Debt Rattle June 9 2015
- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Russell Lee Tracy, California. Tank truck delivering gasoline to a filling station 1942 • The Warren Buffet Economy: Why Its Days Are Numbered-Part 1
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle June 9 2015]Are these guys high? They can’t understand the simplest things. If you want to sequester carbon, you plant trees: plants, green things, seeds. You know: “life.” Dirt cheap, measurable, proven to work, improves life and not just for humans. Instead their techno-fantasies involve spraying the air and water with toxic metals at unknown cost, with unknown results, many of which involve the possibility of a sparking a runaway effect worse than the warming they’re claiming to counter.
No one notices? No one comments on how they didn’t know what they were doing before, which is how we got into this mess, so they’re going to do more things they don’t understand? And devastate our lives, our standard of living to pay for it?
And I’m sure it’s a coincidence that the thrust and outcome of all this is inevitably anti-life? We’d rather pollute the seas, bomb our neighbors, we’d rather block out the sun, cover the world with nuclear plants and waste zones–heck, we’d rather fly to the planet Mars–than we would to plant a tree. Anything but life. If it’s life, especially human life, it’s hateful. Burn it, kill it, wreck it, control it. If it’s steel, concrete, nuclear, glass-tube wasteland, we can’t spend enough on it. No price is too high or challenge too hard.
What is it with these people?
Thanks for the picture I live near Tracy, the building across the street is the Tracy Inn still in use. The gas stations are long gone.
What did they say?
How are they going to do it?
How are they going to allocate diminishing supplies?
How are you going to heat your house with no FOSSIL fuel?
How are our social structures going to change?G7 leaders agree to phase out fossil fuel use by end of century
Should we all get a bull and some cattle?Back to science, wasn’t it just last month they posted an article about how the US expected record drought this summer? (Probably the one where I pointed out there wasn’t a lack of precipitation from Buffalo to Boston in April, having just had 3m of snow)
Well, how times change:
“Last month was the wettest on record for the contiguous United States, according to federal meteorologists.” https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/forget-april-showers-may-was-wettest-month-u-s-records-n371981Total failure only 30 days in advance. And hey–that’s normal; weather is complicated. But we need to admit it and don’t pretend we know more than we actually do, to scare people into desperate action that is counterproductive. Because who profits from that?
The last sentence is interesting: “More frequent downpours also are expected as the world warms, but Crouch said there’s no way to connect climate change to a single soggy month.”
1. Perfectly true! Yes, short-term fluctuations are not indicative of overall climate. But that’s not what I hear when there’s a month’s drought, or rain, or cold, or heat. Generally they report it as proof of warming. So is it or isn’t it? If not, what penalty do we have for journalists that erroneously report a 30-60 day fluctuation IS proof of warming?
2. Wait–I thought last month when there was a drought it was caused by global warming, but now warming causes overall rain? Make up your mind: does it drought or rain? I don’t think the science changed in the last 30 days.
3. If weather is moderating, droughts are ending, temperatures are more average, is that proof there ISN’T warming? Of course not. Weather extremes are proof, but weather moderation is proof too. Everything is proof! Rain is proof, dry is proof, hot is proof, cold is proof. It’s an un-disprovable theory.
Which means it’s not science. Science is capable of telling a thing from its opposite. At least I should hope so.
Anyway, probably some were frustrated with me doubting and calling shenanigans on the winter drought and calls to panic over a summer drought. I’m not giving them a hard time: I just know the practical limits of their models. So don’t panic! They once again prove they don’t know what they’re talking about.
The principal climate-change argument, which incidentally has nothing to do with climate science itself, appears to be just another fraud. “98% of scientists,” it turns out, also includes the deniers! Here are four minutes of Congressional testimony from the lead scientist on NASA’s “best instrument for monitoring that decrease in arctic sea ice.”
He’s testifying in front of the very same Senator who just days ago called for prosecution of AGW skeptics under RICO.
Warmists are bulletproof against facts and reason. Their dogmatic “opinions” have little to do with science and everything to do with funding.
Want evidence that man deliberately monkeys with the weather? Keep in mind that you don’t have to change global climate to induce droughts, etc.
Pacific ocean dying? Where are the 98% of scientists when they’re actually needed?
Keep in mind that not allowing anyone to question science would not be science.
Scientists must discuss the failings of the present models in order to prove the models and go beyond them. Imagine if we prosecuted and persecuted the 10,000 established scientists who “knew” Copernicus’s new solar-centric model was right: we’d never have gotten to Kepler’s more accurate model of elliptical orbits. Copernicus’s orbits-within-orbits looks pretty silly now, doesn’t it? What if we outlawed any discussion about the obvious and provable theories of Newtonian Physics? Newton was the PLANET of physics. Nothing contradicted it. It was finis, kaput, a done deal. …Except there was this wee little problem with the model, we examined it and made a yet more refined model, courtesy of Einstein. Now Einstein’s model is what’s “proven”, yet we still question it with String Theory (among others) Why? Because we’re scientists and it’s not perfect. Should we be imprisoned for asking questions? How will science progress then?
All science, all progress comes from the people who question the old science and old progress. Shutting down “deniers”, i.e. those who ask questions, is a witch hunt and against everything science stands for.
Since some of you gents live for climate news and data:
Thank you. I looked at it and brrrrrr, data errors everywhere. –They still have posted the drought map of OK, TX, and the northeast.
Top story on the NOAA site–since this is being covered elsewhere today–NOAA now decided there hasn’t been a pause in global warming. They revised all the data and it disappeared. Although adjusting data is not outside the scientific norm, this conflicts with the recent raw data sets like satellites, which are fairly reliable, replacing them with ship intake-water readings, which are unreliable. Sigh.
Okay, so not having to disassemble the whole argument, confirm the data reliability, and compose my own interpretation, a simpler question is: they claim their avowed data for the last 15-20 years was wrong. But the new data they readjusted this week is right? And also all the data going back 100 years is right? The only error they had was just this one multi-decade gap where they totally screwed up. But now it’s fixed.
Look buddy, if you screwed up simple bulb readings for a multi-decadal period and didn’t notice, that’s not an “adjustment”, that’s a scandal, and somebody needs to be discredited, then fired, and their work peer-reviewed by somebody else. Otherwise, which of the three data periods am I supposed to trust? The old, the new, or the revised? Again, are these guys even scientists? Crikey!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.