EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1274 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 ... 85  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2016 11:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
The Green Parties nominee for President of the United States.

Image

Well fence sitters? I guess I'm glad its now out there in the open. No doubt about it. We all now know what the Green Party is all about.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/27/clim ... Y9Dhi.dpbs

Quote:
Kirstein has become an outspoken critic of the manmade global warming science. In his presentation, he explains in layman terms how the climate system works and why the often ballyhooed climate catastrophe is mostly “media propaganda”.

At the start, the 40-year climate science veteran explains how today’s climate is nothing unusual when taken in a historical context, and shows that previous interglacials were even warmer than the current one. Climate is a highly variable system and changes, even sudden ones, are nothing unusual. Another point he makes while explaining climate history is that CO2 rises always followed temperature rises, and not vice versa. Over history there has been very little correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature.


Quote:
Later he shows that weather extremes such as cyclones show no trend. “No significant statistical trend at al over the past 40 years.” He labels “unserious scientific methods” used by climatologists as being “marginal in the least, at times false, and some even bordering on fraud.”


Quote:
At the end Kirstein blasts how the state controlled media has in effect politicized the science. He says climate protection is now a form of populism where governments hope to garner praise for their climate protection efforts. At the end he quotes Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark: “It has nothing to do with science”.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/27/climate-professor-says-german-climate-science-hyped-by-sloppy-politically-corrupted-media/#sthash.QhoypNGr.rWFY9Dhi.dpbs

Quote:
Kirstein has become an outspoken critic of the manmade global warming science. In his presentation, he explains in layman terms how the climate system works and why the often ballyhooed climate catastrophe is mostly “media propaganda”.

At the start, the 40-year climate science veteran explains how today’s climate is nothing unusual when taken in a historical context, and shows that previous interglacials were even warmer than the current one. Climate is a highly variable system and changes, even sudden ones, are nothing unusual. Another point he makes while explaining climate history is that CO2 rises always followed temperature rises, and not vice versa. Over history there has been very little correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature.


Quote:
Later he shows that weather extremes such as cyclones show no trend. “No significant statistical trend at al over the past 40 years.” He labels “unserious scientific methods” used by climatologists as being “marginal in the least, at times false, and some even bordering on fraud.”


Quote:
At the end Kirstein blasts how the state controlled media has in effect politicized the science. He says climate protection is now a form of populism where governments hope to garner praise for their climate protection efforts. At the end he quotes Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark: “It has nothing to do with science”.


One opinion out of many who disagree. I don't suppose you would worry if 97 oncologists told you that you had cancer but three told you all of the others were wrong? The difference is not that one person is in danger but everyone and their following generations.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:04 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Leftist induced energy poverty is a recurring topic in this thread. Here is the latest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 ... g_share_tw

Quote:
Britain's increasing reliance on "intermittent" renewable energy means that the country is facing an unprecedented supply crisis, a senior Ofgem executive has warned.

Andrew Wright, a senior partner at Ofgem and former interim chief executive, warned that households could be forced to pay extra to keep their lights on while their neighbours “sit in the dark” because “not everyone will be able to use as much as electricity as they want”.

He warned that in future richer customers will be able to “pay for a higher level of reliability” while other households are left without electricity.


Quote:
He said: “The system we are all familiar with has some redundancy built into it. It was pretty straightforward and there was a supply margin, but increasing intermittency from renewable energy is producing profound changes to this system.


Its amazing to me that leftist renewable energy policies are reducing supply. Driving up costs, and soon the divide between rich and poor will increase. The rich will have electricity and poor will not. That's not the way its supposed to work on the left.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:33 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Leftist induced energy poverty is a recurring topic in this thread. Here is the latest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 ... g_share_tw

Quote:
Britain's increasing reliance on "intermittent" renewable energy means that the country is facing an unprecedented supply crisis, a senior Ofgem executive has warned.

Andrew Wright, a senior partner at Ofgem and former interim chief executive, warned that households could be forced to pay extra to keep their lights on while their neighbours “sit in the dark” because “not everyone will be able to use as much as electricity as they want”.

He warned that in future richer customers will be able to “pay for a higher level of reliability” while other households are left without electricity.


