Coal bed methane, that is in the cracks and pores of coals, is old, old and well known thing.
Yeah. It's even mentioned in TFA:
This indicates the methane emissions should not be attributed to fracking but instead to leaks in natural gas production and processing equipment in New Mexico's San Juan Basin, which is the most active coalbed methane production area in the country.
'The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried,' Kort said.
The Heartland institute is paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation about climate change. Popular misinformation sites like WUWT have received $80,000 in a single year. Even as a lowly intern you can get a small piece of the pie. They'll pay you $150/week to comment on relevant blogs, newspaper articles, and social media.
Yup. That's about the level of 'argument' presented by Patrick Moore. It basically amounts to just making stuff up. Here is the temperature increase over the last 18 and 26 years according to the satellite reconstruction compiled by skeptic Roy Spencer: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... . The warming over the period is considerable. Equivalent to billions of nuclear bombs worth of accumulated energy.
He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.
Needless to say, scientists disagree. Patrick Moore shows he knows little of science when he says "There is no scientific proof." There is very compelling evidence, but there is no such thing as "Scientific proof".
He laughably accuses scientists of being in the pay of vested interests all the while being a PR front for fossil fuel interests such as the Heartland Institute that published this very piece.
His 'argument' amounts to long debunked talking points.
He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.
He shows he hasn't looked at paleoclimate reconstructions which show that the Earth has been generally cooling for the last 8000 years and that the current temperatures are likely higher than at least the last couple thousand.
The rest of his argument boils down to simple incredulity, which is not very compelling.
I'm not sure I entirely agree, but it is possible that there is a difference in the severity of an action depending on whether it is perpetrated by the advantaged against the disadvantaged, or the reverse.
For instance, in 1959 black people were excluded from libraries in Sourth Carolina. This undoubtedly contributed to a system of disadvantage based on race. Here's a heart warming video of a 9 year old Ronald McNair standing up for himself in 1959. Would white people have cared if a library was created in retaliation that excluded whites? They probably would have shrugged and laughed.
That said, I doubt that a black fraternity chanting about honkies would go unpunished. You are deluded if you think we live in a society where black people get away with shit
Is there a common method of differentiating the two other than affixing a disclaimer about a "pressure explosion" versus a "combustion pressure explosion"?
Indeed. Willie Soon's papers have resulted in the resignation of more than one editor and have been described as "laughable". One of his industry "deliverables" was a literature review that misrepresented the literature to create "a policy–and politics–driven publicity stunt to support the dubious positions on climate change of some prominent American politicians." Several editors resigned over the fiasco. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
The wording is sufficiently vague to permit a Canadian Security Intelligence Service investigation of anyone who challenges the Conservatives' social, economic or environmental policies, the Opposition leader said during the daily question period.
"What's to stop this bill from being used to spy on the government's political enemies?"
Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the suggestion, telling the House of Commons the NDP had entered the realm of conspiracy theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Coal bed methane, that is in the cracks and pores of coals, is old, old and well known thing.
Yeah. It's even mentioned in TFA:
This indicates the methane emissions should not be attributed to fracking but instead to leaks in natural gas production and processing equipment in New Mexico's San Juan Basin, which is the most active coalbed methane production area in the country.
'The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried,' Kort said.
The Heartland institute is paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation about climate change. Popular misinformation sites like WUWT have received $80,000 in a single year. Even as a lowly intern you can get a small piece of the pie. They'll pay you $150/week to comment on relevant blogs, newspaper articles, and social media.
Of the seven temperature reconstructions you are going to put your faith in the minority report?
The consensus is outlined in the scientific literature. The IPCC reports are a literature review.
Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone's got one. This guy's is paid for by the Hearland Institute.
He doesn't believe in physics because something that cannot exist does not exist? Not very compelling.
