Sadly this means that nutjob Cruz is right and Obama and Sanders are dead wrong, although I suspect they really mean "fight pollution" but it's better for optics for the worst polluters to say "we're fighting climate cringe" than "yeah we still pollute like crazy. Notice the regulatoin address pollution andnohtin gelse.
Don't tell me it's warming, show me your evidence and I'll tell you if it's warming or not. Notice they never post temperatur graphs any more? Just weasel words like "10 of the warmest years occured in the past 20 years" - that's equally true with descending temperatures too. What they don't say is "each year is warmer than the previous one". Alti they's using outliers here, who cares about transitory peaks the trend is what matters and that's downward.
-
Re:Seems he has more of a clue
It's not up to anyone to deny global warming (or "Climate Cringe" us it's not called) it's up to those who believe in it to prove it's true.
The arctic sea ice all grew back - how does that happen in a "warming world"
Source: NASA.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...And it did this when Co2 was rising. If it was true that the loss of ice would make the world warmer because less is reflected back what does it mean now it's all back? Cooler yet maybe?
CO2 stopped rising:
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...NOAA data shows cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...NASA PR guys mislead if not flat out lie:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...For most of earths history it's been about 8 degrees warmer. In historical context we're in a temperature trough and have nowhere to go but up:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...The polar bears are fine. One nutjob saw two cubs swimming and that was enough to start that alarmism. The latest monograph on the bears shows their population is increasing. It was down by 2/3 till we stopped most hunting, but look at what's still taken. Anyway the ice is back so who cars?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...Sadly this means that nutjob Cruz is right and Obama and Sanders are dead wrong, although I suspect they really mean "fight pollution" but it's better for optics for the worst polluters to say "we're fighting climate cringe" than "yeah we still pollute like crazy. Notice the regulatoin address pollution andnohtin gelse.
Don't tell me it's warming, show me your evidence and I'll tell you if it's warming or not. Notice they never post temperatur graphs any more? Just weasel words like "10 of the warmest years occured in the past 20 years" - that's equally true with descending temperatures too. What they don't say is "each year is warmer than the previous one". Alti they's using outliers here, who cares about transitory peaks the trend is what matters and that's downward.
-
Re: in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy
In your world then NASA is a climate change denier:
-
Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy
-
I call utter bullshit.
"Ocean acidification killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago, scientists believe"
Nonsense published in The Independent in April 2015.In an attempt to frighten people about rising CO2 and ocean acidification The Independent ran a story postulating ocean acidification could have been responsible for massive die-offs we know as major extinction events. This is unlikely. Translate "scientists believe" as "a couple of guys had a crazy idea and wrote it up.". In a climate of increasing CO2 this might resonate with some, but rising CO2 has now stalled.
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
Preliminary IEA data point to emissions decoupling from economic growth for the first time in 40 years
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...If it was so acid why didn't the coral die out? It's by far the most sensitive to pH. The fact is, coral has survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past much higher than the 400ppm of today.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...How? It has genes it can switch on that let it ignore heat and pH, that's why. Have they not surveyed all the literature?
Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change
In less than 2 years, acclimatization achieves the same heat tolerance that we would expect from strong natural selection over many generations for these long-lived organisms.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification
January 16, 2014 - Marine scientists working on the coral reefs of Palau have made two unexpected discoveries that could provide insight into corals' resistance and resilience to ocean acidification.
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....JJ Scheel (1968:Page 25) proved in the 1950s aquatic life doesn't care about pH at all which you can prove to yourself at home. Transfer any fish from water of pH 9 to water of pH 4.5 and back again - they simply don't care about pH. One of the great aquarium myths along with "nitrates are deadly" (Not with an LD of 2200 ppm for marine larvae they're not) and "Plant bulbs" are essential (no, intensity matters, spectrum not one bit).
It's a widely held myth they do but again, the literature suggests otherwise and I've verified it's right on countless occasions and you can too.
