Soooooo, where is the Warming? [Archive] - Page 6

Strange Brew

09-23-2015, 11:30 PM

http://www.sott.net/article/277349-Top-scientist-resigns-from-post-admits-Global-Warming-is-a-scam

Mr. Lewis pretty much sums things up about what a fraud global warming is and the revenue generated for so-called scientists who "study" it.

I wonder if those left wing professors think he should be criminally prosecuted.

Here is the entire letter which goes into detail the steps Mr. Lewis took to correct this fraud, to no avail:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

Come on 87, please quote an actual scientist if you want to post your doubter nonsense!

paulxu

09-28-2015, 03:01 PM

The new American exceptionalism.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html#

Masterofreality

09-28-2015, 05:34 PM

The new American exceptionalism.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html#

Because they aren't. Of course, the New Yorker would write that.
While all this political and false climate model crap keeps flying around, the usual weather just continues on unabated.

NY44

09-29-2015, 09:52 AM

Show of hands, who thinks Nasa saying it found water on Mars is part of a leftist agenda?

Milhouse

09-29-2015, 10:05 AM

97% of NASA Scientists are DEFINITELY wrong.

X-band '01

10-01-2015, 03:31 PM

Joaquin is doing his part to make it rain in the Atlantic Ocean now.

It's intensified very quickly in a 24-hour span; went from a small hurricane yesterday morning up to a Category 4 this afternoon; it's currently brushing the Bahamas. Models are all over the place (although ESPN's Dana O'Neil said it perfectly on Twitter - a meteorologist talking about cone of uncertainly = who really knows what will happen) right now.

Chances are that if it does hit the US coast, it would likely be down to a tropical storm, but it's going to bring even more rain to a part of the country that's getting soaked by another weather system as we speak.

paulxu

10-04-2015, 08:38 PM

We've had a LOT of rain in South Carolina this weekend.
12" in 24 hours is just that.
If it was snow, it'd be 13 feet.
Build an ark.

X-band '01

10-04-2015, 10:15 PM

Yeah, I've heard that this rainfall would rival what happened in Nashville (almost 2 feet of rain in a few spots) a few years ago. Stay dry and stay safe.

94GRAD

10-14-2015, 01:01 PM

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/

Masterofreality

10-14-2015, 07:24 PM

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/

Quote: "It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side."

Oh, and this:
"Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.

I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable."

Hmmmmmmmmm!

X-man

10-15-2015, 09:30 AM

The report itself is laughable, and is written as if it were a HS science project report. While the criticisms of the GWPF itself seem largely focused on its funding sources (something that no doubt concerns MOR because those sources no doubt, under MOR's reasoning, mean that all the reports conclusions should be dismissed given that MOR dismisses the climate change scientists who express concern about carbon as being simply motivated by money), I don't have a problem with the GWPF funding. Of course people and companies with an interest in carbon producing activities are going to support research that benefits their interests. But I will be interested in the reaction to this "report" by the scientific community. To my unscientific mind, much of it appears to be seriously over simplified, particularly the section on the "benefits from carbon dioxide".

Masterofreality

10-15-2015, 09:29 PM

X-man

10-16-2015, 08:25 AM

We do breathe out Carbon Dioxide, correct?

Anyone who classifies THAT as a pollutant is laughable.

Oh, and there seems to be no doubt in what I no doubtedly believe. I guess what some think I no doubtedly believe is as "settled" as this climate science. Wonderful that others can "no doubtedly" know what has no doubt about something that has doubt.

That first sentence in your post has about the same level of sophistication as that report from the GWPF which you reference. But my earlier post, which you conveniently ignore, asks why you trust the people who work for the GWPF but don't trust those who contribute to the IPCC reports on climate change. You repeatedly claim that the scientists who warn us about carbon can't be trusted because they are "in it for the money". Yet the GWPF is funded by interests that stand to gain if climate issues are not addressed. I have no problem with the funding on either side, but you do. Sounds like a double standard to me.

XU 87

10-16-2015, 11:25 AM

ArizonaXUGrad

10-16-2015, 12:09 PM

I read that, that guy had me until he talked up shale oil. You know, the stuff they frack out of the ground. The stuff that makes your water table flammable. That stuff is great, sure it cuts down pollution and we can breathe better, but our drinking water would be poison. But hey, Bush/Cheney went ahead and made it exempt from the clean water act.

Quote: "It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side."

Oh, and this:
"Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.

I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable."

Hmmmmmmmmm!

XU 87

10-16-2015, 01:18 PM

Masterofreality

10-16-2015, 02:51 PM

More evidence of global cooling.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/weekend-snow-to-whiten-portions-of-midwest-northeast-as-cold-pours-in/ar-AAfnm4b?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=HPCDHP

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt

This goes to my whole point. While all of the doomsayers keep citing these questionable statistics about how everything that happens now is the "hottest on record", despite the fact that the records only go back 140 years out of millions of years of the planet's existence- a pimple on an elephant's ass- the weather just keeps doing what it does. Gets cold when it's supposed to, freezes when it's supposed to, gets warm when it's supposed to. We will get snow this winter and hot days next summer. This climate change garbage is bull crap, but some people just have to rail about something...while they collect all kinds of dollars for it.

All the while this Imperial President decides to arbitrarily make rules/laws by fiat. Never mind the process called for by our Founding Fathers.

Oh, and we do breathe out Carbon Dioxide XMan. Is that a sophisticated enough statement for you?

GoMuskies

10-16-2015, 02:58 PM

bobbiemcgee

10-16-2015, 03:16 PM

yeah,earthquakes probably just a coincidence:

http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/23/oklahoma-earthquakes-caused-by-fracking/

X-man

10-16-2015, 03:33 PM

This goes to my whole point. While all of the doomsayers keep citing these questionable statistics about how everything that happens now is the "hottest on record", despite the fact that the records only go back 140 years out of millions of years of the planet's existence- a pimple on an elephant's ass- the weather just keeps doing what it does. Gets cold when it's supposed to, freezes when it's supposed to, gets warm when it's supposed to. We will get snow this winter and hot days next summer. This climate change garbage is bull crap, but some people just have to rail about something...while they collect all kinds of dollars for it.

All the while this Imperial President decides to arbitrarily make rules/laws by fiat. Never mind the process called for by our Founding Fathers.

Oh, and we do breathe out Carbon Dioxide XMan. Is that a sophisticated enough statement for you?

WTF? I want the people who research this stuff to actually know some science and then to explain their views. Using the fact that people exhale carbon as a reason to oppose reducing carbon emissions is not just unsophisticated. It's downright stupid, and almost as stupid as using the temperature outside your window as a measure of global temperatures.

And why aren't you concerned about all those (handful of) climate change deniers collecting all those dollars while they rail against the vast majority of climate scientists who express concerns about climate change?

ArizonaXUGrad

10-16-2015, 04:18 PM

With you leading the world that is a legitimate possibility if we survive at all.

Other than wind and sun, is there any other energy production that you are ok with, or should we all just go back to living in grass huts and have a life expectancy of about 35?

ArizonaXUGrad

10-16-2015, 04:19 PM

Read that also, the guys in Texas who can light their water on fire beg to differ.

Edit: Did you also google the results and find that the EPA was not only pressured by industry and the project itself was cut halfway through?

As I have said before, if you love fracking so much you should move next to a fracking site. I am sure the land is cheap.

You may want to talk about that with the Obama EPA who just completed a study on the effects of fracking on drinking water. Cliffs: no demonstrable negative effect

http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

XU 87

10-16-2015, 04:26 PM

With you leading the world that is a legitimate possibility if we survive at all.

In my business, we call your answer "non-responsive and evasive".

GoMuskies

10-16-2015, 05:49 PM

bjf123

10-16-2015, 07:01 PM

This sums it up.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Climate_Change_Scam.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

paulxu

10-16-2015, 07:06 PM

Hah! I clicked that link and MacAfee stopped me from loading the page to advise it's a "risky" site and was I "sure" I wanted to go there.

Guess I'll just have to live in the dark.

Masterofreality

10-16-2015, 07:24 PM

Masterofreality

10-16-2015, 07:26 PM

This sums it up.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Climate_Change_Scam.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Very accurate!

X-man

10-16-2015, 09:44 PM

It's gonna be in the 30's at night and only highs in the 40's this weekend. it's October 19. Yep. Pretty seasonable, and not warming........

"Global Warming......Y2K!!!! Global Warming.....Y2K!!!!" Keep Hope alive!!!!

MOR, when you make posts like this one, you really look like an idiot. I'm sure that you are not, so why act like one?

Masterofreality

10-17-2015, 09:12 AM

MOR, when you make posts like this one, you really look like an idiot. I'm sure that you are not, so why act like one?

Man, you really have no sense of humor, do you? You are so easy to hook in. Keep on name calling and drinking the liberal Kool Aid while expressing irritating self-righteous indignation. Hilarious.

You know what, brother? If you want to reduce CO2, how about telling your Federal Government to stop Requiring by law that Catalyitc Converters be present on cars? While they reduce pollution, they actually increase CO2, which according to "experts" like you, cause Global Warming- although that is all bull crap. There are other technologies available that could accomplish good things, yet our EPA, in their infinite wisdom, continue to require converters and have since 1975. And don't blame the manufacturers either. They've been having to design around ridiculous government regulations for years -including the latest increased gas mileage requirements that the Prince in the White House wants. Meanwhile I don't see King Obama refusing to be chauffeured around in a big Limousine- or any other world leader either, for that matter.

The air in the US is cleaner through a series of bi-partisan measures taken during both Republican and Democrat administrations. They didn't occur by an Imperial President ruling by fiat on things that will cost the American economy bilions of dollars and probably jobs. All the while China and Russia just continue to make "commitments" to improve by, oh say 2035 with no definte action, and their populace walk around with surgical masks on because their air is so foul.

We in the US have handled, bad air, acid rain and have better water...that is except where the governments don't properly maintain their sewer output because they waste money on other stupid boondoggles.

Direct your name calling and accusatory tone elsewhere, sir. The science is not settled and your Liberal Emperors have no clothes.

bobbiemcgee

10-17-2015, 11:59 AM

You may want to talk about that with the Obama EPA who just completed a study on the effects of fracking on drinking water. Cliffs: no demonstrable negative effect

http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

So you take 44 billion gallons of fresh, clean water, mix it with up to 1,076 chemicals including hydrochoric acid, inject it in the ground at very high pressure, pull back some of it and dump it in a well. Yeah, I'm convinced.

Hey, turn the cows back into that pasture. yum.

GoMuskies

10-17-2015, 12:45 PM

Take it up with Obama's EPA.

bobbiemcgee

10-17-2015, 02:22 PM

Yep, the gov't doing wonderful work for clean water here in Colorado. Who wouldn't believe them?

http://www.offthegridnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/animas-river.jpg

GoMuskies

10-17-2015, 02:44 PM

If you can't believe the Obama EPA here, you're just biased. Because this report is definitely not what they were hoping for. In the business, we might even call this a declaration against interest.

bobbiemcgee

10-17-2015, 03:08 PM

Ironic, since Nixon created the EPA, not Obama. So I guess you were a big supporter then, as well as when it was under the Bushes, Reagan, etc. They were all "from the guvmt and here to help" too.

The point has been made that nobody wants to live next to or on a fracking site. Would you? The NIMBY's would go crazy. I don't know the long term effects of injecting polluted water into the earth. Guess we'll find out someday. May turn out like DDT. Lovely.

waggy

10-17-2015, 05:27 PM

I don't know who's to blame for fracking, but I wish they'd just stop it.