Quote:
He said: “The system we are all familiar with has some redundancy built into it. It was pretty straightforward and there was a supply margin, but increasing intermittency from renewable energy is producing profound changes to this system.




Its amazing to me that leftist renewable energy policies are reducing supply. Driving up costs, and soon the divide between rich and poor will increase. The rich will have electricity and poor will not. That's not the way its supposed to work on the left.


Amazing that you missed reading what you did not want to read, such as this portion of the article:

“In order to protect consumers every regulator has to look a possible future challenges. Mr Wright was talking at an University conference in a personal capacity and looking at possible issues that might or might not arise in 10-15 years time.”

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:54 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Something to think about fence sitters.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein ... ecaf6819fd

Quote:

“Science” is perhaps the most abused word in the English language.

The word used to name the method of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein has also been used to rationalize some of the most destructive political policies in human history, such as socialism and population control. The Nazis invoked the once-renowned “science” of eugenics to justify a Holocaust of “scientifically inferior” races.

How do we protect ourselves against such abuses of science? By knowing the one key difference between real scientists and science abusers. Science abusers treat science as an infallible authority to be blindly obeyed by the public. Real scientists treat science as a method to be carefully explained to the public.

By this standard, today’s vaunted “climate science consensus”—that it’s been scientifically proven that we need to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, the economic engine of the world—is more Scientology than science.


There are three ways climate scientologists (a term I like and will adopt) they use manipulative language.

Quote:
If you are ever asked the incoherent question “Do you deny climate change?” you have found yourself a Climate Scientologist.

No one denies “climate change.” “Climate change” is a constant. The “climate,” which is an averaging of weather over long timespan, is an inherently changing phenomenon. There’s no “climate non-change.”


Quote:
“Science” is perhaps the most abused word in the English language.

The word used to name the method of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein has also been used to rationalize some of the most destructive political policies in human history, such as socialism and population control. The Nazis invoked the once-renowned “science” of eugenics to justify a Holocaust of “scientifically inferior” races.

How do we protect ourselves against such abuses of science? By knowing the one key difference between real scientists and science abusers. Science abusers treat science as an infallible authority to be blindly obeyed by the public. Real scientists treat science as a method to be carefully explained to the public.

By this standard, today’s vaunted “climate science consensus”—that it’s been scientifically proven that we need to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, the economic engine of the world—is more Scientology than science.

Here are three ways the Climate Scientologists abuse science.

1. They use manipulative language

If you are ever asked the incoherent question “Do you deny climate change?” you have found yourself a Climate Scientologist.

No one denies “climate change.” “Climate change” is a constant. The “climate,” which is an averaging of weather over long timespan, is an inherently changing phenomenon. There’s no “climate non-change.”

Don’t tell me “Oh, we all know what we mean by climate change”--because I don’t, and neither do you.

“Climate change” is a manipulative, rubber term used to mean anything from “the climate changes” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate at least a tiny amount” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate for the better” (yes, that’s possible) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous” (which much fewer people agree with) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous and the only response is to stop using fossil fuels but also incoherently oppose nuclear power and hydroelectric power while advocating the worst-performing energy technologies, solar and wind.”

Climate Scientologists are usually advocates of the last, bizarre position. Since they can’t argue for that view honestly and directly, they dishonestly name their view “climate change.” That’s the equivalent of a eugenics advocate calling his view “evolution.” Which is, in fact, exactly what eugenics advocates did. And just as we needed more thinkers back then, so we need more Climate Thinkers today.


They never admit when their theory fails. And, it has failed time after time, after time.

Quote:
Modern climate science is dominated by the hypothesis that CO2 is the major driver of climate—so much so that increasing it from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere has brought us to the verge of catastrophe.

One simple question to ask about this hypothesis, which has been around for many decades, is: “Does it agree with experiment?” Since the theory uses computer models to make apocalyptic predictions about the future, one straightforward question to ask is: can the climate prediction models actually predict climate?

