Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    One of you must be wrong.

    Based on past experience, I'll take Starlight's knowledge over that of LPOT.


    The United States holds the world's biggest coal reserves. The nation's proved coal reserves as of December 2012 stood at 237.295 billion tonnes (Bt) comprising more than one quarter of the total proven coal reserves in the world.
    http://www.mining-technology.com/fea...es-by-country/


    Last I checked 15 billion tons is smaller than 237. New Zealand doesn't even make the top 10.

    BTW neither one of us is wrong. Just so you're aware.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 09-16-2017, 05:23 AM.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      Ihttp://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...ull-report.pdf

      This is the study you might be referring to which looked at the CO2 cost of producing a Tesla in comparison to a Hummer. Sans the battery, the two were equivalent, with the battery, the Tesla caused 15% more CO2 in production than the Hummer.

      All in all over a ton of CO2 to produce both cars. Quite a bit. But they concluded that the Tesla massively beat the Hummer. Why?

      Well its simple, how much CO2 was avoiding when you drove the car, vs Hummer. Over a lifetime? They went ahead and did those calculations, even assuming that 53% of the power came from a coal power plant (realistic US scenario), the Tesla still beat the Hummer hands down. No competition. Also the battery is recycled recovering 70% of the carbon used to making it, further helping the case for the Tesla car.

      Forbes has a tl;dr https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#536fc73b6096
      I don't remember the exact study (it was years ago that read it) but it looked at more than just CO2.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        For your reading

        https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

        Here's the tl;dr from the IPCC
        I don't know why anybody pretends the IPCC still has any credibility. This is the same organization that was caught red-handed manipulating and manufacturing data and actively suppressing any and all dissent. Surely you can't think we've all forgotten their email scandal. Unfortunately, they were never held fully accountable for their actions, and now we see much of this same behaviour from NASA, NOAA and their parallels in other countries.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          I don't know why anybody pretends the IPCC still has any credibility.
          The IPCC has international recognition, its a joint venture by many independent research institutes.

          This is the same organization that was caught red-handed manipulating and manufacturing data and actively suppressing any and all dissent.
          The last time you claimed this you linked to various Breitbart articles, one of them accussed scientists of artifically adding +0.3mm/year of water rising, when in fact they had decreased it by that amount or at least proposed to do this based on theoretical models. The article was the opposite of what had happened. The other articles merely pointed out that scientists had calibrated the data, but in no way went into why they had calibrated them or for what reasons. The calibrations were assumed to be wrong, because they were supporting the global warming hypothesis. So one was completely wrong, the others just didn't like the direction of the evidence, or at any rate didn't interact with it.

          I'm not particularly concerned about Wattz not liking that oceanographic data disproves his idea that global warming has ground to a halt, or that the reconstruction of that data by the group he supported came to the opposite conclusion he held.

          Surely you can't think we've all forgotten their email scandal.
          "Hide the decline"? That one liner lifted out of its context? Which wasn't about 'hiding that temperatures were getting colder', but on how the data was to be presented since twenty of the temperature proxies were agreeing with each other, but the tree ring proxy had taken a downturn for some reason. Fox News thought this was the smoking gun that it was all a conspiracy, but really it was nothing.

          That was as pathetic to watch as Democrats trying to prove that Donald used fraud to get elected.

          Unfortunately, they were never held fully accountable for their actions, and now we see much of this same behaviour from NASA, NOAA and their parallels in other countries.
          There's nothing to be held accountable of. Despite a witchhunt on Jim Hansen, not a single piece of evidence of any kind of data fraud has been found of any kind, by anyone.
          Last edited by Leonhard; 09-16-2017, 08:44 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            I don't remember the exact study (it was years ago that read it) but it looked at more than just CO2.
            The fact remains a Hummer produces an order of magnitude more CO2 than a Tesla during its lifetime.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              "Hide the decline"? That one liner lifted out of its context?
              There was a lot more to it than that.

              I've said it before, but if creationists ever "manipulated" the data like this to support their hypothesis, the howls of outrage from the "scientific" community would be deafening.

              ----------

              These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

              More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

              Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

              But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

              And that is precisely what we find.

              https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._in_99280.html

              ----------

              A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
              Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

              https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...g#1a3dac613657

              ----------

              There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

              They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

              This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

              But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                The fact remains a Hummer produces an order of magnitude more CO2 than a Tesla during its lifetime.
                Like I said, the study was about total environmental impact and not just the CO2 red herring.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  One of you must be wrong.
                  Not necessarily. It depends on how you look at it. The US has vastly more coal reserves - which stands to reason, since it's much larger in land area. On the other hand, NZ can be considered rich in coal because it has a high abundance relative to its land size.
                  Based on my general hatred of LPOT, I'll take Starlight's knowledge over that of LPOT.
                  Fixed that for you.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Like I said, the study was about total environmental impact and not just the CO2 red herring.
                    But without being able to see the study to assess its methodology or read its results in its own words, statements about it can't be taken to mean much. It's like when Starlight talked about how great he was at Biblical interpretation and wrote a book about it, but refused to give any information about said book.

