I had a long read last night that really put this in perspective and explained why and how the science just doesn't seem to make sense when it comes to the climate change debate.
If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why. Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.
Read it with an open mind and make your own conclusions. Its what I suggest to anyone. Its just hard to look at the whole subject with the same mindset after reading this.
Nice way to spin it. I'm happy and actually quite suprised that NASA decided to write this instead of hide it. However James Hansen is no longer at NASA... so...
But then you go and trash it all up.
CO2 is plant food, as you stated, we all know that. What you might not know is another double of CO2 is exactly what we need to grow the food to feed the growing population we have.
There is nothing to update, as CO2 was, is and always will be plant food.
Now, that aside. The link between CO2 and runaway global warming is a theory with models which does not rest on solid science.
Now before you go and talk about settled this and settled that....
If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why. Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, yes. Causing warmer temperatures, still not proven to the extent the models claim. Warmer temperatures causing economic losses, there is nothing to demonstrate that is true.
We have no losses to cut, yet. However going towards carbon trading schemes will definitely generate losses for the population and society as a whole.
If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why. Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.
Your belief, does not give you a right to be intolerant towards others. Your beliefs do not make you righteous, no matter what they are. They are beliefs.
Your comparison to religion is apt. as you make the point of those that state AGW and the CC movement is more akin to a religious movement and dogma than it is to actual science.
If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why. Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.
It is her field of expertise and you are being disingenuous.
This is about walrus behaviour, she knows about animal behaviours and knows this is not a new phenomena.
She also knows that the WWF trying to tie this in to climate change is a self-serving lie, because it can and HAS already been explained or observed before.
This event is about walrus behavior. A Zoologist is the right scientist in this context.
The problem today with the climate alarmist movement is they tie themselves into everything, making everything about them, and the gullible population have bought into this.
The whole article and WWF statements are jumping to conclusions.
The link IS sufficient evidence with citations from peer reviewed papers having observed similar events multiple times dating all the way back to the 1950's and anecdotal evidence from Inuits dating to before that.
I don't understand why every time an event or statement made to get bleeding heart environmentalists to cry is ALWAYS accepted (even with proof that its a bald faced lie) however anything that does not 100% support AGW, CC or any enviro propaganda is automatically ignored or branded as denier lies.
Seriously and skeptics are blamed as the ones with confirmation bias???? I mean REALLY??? Pseudo-Environmentalists need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Apparently it is because you don't understand any of it. All you do is spout the same tibits the news tells you. Or your favorite propaganda blog.
Did you even take 2 mins to watch the video I posted?
Using the same data all climatologists use, he blew everything you just said above out of the water.
Not just prehistoric data but starting from a few hundred thousand years ago, to 10000 years ago. If you dont like that, he went over the last 2000 years (Christianity) and the last 700 hundred to hit it closer to home.
There is NOTHING unusual about the climate we are currently experiencing. NOTHING.
Now look at the same data and tell me Im a denier with a straight face.
So simple you don't address the fact that CO2 has a logarithmic effect. You also don't address the fact that the current warming is NOT out of the ordinary. (look at historical data)
What do you have to say about the fact that warming from the last 30 years, doesnt mean anything at all. Its insignificant as it only represents 1 data point.
Take 2 mins and look at this (from 5.55 on) and tell me your reaction.
Brought me back 25 years. It was the most retarded thing I have seen in my life. I honestly was looking around and could see that 95% of people there are there to support the 5% of the family that is delusional.
Unfortunately I was one of those 95%, should have just stayed home.
Yes in Quebec over 75% are Christians and more than 75% of Christians are Roman Catholic. However, this is followed sharply with 12% atheists being the 2nd largest demographic.
Also, even though 75% have been baptized, its more of a cultural thing than people actually having faith and practicing religions. Most likely more than half of the 75% Christians have no faith, do not practice and do not care about religion.
As others have mentioned, there is a heavy separation of religion and state in Canada, especially in Quebec after what was call a "quiet" revolution in the 1960's. As such, religion plays almost NO role in politics here.
Though I dont know exactly where I sit on this issue, let me tell you a few facts from being Canadian, that makes this issue different than it would in the USA.
1. Health Care is free; 2. Medical Help before, during and after pregnancy and throughout the childs life is either free or very cheap; 3. Mothers and/or Fathers can have up to 5 weeks paid (75% of salary) vacation when a child is born; 4. Mothers can have up to 50 weeks paid maternity leave (55% of salary) or 40 weeks paid (70% of salary); 5. Also, a parent the mother or father can take up to 70 weeks total off (mix of paid and unpaid) all while having their job and position protected by law; 6. Schooling is cheap or free in some cases; 7. The government (both federal and provincial) gives lots of money to parents every month to help raise kids; 8. Day care costs 7$ a day (government mandated cost) and those day cares are attended by certified child educators;
Now there is much more to parenthood and raising a child than the points above. And, like I said, Im undecided about this subject and do think a womans body is her body. However, I just wanted to point out that with the right resources (pointed above) I would hope it would help with the decision making and make it more of a conversation between the two.