Mythbusters rates this one: utter nonsense. Supervolcanoes blocked out the sun. When you have no light, warmths or plant life, pH of the water, irrelevant to aquatic life, is the least of your problems. Every species alive today survived this, there's no reason to think they won't if it were to happen again - which is isn't.
Refs:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
https://books.google.ca/books?...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... -
I call utter bullshit.
"Ocean acidification killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago, scientists believe"
Nonsense published in The Independent in April 2015.In an attempt to frighten people about rising CO2 and ocean acidification The Independent ran a story postulating ocean acidification could have been responsible for massive die-offs we know as major extinction events. This is unlikely. Translate "scientists believe" as "a couple of guys had a crazy idea and wrote it up.". In a climate of increasing CO2 this might resonate with some, but rising CO2 has now stalled.
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
Preliminary IEA data point to emissions decoupling from economic growth for the first time in 40 years
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...If it was so acid why didn't the coral die out? It's by far the most sensitive to pH. The fact is, coral has survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past much higher than the 400ppm of today.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...How? It has genes it can switch on that let it ignore heat and pH, that's why. Have they not surveyed all the literature?
Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change
In less than 2 years, acclimatization achieves the same heat tolerance that we would expect from strong natural selection over many generations for these long-lived organisms.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification
January 16, 2014 - Marine scientists working on the coral reefs of Palau have made two unexpected discoveries that could provide insight into corals' resistance and resilience to ocean acidification.
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....JJ Scheel (1968:Page 25) proved in the 1950s aquatic life doesn't care about pH at all which you can prove to yourself at home. Transfer any fish from water of pH 9 to water of pH 4.5 and back again - they simply don't care about pH. One of the great aquarium myths along with "nitrates are deadly" (Not with an LD of 2200 ppm for marine larvae they're not) and "Plant bulbs" are essential (no, intensity matters, spectrum not one bit).
It's a widely held myth they do but again, the literature suggests otherwise and I've verified it's right on countless occasions and you can too.
Mythbusters rates this one: utter nonsense. Supervolcanoes blocked out the sun. When you have no light, warmths or plant life, pH of the water, irrelevant to aquatic life, is the least of your problems. Every species alive today survived this, there's no reason to think they won't if it were to happen again - which is isn't.
Refs:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
https://books.google.ca/books?...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... -
Whether you think climate change is real or not&md
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...Sea ice is increasing
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...OP is less aware of the science than Cruz is. How is that even possible?
-
Whether you think climate change is real or not&md
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...Sea ice is increasing
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...OP is less aware of the science than Cruz is. How is that even possible?
-
Whether you think climate change is real or not&md
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...Sea ice is increasing
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...OP is less aware of the science than Cruz is. How is that even possible?
-
Whether you think climate change is real or not&md
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...Sea ice is increasing
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...OP is less aware of the science than Cruz is. How is that even possible?
-
Re:Price Controls?
Diverting 93% of the water to grow lettuce in the desert since 1920 had nothing to do with it.
Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years, the antarctic ice that's always grown and hit a new record in 2014, snow in Hawaii, and the great lakes that have frozen early,and that have frozen over compete the last two years. Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country. Ignore the fact we kill killed half the worlds trees in the last 100 years and where we do theres drought and ignore the fact the IPCC did not admit trees ate CO2 until 2010. Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010 and ignore the fact the climate models now have 95% error.Ignore the fact corals have genes that upregulate to ignore acidification and warming and ignore the fact pollution (I'm especially looking at you big oil) has gotten worse while we're distracted by this nonsense. Ignore the fact not a single IPCC prediction ever came true.
And especially ignore NAA/NOAA when they say "there has been no warming this century"
Creation science, social science, climate science... if you have to add "science" to a word to give it legitimacy, it's not science any more than the Democratic People's republic of North Korea is a democracy. Real sciences yield natural laws to quote Feynman.