                    Granted, not remembering where the study was or not wanting to give personal information about yourself online are valid reasons for not sharing this information, but it also means it doesn't really be accepted as an argument.

                    Comment


                    • Pensylvania State University cleared Dr. Michael Mann of all charges regarding accussations of scientific fraud after an internal investigation.

                      http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/...ion_Report.pdf

                      Source: Final Investigation Report

                      The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined
                      that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor,
                      Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.
                      More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did
                      not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously
                      deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing,
                      conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.
                      The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Anyone wishing to read the details can read it there.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      There was a lot more to it than that.
                      Sigh, you're really going to go with the 'hide the decline' stuff?

                      There's three things cited as usual "hide the decline" which everyone agrees is taken completely out of context, and is overblown Anthony Watts tried to use this as vindication for his idea that there had never been any global warming (which he thinks is just an artifact of misplaced weather stations). There were more than twenty temperature proxies, one of them was going down. All the proxies, including the abbarent one is in the final report.

                      Nothing was left out. No, seriously. It was all present.

                      However a summary report was made for policy makers, and policy makers aren't scientists. So to make it simpler the spurious graph was folded in. That's really all it was. The full report is available for anyone to read through (2000+ pages), and the much shorter one is simpler for the purposes of quicker reading. If you want the details you can read about it. Otherwise they used a simple technique to fold things together.

                      The "decline" of the tree ring temperature proxy was nothing new. It was openly discussed since at least 1995.

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...00321/abstract



                      I've said it before, but if creationists ever "manipulated" the data like this to support their hypothesis, the howls of outrage from the "scientific" community would be deafening.
                      Creationists don't have any data as such, they're much more like Big Foot hunters than anything else. They're searching for Noah's Ark, or sightings of dead pleisiosaures, etc... Beyond that they're just misinterpreting things and applying the wrong technique in clumsy ways, asking why a fossil is carbon dated to the wrong date (though you can't carbon date a fossil) etc... its cargo cult stuff.

                      "where the heck is global warming?
                      Yes, among the emails was of course the interesting discussion about the so-called "pause", there was a genuine controversy about whether it was real, or an artifact of measurements. After all the "pause" was a cherry pick. You pick two points that statistically look as flat as possible. This is typically done without calculating the odds that you'd get a flat line like that by chance. I happen to know that if you did the calculations you get a 1-in-20 chance of having such a long flat period. Hardly a deal breaker, which is why I amongst others just considered it a statistical fluke and didn't waste much more energy on it than that. If it got to statistical significance it might be worth exploring.

                      However that doesn't explain why it was flat, and others focused on those explanations. Again, measurement artifact (as someone in the emails pointed out we ignored the arctic temperatures). When later taken together with oceanographic records from buoys and ships, the pause disappears. Others argued that a slight 0.05% decrease in the suns intensity, combined with an El Ninő year creating a peak at 1995, and volcano erruptions increasing albedo would explain it. In the end it turns out to be a mix of all these things. A statistical fluke of random natural events and data missing.

                      Consensus remains that its mostly a random fluke artifact, there's a range of expectations and the pause has not gone outside of that. If the pause lasts until 2025 then it would start to be unexpected.

                      Here's a link to a good summary https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tions-accurate



                      Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data.
                      Hoping that there was something here US Conservatives launched a witch hunt. However several investigations later, and a lot of wasted time, there's nothing to be seen. Nothing was done that wasn't ordinary scientific practice. They were cleared. Deal with it.

                      (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry
                      and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

                      https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...g#1a3dac613657[/quote]

                      James Taylor doesn't provide any citations showing that there were any deliberate manipulations of the data. It borders on slander. There's also a repeat of the idea that they were destroying evidence, but you can read the final investigation report. They were cleared of all charges. More than once.

                      they show the scientists trying to manipulate data ... to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards ... This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year ...
                      There is no citations for this specific claim (I removed all the fluff from the article). The rest of the article takes it for granted that the reader accepts this supposed factoid. I spent some time researching it to find out where this came from. Which was a bit difficult given that the attribution was given without year, date or link.

                      Beyond McIntyre running Climate Audit I really couldn't find anything he had done except find a Y2K bug in some NASA code. They fixed that... it produced no significant differences, other than moving the temperature record for 1998 (the then hottest year on record) down by 0.01C. Finding a flaw is all good... is there something more to this that I'm missing though? Good on him for spotting a flaw, but that's just participating in science. No one stopped him, and the correction was taken in and accepted. Isn't that what's supposed to happen?