Bring back the coal mines.

xu82

10-17-2015, 05:42 PM

I don't know who's to blame for fracking, but I wish they'd just stop it.

Bring back the coal mines.

Fracking provided the funds to keep my Buffalo Bills in WNY, so it can't be ALL bad.

bjf123

10-17-2015, 06:04 PM

Ah, HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Very accurate!

I thought so!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GoMuskies

10-17-2015, 07:59 PM

Ironic, since Nixon created the EPA

I'm not sure why you're mumbling, but Obama is the current president and therefore head of the EPA. It was his EPA that ran this study. If you think they wanted to conclude that fracking has no negative effect on drinking water, well, I don't think anyone believes that.

bobbiemcgee

10-17-2015, 10:07 PM

Guess you missed this part:

" In its FY2010 Appropriations Committee Conference Report, Congress urged the EPA to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using the best available science, independent sources of information, and to conduct the study in consultation with others using a transparent, peer-reviewed process. The EPA announced in March 2010 that it would conduct a research study to investigate the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. "

Indistinct enunciations? Hard to do when typing.

Anyway, glad to see you agree.

paulxu

10-17-2015, 10:26 PM

Be careful out there in Wichita. That's a lot of earthquakes.

42 Quakes M2.5+ Rock Oklahoma & S Kansas in 7 Days: 17% of world's earthquakes written by FishOutofWater: "Oklahoma and south Kansas had seventeen percent of the world's earthquakes M2.5 or greater in the past 7 days as of noon Oct. 16, 2015. Deep well injection of oil and gas waste has turned a seismically quiet area into one of the world's most active seismic regions. On October 10 a M4.5 earthquake rocked the critical infrastructure of the oil distribution and storage complex of Cushing, Oklahoma, but no major problems have been reported. [...] Faults associated with the billion year old rip through the heart of north America that crosses Kansas from Lake Superior to central Oklahoma, called the mid-continent rift, have been reactivated by high pressure injection of oil and gas waste fluids. In 2014 the U.S. Geological Survey warned of an increased risk of damaging earthquakes of M5.0 or greater in Oklahoma. To date, the largest earthquake probably triggered by deep waste injection is M5.6, in Prague Oklahoma. The fault structures are long enough to be potentially capable of even larger earthquakes, but it is not clear how much larger because of the lack of historic evidence and the fact that these faults are deeply buried under deformable sedimentary layers."

Zero to three earthquakes M3.0 or greater were measured per year in Oklahoma in the years 2001-2008. In 2015 there have been over 500 earthquakes M3.0 or larger.

bobbiemcgee

10-17-2015, 10:55 PM

Don't worry, it's safe:

http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article7540583.html

GoMuskies

10-18-2015, 12:19 AM

All this deflection is cute.

Still not sure what a Democratic Congress asking the Obama EPA to do the study has to do with the results of the study, though.

Not sure why you guys are so anti-science.

XU 87

10-21-2015, 01:05 PM

Global warming is now skipping Vermont. I think this is unfair. Vermont could use a little warmer weather.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/nation-now/2015/10/20/vermont-ski-resort-open-season/74290490/

ChicagoX

10-21-2015, 02:06 PM

More left-wing lunacy from the Earth... https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201501-201508.gif

I bet the Earth is a Bernie Sanders supporter...damn socialists! I bet if we gave the richest Americans even more tax breaks and did away with environmental regulations, the Earth would cool down.

Milhouse

10-21-2015, 04:02 PM

GoMuskies

10-22-2015, 05:17 PM

Those jerks from Yale also claim fracking doesn't contaminate drinking water.

http://news.yale.edu/2015/10/12/study-elevated-organic-compounds-pennsylvania-drinking-water-hydraulic-fracturing-surface

bobbiemcgee

10-22-2015, 07:25 PM

http://blog.gaslandthemovie.com/?p=821

GoMuskies

10-22-2015, 07:30 PM

Hmm, EPA, Yale or Gasland the Movie blog. Who to believe, who to believe? I tell ya, that's a thinker.

bobbiemcgee

10-22-2015, 08:24 PM

GoMuskies

10-22-2015, 09:03 PM

Common sense tells you the chemicals (which is mostly the devious chemical concoction H2O) are inserted into the earth far, far, far (FAR) below the aquifer.

You're so anti-science.

bobbiemcgee

10-22-2015, 09:09 PM

http://naturalsociety.com/study-people-living-near-fracking-sites-suffer-severe-health-problems/

Glad we banned fracking where I Live. Maybe they'll move up your way soon.

bobbiemcgee

10-22-2015, 09:21 PM

Common sense tells you the chemicals (which is mostly the devious chemical concoction H2O) are inserted into the earth far, far, far (FAR) below the aquifer.

You're so anti-science.

Yep, right under the drinking water wells. Shouldn't be a problem tho, it will never bubble back up. Should stay there right down there at the bottom of the pool.

bobbiemcgee

10-22-2015, 09:22 PM

Hmm, EPA........

Responsible for the biggest chemical spill in Colorado history. Good source.

GoMuskies

10-22-2015, 09:47 PM

Yep, right under the drinking water wells. Shouldn't be a problem tho, it will never bubble back up. Should stay there right down there at the bottom of the pool.

Thousands and thousands of feet below. Also, gravity.

94GRAD

10-22-2015, 09:59 PM

Stop hijacking our Global Warming thread please.

GoMuskies

10-22-2015, 10:06 PM

Stop hijacking our Global Warming thread please.

It's relevant. If one wants to make an argument against fracking that actually makes sense (as opposed to the drinking water nonsense ), they'd point to fracking ' s potential impact on global warming.

bobbiemcgee

10-22-2015, 10:45 PM

http://www.nofrackingway.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/fracked-water.jpg

yum

XU 87

10-28-2015, 01:27 PM

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258375-agency-wont-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research

"Just take our word for it".

ChicagoX

10-28-2015, 01:41 PM

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258375-agency-wont-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research

"Just take our word for it".

Global Warming "Pause" (http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesconca/files/2015/06/NOAA-graph1.jpg)

Masterofreality

11-03-2015, 07:06 AM

ChicagoX

11-03-2015, 03:09 PM

NASA- Uh, oh to the alarmists:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/nasa-shock-study-antarctica-growing-not-shrinking/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Yeah, all the apologists will say "Oh it's Breitbart, so no wonder"....well, go ahead and deny NASA that Antartica is growing. The science is not settled, folks.

Here is a slightly more reliable source:

Popular Science: Parts Of Antarctica's Ice Sheet Seem To Be Growing. No, Global Warming Is Not Over. (http://www.popsci.com/yes-parts-antarcticas-ice-sheet-seem-to-be-growing-no-global-warming-is-not-over)

And another:

CS Monitor: Antarctica is actually gaining ice, says NASA. Is global warming over? (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1101/Antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice-says-NASA.-Is-global-warming-over)

nuts4xu

11-03-2015, 03:26 PM

It is nearly 80 degrees today in Cincinnati, and we are in November.

Global Warming is alive and real as Jesus Christ himself!

MADXSTER

11-03-2015, 04:06 PM

FUN FACT: About 90% of the Earth's ice is in Antarctica

GoMuskies

11-03-2015, 04:06 PM

It is nearly 80 degrees today in Cincinnati, and we are in November.

Global Warming is alive and real as Jesus Christ himself!

It's unseasonably warm here, too. Fuck!

X-band '01

11-05-2015, 06:47 PM

CBS is leading off the news tonight with a report that government scientists are blaming climate change for recent extreme weather events.

We will now resume the usual serve and volley between XU 87 and ChicagoX.

xu82

11-05-2015, 07:16 PM

FUN FACT: About 90% of the Earth's ice is in Antarctica

Annoying Fact: The other 10% seems to fall out of the ice tray in my freezer keeping the door from closing properly.

Masterofreality

11-05-2015, 10:42 PM

CBS is leading off the news tonight with a report that government scientists are blaming climate change for recent extreme weather events.

But, wait. It's not weather, it's Climate...or, it's not Climate, it's weather.....until it's not..

XU 87

11-06-2015, 10:35 AM

X-man

11-06-2015, 10:39 AM

Looks like New York state is trying to make it a criminal offense to deny or say anything against global warming:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?_r=0

I thought you were an attorney. If you are, then you are being dishonest with your post. As I understand it, this "case" is about companies saying one thing publically while taking a different position internally when it materially affects stock values.

xu82

11-06-2015, 10:43 AM

We should have them try that case right here. It should be resolved shortly after the end of time.

XU 87

11-06-2015, 11:44 AM

I thought you were an attorney. If you are, then you are being dishonest with your post. As I understand it, this "case" is about companies saying one thing publically while taking a different position internally when it materially affects stock values.

I thought you were a Xavier grad. If you are, you know that this is nothing more than a political witch hunt against energy companies that have the audacity to take the "wrong" position on global warming.

As we know, you liberals like to silence views you don't agree with. A bunch of leftwing professors have requested the U.S. attorney general to prosecute people who publish anti-global warming articles and scientific papers.

X-man

11-06-2015, 01:27 PM

I thought you were a Xavier grad. If you are, you know that this is nothing more than a political witch hunt against energy companies that have the audacity to take the "wrong" position on global warming.

As we know, you liberals like to silence views you don't agree with. A bunch of leftwing professors have requested the U.S. attorney general to prosecute people who publish anti-global warming articles and scientific papers.

1. I am not a Xavier grad.
2. This bill applies, and has applied, to many other situations besides the climate change issue.
3. Do you, as an attorney, agree that if misleading public statements (ones that are contrary to internally held views) impact stock values in a way that keeps those values higher than they would be if the internally held views were public, this is a legal issue?

Just asking.

Strange Brew

11-06-2015, 01:48 PM

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.....

http://http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-calls-for-exxon-probe-after-company-cuts-off-foundation-funding/

paulxu

11-06-2015, 02:25 PM

3. Do you, as an attorney, agree that if misleading public statements (ones that are contrary to internally held views) impact stock values in a way that keeps those values higher than they would be if the internally held views were public, this is a legal issue?

I'll bet Volkswagen would agree to that.

waggy

11-06-2015, 04:20 PM

Congress knows all about chemtrails. Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich said they are "exotic weapons." One senator said we own the weather now. Arizona U.S. Sen. Kelli Ward came back to her home state to have a hearing on chemtrails June 25, 2014. Shasta, California, had a hearing July 15, 2014. These hearings are online if you want to listen to them.

President Obama has said many times that climate change should be a top priority in the next election. He is always telling us how fossil fuels are the cause of all the bad weather we are having. The geo-engineers have a different story. They say this artificial modification (chemtrails) of the weather, not fossil fuels, is directly responsible for the unusual weather patterns we are now seeing.

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/nation-ignoring-dangers-of-chemtrails/article_7dc065bd-cb08-59c2-b90c-a6c088753f4f.html

waggy

11-06-2015, 10:23 PM

http://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/obama_chemtrails.jpg

X-man

11-07-2015, 09:49 AM

Still waiting, 87.

XU 87

11-07-2015, 10:12 AM

Still waiting, 87.

It's a left wing political witch hunt. You're too blinded by your ideology to see that. Either that, or you're so blinded by ideology that you don't care about things like free speech or the U.S. Constitution when they get in the way of your ideology.

Which one is it, the former or the latter?