Yup. That's about the level of 'argument' presented by Patrick Moore. It basically amounts to just making stuff up. Here is the temperature increase over the last 18 and 26 years according to the satellite reconstruction compiled by skeptic Roy Spencer: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... . The warming over the period is considerable. Equivalent to billions of nuclear bombs worth of accumulated energy.
He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.
Honestly, there's a whole chapter on it. He could have figured this just by reading the headers.
He laughably accuses scientists of being in the pay of vested interests all the while being a PR front for fossil fuel interests such as the Heartland Institute that published this very piece.
His 'argument' amounts to long debunked talking points.
He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.
He shows he hasn't looked at paleoclimate reconstructions which show that the Earth has been generally cooling for the last 8000 years and that the current temperatures are likely higher than at least the last couple thousand.
The rest of his argument boils down to simple incredulity, which is not very compelling.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/09/ferguson-mo-judge-resigns/24673097/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/03/black-america
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/missouri-supreme-court-takes-over-cases-in-ferguson-judge-resigns/article_7442c873-a1a1-581f-b4b4-20f93972d91e.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/03/05/390697727/a-black-tax-at-charlottes-ritz-carlton
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/07/police_officer_shoots_apparently_unarmed_black_teenager_in_wisconsin.html
I do not see whites being systemically disadvantaged here.
"Racism describes a system of disadvantage based on race. Black people can't be racist" - Dear White People
I'm not sure I entirely agree, but it is possible that there is a difference in the severity of an action depending on whether it is perpetrated by the advantaged against the disadvantaged, or the reverse.
For instance, in 1959 black people were excluded from libraries in Sourth Carolina. This undoubtedly contributed to a system of disadvantage based on race. Here's a heart warming video of a 9 year old Ronald McNair standing up for himself in 1959. Would white people have cared if a library was created in retaliation that excluded whites? They probably would have shrugged and laughed.
That said, I doubt that a black fraternity chanting about honkies would go unpunished. You are deluded if you think we live in a society where black people get away with shit
solar output dropped over the period. Try again.
Is there a common method of differentiating the two other than affixing a disclaimer about a "pressure explosion" versus a "combustion pressure explosion"?
Maybe "eruption" for the former?
"Studying the satellite images we found out that initially there were no craters nor a lake. Some craters appeared, then more." - TFA
Given your source, I'm guessing the name is "anything but global warming?"
None of what you just said makes any sense.
A nuclear bomb has about 6.3e+13 Joules of energy. The ocean has accumulated about 20e+22 Joules since 1980. That's about 3 billion nukes.
That warming represents about three billion nuclear bombs worth of added energy. Where did it come from?
If "simple" is what you are looking for, here is a graph of temperatures in 1980 when scientists were predicting warming due to CO2: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... . And here is how their predictions turned out: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
I wouldn't be so sure... http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
http://www.pnas.org/content/99...
http://journals.plos.org/plosb...
http://rspb.royalsocietypublis...
http://www.esajournals.org/doi...
http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
Here's a video of Elon Musk printing titanium engine components way back in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's a bit of a mixed bag. It hasn't helped the dollar any - but that's a bit of a mixed bag too I guess.
At the right price point (admittedly not right now) even trucks may become economical.
At the current price point - trains may not remain economical: http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines...
The science will speak for itself.
Indeed. Willie Soon's papers have resulted in the resignation of more than one editor and have been described as "laughable". One of his industry "deliverables" was a literature review that misrepresented the literature to create "a policy–and politics–driven publicity stunt to support the dubious positions on climate change of some prominent American politicians." Several editors resigned over the fiasco. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
The wording is sufficiently vague to permit a Canadian Security Intelligence Service investigation of anyone who challenges the Conservatives' social, economic or environmental policies, the Opposition leader said during the daily question period.
"What's to stop this bill from being used to spy on the government's political enemies?"
Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the suggestion, telling the House of Commons the NDP had entered the realm of conspiracy theory.
"That's what we've come to expect from the black helicopter fleet over there." - http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/poli...