                      At any rate I don't get in where McIntyre caught data fraud with the GISS. If you got a link to that I'd love it. Though I expect it to simple being him noticing that after more data was added, and finer calibrations were done, the evidence for Global Warming was even stronger. In that case its just him begging the question.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                        Last I checked 15 billion tons is smaller than 237.
                        The total known NZ coal reserves are about fifteen times smaller than total US reserves, but since NZ is 36 times smaller in land area than the US, that means NZ has about twice as much coal per land area as the US does, or 4 times as much coal per person as the US if you want to do it by population.

                        We have long been an exporter of coal because we have excess to our needs. So your original claim that we don't have coal power plants because we're not a coal-rich nation is wrong. The actual state of affairs is that hydro power has always been the major part of our power grid because our land is quite mountainous and has a lot of lakes and rivers conducive to hydro power, and that historically coal power comprised the majority remainder of the power grid but in recent decades that has gradually been replaced with geothermal power.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          The total known NZ coal reserves are about fifteen times smaller than total US reserves, but since NZ is 36 times smaller in land area than the US, that means NZ has about twice as much coal per land area as the US does, or 4 times as much coal per person as the US if you want to do it by population.
                          And most coal is found in relatively small areas around the world, so what's your point? In comparison to total coal around the world, New Zealand's entire supply is nothing. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. Total know coal reserves of the entire planet gives New Zealand 0.000286% of the total reserves with an even smaller part of the world market. In comparison to other coal rich nations, New Zealand wouldn't be all that coal rich.

                          We have long been an exporter of coal because we have excess to our needs. So your original claim that we don't have coal power plants because we're not a coal-rich nation is wrong. The actual state of affairs is that hydro power has always been the major part of our power grid because our land is quite mountainous and has a lot of lakes and rivers conducive to hydro power, and that historically coal power comprised the majority remainder of the power grid but in recent decades that has gradually been replaced with geothermal power.
                          So do most other coal rich countries. Your entire country could decide to no longer mine any coal and the world markets would barely notice since your country's total coal mining output was only 0.0003885% of the total worlds output in 2016. Believe it or not, I do know how to do junior high level math too. My claim is rather simple and is perfectly accurate with the facts on hand. First, my claim was that New Zealand isn't a coal rich nation not that there's no coal in your country and compared to the rest of the coal mining nations, you're not. Second, US had large coal reserves and not nearly enough mountainous rivers to be able to have hydroelectric as a much higher percentage than it currently is. Besides, dams and hydroelectric power comes with its own ecological issues. Third, the math isn't that hard to figure out. 0.00038% isn't much of an output and I don't know anyone that rates coal reserves on a per capita rating, so it's rather irrelevant. What everyone cares is total proven reserves. Face it, when compared to the rest of the coal rich nations, your nation simply isn't all that coal rich. Hate to break it, but that is what the math shows, unless you want to claim three thousandths of a percent is all that much output.
                          Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 09-16-2017, 11:28 PM.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            There was a lot more to it than that.

                            I've said it before, but if creationists ever "manipulated" the data like this to support their hypothesis, the howls of outrage from the "scientific" community would be deafening.
                            Apart from the fact that most of the scientific community don't knnow and don't care what creationists do or say, the creationists do worse than your so-claimed manipulation in every single technical article they write!

                            Found the contact plane between the Tapeats and Redwall strata yet?
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              There was a lot more to it than that.

                              I've said it before, but if creationists ever "manipulated" the data like this to support their hypothesis, the howls of outrage from the "scientific" community would be deafening.
                              The Creationists are highly selective with their "data" and there are no "howls of outrage from the scientific community, they leave that sort of paranoia to the Creationists.

                              And it’s a pretty amazing claim that the bulk of scientists are cheating. Why would they? An overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and humans are the primary cause. Scientists can conclusively identify that human activity is responsible for the observed increase in CO2. How? The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical “fingerprint" — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature.

                              http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/globa...e#.Wb5MI_MjEdU
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                                Pensylvania State University cleared Dr. Michael Mann of all charges regarding accussations of scientific fraud after an internal investigation.
                                But of course they did. And Comey recommended no indictment for Hillary, so that must mean she's innocent.

                                As for the rest of your post, again, you can dismiss and downplay all you want, but people can read the sources for themselves and come to their own conclusions, which won't necessarily be the one you want them to reach. For instance, you accuse one author of not citing any sources, but I look at the article in question and see links to at least three external sources, and each of those sources has links to even more sources, so the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than you're willing to admit.

                                All I can't tell you is that I sleep soundly at night knowing that runaway global warming is as real as a bogeyman under my bed. The unusually cool temperatures we've had this year also makes for comfortable sleeping conditions.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                285 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X