Strange Brew

11-07-2015, 11:20 AM

1. I am not a Xavier grad.

We know, we know. You're an Ivy....

X-man

11-08-2015, 07:55 AM

It's a left wing political witch hunt. You're too blinded by your ideology to see that. Either that, or you're so blinded by ideology that you don't care about things like free speech or the U.S. Constitution when they get in the way of your ideology.

Which one is it, the former or the latter?
Still waiting for an answer to my specific question, 87.

X-man

11-08-2015, 07:56 AM

We know, we know. You're an Ivy....

What's your point? I was addressing a misperception held by 87 (he has lots of misperceptions, BTW).

Strange Brew

11-08-2015, 12:11 PM

What's your point? I was addressing a misperception held by 87 (he has lots of misperceptions, BTW).

I'm not impressed is my point.

X-man

11-08-2015, 12:52 PM

I'm not impressed is my point.

By what? The fact that I said that I was not a Xavier grad?

Strange Brew

11-08-2015, 01:06 PM

By what? The fact that I said that I was not a Xavier grad?

Before I go any further, you went to Vermont for your undergraduate degree correct?

X-man

11-08-2015, 01:30 PM

Before I go any further, you went to Vermont for your undergraduate degree correct?

All I said was that I am not a Xavier grad. You said "Ivy League", and that you were not impressed. I still don't understand your point, unless it is the fact that I am not a Xavier grad.

Strange Brew

11-08-2015, 01:57 PM

All I said was that I am not a Xavier grad. You said "Ivy League", and that you were not impressed. I still don't understand your point, unless it is the fact that I am not a Xavier grad.

My point is you insult people's intelligence (and speak of their misperceptions) and have offered to educate people because of your perceived academic greatness. I'm saying I'm not impressed based on your post history and biography you've generously provided.

X-man

11-08-2015, 02:26 PM

My point is you insult people's intelligence (and speak of their misperceptions) and have offered to educate people because of your perceived academic greatness. I'm saying I'm not impressed based on your post history and biography you've generously provided.

I respond when people say things that are wrong, often based upon misperceptions (your view that markets always allocate resources efficiently, for example). I do not insult people or their intelligence, particularly those people that I do not know and therefore have no idea how intelligent they are. My posted "biography", as you call it, would appear so limited that it shouldn't impress anyone. But I did want 87 to know that I am not a Xavier grad since his post suggested that he thought that I was. And I am under the impression that he is a lawyer, based upon his past posts. If he is, I don't understand his take on the Exxon story. It would seem that he believes that the NY statute is only being applied in this one case, and out of some kind if "liberal" bias rather than out of concern that companies who mislead (potential) investors by taking public positions at odds with their internally held positions may be violating the law. I am curious to know why 87 takes this view; that's all.

Finally, I would point out that all of us post from time to time to "educate" (or at least inform) people , at least on political and policy issues. You yourself have often done so, again frequently with respect to how (well) markets work. I will not speculate as whether you do this because you believe that you were educated well or for some other reason. I can tell you that when I post on issues where I have had more education than the typical poster (economics is one such area...perhaps the only one), it is not for any "perceived academic greatness" but rather based upon what I have learned over the years both in school and out of it. Perhaps you do so as well.

Strange Brew

11-08-2015, 03:39 PM

I respond when people say things that are wrong, often based upon misperceptions (your view that markets always allocate resources efficiently, for example). I do not insult people or their intelligence, particularly those people that I do not know and therefore have no idea how intelligent they are. My posted "biography", as you call it, would appear so limited that it shouldn't impress anyone. But I did want 87 to know that I am not a Xavier grad since his post suggested that he thought that I was. And I am under the impression that he is a lawyer, based upon his past posts. If he is, I don't understand his take on the Exxon story. It would seem that he believes that the NY statute is only being applied in this one case, and out of some kind if "liberal" bias rather than out of concern that companies who mislead (potential) investors by taking public positions at odds with their internally held positions may be violating the law. I am curious to know why 87 takes this view; that's all.

Finally, I would point out that all of us post from time to time to "educate" (or at least inform) people , at least on political and policy issues. You yourself have often done so, again frequently with respect to how (well) markets work. I will not speculate as whether you do this because you believe that you were educated well or for some other reason. I can tell you that when I post on issues where I have had more education than the typical poster (economics is one such area...perhaps the only one), it is not for any "perceived academic greatness" but rather based upon what I have learned over the years both in school and out of it. Perhaps you do so as well.

I've edited this post many times because I'm trying to not be a complete jerk to you. So I'll just leave it at this. I never stated markets ALWAYS allocate resources efficiently and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just misinterpreted my post.

You have provided more than enough information to this board for someone to figure out who your are (just so you know).

I stepped out of this thread for a good reason and frankly, I'm sorry I re-engaged.

X-man

11-08-2015, 04:50 PM

Reread my post professor, I never said markets ALWAYS allocate resources efficiently (you really have reading comprehension issues). I made the correct assertion that markets are better left to the decisions of millions of consumers making individual choices rather than a central authority. History and common economic sense back me up on this. Also, I pointed out your absurd position that taxes reduce dead weight loss. Can you provide a paper/link to back up your position because I haven't been able to find one.

You've provided enough information for me to likely figure out who you are.

To 87's post and your question about the NY statute, is it commonly used? Can you provide a similar case in which it was? I admit I don't know but I'd love to be properly educated.

When markets fail, it is because individuals (the "millions" of consumers you refer to) are responding to the wrong information, the wrong cues, or any number of other factors that mean the market outcome is a poor one and the resources could be better used elsewhere. And regarding your tax question, let me give you an example and you make up your own mind on this. Suppose the use of tobacco products inflicts harm not only on those who choose to use them but also on the people around them. Moreover suppose the costs to others is high enough that should the tobacco market participants have to cover these costs, they would not produce or use tobacco. This means that the resources used to create tobacco products are generating a benefit that is lower than the actual costs associated with the production and use of those products. In other words, the resources would be better used elsewhere. A tax, by discouraging the production and use of tobacco products, has the effect of redirecting these resources to a higher valued use. In other words, dead-weight-loss is reduced by the tax on tobacco.

Regarding your question on the NY statute, I have read that this statute has been around for a while. So I assumed that it was not created for the express purpose of punishing those who believe that the climate change issue is a red herring. I have also read that the purpose of the statute was to protect potential investors from being mislead by companies who say one thing publically while believing internally that it is not true. I have been trying to get 87's take on this because he is a lawyer. But a response that just says its a liberal plot, without actually addressing the substance of the argument, is not very illuminating.

Oh and one more thing. You may think you know who I am. Please don't assume that you are correct on this. And more importantly, don't put words in my mouth just because it is convenient for you to do so.

Strange Brew

11-08-2015, 05:59 PM

When markets fail, it is because individuals (the "millions" of consumers you refer to) are responding to the wrong information, the wrong cues, or any number of other factors that mean the market outcome is a poor one and the resources could be better used elsewhere. And regarding your tax question, let me give you an example and you make up your own mind on this. Suppose the use of tobacco products inflicts harm not only on those who choose to use them but also on the people around them. Moreover suppose the costs to others is high enough that should the tobacco market participants have to cover these costs, they would not produce or use tobacco. This means that the resources used to create tobacco products are generating a benefit that is lower than the actual costs associated with the production and use of those products. In other words, the resources would be better used elsewhere. A tax, by discouraging the production and use of tobacco products, has the effect of redirecting these resources to a higher valued use. In other words, dead-weight-loss is reduced by the tax on tobacco.

Regarding your question on the NY statute, I have read that this statute has been around for a while. So I assumed that it was not created for the express purpose of punishing those who believe that the climate change issue is a red herring. I have also read that the purpose of the statute was to protect potential investors from being mislead by companies who say one thing publically while believing internally that it is not true. I have been trying to get 87's take on this because he is a lawyer. But a response that just says its a liberal plot, without actually addressing the substance of the argument, is not very illuminating.

Oh and one more thing. You may think you know who I am. Please don't assume that you are correct on this. And more importantly, don't put words in my mouth just because it is convenient for you to do so.

Yes, when consumers/producers are responding to incorrect information markets move out of equilibrium. However, they usually are effective at quickly changing behavior thus correcting the inefficiency. This is why supply and demand curves are not static and I believe markets to be more effective than central governments when it comes to eliminating inefficiency. History proves me to be correct on this.

I get what you're saying in regard to externalities but your tax doesn't move the tobacco market to equilibrium but from a societal standpoint your tax could be seen as an overall benefit. That is of course if the $$ collected is spent on alleviating the negative effects to health caused by smoking. Sin tax money is usually not spent effectively by governments which is why I normally oppose them and most government intervention in markets. That said, from a strict economic sense a tax is not seen as a cure for deadweight loss.

As to whom I think you are, as someone who has been taught by and is quite familiar with the Econ department at X it would be a heck of a coincidence if I'm wrong (and I'm fine if I am, heaven knows it wouldn't be the first time).

I'm not going to bother asking you about the Exxon case as I'm sorry I jumped back into this thread.

X-man

11-08-2015, 08:44 PM

Yes, when consumers/producers are responding to incorrect information markets move out of equilibrium. However, they usually are effective at quickly changing behavior thus correcting the inefficiency. This is why supply and demand curves are not static and I believe markets to be more effective than central governments when it comes to eliminating inefficiency. History proves me to be correct on this.

I get what you're saying in regard to externalities but your tax doesn't move the tobacco market to equilibrium but from a societal standpoint your tax could be seen as an overall benefit. That is of course if the $$ collected is spent on alleviating the negative effects to health caused by smoking. Sin tax money is usually not spent effectively by governments which is why I normally oppose them and most government intervention in markets. That said, from a strict economic sense a tax is not seen as a cure for deadweight loss.

As to whom I think you are, as someone who has been taught by and is quite familiar with the Econ department at X it would be a heck of a coincidence if I'm wrong (and I'm fine if I am, heaven knows it wouldn't be the first time).

I'm not going to bother asking you about the Exxon case as I'm sorry I jumped back into this thread.

I wonder who taught you what I bolded in your text. It is so wrong that I hope that you misunderstood what was said rather than being taught what you are stating. But as usual, we are getting nowhere. So I'm done.

Strange Brew

11-08-2015, 09:55 PM

I wonder who taught you what I bolded in your text. It is so wrong that I hope that you misunderstood what was said rather than being taught what you are stating. But as usual, we are getting nowhere. So I'm done.

Are you arguing producers/consumers do not change behavior when a market is out of equilibrium or do you believe markets cannot course correct without outside intervention? Perhaps my use of quickly in that statement is throwing you off?

We're getting nowhere because we fundamentally disagree on the role of government in markets. You appear to prefer a market guided by outside forces and I believe markets are best left to their natural forces. It's ok, I just would prefer you didn't insult my eduction (you may have been part of it btw)

X-man

11-09-2015, 06:05 AM

Are you arguing producers/consumers do not change behavior when a market is out of equilibrium or do you believe markets cannot course correct without outside intervention? Perhaps my use of quickly in that statement is throwing you off?