On the other hand, if the woman does NOT want to be a mother, there is no reason for her to be. It would be cruel to the child and senseless.
Fuel costs of Nuclear power plants are about 14% where NG power plants fuel costs are about 89% of operating costs.
This is why nuclear plants generally run at close to maximum output continuously as it doesn't really cost that much more.
However, newer plant designs, for example those in France and Sweden (namely light water), do load following. They are capable of switching from 50% to 100% output, usually at a 3-5% rate change per minute.
Chernobyl IS an operating plant. But the "operating" part is not what affected local animal life. But what mdsolar and his type forget is, Chernobyle is 1 incident. Fukushima 2. Over the life of all the nuclear plants, even taking those 2 horrible accidents (preventable they may have been) the track record world wide for Nuclear energy is better than most other types of energy.
Has anyone told you, on Slashdot posting anonymously doesn't work. You need to use one of the old accounts, just buy it from someone, then your propaganda will get traction.
So, how are things in your university class room in Israel? Feeling like you are part of the "team" are we, like your participating in the "war". Nice to see, you love the bloodshed.
Student propagandists in Israel are just as Evil as the Government in place. If you dont agree, you dont spread lies. If you actively spread lies, its like you are killing the children yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
I dont know how if it its possible to modify ones own posts, so here is a correction.
The link I wanted to post is this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Real Science Debates are Not Rare.
I think this brings things back to the source and demonstrates why we are so off the mark.
Hmm, for some reason my link got mixed up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Real Science Debates are Not Rare
This is the link I think is quite important.
Hmm, links got mixed up.
This is what I wanted to post.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... Real Science Debates are Not Rare.
I agree with your measured position.
I had a long read last night that really put this in perspective and explained why and how the science just doesn't seem to make sense when it comes to the climate change debate.
If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why.
Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]
Read it with an open mind and make your own conclusions. Its what I suggest to anyone.
Its just hard to look at the whole subject with the same mindset after reading this.
Nice way to spin it.
I'm happy and actually quite suprised that NASA decided to write this instead of hide it. However James Hansen is no longer at NASA... so...
But then you go and trash it all up.
CO2 is plant food, as you stated, we all know that. What you might not know is another double of CO2 is exactly what we need to grow the food to feed the growing population we have.
There is nothing to update, as CO2 was, is and always will be plant food.
Now, that aside. The link between CO2 and runaway global warming is a theory with models which does not rest on solid science.
Now before you go and talk about settled this and settled that....
If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why. Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, yes.
Causing warmer temperatures, still not proven to the extent the models claim.
Warmer temperatures causing economic losses, there is nothing to demonstrate that is true.
We have no losses to cut, yet. However going towards carbon trading schemes will definitely generate losses for the population and society as a whole.
If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why.
Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]
If you don't want to take the time to read it = I would suggest you should stop all discussion as you are n
Your belief, does not give you a right to be intolerant towards others.
Your beliefs do not make you righteous, no matter what they are.
They are beliefs.
Your comparison to religion is apt. as you make the point of those that state AGW and the CC movement is more akin to a religious movement and dogma than it is to actual science.
If you have a little patience, read the following recent link, to get a good grasp of how Science and peer review have been redefined by the climate movement and why.
Also about the "basic" science surrounding climate science which is flawed from the ground up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
So you are the expert now? You've figured it all out havent you?
Didint think so.
It is her field of expertise and you are being disingenuous.
This is about walrus behaviour, she knows about animal behaviours and knows this is not a new phenomena.
She also knows that the WWF trying to tie this in to climate change is a self-serving lie, because it can and HAS already been explained or observed before.
We are not talking about climate.
The WWF made it about climate, but it is NOT.
This event is about walrus behavior. A Zoologist is the right scientist in this context.
The problem today with the climate alarmist movement is they tie themselves into everything, making everything about them, and the gullible population have bought into this.
The whole article and WWF statements are jumping to conclusions.
The link IS sufficient evidence with citations from peer reviewed papers having observed similar events multiple times dating all the way back to the 1950's and anecdotal evidence from Inuits dating to before that.
I don't understand why every time an event or statement made to get bleeding heart environmentalists to cry is ALWAYS accepted (even with proof that its a bald faced lie) however anything that does not 100% support AGW, CC or any enviro propaganda is automatically ignored or branded as denier lies.
Seriously and skeptics are blamed as the ones with confirmation bias???? I mean REALLY??? Pseudo-Environmentalists need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
You think you can get the picture back from the internet once it has been posted?