The answer is no. As my colleague at Center for Industrial Progress, physicist and mathematical modeler Eric Dennis, writes in a forthcoming essay on climate modeling:

the biggest phenomenon in climate modeling over the last 15 years is the spectacular failure of the models to predict what happened over this period: flat global temperatures, no significant warming trend. This was the one test the climate modelers were forced to stick their necks out for, and they have failed it.

Has this deterred the climate scientologists? No. In the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report they glossed over the failures of their hypothesis and doubled down with new apocalyptic predictions.


They intimidate, rather than explain, and you see examples of that throughout this forum when dealing with those who don't tow the line.

Quote:
Two weeks ago I participated on an energy panel with a prominent critic of fossil fuels. Anticipating that he would raise the climate issue, I devoted much of my 5-minute opening to trying to explain the big-picture evidence about fossil fuels and climate. Here was his response, in full. He flashed a Power Point slide with an ominous-looking picture of a desert with the text “6 Degrees Celsius” (implying it would get that much hotter) and said “We’re in trouble. The smartest people on the planet have told us that, and we’re listening to them.”

I asked him to explain to me and to the audience how the “smartest people in the world” had proven this so we could understand it for ourselves. His response? He told the audience that since these (unspecified) people are smarter than I am, they should listen to him instead of me. In freshman logic, we are taught that this is the fallacy of “appeal to authority.” The true scientist has no need for appeal to authority—he uses his expertise to give clear explanations for anyone seeking them.

For example, if you ask a good physicist about quantum mechanics, he will give you an overview of the evidence, such as the famous double-slit experiment that classical mechanics couldn’t explain. But too often, if you ask a question about climate science, a Climate Scientologist will try to intimidate you to take his beliefs on faith.

Fortunately, many if not most scientists reject Climate Scientology privately and a growing number of them are willing to stand up. What is most striking about these scientists, many of whom I’ve had the opportunity to interview, is not that they disagree with predictions of catastrophe, but that they stress, first and foremost, that you need to think for yourself. For example, on my podcast, Power Hour, legendary MIT scientist Richard Lindzen went out of his way to tell listeners to take nothing from him on authority but rather to read the different arguments and see what made sense.”

That’s the policy of any real climate scientist—and any real Climate Thinker. Anyone who does otherwise is a Climate Scientologist.


Sounds like good advice fence sitters. Now get out there and think for yourself.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Thanks to all for a quarter of a MILLION hits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Thank you all who look in. It means a lot.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:09 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
For those who need a paper....

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/29/the- ... dk8cF.dpbs

Quote:
The ocean “acidification” narrative that claims humans are gradually lowering pH levels in sea water with their CO2 emissions may rest on presumptions, hypotheticals, and confirmation bias — not robust, observational scientific evidence.

A paper by Wei et al. (2015) published a year ago in the Journal of Geophysical Research effectively illustrates the vacuousness of the ocean “acidification” paradigm.

In the paper, the authors assert that “model calculations” (yes, calculations from modeling) have indicated oceanic pH levels may have decreased (i.e., lowered pH = less alkaline = more “acidic”) since the 1800s by a total of about 0.1 as consequence of the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This overall pH-lowering “trend” of less than 0.1 since the industrial era began is “predicted” to “potentially threaten the existence and development of many marine calcareous organisms”. Again, it’s the 150-year -0.1 trend in pH-lowering — which the authors admit is subject to “large errors” in measurement — that threatens the oceanic biosphere according to modeled predictions. In contrast, large natural pH drops of -0.2 to -0.5 occurring on 10-year timescales do not threaten “marine calcareous organisms.”



Quote:
Wei et al., 2015 Ocean acidification is predicted to reduce the saturation state of carbonate minerals in seawater and potentially threaten the existence and development of many marine calcareous organisms, such as calcareous microorganisms and corals. Model calculations have indicated an overall decrease in global seawater pH of 0.1 relative to the preIndustrial era value, and a further pH reduction of 0.2–0.3 over the next century.

We here estimate the OA rates from the two long (>150 years) annually resolved pH records from the northern SCS (this study) and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], and the results indicate annual rates of -0.00039 +/- 0.00025 yr and -0.00034 +/- 0.00022 yr for the northern SCS [South China Sea] and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], respectively. … [T]hese two time-series do not show significant decreasing trend for pH. Despite such large errors, estimated from these rates, the seawater pH has decreased by about 0.07–0.08 U over the past 200 years in these regions. … The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.