We're getting nowhere because we fundamentally disagree on the role of government in markets. You appear to prefer a market guided by outside forces and I believe markets are best left to their natural forces. It's ok, I just would prefer you didn't insult my eduction (you may have been part of it btw)

You appear to be confusing market equilibrium with market efficiency. They need not be the same thing. Markets will always go to equilibrium, unless there is something that restricts the movement of the market price (like a price ceiling...rent control is an example). But market equilibrium will be inefficient, and therefore create dead-weight-loss, whenever demand doesn't capture all marginal benefits or supply doesn't capture all marginal costs. This is the so-called externality problem, and it is well-documented in any basic Principles of Economics text. There are, of course, many other situations where market equilibrium is not efficient. These include situations where either buyers or sellers have incorrect information, where the goods have "public good" characteristics, and most commonly where there is a lack of competition for too many reasons for me to enumerate. Again, these can all be found in any basic text.

And please don't infer from my comments that I prefer a government run economy over one dictated by markets. I am an economist after all, and a firm believer in what markets can do under the right circumstances. But having said that, I also know that when circumstances are not "right", markets fail to be efficient even when they are in equilibrium. And believe me, that is the same view that all economists take regardless of their political philosophy.

I said I was done earlier, but I posted once more because you asked me a direct question. I also want to say that I have not insulted your education. But in this instance, you were either taught something that is wrong or you misunderstood what you were being taught. Only you can determine which was the case.

Masterofreality

11-09-2015, 09:11 AM

Frost this morning in NE Ohio. Right on time.

ChicagoX

11-09-2015, 10:16 AM

Frost this morning in NE Ohio. Right on time.

The first frost in NE Ohio typically takes place sometime between October 21-31, so this year is later than normal.

http://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-ohio-first-frost-date-map.php

bobbiemcgee

11-09-2015, 02:13 PM

Only warming I'm worried about is the heat emanating from the Cintas Center for the next 5 months. Time to play ball. GO MUSKIES!!!!!!

SemajParlor

11-09-2015, 03:06 PM

The first frost in NE Ohio typically takes place sometime between October 21-31, so this year is later than normal.

http://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-ohio-first-frost-date-map.php

Please stop entertaining anyone who legitimately thinks the temperature or weather in their particular region is indicative of a global wide issue. It muddies the waters.

Thanks.

muskiefan82

11-09-2015, 03:09 PM

muskienick

11-09-2015, 07:55 PM

What if the earth is the same as it always was, but the sun is just getting bigger and burning hotter? Could we have global warming that is NOT related to what we do on the planet? How messed up would that be for people to deal with?

What if I am the same as always and Scarlette Johansson lavishes all her feminine favors upon me. There would definitely be some heavy-duty muskienick warming not related to anything done by all the other people on our planet. How messed up would THAT be for people to deal with?

Masterofreality

11-09-2015, 09:19 PM

The first frost in NE Ohio typically takes place sometime between October 21-31, so this year is later than normal.

http://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-ohio-first-frost-date-map.php

Uh, no it doesn't when you are within a mile of Lake Erie because of its "blanket effect" at this time of the year. Lake Erie Water temp today is 57 degrees which keeps the frost way longer.

Nice that a guy in Chicago can assume what usually happens in NE Ohio. I'm sure that climate "modeling" tanks were used.

vee4xu

11-09-2015, 09:48 PM

I am officially wondering if this thread will outlast the climate change issue itself. The term climate change may actually be lost in the lexicon and this thread may continue forward nonetheless. :popcorn:

muskiefan82

11-09-2015, 10:41 PM

What if I am the same as always and Scarlette Johansson lavishes all her feminine favors upon me. There would definitely be some heavy-duty muskienick warming not related to anything done by all the other people on our planet. How messed up would THAT be for people to deal with?

I am more concerned with how Ms. Johansson would deal with it as you warmed her globes. Too far?

muskienick

11-10-2015, 05:01 PM

SHE started it (in my self-serving scenario)!

MADXSTER

11-10-2015, 05:23 PM

Please stop entertaining anyone who legitimately thinks the temperature or weather in their particular region is indicative of a global wide issue. It muddies the waters.

Thanks.

Climate change is occurring in my neighborhood. This morning it was cold, and then this afternoon it warmed up some, and now it is starting to get cold again. Lots of change going on. Very Chaotic.

bobbiemcgee

11-10-2015, 07:21 PM

While watching the Bengals last week, I ran out of party ice.

murray87

11-16-2015, 10:59 AM

From this past Saturdays democrat debate:

JOHN DICKERSON:
Senator Sanders, you said you wanna rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous date you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re gonna see countries all over the world -- this is what the C.I.A. says, they’re gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you’re gonna see all kinds of international conflict.

Xville

11-16-2015, 11:31 AM

muskienick

11-16-2015, 02:31 PM

Nutjob....crazy nutjob. I hope he truly does not believe this, just so that I know no one that stupid could be elected office.

It's too late. We already elected W. Twice!

94GRAD

12-01-2015, 10:19 AM

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

NY44

12-01-2015, 11:13 AM

Nutjob....crazy nutjob. I hope he truly does not believe this, just so that I know no one that stupid could be elected office.

An increasing scarcity of resources leads to instability. I think it's pretty straight forward.

Masterofreality

12-01-2015, 12:07 PM

Meanwhile China's air pollution measures are 561 vs a usual top of the scale of 500. No one can even see through their smoky smog. All the world gets from them though is "assurances" that they'll act by 2035..only 20 years from now. Nice.

But according to ol' Barry O'Bama, we in the US are the culprits, so we should just carbon tax our economy to death and waste billions on subsidies for totally inefficient wind power. Yeah, that's it!!!!

What an abject disappointment as a President. One of the worst of all time.

muskiefan82

12-01-2015, 12:13 PM

MOR, it is important that we keep China happy so that they can continue to send us products that kill or injure us and our pets. Since we no longer manufacture much that the world wants, it is only good policy that we maintain a great relationship with a country that produces deadly products AND happens to not like us very much. I can only imagine what would happen to us if we made them angry.

ChicagoX

12-01-2015, 12:28 PM

What an abject disappointment as a President. One of the worst of all time.

I don't see how you can objectively look at the results of Obama's presidency compared to his predecessor and say that he is the worst president of all time. Compared to where we were at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009, this country is in significantly better shape than we were seven years ago when Obama first took office. Your statement reads like something I'd read on a FOX News comment section.

boozehound

12-01-2015, 12:51 PM

I don't see how you can objectively look at the results of Obama's presidency compared to his predecessor and say that he is the worst president of all time. Compared to where we were at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009, this country is in significantly better shape than we were seven years ago when Obama first took office. Your statement reads like something I'd read on a FOX News comment section.

All the good stuff would have happened anyways, and would have happened even faster with a Republican President. The bad stuff is all Obama's fault though.

It seems people don't know how to speak in anything but hyperbole these days, particularly as it pertains to politics. People are very susceptible to marketing, particularly in the modern era in which we are exposed to so much media. People pick political sides like they are a sports team, and follow them just as blindly. With the proliferation of the internet they don't ever really have to be exposed to an opposing viewpoint, so they just parrot rhetoric.

It does feel like this issue is worse on the right, although that is probably just a function of them not being in power right now, and also being a horribly run political organization (RNC) with a highly fractured voter base. They have a primary going on in which the leading candidate does things like mocking a disabled reporter using the 'tard hand' gesture, meanwhile electable candidates like Kasich and Christie have been marginalized to the point that they barely get any media coverage. They have done nothing but complain about Obama's lack of executive experience, but support guys like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio who are both Junior Senators with no executive legislative experience to speak of.

When it comes to politics, for some reason, people don't seem to what to think critically and independently.

Masterofreality

12-01-2015, 01:04 PM

I don't see how you can objectively look at the results of Obama's presidency compared to his predecessor and say that he is the worst president of all time. Compared to where we were at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009, this country is in significantly better shape than we were seven years ago when Obama first took office. Your statement reads like something I'd read on a FOX News comment section.

It certainly is not much better off, and if it is, it has nothing to do with the Imperial President. Black unemployment is unchanged and maybe even worse. Workforce participation % is at one of the lowest levels of all time. Our international respect and standing has fallen dramatically and race relations overall are much worse as is respect for our police. We did save General Motors and put all kinds of independent dealerships out of business though. The same GM that continually has bad quality, multiple recalls and borderline products. Oh, and the "Affordable Care Act" that has made health care less "affordable" for almost all working Americans than before. There's that.

I'm not going to start getting into all the underlying causes of what was occurring in 2008, but suffice to say that the liberal lending polices endorsed by Fannie Mae and other items initiated by Bill Clinton had a lot to do with the meltdown. The country found out how bad policy could be with the Dems in full control between 2007 and 2011 and it was corrected in the House and finally in the Senate.

By the way, if anyone doubts the term "Imperial President" I submit the below from left leaning USA Today:

"WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents."

Way to work with Congress there Barry. Even Reagan, Dan Rostenkowski and Tip O'Neill could get along and work together. Obama just dictates.

paulxu

12-01-2015, 01:36 PM

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents."

I do see the congressional similarities.

ChicagoX

12-01-2015, 02:12 PM

It certainly is not much better off, and if it is, it has nothing to do with the Imperial President. Black unemployment is unchanged and maybe even worse. Workforce participation % is at one of the lowest levels of all time. Our international respect and standing has fallen dramatically and race relations overall are much worse as is respect for our police. We did save General Motors and put all kinds of independent dealerships out of business though. The same GM that continually has bad quality, multiple recalls and borderline products. Oh, and the "Affordable Care Act" that has made health care less "affordable" for almost all working Americans than before. There's that.

I'm not going to start getting into all the underlying causes of what was occurring in 2008, but suffice to say that the liberal lending polices endorsed by Fannie Mae and other items initiated by Bill Clinton had a lot to do with the meltdown. The country found out how bad policy could be with the Dems in full control between 2007 and 2011 and it was corrected in the House and finally in the Senate.

By the way, if anyone doubts the term "Imperial President" I submit the below from left leaning USA Today:

"WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents."

Way to work with Congress there Barry. Even Reagan, Dan Rostenkowski and Tip O'Neill could get along and work together. Obama just dictates.

In terms of the Labor Participation Rate, educate yourself: FactCheck.org: Declining Labor Participation Rates (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/)

The concept of the individual mandate was actually a Republican idea created by the Heritage Foundation in the 90s.

Democrats certainly share the blame in the housing crisis, but to put the blame all on them is a bit misleading. Republicans had both houses of Congress and the presidency throughout much of the Bush administration and could have addressed this problem.

From The New York Times: '"As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

“There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems,” said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush’s former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. “Had we, we would have attacked them.”'

In terms of our "Imperial President," perhaps he wouldn't have to enact so many executive orders if he wasn't facing unprecedented obstruction from congressional Republicans unlike anything ever seen in U.S. history. This was a GOP strategy from day one. It's easy to tell Obama to compromise when you fail to consider why it has been next to impossible for him to do so.

Masterofreality

12-01-2015, 02:53 PM

In terms of the Labor Participation Rate, educate yourself: FactCheck.org: Declining Labor Participation Rates (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/)

The concept of the individual mandate was actually a Republican idea created by the Heritage Foundation in the 90s.

Democrats certainly share the blame in the housing crisis, but to put the blame all on them is a bit misleading. Republicans had both houses of Congress and the presidency throughout much of the Bush administration and could have addressed this problem.

From The New York Times: '"As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

“There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems,” said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush’s former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. “Had we, we would have attacked them.”'

In terms of our "Imperial President," perhaps he wouldn't have to enact so many executive orders if he wasn't facing unprecedented obstruction from congressional Republicans unlike anything ever seen in U.S. history. This was a GOP strategy from day one. It's easy to tell Obama to compromise when you fail to consider why it has been next to impossible for him to do so.