We dont have A referendum in Quebec.
We call it the NEVER'ENDUM.
If it was up to the dirty seperatists, they would have a referendum every 3 years for ever, or until the dirty anglos and anglo lovers cave in.
Apparently it is because you don't understand any of it.
All you do is spout the same tibits the news tells you. Or your favorite propaganda blog.
Did you even take 2 mins to watch the video I posted?
Using the same data all climatologists use, he blew everything you just said above out of the water.
Not just prehistoric data but starting from a few hundred thousand years ago, to 10000 years ago.
If you dont like that, he went over the last 2000 years (Christianity) and the last 700 hundred to hit it closer to home.
There is NOTHING unusual about the climate we are currently experiencing. NOTHING.
Now look at the same data and tell me Im a denier with a straight face.
Id like your thoughts on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Starting at about 5mins 55 seconds for about 2mins.
Watch the whole thing if youd like. However those 2 mins are quit important.
So simple you don't address the fact that CO2 has a logarithmic effect.
You also don't address the fact that the current warming is NOT out of the ordinary. (look at historical data)
What do you have to say about the fact that warming from the last 30 years, doesnt mean anything at all. Its insignificant as it only represents 1 data point.
Take 2 mins and look at this (from 5.55 on) and tell me your reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I was at my nephew's baptism last Sunday.
Brought me back 25 years. It was the most retarded thing I have seen in my life.
I honestly was looking around and could see that 95% of people there are there to support the 5% of the family that is delusional.
Unfortunately I was one of those 95%, should have just stayed home.
Indeed, some of those benefits are province dependent.
Yes in Quebec over 75% are Christians and more than 75% of Christians are Roman Catholic.
However, this is followed sharply with 12% atheists being the 2nd largest demographic.
Also, even though 75% have been baptized, its more of a cultural thing than people actually having faith and practicing religions.
Most likely more than half of the 75% Christians have no faith, do not practice and do not care about religion.
As others have mentioned, there is a heavy separation of religion and state in Canada, especially in Quebec after what was call a "quiet" revolution in the 1960's.
As such, religion plays almost NO role in politics here.
Though I dont know exactly where I sit on this issue, let me tell you a few facts from being Canadian, that makes this issue different than it would in the USA.
1. Health Care is free;
2. Medical Help before, during and after pregnancy and throughout the childs life is either free or very cheap;
3. Mothers and/or Fathers can have up to 5 weeks paid (75% of salary) vacation when a child is born;
4. Mothers can have up to 50 weeks paid maternity leave (55% of salary) or 40 weeks paid (70% of salary);
5. Also, a parent the mother or father can take up to 70 weeks total off (mix of paid and unpaid) all while having their job and position protected by law;
6. Schooling is cheap or free in some cases;
7. The government (both federal and provincial) gives lots of money to parents every month to help raise kids;
8. Day care costs 7$ a day (government mandated cost) and those day cares are attended by certified child educators;
Now there is much more to parenthood and raising a child than the points above. And, like I said, Im undecided about this subject and do think a womans body is her body. However, I just wanted to point out that with the right resources (pointed above) I would hope it would help with the decision making and make it more of a conversation between the two.
On the other hand, if the woman does NOT want to be a mother, there is no reason for her to be. It would be cruel to the child and senseless.
Fuel costs of Nuclear power plants are about 14% where NG power plants fuel costs are about 89% of operating costs.
This is why nuclear plants generally run at close to maximum output continuously as it doesn't really cost that much more.
However, newer plant designs, for example those in France and Sweden (namely light water), do load following. They are capable of switching from 50% to 100% output, usually at a 3-5% rate change per minute.
Chernobyl IS an operating plant. But the "operating" part is not what affected local animal life.
But what mdsolar and his type forget is, Chernobyle is 1 incident. Fukushima 2. Over the life of all the nuclear plants, even taking those 2 horrible accidents (preventable they may have been) the track record world wide for Nuclear energy is better than most other types of energy.
I'm as confused as you. Its thousands of civilians.
Nice little piece of propaganda spin there.
Has anyone told you, on Slashdot posting anonymously doesn't work. You need to use one of the old accounts, just buy it from someone, then your propaganda will get traction.
So, how are things in your university class room in Israel? Feeling like you are part of the "team" are we, like your participating in the "war".
Nice to see, you love the bloodshed.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i...
Student propagandists in Israel are just as Evil as the Government in place.
If you dont agree, you dont spread lies. If you actively spread lies, its like you are killing the children yourself.
SHAME ON YOU!
They make a profit right?
That profit goes to who? Right, shareholders.
IT IS A PRIVATE ENTITY.
And now, I realize... I'm replying to an AC.