Fence sitters I didn't need a paper to know that the claim of man increasing ocean acidification is bullcookies, and always has been bullcookies.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:48 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Stretching it to the breaking point.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -food.html

Quote:
Birds have reached their summer breeding grounds on average about one day earlier per degree of increasing global temperatures, according to the research, which looked at hundreds of species across five continents.



Fence sitters this is called they're desperate and out of things to howl about. They are clawing for relevance in a world that is increasing tuning them out. Ironically because of claims just like this one.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Fence sitters does this seem like a wise expenditure of tax payers money?

http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2016/12 ... -this-out/

Quote:
DUH SCIENCE: It Cost $7 Million to Figure This Out

Posted on December 29, 2016 by ColoradoPeakPolitics
The federal government spent $7 million in taxpayer dollars on a climate change study that determined trees can’t grow here without water.

We kid you not.

A six-year-old child knows that plants and trees can’t grow without water, but this came as a surprise to government scientists who spent the $7 million on seeds, heat lamps and scaffolding to simulate global warming.

They wanted to see if the heat lamps, aka global warming, would entice conifers to grow beyond the tree lines into higher elevations.

In a nutshell, it won’t.


Its all about the gravy train. Its all about the money fence sitters, and who gets to put the money in their pockets. How else can you explain this?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Fence sitters does this seem like a wise expenditure of tax payers money?

http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2016/12 ... -this-out/

Quote:
DUH SCIENCE: It Cost $7 Million to Figure This Out

Posted on December 29, 2016 by ColoradoPeakPolitics
The federal government spent $7 million in taxpayer dollars on a climate change study that determined trees can’t grow here without water.

We kid you not.

A six-year-old child knows that plants and trees can’t grow without water, but this came as a surprise to government scientists who spent the $7 million on seeds, heat lamps and scaffolding to simulate global warming.

They wanted to see if the heat lamps, aka global warming, would entice conifers to grow beyond the tree lines into higher elevations.

In a nutshell, it won’t.


Its all about the gravy train. Its all about the money fence sitters, and who gets to put the money in their pockets. How else can you explain this?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:35 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters does this seem like a wise expenditure of tax payers money?

http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2016/12 ... -this-out/

Quote:
DUH SCIENCE: It Cost $7 Million to Figure This Out

Posted on December 29, 2016 by ColoradoPeakPolitics
The federal government spent $7 million in taxpayer dollars on a climate change study that determined trees can’t grow here without water.

We kid you not.

A six-year-old child knows that plants and trees can’t grow without water, but this came as a surprise to government scientists who spent the $7 million on seeds, heat lamps and scaffolding to simulate global warming.

They wanted to see if the heat lamps, aka global warming, would entice conifers to grow beyond the tree lines into higher elevations.

In a nutshell, it won’t.


Its all about the gravy train. Its all about the money fence sitters, and who gets to put the money in their pockets. How else can you explain this?


No, it is all about the misrepresentation and the ignorance of those like yourself. The study was to see if the trees currently being stressed by the changing climate could survive by moving up the mountain as it warmed. The whole article not just the snippet taken out of context is here:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/27/cl ... ado-trees/

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 12:17 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
What do you think fence sitters. You know I've always said follow the money.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/30/ ... cleans-up/



Quote:
Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us.
“I actually doubt that,” he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.
“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”
The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.
“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”


I completely agree.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:23 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Not posting a link. Just going to post the whole story.
Quote:
Cap and trade catastrophe
Ontario's carbon pricing scheme, which starts Sunday, is a train wreck

lorrie-goldstein BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Quote:
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s cap and trade scheme goes into effect Sunday, Jan. 1. Here are eight major reasons why you should be alarmed.