How about educating yourself as to Labor Partcipation rates- lowest in 38 years with a record 94,610,000 not in the labor force, thereby helping to lower the "unemployment rate" to Barry's advantage. Your report was from March, mine is from October. Nothing like picking and choosing your source to match your narrative.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94610000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-38

Nothing like quoting the fully balanced New York Times to help make your case, too. No bias there.

As to the "Executive Memoranda" just blithely ignore that the "obstructionist Congress" was fully controlled by Barry's own party until 2011, and still he's the Executive Memoranda King. The American electorate became so alarmed with the overreach, they voted in some obstruction in the House to stop the ridiculous Tomfoolery and Hijinks that we're being perpetrated.

Face it that Obama wanted to be an emperor and had no time to actually work the political system. Horrible President. Horrible.

By the way, Chicago. Your city certainly is being well run by that Barry disciple, Rahm. Everything is running just perfectly there- including perfect race relations and budgeting. Well done.

ChicagoX

12-01-2015, 03:01 PM

How about educating yourself as to Labor Partcipation rates- lowest in 38 years with a record 94,610,000 not in the labor force, thereby helping to lower the "unemployment rate" to Barry's advantage.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94610000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-38

No matter who would have been elected in 2008 or 2012, this was going to happen. It was predicted many years ago. From the FactCheck.org article:

'Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.

Among the reasons cited for the trend:

1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.

2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”

3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”

So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.

But it’s also true that the decline has been even steeper than projected. For example, in that 2006 report, BLS projected the participation rate would decline to 64.5 percent in 2020. It’s already 1.7 percentage points below that in 2015.

According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”

CBO estimated that between the end of 2007 (a year before Obama took office) and the end of 2013, about half of the decline in participation rates could be pegged to long-term demographic trends, about a third to “temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages,” and about a sixth to “unusual aspects of the slow recovery.”'

boozehound

12-01-2015, 04:54 PM

It seems people don't know how to speak in anything but hyperbole these days, particularly as it pertains to politics.

Face it that Obama wanted to be an emperor and had no time to actually work the political system. Horrible President. Horrible.

Wow. That happened fast.

NY44

12-17-2015, 03:05 PM

XU 87

12-17-2015, 03:15 PM

First it was the Northeast. Then it was the Midwest. Now global warming has also decided to skip the Rocky Mountain states. it's not fair.

http://www.9news.com/story/weather/2015/12/15/denver-snow-record-dec-15/77368596/

Strange Brew

12-17-2015, 03:28 PM

Last month was hottest November on record - The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/263581-last-month-was-hottest-november-on-record)

@thehill: November becomes 9th month of 2015 to break temperature record

Report from NOAA
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

OMG! This Nov was .27 degrees F warmer than Nov two years ago! That settles it, give more tax money to someone!

Oh wait, can someone tell me the margin of error? I'd like to know since it wasn't mentioned in the report.

ChicagoX

12-17-2015, 03:35 PM

WGN meteorologist Tom Skilling takes questions from readers, and this one appeared on the WGN Weather Blog yesterday: Why do Americans express such strong opposition to global warming?
(http://chicagoweathercenter.com/blog/why-do-americans-express-such-strong-opposition-to-global-warming)

Dear Tom,

Why do Americans express such strong opposition to global warming? My job takes me to many countries in Europe and Asia and nowhere do I hear the opposition to global warming that I hear in the United States.

—Greg Manning, Aurora

Dear Greg,

Climate change continues to be a polarizing topic in the United States, but a new study says corporate money has been used to amplify contrarian views and to create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty about global warming than actually exists. Justin Farrell, a Yale University sociologist and author of the study, says, “The contrarian efforts have been so effective … that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know whom to trust.” The report says corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views and to instill disbelief.

XU 87

12-17-2015, 04:02 PM

ChicagoX

12-17-2015, 04:52 PM

This is Jeff Skilling's brother. He is probably a fraud just like his brother. This is especially true when he is relying on a sociologist from Yale.

I agree. Seriously, what would a meteorologist know about climate? He's just another cog in the left-wing conspiracy.

NY44

12-17-2015, 09:16 PM

Report from NOAA
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

OMG! This Nov was .27 degrees F warmer than Nov two years ago! That settles it, give more tax money to someone!

Oh wait, can someone tell me the margin of error? I'd like to know since it wasn't mentioned in the report.

Well yes, it was warmer this November...and 8 other months this year... Doesn't the margin of error argument go out the window for 9 out of 11?

Strange Brew

12-18-2015, 01:15 AM

Doesn't the margin of error argument go out the window for 9 out of 11?

No.

NY44

12-18-2015, 09:16 AM

No.

Ok. So let's bet our future on the marginal odds that monthly temperature averages were off for 9 of 11 months, all in the same direction.

XU 87

12-18-2015, 04:37 PM

Ok. So let's bet our future on the marginal odds that monthly temperature averages were off for 9 of 11 months, all in the same direction.

I prefer to think of it as you global warmers are willing to bet our future on statistically insignificant data.

X-man

12-18-2015, 04:50 PM

I prefer to think of it as you global warmers are willing to bet our future on statistically insignificant data.

That is rich. I wish I was as certain about things as you are because in my mind, the real gamble of our future involves not taking action. I've said this before; it comes down to the costs of being wrong given the fact that no one (except 87 apparently) knows with certainty whether warming is occurring or not. But if warming is happening and we don't take action, the costs appear to be much higher than the cost of taking action when in fact warming is not occurring.

SlimKibbles

12-18-2015, 06:20 PM

That is rich. I wish I was as certain about things as you are because in my mind, the real gamble of our future involves not taking action. I've said this before; it comes down to the costs of being wrong given the fact that no one (except 87 apparently) knows with certainty whether warming is occurring or not. But if warming is happening and we don't take action, the costs appear to be much higher than the cost of taking action when in fact warming is not occurring.

I honestly have no idea what to believe and who is telling the truth anymore with this topic in general. Official statistics and whatnot all seem to be politically-driven as always. However my brain is probably with X-Man's line of thinking more than others. What I do know is over the last 10 years or so, it seems like when we've had severe weather, it's been more severe than normal and more frequent. And, the seasons have shifted somewhat. The dry months of summer are August and September. Winter weather now seems to stretch further into March and May showers bring...June flowers. Whether that is global warming, our planet going through a cycle it'll go through every 10,000 years, or the Revenge of Gaia (a fun topic!) I don't know.

NY44

12-20-2015, 01:34 AM

I prefer to think of it as you global warmers are willing to bet our future on statistically insignificant data.

How is the data insignificant? Insignificant, as in there isn't enough? Or, insignificant as in the temperature changes are not drastic enough?

X-man

01-20-2016, 12:22 PM

More conspiracy stuff...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news. It even explains away the right's celebrated "pause" argument.

XU 87

01-20-2016, 12:35 PM

X-man

01-20-2016, 12:44 PM

Does the article discuss how global warming is causing global cooling in the Midwest, Rocky Mountains and Northeast?

It sure has been cold this week. I 'd like a little global warming. It's not fair to our fine city of Cincinnati that we keep having winter.

Why would anyone who actually is talking about climate change talk about what is obviously such a stupid and bogus argument? But if you actually read the article, you'll discover that there is a description of US climate change last year. The troll returns (sounds like a new Star Wars title)!

Masterofreality

01-20-2016, 12:52 PM

Of course the article is in the New York Socialist Times. Amazing how everything in that one sided rag "explains away" any argument from the right while either ignoring or barely glossing over anything from the left.

By the way. Between 2003 and 2012 as per a study by Dr. Neal V Dawson - a Professor of Medicine and Biostatistics at Case Western Reserve University here in Cleveland- the US has reduced it's carbon emissions by 583 metric tons- the largest in the world...by far. This is well BEFORE any fake outrage actions proposed or tacitly agreed to by the Imperial President. Meanwhile, India and China have contributed an INCREASE of 4.955 metric tons of CO2.

As I've said many times before. Direct your ridiculous outrage toward other countries and their delay tactics. We have already done our part, even though the science is still unsettled as to man's influence.

Oh, just checking.........It's January 20....and it's 19 degrees today. It's winter. Just as it is supposed to be. No Palm Trees yet on Lake Erie's shores.

muskiefan82

01-20-2016, 01:11 PM

I would be curious if anyone is studying whether or not Venus and Mars are experiencing climate change without the presence of any Earthlings.

ChicagoX

01-20-2016, 01:15 PM

Of course the article is in the New York Socialist Times.

This is well BEFORE any fake outrage actions proposed or tacitly agreed to by the Imperial President.

Hey look! Another person who doesn't know what socialism actually is... And even better, more hyberbole!

Masterofreality

01-20-2016, 01:55 PM

Hey look! Another person who doesn't know what socialism actually is... And even better, more hyberbole!

Of course I know what the hell socialism is, smarty. Want to argue that the New York Times is a mouthpiece of the liberal agenda? NO? I didn't think so.

By the way. Obama leads the all time Presidential pack when it comes to Executive Actions overall. Look it up. No Hyperbole to see here.

Just go ahead and throw stones like the "progressives" do when things don't seem to be going in their direction and ignore the facts that I just posted.

X-band '01

01-20-2016, 01:56 PM

All it took was a loss and a snow emergency to bring this thread back to life.

nuts4xu

01-20-2016, 01:57 PM

https://volkundvaterland.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/climatechang-455x341.jpg

ChicagoX

01-20-2016, 02:17 PM

By the way. Obama leads the all time Presidential pack when it comes to Executive Actions overall. Look it up. No Hyperbole to see here.

I looked it up and found your statement to be patently false, and by a wide margin, too. Politifact would likely rate your statement as "Pants on Fire."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

X-man

01-20-2016, 02:19 PM

X-man

01-20-2016, 02:20 PM

X-man

01-20-2016, 02:22 PM

Of course I know what the hell socialism is, smarty. Want to argue that the New York Times is a mouthpiece of the liberal agenda? NO? I didn't think so.

By the way. Obama leads the all time Presidential pack when it comes to Executive Actions overall. Look it up. No Hyperbole to see here.

Just go ahead and throw stones like the "progressives" do when things don't seem to be going in their direction and ignore the facts that I just posted.

Who said anything about individual carbon emissions here? The Times piece is about climate change.

XU 87

01-20-2016, 02:29 PM

What are you blathering about? Ridiculous outrage? The only thing that really pisses me off is the repeated juvenile "argument" that the temperature outside my window tells me what is happening to worldwide temperatures. You know...the kind of inane statement that you and 87 keep mouthing. And BTW, nice open mind. If the Times did the article, it must be wrong regardless of source or actual content.

"He's an angry elf."

X-man

01-20-2016, 02:36 PM

"He's an angry elf."

I assume you're talking about MOR here. He's the one slinging all the outrage.

Masterofreality

01-20-2016, 02:41 PM

I looked it up and found your statement to be patently false, and by a wide margin, too. Politifact would likely rate your statement as "Pants on Fire."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Don't confuse MOR with the facts. In his little world, all you need to know is who said it. Truthiness, you know.

And obviously you can't read, or, in typical "Progressive" mode, just make adjustments to data to fit your ridiculous agenda.

I said Executuve ACTIONS, not just Executive Orders. Obama hides behind "memoranda" as opposed to calling them "orders". Cute semantics. Really cute.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/01/10/this-inventory-of-obamas-dozens-of-executive-actions-frames-his-final-state-of-the-union-address/#2715e4857a0b665ade8c41bc

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

muskiefan82

01-20-2016, 02:43 PM

Clearly, the climate on this topic has not changed.

