Still the volcano shit?
Ok for the 50th time.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article...7#.U6oSupRdWSo
VANCOUVER, Wash. — On average, human activities put out in just three to five days, the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year. This is one of the messages detailed in a new article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" by Terrance Gerlach of the U.S. Geological Survey appearing in this week's issue of Eos, from the American Geophysical Union.
What volcano shit ??
S******
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
******
That's so stupid...
S****** s****** s******
Snickers******
Cheers!
Those fucksticks in Boulder can't even get the forecast right on their own state! And I love the way Dumbellvis titles everything. Oh, the rest of the planet is getting hotter but the "US alone" is getting cooler. More Jone$ (Dis)info Whores bullshit believed blindly by a moron who never finished the tenth grade.Originally Posted by ELVIS
By the way, just LOVE this tune:
Breitbart
Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming."
The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.
As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining.
But as Goddard notes, the Environmental Protection Agency's heatwave record makes a mockery of these adjustments. It quite clearly shows that the US heat waves of the 1930s were of an order of magnitude greater than anything experienced at any other time during the century - far more severe than those in the 1980s or 1990s which were no worse than those in the 1950s.
These adjustments, however, are not limited to the US temperature data sets. Similar fabrications have taken place everywhere from Iceland to Australia.
The fact that supposedly reputable scientists can make these dishonest adjustments and get away with it is, notes long-time sceptic Christopher Booker, one of the more remarkable anomalies of the great climate change scam.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
Daily Caller
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.
According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”
“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.
This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.
“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”
Right.... because Fucker Carlson is who I always call for scientific knowledge.
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
That's why I post multiple sources...
Breitfart (how does his company still exist when he's been burning in Hell for years??) and Carlson are not "multiple sources". They are repeating the exact same KKKoch talking points.
The real global warming will occur when Jesus returns.
No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!
Only when Jenny McCarthy isn't available...Right.... because Fucker Carlson is who I always call for scientific knowledge.
If I'm calling Jenny McCarthy, it ain't for scientific reasons.
She is a delicious slut. Age hasn't ruined her either.If I'm calling Jenny McCarthy, it ain't for scientific reasons.
Is that more of your "hard data" of a "complicated subject" ??
You've posted a graph from a blog by a guy called Goddard who is apparently an IT professional. He's quoted by the hack journalist and vice versa.
A blog by an IT professional about climate science is less valid as a scientific source than you or I posting fucking anything here.
He makes claims in his headline that he doesn't then substantiate in his article.
I suspect if his graphs from fucking ages ago have any validity then it's because incorrect data from years ago has been fixed for the reasons outlined in the documentary I posted.
I don't care...
Post something credible then...
And wipe the drool from your lip...
WASHINGTON, June 27, 2014 — Former Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wrote in the New York Times on Sunday, seeking to jump start another crusade for the imposition of carbon taxes in America.
“It’s true that the United States can’t solve this problem alone. But we’re not going to be able to persuade other big carbon polluters to take the urgent action that’s needed if we’re not doing everything we can do to slow our carbon emissions and mitigate our risks.”
He equates CO2 emissions with bubbles – in this case, financial bubbles, like those that led to the 2008 global economic meltdown. The analogy presumes that without the incentive of carbon taxes and government coercion, consumers and producers will not, of their own initiative, take measures to reduce emissions. But the sales pitch Paulson employs has an odd ring to it. He contends that Carbon taxes are consistent with “conservatism.”
“The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon tax.”
Empowering the marketplace in any conservative frame of reference would not involve imposing mandates, any more than empowering consumers seeking more affordable healthcare, requires a penalty for not participating in the insurance market. Paulson is not recognized in “conservative” circles other than among globalists and neo-cons. And it follows that he’s partnering on this campaign with such renowned “conservatives” as billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.
To Paulson, carbon taxes are the new flavor of the month and a lot of people have never heard of them before. George Soros and Al Gore would be surprised at that notion. Soros has funneled money to global warming propaganda mongers and Al Gore has been burning fossil fuel since he left the White House, instilling fear about the imminent threat to the planet. Gore and Soros indulge in extravagant, wasteful lifestyles while they preach to others about relatively modest consumption habits.