1. Costs appear to be higher than estimated

The Wynne government estimates the initial cost of cap and trade per household will be $156 per year, due to increased costs for gasoline ($8 per month) and natural gas home heating fuel ($5 per month), rising to $285 annually in 2019 in direct and indirect costs. However, its own estimate that it will take in $2 billion annually from cap and trade ($8 billion from 2017 to 2020) suggests the real annual cost to Ontarians will be $400 per household, given that Ontario has about five million households. The Ontario Energy Board says the initial increase in homeowners’ heating bills alone — which won’t be listed as a separate charge — will be $5.68 to $6.70 per month, already up to 34% higher than the government’s claim.

2. No transparency

Unlike a carbon tax, which is visible, cap-and-trade raises the prices of most goods and services, since most consume fossil fuel energy. Businesses pass along their increased costs from having to buy carbon allowances from the government or their competitors, by raising their prices. Since the price of consumer goods is determined by numerous factors, Ontarians will have no way of knowing what they are paying for cap and trade.

3. Severe impact on low-income Ontarians

Cap and trade is essentially a hidden tax on consumption. Since lower income earners, including seniors on fixed incomes, spend a larger proportion of their income on necessities, such as heating their homes in winter, cap and trade will disproportionately impact them in terms of costs. This even though their carbon footprints are relatively small because they consume less, tend to live in apartments as opposed to single family homes, take public transit as opposed to owning cars and do not engage in fossil-fuel intensive activities such as taking foreign vacations.

4. No revenue neutrality

While the government is promising to help Ontarians cope with the higher cost of living cap and trade causes, its scheme will not be revenue neutral, meaning it will not return to the public in the form of tax cuts or grants the $2 billion annually it intends to raise from carbon pricing. Instead of helping all Ontarians to cope with the higher cost of living, the government will pick winners and losers, which governments are notoriously bad at doing.

5. Limited effectiveness

Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk says cap and trade will only reduce Ontario’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change by 3.8 megatonnes annually by 2020, 20% of its 18.7 megatonnes target. The government claims the rest of its target, 14.9 megatonnes or 80%, will be achieved by counting emission reductions in California and Quebec resulting from Ontario’s entry into their cap and trade market in 2018.

6. Double counting emission cuts

Lysyk warns that since there is no agreement between California, Quebec and Ontario about how to report emission cuts under cap and trade, they may be double counted, undermining the credibility of Ontario’s reported cuts. For example, a business in California could sell 100 carbon allowances (each one permitting the bearer to emit one tonne of industrial carbon dioxide emissions or its equivalent) to an Ontario company. California could then record the sale of 100 carbon allowances as having lowered its emissions by 100 tonnes, because they’re being exported to Ontario. Meanwhile, Ontario could record the purchase of the same 100 credits by an Ontario company as having lowered Ontario’s emissions by 100 tonnes, because it lowered California’s emissions.

7. No verification of emission cuts

Ontario businesses emitting greenhouse gases are expected to pay up to $466 million more from 2017 to 2020 to buy carbon allowances from emitters in Quebec and California, which could rise to $2.2 billion by 2030. “Our concern with these payments,” Lysyk said, “is that the government has not adequately studied whether Ontario businesses buying these allowances will actually contribute to additional emissions reductions in Quebec and California.” As a result, “these funds may be leaving the Ontario economy for no purpose other than to help the government claim it has met a target.”

8. Potential misuse of free carbon allowances

The Wynne government is giving out free carbon allowances — essentially free money — to major Ontario industrial emitters because it says it has to protect them from foreign competition in jurisdictions that don’t have carbon pricing. But it has not explained what mechanism it has, if any, to prevent industries that receive free allowances from raising their prices as if they had paid for them, resulting in undeserved, windfall profits, as occurred in Europe’s cap and trade market, the Emissions Trading Scheme.



So here is a perfect example fence sitters. Public policy designed to fight emissions, but it doesn't. Just like everything the Scientologists do it always is way more expensive then what they sell it as. And who pays? The common folks pay more. Of course their will be no transparency. You can't cheat and line your pockets under transparency. Like every cultist environmentalist policy it hurts the poor worst of all. Of course there will be no verification of emission cuts. Its not designed to cut emissions its designed as a shell game where some benefit and most everyone else pays more. Its a scam. Have fun Ontario.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:34 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Another of Mr. Goldstein's columns ..... a varied expertise to be sure.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/28/je ... o-surprise

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1274 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 ... 85  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group