ChicagoX

01-20-2016, 02:49 PM

And obviously you can't read, or, in typical "Progressive" mode, just make adjustments to data to fit your ridiculous agenda.

I said Executuve ACTIONS, not just Executive Orders. Obama hides behind "memoranda" as opposed to calling them "orders". Cute semantics. Really cute.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/01/10/this-inventory-of-obamas-dozens-of-executive-actions-frames-his-final-state-of-the-union-address/#2715e4857a0b665ade8c41bc

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

I read both articles and found nothing that confirms this statement that you made: "Obama leads the all time Presidential pack when it comes to Executive Actions overall."

Masterofreality

01-20-2016, 03:17 PM

I read both articles and found nothing that confirms this statement that you made: "Obama leads the all time Presidential pack when it comes to Executive Actions overall."

And, again, I Guess you can't read.
USA Today
"WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

Not only that, but no less than the Washington Post gave the administration 2 Pinocchios for their deceptions as to these actions in an article in December 2014.

So, excuse me for saying "ever" although the numbers in the past cannot be accurately tracked since "memoranda" aren't numbered. But it is for sure that this guy has been more "Imperial" than others for at least the last 70 years. Disgusting.

paulxu

01-20-2016, 04:59 PM

Maybe this congress is more "do nothing" than the one Give 'em Hell Harry had to deal with.
That is very possible.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure that I'd call the NYT a liberal rag as they headed up the charge with bogus publications in the run up to the war.
They acted very nicely as the mouthpiece for Mr. Cheney et al during that time.

MADXSTER

02-17-2016, 06:15 PM

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/

Thought this was interesting.

GoMuskies

02-17-2016, 06:17 PM

65 and sunny in Wichita today. 77 tomorrow. Welcome global warming!

paulxu

02-17-2016, 09:39 PM

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/

Thought this was interesting.

If you really care about this stuff, read this article about where Happer and the coalition get their money.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

vee4xu

02-17-2016, 10:08 PM

Seriously, if you haven't yet, give Laudato Si' On Care for Our Common Home by Pope Francis a read. I just finished it and found it very balanced, emphasizing that we are stewards of the earth.

X-man

02-19-2016, 09:41 AM

Cool (or should I say "warm") interactive site, although MOR won't like it because (1) it's from the NYTimes and (2) MOR doesn't believe in data if the data suggest warming: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/us/2015-year-in-weather-temperature-precipitation.html#columbus_oh.

nuts4xu

02-19-2016, 10:00 AM

I love global warming!!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41fFzOrYjEL._SY355_.jpg

Masterofreality

02-19-2016, 11:05 AM

Scientific evidence is proving that Trevon Bluiett is heating up the world.

MADXSTER

02-23-2016, 07:21 PM

George Carlin on Global Warming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

xu82

02-23-2016, 08:00 PM

I love global warming!!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41fFzOrYjEL._SY355_.jpg

Umm, that could cause a certain warm glow....

GoMuskies

03-04-2016, 11:01 AM

Yale, Duke. How about Common Sense? If you get your drinking water from the ground, explode a shitload of noxious chemicals into and expect it to be clean when you pull it out later....Good Luck.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es402165b

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/dirtywater.jpg

UC also thinks you're full of shit.

http://freepressstandard.com/university-of-cincinnati-study-finds-frackings-bad-rap-is-not-supported/

bobbiemcgee

03-04-2016, 11:47 AM

I'm sure you would applaud fracking in your neighborhood. Then you can suck up all the crappy water you want. Anyway, all the fracks here are going belly up and walking away from the filthy sites, of course, saying the oil prices won't give them enough money to clean up. Wow, like we didn't see that coming.

Lovely:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kAzbLtFsrA/Uj4HWw5m_jI/AAAAAAAAAv8/AvqxTpB2obw/s1600/6-c1b7883468.jpg

Let me fill up my canteen, or start a subdivision.

GoMuskies

03-04-2016, 12:06 PM

I wouldn't want fracking in my neighborhood, but not because of any concerns about the water. If you're concerned about fracking contaminating the groundwater, you're anti-science. I wouldn't prefer all the truck traffic, though. I also don't like all those middle-class folks having good jobs. They might want to sit next to me at a restaurant. Yuck.

bobbiemcgee

03-04-2016, 12:50 PM

I wouldn't want fracking in my neighborhood....

NIMBYism rules! Yes, I don't believe what the gov't so-called "science' has to say about the polluted water. This may come as a shock to you but I don't believe any flawed gov't studies when it come to about anything but especially water. So you got me there! They said the Gold King mine was safe. Nooooooooo problemo! Until there was one. I don't blame people for seeking good jobs. I blame the fuckers who exploit the land and then leave it for us to clean up when they head back to Texas. Last thing on their mind is clean water. They don't give a shit about CO water. Anyway, I digress. Fracking is banned where I live. Totally opposite opinions. Done.

GoMuskies

03-04-2016, 12:52 PM

I'm sorry you hate science.

chico

03-04-2016, 01:03 PM

bobbiemcgee

03-04-2016, 03:32 PM

Same people who says the Animas river is safe after a 3 million gallon spill 6 mos. ago. Why is New Mexico suing? Dummies.

EPA can pretty much say or do whatever they want. Flint? Did nothing.

SemajParlor

03-08-2016, 09:32 AM

Nothing says truthful and transparent like our own federal government!

chico

03-08-2016, 09:27 PM

Yay government, except when it disagrees with my narrative.

SemajParlor

03-09-2016, 12:02 PM

Yay government, except when it disagrees with my narrative.

I have no agenda on fracking. I think trusting the government on anything is naive. I think there's been enough evidence over the years to support my belief.

chico

03-09-2016, 01:59 PM

Not saying I trust the government, but just dismissing it out of pocket because it's the government shows a bias. Instead tell me where their analysis was flawed, or give me some valid reason I should not believe their analysis other than "it's the government."

XUFan09

03-09-2016, 02:47 PM

Interesting story about energy companies. My friend got a temp job just out of college where he inventoried water data for various towns and counties. Sometimes, the data was good and it went back a number of years. Other times, there was no data or the data wasn't reliable. He was working for a third-party contractor, so it took a little time before he noticed that the oil and gas companies were highly likely to go to the places where there was no good data, compared to the places with good water data. The lack of baseline data makes it very difficult to identify a causal link between fracking, drilling, etc., and polluted water. Thus, these companies could avoid liability. And frankly, that's just good business.

I have a healthy level of skepticism concerning the government, but I also have a healthy level of skepticism concerning various industries and individual companies.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

chico

03-09-2016, 09:44 PM

I spent several years in the industry - worked for a company that did environmental consulting. Mainly permitting, sampling, remediation - mainly helping industry make sure they were within the EPA's regs. Pretty much every private sector client we had (including energy companies) did what was needed to stay within the regs.

Also did a large amount of government work and we dealt extensively with the EPA. I've been out of that area for 15 years so maybe things have changed, but the Agency was typically good to work with. The rank and file really had no political agenda and were competent, so it kind of rubs me the wrong way when I see people reject EPA's findings just because it's another government agency. And the type who do that usually have an agenda, meaning they'll discount any findings that don't agree with their beliefs.

I really don't see EPA as I do other agencies, like HUD or Transportation, since EPA deals so much with private industry. I'm not saying that the Agency isn't politicized - it is, but in my experience it was less so than other government agencies appeared to be.

muskiefan82

03-21-2016, 12:36 PM

Can we just talk about this?

Strange Brew

05-07-2016, 01:05 AM

Fracking is banned where I live.

Not so fast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/colorado-court-strikes-down-local-bans-on-fracking.html?_r=0

Science wins again!

Strange Brew

05-07-2016, 01:25 AM

94GRAD

05-16-2016, 01:44 PM

Tied the record low of 32 degrees this morning

GoMuskies

05-16-2016, 02:03 PM

Tied the record low of 32 degrees this morning

Climate change

ChicagoX

05-16-2016, 02:58 PM

NASA: April 2016 Was the Seventh Consecutive Warmest Month on Record For Earth (https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-april-earth-2016)

NY44

05-16-2016, 03:14 PM

NASA: April 2016 Was the Seventh Consecutive Warmest Month on Record For Earth (https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-april-earth-2016)

Counterpoint multiple choice:
a) NASA is corrupt.
b) It's not warm where I live.
c) Link to "scientific" study.
d) Nuh Uh.

X-man

05-16-2016, 03:22 PM

Thank you for your wager and logical fallacy Pascal.

You either can't read or you don't understand logic. Either way, it explains a great deal about your bizarre posts to this board.

X-band '01

05-16-2016, 03:43 PM

NASA: April 2016 Was the Seventh Consecutive Warmest Month on Record For Earth (https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-april-earth-2016)

It was really warmer than normal in Alaska and Russia.

Strange Brew

05-16-2016, 03:49 PM

You either can't read or you don't understand logic. Either way, it explains a great deal about your bizarre posts to this board.

Google Pascal's wager and get back me.

NY44

05-16-2016, 05:38 PM

Google Pascal's wager and get back me.

While he does that, why don't you google Argument of Ignorance. Let's see who knows the most fallacies because that matters.

X-man

05-16-2016, 08:32 PM

Google Pascal's wager and get back me.

I understand the reference. What I don't understand is your lack of comprehension of my position. The costs of being wrong are not merely hypothetical. But then, actual data and scientific evidence is just Commie propaganda in your narrow world view.

XU 87

05-16-2016, 08:59 PM

I understand the reference. What I don't understand is your lack of comprehension of my position. The costs of being wrong are not merely hypothetical. But then, actual data and scientific evidence is just Commie propaganda in your narrow world view.

What were the costs of being wrong in the 70's when global cooling was being predicted by the so-called "actual data and scientific evidence?"

I think you would agree that it was a good thing we didn't pay attention to those weather alarmists back then.

Strange Brew

05-16-2016, 11:44 PM

I understand the reference. What I don't understand is your lack of comprehension of my position. The costs of being wrong are not merely hypothetical. But then, actual data and scientific evidence is just Commie propaganda in your narrow world view.

Good, glad you understand the reference. Now, do you see the parallel between your position on AGW/Climate Change/Climate Disruption and Pascal's wager?

X-man

05-17-2016, 08:12 AM

Good, glad you understand the reference. Now, do you see the parallel between your position on AGW/Climate Change/Climate Disruption and Pascal's wager?

No. Pascal's wager is based on the hypothetical; climate change is not even though it is uncertain as to what is happening, why it is happening, and what the consequences will be. That is why your assertion makes no sense, a characteristic of many of your assertions about the efficacy of markets, the current political situation, and climate change.

Strange Brew

05-17-2016, 09:03 AM

No. Pascal's wager is based on the hypothetical; climate change is not even though it is uncertain as to what is happening, why it is happening, and what the consequences will be. That is why your assertion makes no sense, a characteristic of many of your assertions about the efficacy of markets, the current political situation, and climate change.

Your belief like Pacsal's wager makes the assumption there are dire consequences for not believing in God in his case and in AGW in yours. The assumption in both cases creates the fallacy as you have no evidence (you may have models and predictions, not evidence) future costs will be greater than the current costs of acting according your beliefs. This is why your position, which I fully comprehend and reject, makes no sense.