Instead, look at 01% of a country that is 2% of the world.
Refs:
1) Ice
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...2) records:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/vide...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
http://www.staradvertiser.com/...
https://www.facebook.com/video...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...3) Trees:
http://www.pri.org/stories/201...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.agu.org/news/press/... -
Re:Price Controls?
Diverting 93% of the water to grow lettuce in the desert since 1920 had nothing to do with it.
Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years, the antarctic ice that's always grown and hit a new record in 2014, snow in Hawaii, and the great lakes that have frozen early,and that have frozen over compete the last two years. Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country. Ignore the fact we kill killed half the worlds trees in the last 100 years and where we do theres drought and ignore the fact the IPCC did not admit trees ate CO2 until 2010. Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010 and ignore the fact the climate models now have 95% error.Ignore the fact corals have genes that upregulate to ignore acidification and warming and ignore the fact pollution (I'm especially looking at you big oil) has gotten worse while we're distracted by this nonsense. Ignore the fact not a single IPCC prediction ever came true.
And especially ignore NAA/NOAA when they say "there has been no warming this century"
Creation science, social science, climate science... if you have to add "science" to a word to give it legitimacy, it's not science any more than the Democratic People's republic of North Korea is a democracy. Real sciences yield natural laws to quote Feynman.
Instead, look at 01% of a country that is 2% of the world.
Refs:
1) Ice
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...2) records:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/vide...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
http://www.staradvertiser.com/...
https://www.facebook.com/video...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...3) Trees:
http://www.pri.org/stories/201...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.agu.org/news/press/... -
Re:Price Controls?
Diverting 93% of the water to grow lettuce in the desert since 1920 had nothing to do with it.
Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years, the antarctic ice that's always grown and hit a new record in 2014, snow in Hawaii, and the great lakes that have frozen early,and that have frozen over compete the last two years. Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country. Ignore the fact we kill killed half the worlds trees in the last 100 years and where we do theres drought and ignore the fact the IPCC did not admit trees ate CO2 until 2010. Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010 and ignore the fact the climate models now have 95% error.Ignore the fact corals have genes that upregulate to ignore acidification and warming and ignore the fact pollution (I'm especially looking at you big oil) has gotten worse while we're distracted by this nonsense. Ignore the fact not a single IPCC prediction ever came true.
And especially ignore NAA/NOAA when they say "there has been no warming this century"
Creation science, social science, climate science... if you have to add "science" to a word to give it legitimacy, it's not science any more than the Democratic People's republic of North Korea is a democracy. Real sciences yield natural laws to quote Feynman.
Instead, look at 01% of a country that is 2% of the world.
Refs:
1) Ice
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...2) records:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/vide...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
http://www.staradvertiser.com/...
https://www.facebook.com/video...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...3) Trees:
http://www.pri.org/stories/201...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.agu.org/news/press/... -
Re:Who did the study?
Slashdot, where facts go to die under the weight of a commercial sponsored misinformation campaign. To future historians looking at this - we're so sorry. Some of us actually know better.
To the rest of you: y'all have a lot of reading to do. Stop listening t opinions on blogs and introduce yourself to the actual data. What you don't know would make a great book.
Why and how America has gone down the shitter
It can all be summed up by the last part of THAT speech. "We used to aspire to itelligence not belittle it. We used to be informed."
http://insights.rs79.vrx.net/s... -
Re:disclosure
"Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming."
He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014 The IPCC discredited him, but they have never predicted anything correctly. In fact their model flew off the rails with 75% error after 35 years of refinement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://insights.rs79.vrx.net/s..."Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center." - climate.gov.
"Nearly every scientist that I know (IAAS) has a project on the side either studying the climate or cancer (preferably child cancer); this is what they must do in order to support their main research, since it probably has no funding."
Another Anonymous (why?) post on slashdot
http://news.slashdot.org/story...'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"
"'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.
Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models."
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
You think it's warming? Show me your data that proves NASA wrong then.
You do understand that that "97%" was 73 guys getting a climate grant each, right? Not that consens ever equalled truth:
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver"
-
Re:disclosure
"Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming."
He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014 The IPCC discredited him, but they have never predicted anything correctly. In fact their model flew off the rails with 75% error after 35 years of refinement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://insights.rs79.vrx.net/s..."Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center." - climate.gov.
"Nearly every scientist that I know (IAAS) has a project on the side either studying the climate or cancer (preferably child cancer); this is what they must do in order to support their main research, since it probably has no funding."
Another Anonymous (why?) post on slashdot
http://news.slashdot.org/story...'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"
"'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.
Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models."
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
You think it's warming? Show me your data that proves NASA wrong then.
You do understand that that "97%" was 73 guys getting a climate grant each, right? Not that consens ever equalled truth:
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver"
-
Re:disclosure
"Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming."
He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014 The IPCC discredited him, but they have never predicted anything correctly. In fact their model flew off the rails with 75% error after 35 years of refinement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://insights.rs79.vrx.net/s..."Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center." - climate.gov.
"Nearly every scientist that I know (IAAS) has a project on the side either studying the climate or cancer (preferably child cancer); this is what they must do in order to support their main research, since it probably has no funding."
Another Anonymous (why?) post on slashdot
http://news.slashdot.org/story...'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"
"'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.
Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models."
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
You think it's warming? Show me your data that proves NASA wrong then.
You do understand that that "97%" was 73 guys getting a climate grant each, right? Not that consens ever equalled truth:
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver"
-
Re:Good news: selenium and HIV.
More details and additoinal references are provided here: http://rs79.vrx.net/works/essa...
-
Re:Shut Up
Pollution? Corporations.
Global climate grant change? Scientists.
How bout we get back to the pollution issue which has been attenuated by climate discussion.
Pollution is not under dispute.
-
Re:We've gone beyond bad science
You're thinking about pollution, not climate. Noting emits CO2 on it's own.
People say "we're working on our carbon footprint" really mean "we're trying to pollute less, but for now we'll keep in doing it".
-
Re:We've gone beyond bad science
Here's a picture of the temperature "slowly going up"
-
Re:We've gone beyond bad science
Here's a paper that says unless we have more CO2 we're not going to be able to grow enough food to feed the world in the future:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MCon...
All plants have a temperature range they're happy in. Irelands used to grow wheat, but when it cold colder and wetter they switch to potatoes. The kind of temperature increases being talked about (that didn't happen) aren't going to affect anything.
Water matters more. And it's known when you cut down all the trees, rain sorta stops - think of trees as hydraulic pumps that squite water into the air from the ground and you'd not be too wrong.
We've killed half the trees in the last 100 years.
Is there a chance AGW is a smoke screen for that?
AGW has also attenuated discussion of pollution, any chance AGW is a smokescreen for that?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Co2 keeps going up, but temperatures haven't risen as projected. Does that mean mother nature is wrong or the IPCC model is? Pick one.
-
Re:It's always in the future.
Actually what I meant to say is "Of course the military can't afford to be wrong. That's why they spend five trillion dollars in Iraq looking for WMD they could never find". Of course they knew they had them because they had the receipts from when they (covertly) sold them to them. (Ref: "_Why We Fight_")
The biggest threat of this century is crap like Fukushima, the BP oil spill, the Gulf dead zone. All that coral that was supposed to be dying from acidification and warming? Turns out it was all pollution - it only occurs near man - in the open ocean, they're fine and there are a bunch of papers on this.
One could argue AGW noise obfuscates public discourse of pollution:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...As for the crap about growing food, you are aware all plant life on earth is carbon limited, right?
Here's a paper that shows unless CO2 goes up we won't be able to feed an increased population:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MCon...Dyson eludes to this, but here's some real numbers.