A more logical argument would be that wasting resources is bad and we should look to conserve energy and built nuclear plants. There is no reason to fear monger about CO2 and ecological disasters the may occur in 100 years after we're all dead.

paulxu

05-17-2016, 09:11 AM

A more logical argument would be that wasting resources is bad and we should look to conserve energy and built nuclear plants. There is no reason to fear monger about CO2 and ecological disasters the may occur in 100 years after we're all dead.

We should conserve and not waste resources. Without "fear monger(ing)" we can, and should be, concerned about what may occur in 100 years.
For certain our carbon based resources are limited. They will eventually be depleted. It is incumbent for everyone to try and wean us off these fuels with finite supply, to renewables of some form.

Nuclear is not the way to go. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is waste disposal, solar and wind are more responsible for the future of our species.

X-man

05-18-2016, 05:59 PM

Your belief like Pacsal's wager makes the assumption there are dire consequences for not believing in God in his case and in AGW in yours. The assumption in both cases creates the fallacy as you have no evidence (you may have models and predictions, not evidence) future costs will be greater than the current costs of acting according your beliefs. This is why your position, which I fully comprehend and reject, makes no sense.

A more logical argument would be that wasting resources is bad and we should look to conserve energy and built nuclear plants. There is no reason to fear monger about CO2 and ecological disasters the may occur in 100 years after we're all dead.

And therein lies the problem with your thinking. Equating a faith-based hypothesis with one backed by substantial scientific evidence is moronic. Or evidence of a closed mind. I suspect that it is the latter because you appear to have a brain. The problem is that you don't use it very well when it comes to assessing ideas that conflict with your faith-based views on science and economics. I do agree with you on the idea of conserving non-renewable resources, and using nuclear energy as one way to do it.

Strange Brew

05-18-2016, 06:59 PM

And therein lies the problem with your thinking. Equating a faith-based hypothesis with one backed by substantial scientific evidence is moronic. Or evidence of a closed mind. I suspect that it is the latter because you appear to have a brain. The problem is that you don't use it very well when it comes to assessing ideas that conflict with your faith-based views on science and economics. I do agree with you on the idea of conserving non-renewable resources, and using nuclear energy as one way to do it.

I'm sorry you're not intelligent enough to see the similarities between the assertions.

Please provide evidence not models or forecasts but hard evidence that not reducing our carbon footprint will certainly lead to disaster.

Masterofreality

05-19-2016, 06:59 AM

Nuclear is not the way to go. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is waste disposal, solar and wind are more responsible for the future of our species.

Wind is the most inefficient potential power source. Very expensive to harness with minimal output. It's a joke, really.

And all you environmentalists out there should make a final decision. Increase hydroelectric power, an easily renewal able resource that only supplies 9% of the electricity now, or save the garbage fish and snails. The TVA was a well planned public works project that created all kinds of great reacreational opportunities and ample electricity to the Southeast, but all the tree huggers have done a wonderful job of discrediting that.

Meanwhile, there was snow in Cleveland last Sunday morning---on May 15.

OHHHHHHHH, THE WARMING!!!!!!

X-man

05-19-2016, 07:26 AM

I'm sorry you're not intelligent enough to see the similarities between the assertions.

Please provide evidence not models or forecasts but hard evidence that not reducing our carbon footprint will certainly lead to disaster.

Amazing that you don't understand the difference between these two "hypotheticals". But you don't, so I'm out.

paulxu

05-19-2016, 08:21 AM

Wind is the most inefficient potential power source. Very expensive to harness with minimal output. It's a joke, really.

There are a few places where the system works efficiently. The long term answer will have to be solar, and we'll get there.

NY44

05-19-2016, 08:37 AM

There are a few places where the system works efficiently. The long term answer will have to be solar, and we'll get there.

I'd say the first step is to get affordable electric cars out there. Create the demand for electric and the grid will follow suit. Once on electric transportation, the market will drive the producers to sustainable sources. For now, with the only electric vehicle that's sufficiently functional being Teslas at $100K a pop, nothing will change.

Strange Brew

05-19-2016, 08:50 AM

Amazing that you don't understand the difference between these two "hypotheticals". But you don't, so I'm out.

So you don't have any evidence to back up your assertion?

xu82

05-19-2016, 09:55 AM

I'd say the first step is to get affordable electric cars out there. Create the demand for electric and the grid will follow suit. Once on electric transportation, the market will drive the producers to sustainable sources. For now, with the only electric vehicle that's sufficiently functional being Teslas at $100K a pop, nothing will change.

I know some people who want to get in line for the Tesla 3 at $35,000.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a12983/35000-tesla-model-iii-coming-in-2017/

X-man

05-19-2016, 10:42 AM

So you don't have any evidence to back up your assertion?

See post #1186 for the basis of my position.

Strange Brew

05-19-2016, 11:20 AM

My view on climate change has nothing to do with what the government or the Obama administration says. It has to do with the science and the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that climate change is likely happening and is connected to GHG emissions. Neither I nor the scientific community knows this with any certainty though, so my concerns arise out prudence and the costs of being wrong on this issue. I have written about this elsewhere, but briefly here is the basis for my position on climate change.

If we take no action and climate change does occur, all evidence suggests huge costs not only to the countries already arid and hot, but also to US coastal cities and because of extreme weather related problems. If instead we do take action and climate change isn't happening, the costs of reducing GHG emissions and moving toward energy production from renewable resources seem likely to be much lower. And since we don't price energy to include all the costs associated with both using a nonrenewable resource and discharging acidic gases into the air even without the climate change issue, I come down on the side of working to reduce our use of such resources and the emission of GHG. I think of climate change policy like insurance. You have it and pay for it while hoping that you don't "use" it.

Ok, couple of things.

- Consensus is not evidence. Just ask Copernicus
- "All evidence suggests huge costs". Please provide this evidence. If you cannot the argument is illogical for the same reason Pascal's Wager is not a logical.

NY44

05-19-2016, 11:38 AM

Consensus is not evidence. Just ask Copernicus

This is hilarious

Strange Brew

05-19-2016, 01:29 PM

Counterpoint multiple choice:
a) NASA is corrupt.
b) It's not warm where I live.
c) Link to "scientific" study.
d) Nuh Uh.

Interesting the 1951-1980 temperature average is used as the baseline for comparison to today's temps. Interesting indeed...

XU 87

05-19-2016, 01:31 PM

This is hilarious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

NY44

05-19-2016, 01:52 PM

Interesting the 1951-1980 temperature average is used as the baseline for comparison to today's temps. Interesting indeed...

Go find another 29 year range that better fits your beliefs and get back to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

Hahaha thank you for the helpful material. Hilariously ironic that someone who won't acknowledge peer-reviewed studies links to Wikipedia for information.

XU 87

05-19-2016, 02:08 PM

Go find another 29 year range that better fits your beliefs and get back to me.

Hahaha thank you for the helpful material. Hilariously ironic that someone who won't acknowledge peer-reviewed studies links to Wikipedia for information.

I'm not doing a research paper. The Wiki article is simply meant to help you understand what Brew meant.

Strange Brew

05-19-2016, 02:21 PM

Go find another 29 year range that better fits your beliefs and get back to me.

1981 - 2010 would likely pull the temp variance for this April closer to if not within the margin of error. I could use the temp a average from somewhere between around 800 - 1000 if you'd like?

X-man

05-19-2016, 02:44 PM

Ok, couple of things.

- Consensus is not evidence. Just ask Copernicus
- "All evidence suggests huge costs". Please provide this evidence. If you cannot the argument is illogical for the same reason Pascal's Wager is not a logical.

Let's see...sea level rise, higher incidence of extreme weather events, hotter and drier equatorial areas. You don't see high costs with any of these? And please, don't answer with the "evidence" word. These are data-based forecasts and therefore cannot have "evidence" because they haven't happened (yet). I am not a climate scientist, but I trust the science community when they say such outcomes seem likely.

NY44

05-19-2016, 02:48 PM

1981 - 2010 would likely pull the temp variance for this April closer to if not within the margin of error.?

Then go for it. There's no need to keep speaking in generalities if you're so certain.

NY44

05-19-2016, 03:00 PM

I'm not doing a research paper. The Wiki article is simply meant to help you understand what Brew meant.

I got it, and it's hilarious.

The consensus X-man referenced is based on research and evidence. The consensus Copernicus worked against was rooted in scientific naivety.

XUFan09

05-19-2016, 04:07 PM

1981 - 2010 would likely pull the temp variance for this April closer to if not within the margin of error. I could use the temp a average from somewhere between around 800 - 1000 if you'd like?
Actually, 29 is quite frequently a good enough sample size, statistically speaking. Also, that's not how variance and margin of error interact. One is never "pulled" into the other.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Strange Brew

05-19-2016, 04:19 PM

Actually, 29 is quite frequently a good enough sample size, statistically speaking. Also, that's not how variance and margin of error interact. One is never "pulled" into the other.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I agree 29 is a good sample size however the period chosen by NASA is cooler than my suggestion. Thus using my suggestion the recent April would vary less (terrible terminology) from the mean potentially pulling the variance into the margin of error as the mean temp is greater in my chosen period.

If we use a warm 30 year period during 800-1000 or from Pre-Historic times these "warmest ever" claims look silly.

MADXSTER

05-19-2016, 05:32 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

XUFan09

05-19-2016, 05:48 PM

I agree 29 is a good sample size however the period chosen by NASA is cooler than my suggestion. Thus using my suggestion the recent April would vary less (terrible terminology) from the mean potentially pulling the variance into the margin of error as the mean temp is greater in my chosen period.

If we use a warm 30 year period during 800-1000 or from Pre-Historic times these "warmest ever" claims look silly.

I'm more focused on the statistical side, rather than wading into this debate fully, but saying something would vary less from the mean isn't bad terminology. "Deviate less" would be the more common terminology, but standard deviation is of course related to variance (just take the square root of variance).

Concerning variance versus margin of error, they are not related to each other in that way (B = margin of error, Z = standard deviations at which null hypothesis is rejected, sigma = population standard deviation, n = sample size):

B = Z * sigma / sqrt (n)

That's why your terminology was strange. Pulling one into another doesn't logically follow from that mathematical relationship. Now, a single new monthly value for April falling within the margin of error does make sense, and maybe that's what you meant.

I get what you're saying about using a more extreme range of values as a comparison (basically, being on the safe side), but that neglects the fact that global temperature is cyclical. It's going to rise and fall over the centuries, and we can conduct time series analysis to accurately predict the climate pattern. When conducting time series analysis, more recent patterns are far more relevant. Doing a one- or two-sample Z test to compare recent values to a past mean or a recent mean to a past mean would not be appropriate, as these statistical methods would fail to account for the cyclical nature of the data (i.e. We are unlikely to assume a normal distribution).

When the global temperature falls within the expected interval of a time series forecast, we're on the natural track in terms of climate. However, when it starts to break away from expected values in a significant way, that's when the model needs to be reconsidered or we have to evaluate other factors that may have arisen recently. If the model is still appropriate, then something recently has happened to influence climate.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

xu82

05-19-2016, 05:58 PM

I wasn't sure how this thread could get worse, but now we're doing MATH.

XU 87

05-19-2016, 06:09 PM

I got it, and it's hilarious.

The consensus X-man referenced is based on research and evidence. The consensus Copernicus worked against was rooted in scientific naivety.

Are you referring to the "science and research" addressed in this article?

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/8-highly-inconvenient-facts-for-al-gore-10-years-after-his-infamous-movie/

XUFan09

05-19-2016, 06:12 PM

I wasn't sure how this thread could get worse, but now we're doing MATH.
Ha!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Strange Brew

05-19-2016, 06:51 PM

I'm more focused on the statistical side, rather than wading into this debate fully, but saying something would vary less from the mean isn't bad terminology. "Deviate less" would be the more common terminology, but standard deviation is of course related to variance (just take the square root of variance).

Concerning variance versus margin of error, they are not related to each other in that way (B = margin of error, Z = standard deviations at which null hypothesis is rejected, sigma = population standard deviation, n = sample size):

B = Z * sigma / sqrt (n)

That's why your terminology was strange. Pulling one into another doesn't logically follow from that mathematical relationship. Now, a single new monthly value for April falling within the margin of error does make sense, and maybe that's what you meant.

I get what you're saying about using a more extreme range of values as a comparison (basically, being on the safe side), but that neglects the fact that global temperature is cyclical. It's going to rise and fall over the centuries, and we can conduct time series analysis to accurately predict the climate pattern. When conducting time series analysis, more recent patterns are far more relevant. Doing a one- or two-sample Z test to compare recent values to a past mean or a recent mean to a past mean would not be appropriate, as these statistical methods would fail to account for the cyclical nature of the data (i.e. We are unlikely to assume a normal distribution).

When the global temperature falls within the expected interval of a time series forecast, we're on the natural track in terms of climate. However, when it starts to break away from expected values in a significant way, that's when the model needs to be reconsidered or we have to evaluate other factors that may have arisen recently. If the model is still appropriate, then something recently has happened to influence climate.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Yes, this new April recording may fall within the margin of error if a different data set is chosen as the baseline (a "warmer" dataset).

Strange Brew

05-19-2016, 07:15 PM

Let's see...sea level rise, higher incidence of extreme weather events, hotter and drier equatorial areas. You don't see high costs with any of these? And please, don't answer with the "evidence" word. These are data-based forecasts and therefore cannot have "evidence" because they haven't happened (yet). I am not a climate scientist, but I trust the science community when they say such outcomes seem likely.

I know forecasts can't have evidence which is why I was curious when you said your faith in future costs being greater than current costs was based on evidence.

I'm not a climate scientist either however the models from 15-20 years ago projecting run away warming at higher CO2 levels are proving inaccurate and therefore incurring large costs now to reduce CO2 emissions that will not likely have an large impact on the future costs if global warming occurs seems illogical.

NY44

05-20-2016, 08:16 AM

Are you referring to the "science and research" addressed in this article?

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/8-highly-inconvenient-facts-for-al-gore-10-years-after-his-infamous-movie/

Ah, theblaze.com. The same dependable publication that brought us ‘Brilliant’: Triplets Tell Clever ‘Knock Knock’ Joke Using Senior Yearbook Photo (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/20/brilliant-triplets-tell-clever-knock-knock-joke-using-senior-yearbook-photo/), or Watch What Happens When Hydraulic Press Attempts to Crush Book (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/25/watch-what-happens-when-hydraulic-press-attempts-to-crush-book/), and who could forget Man Has Part of His Leg Removed to See What Human Flesh Tastes Like — See His Reaction (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/23/man-has-part-of-his-leg-removed-to-see-what-human-flesh-tastes-like-see-his-reaction/).

We've been through this too many times. I'm sure you can find an infinite number of crap articles from crap sites. Let's look at a few of this article's claims though.

Assertion 1: Antartica is actually gaining size. In the very article they cite, it states that the study's results are true, but caused by snowfall; which they go on to explain is due to warmer air temperatures allowing the air to carry more moisture.

Assertion 2: Temperature is not increasing, even though CO2 is increasing. Here they cite a graph which contains no sources, except a facebook and LinkedIn page.

XU 87

05-20-2016, 10:21 AM

Ah, theblaze.com. The same dependable publication that brought us ‘Brilliant’: Triplets Tell Clever ‘Knock Knock’ Joke Using Senior Yearbook Photo (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/20/brilliant-triplets-tell-clever-knock-knock-joke-using-senior-yearbook-photo/), or Watch What Happens When Hydraulic Press Attempts to Crush Book (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/25/watch-what-happens-when-hydraulic-press-attempts-to-crush-book/), and who could forget Man Has Part of His Leg Removed to See What Human Flesh Tastes Like — See His Reaction (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/23/man-has-part-of-his-leg-removed-to-see-what-human-flesh-tastes-like-see-his-reaction/).

We've been through this too many times. I'm sure you can find an infinite number of crap articles from crap sites. Let's look at a few of this article's claims though.

Assertion 1: Antartica is actually gaining size. In the very article they cite, it states that the study's results are true, but caused by snowfall; which they go on to explain is due to warmer air temperatures allowing the air to carry more moisture.

Assertion 2: Temperature is not increasing, even though CO2 is increasing. Here they cite a graph which contains no sources, except a facebook and LinkedIn page.

If global warming was really occurring, one would think that Al Gore and the rest of these global warming alarmists would be correct every once in a while with their predictions. To borrow a line from anther poster, if my stock broker was as wrong in his predictions as these global warming alarmists are, he'd be out of a job, and I would be broke.

Did you know that Ronald Reagan was once a democrat when he was young? So I trust as you grow older and wiser, you will have the same change.

NY44

05-20-2016, 11:26 AM

Did you know that Ronald Reagan was once a democrat when he was young? So I trust as you grow older and wiser, you will have the same change.

You know, I find that to be a bit of a flawed theory based on my own experience. I've definitely become more "conservative" in recent years. I would have loved to have seen a President Kasich this election, but it's not because of a change in my thinking. To me, the political atmosphere/government has been steadily growing more liberal in my lifetime. A lot of the social issues which kept me from considering the GOP, were key issues in the passed 3 elections and are more or less off the table today.

So maybe people tend to grow more conservative not because they grow wise, but because the world around them becomes more liberal. A democrat in Ronald Reagan's youth was likely incomparable to a democrat in his later years.

XU 87

05-20-2016, 01:28 PM

ChicagoX

05-20-2016, 02:41 PM

Why are you liberals so anti-science? And explain how a male can have a period.

http://www.newsmax.com/JonahGoldberg/climate-liberal-science-denying/2016/05/20/id/729866/?ns_mail_uid=279785&ns_mail_job=1669110_05202016&s=al&dkt_nbr=ynfv2ivf

When you quote Newsmax and The Blaze, I can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek again or if you're actually being serious.

XU 87

05-20-2016, 02:42 PM

When you quote Newsmax and The Blaze, I can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek again or if you're actually being serious.

You're anti-science.

ChicagoX

05-20-2016, 02:45 PM

You're anti-science.

Sarcastic comments like these are why I'd happily buy you a beer if I ever met you even though we'd never agree on almost anything politically.

X-man

05-20-2016, 03:02 PM

So I trust as you grow older and more set in your ways , you will have the same change.

Fixed that for you.

Smails

05-20-2016, 03:23 PM

When you quote Newsmax and The Blaze, I can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek again or if you're actually being serious.

Well...it's an Op-ed so it really doesn't matter where it's printed. If it were some kind of investigative piece, then publication bias might be a reason to discount it. Do you disagree with the overall premise that people tend to apply and shun science based on how it supports or challenges their position?

MADXSTER

05-31-2016, 04:50 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climate-global-warming-ipcc/2016/05/31/id/731497/

Interesting view but Why would Gore and others want to redistribute wealth around the world? What do they have against capitalism? I get that scientist would jump on board because it would immediately fund their research for years to come.

XU 87

07-16-2016, 01:22 PM

I am watching the Open and everyone is wearing sweaters. Some spectators are wearing wool caps. The announcers are talking about how cold the weather is. So that begs the question- global warming has skipped the Midwest, Northeast and Rocky Mountains in the U.S., but why has it now skipped the UK?

X-band '01

07-16-2016, 01:38 PM

It's Scotland. It's The Open Championship. You're supposed to be wearing sweaters and enduring rain and breezy winds.

NY44

07-16-2016, 05:07 PM

xu82

07-16-2016, 05:21 PM

It's Scotland. It's The Open Championship. You're supposed to be wearing sweaters and enduring rain and breezy winds.

Thursday was actually disappointing! I tune in to see miserable conditions, kind of like a snow football game. Sunny, warm and dry? That round shouldn't count.

X-band '01

07-16-2016, 05:31 PM

Thursday was actually disappointing! I tune in to see miserable conditions, kind of like a snow football game. Sunny, warm and dry? That round shouldn't count.

Today was much more ideal - by the end of the day, it was 55 degrees with rain and wind.

xu82

07-16-2016, 05:40 PM

Today was much more ideal - by the end of the day, it was 55 degrees with rain and wind.

I missed today as we were traveling back from St Simons/Sea Island, where global warming needs to give it a damn break! Hitting with a tennis pro yesterday afternoon left me feeling simple survival was victory! Spending the rest of the day at the pool bar was a well deserved celebration.

Strange Brew

07-16-2016, 11:09 PM

I missed today as we were traveling back from St Simons/Sea Island, where global warming needs to give it a damn break! Hitting with a tennis pro yesterday afternoon left me feeling simple survival was victory! Spending the rest of the day at the pool bar was a well deserved celebration.

Great area. My Grandfather was stationed at St. Simons during WWII.

X-band '01

07-20-2016, 10:29 AM

National Hurricane Center - Reanalysis of 1956 to 1960 Hurricane Seasons Completed (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20160720_pa_1956to1960Reanalysis.pdf)

In short, there were 10 tropical storms added to the database - prior tropical storms were assessed using today's data and standards (as opposed to what was available in the 50s/60s). Hurricanes Audrey and Diana were slightly downgraded in terms of intensity, although Hurricane Gracie was upgraded based on the same standards.

Now the question becomes how further back the NHC can go to look at hurricanes from a historical standpoint.

muskiefan82

07-20-2016, 12:06 PM

XU 87

07-20-2016, 01:59 PM

I think the term for this is "ironic":

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

X-band '01

09-03-2016, 09:10 AM

This article is right in MOR's wheelhouse:

CBS News - U.S., China Formally Enter Climate Change Deal (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-china-enter-climate-change-deal/)

The Paris accord will formally kick in when 55 countries (of which also produce 55% of global emissions) ratify the deal, although it helps big-time to get China on board. Whether or not they follow through on their pledge is another story.

waggy

10-19-2016, 07:29 PM

Maybe global warming is being caused by solar panels.. hmmmm...

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070#f1

muskiefan82

10-19-2016, 11:21 PM

As the United States continues its journey into the depths of hell, it makes sense that the temperature would rise.

XU 87

12-07-2016, 01:42 PM

It really sucks that global warming is causing all this record global cooling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4006994/Polar-plunge-sweeping-country.html

paulxu

12-07-2016, 01:51 PM

Sort of reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M

xubrew

12-07-2016, 01:54 PM

Weather and climate are not the same. I'm sure someone has pointed that out.

When the Pope, 97 percent of the science community, the Pentagon, and the Chinese all agree on something, then it's probably a mistake to dismiss it as a hoax or as not being a thing. Those four entities don't exactly have a history of conspiring together or being on the same page with one another, so the fact that all four would agree on ANYTHING is worth noting.

People that deny it remind me of eight year olds who insist that their room is clean and that they shouldn't have to clean it. Everyone can agree that pollution is a direct cause of pollution. At the very least, can't we just clean up our freakin' room and stop making such a freakin' mess??