-
Re:nope
Who pays for all those news reports?
How come NASA didn't have to advertise it's hypothesis about space travel 100 times a day for 30 years, too?
Are you aware all this talk of climate has attenuated talk of pollution? Which isn't exactly less of a problem: look at the gulf, the dead zone(s), Fukushima or the dead coral. Turns out that it's only the coral near man, opean cean coral, even warmer bits is fine.
-
Re:Not prudent != Not a problem
The earth is warming? Really?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
Can you please explain these then?
-
Have you tried Hoffer's protocol?
$22 million for each mental health recovery
November 21, 2010 at 6:24pm
On October 27, 2000, King County in Washington State, by a vote of 11 to 1, passed a very unusual ordinance. This directed psychiatrists working in the state mental health system to make their patients well and to report annually on how successful they had been in achieving this goal. The ordinance defined exactly what was to be considered a mental health recovery. Such a former patient had to be able to meet four criteria. They must have become well enough to engage in volunteer work, or be employed full or part-time, or be engaged in culturally appropriate activities, or be pursuing educational or vocational opportunities. Secondly, a recovered mental patient had to be living independently or in supported housing. Thirdly, they must have been discharged from the county’s publicly funded mental health system or, at most, be receiving only infrequent maintenance services. Lastly, when tested they must be able to score 81 or more on the Global Assessment of Function Scale. This scale measures such things as aggression, ability to communicate, and level of personal hygiene.It is now some 3 years since this ordinance was passed and the required initial report on the efficacy of the system has been issued, covering the period January 1 through December 31, 2001. King County, Washington is not a rural backwater. It is one of the most progressive counties in the US, the location of Seattle. So what did the residents of King County get for themore than $90 million they spent on mental health in 2001? According to the first mandated report, 7,831 mental patients, mainly schizophrenics and patients with major depression,were treated during the year. Of these, 6,949 (88.7%) showed no change, 597 (8%) displayed some improvement, 285 (4%)regressed, and four (0.05%) recovered. Put another way, ifyou suffered from schizophrenia, major depression, or othermental illness in King County during 2001, your chance of a full recovery was less that one in one thousand.
That is, the residents of the Seattle area are paying over $22 million for each mental health recovery.
In Medieval times, victims of the bubonic plague had a far better chance of recovery than this. Treated with hot onion, fig, and treacle poultices or partially plucked pigeons to draw off poisons from their swollen lymphnodes, they were much more likely to completely recover than schizophrenics receiving the best treatments that modern psychiatry has to offer. If you believe that this is acceptable,throw this book away. If not, seriously consider the alternative treatments that stem from an acceptance of the adrenochrome hypotheses.
H.D. Foster, "What really causes schizophrenia" P 208-209
http://hdfoster.com/sites/hdfoster.com/files/users/user6/Foster_Schizophrenia.pdfSee also: http://rs79.vrx.net/works/books/Bionutrition/refs/madness/
Also google scholar: "prousky anxiety niacin families"
-
Re:Freeman Dyson says
Polar bears rebounded spectacularly when we stopped hunting them. They went from 5000 to 15,000 very quickly... in a climate that's supposed to be killing them off. Nobody actually checked though.
None of these claims hold water and it's all built on a house of cards. There's a reason NASA and CERN have moved passed the failed AGW hypothesis and fired Hansen.
Here it is. You go ahead and invest the hour then tell me which one you think is more likely to be the reason for the climate, ok? None of this "No, it's wrong! I didn't need to watch it to know that!" Crap I've been seeing.
-
For this to be actually true
You'd need to falsify this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9IAnd explain this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/And this:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/Go!
(otherwise, it would appear to be bullshit.)
Also, why did Lovelock say this:
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
Also don't you think this is more likely?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/allGiven the leaked IPCC report agreed with Lovelock and they admit they exaggerated and don't know what's gong on, why do you think they do?