Paulson’s message isn’t really intended for American citizens. It’s a call to corporations and financial houses to take another run at Congress to compel them to impose another in a long series of wealth redistribution schemes. Why? Because there’s gold in them hills. The carbon tax has already demonstrated itself elsewhere to be a very lucrative commodities market that yields profits for investors, traders and banks, while picking the pockets of consumers. That is, at least, until the general public got a glimpse into how global warming sausage is made, when, among other events, Climategate erupted.
You may recall that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia were caught manipulating data for the creation of the notorious “hockey stick” — a clever illustration of erroneous conclusions about weather patterns late in the previous century.
An earlier iteration of the “hockey stick” of Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University was found to be seriously flawed due to the omission — seemingly deliberate, of a large body of data relating to at least two major climate events, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period. These change the whole complexion of Mann and his colleague’s arguments. It’s a glaring omission when you leave out events like the Thames River icing over in the 15th Century and a significant warming trend lasting between AD 950 to 1250, a period in which there were no coal fired power plants or manufacturing.
Then, another flood of emails found CRU scientists and Mann, grousing about the lack of actual climate evidence to support their projections, discussing tactics to manipulate research and plotting to censor and ostracize critics. In 2007, before Climategate, polls indicated 84 percent of Americans believed humans contributed to global warming. Here in 2014, Americans show a burn out factor indicative of their sense that man made warming has been artificially hyped.
A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll revealed only 27 percent of Americans believe addressing global warming is an “absolute priority”, while 41 percent say that stemming rising temperatures “can be delayed until next year.” In this and other polls conducted by Pew Research, a third of the respondents don’t believe any government action is warranted at all.
The cumulative publicity discrediting global warming alarmists, saw carbon credits crater in value. Larry Bell, writing in Forbes, notes that between May 2008 and October of 2009 the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) value for one metric ton of carbon plummeted from $7 per metric ton to $0.10 along with the shareholders’ investments. Losers included Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, Waste Management, the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities, and a number of universities.
Now the same players with Paulson leading the charge are gearing up to take another run at what Lord Christopher Monckton calls the “greatest wealth transfer scheme in history, a Robin Hood in reverse.” Paulson, first a champion of Cap-and-trade, now favors carbon taxes.
What can be expected from carbon taxation is illustrated by the experience of Australia, which recently implemented carbon taxation. The Australian reports that the $1,350 average tax on each household for the year to Sept 2013, produced an emissions fall from 543.9 million tons down to 542.1. Not a dramatic return on $7 billion in taxes on consumers.
The question on a lot of minds is what is the difference between “cap and trade” and carbon taxes. A basic illustration of cap and trade, is a power plant or manufacturer in the United States, for example, that has maxed out on its capability to reduce carbon emissions would purchase $8 million worth of carbon credits from a factory in China and the Chinese factory, in theory, would then spend the $8 million in upgrading technology to reduce emissions. That is a global cap and trade system.
By contrast, federal lawmakers and the White House have proposed unilateral domestic cap and trade schemes. The EPA analyzed a cap-and-trade proposal and projected global CO2 concentrations in a baseline. The administrator of the EPA testified on July 7, 2009: “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”
Translate that to mean that as a problem solving tool, the market brokerage of carbon is gesture legislation. It provides the satisfaction of claiming something is being done, but the effects on the alleged problem are negligible. Derrick Morgan, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation concludes that:
A carbon tax would (1) do next to nothing to lower global temperature, (2) harm American manufacturing competitiveness, (3) create a new revenue stream based on behavior modification, and (4) harm low-income Americans. Energy supplies can be delivered and new supplies created through the private sector rather than through mandates, regulations, taxes, and subsidies ordered by government.
Heritage, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Black Chamber of Commerce sponsored studies revealing that the impact on workers in America would be dramatic, costing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. All this before any genuine consensus has been arrived at on the question of whether man made GHG (greenhouse gas) even has a direct correlation to global warming.
In Australia, where carbon taxes were imposed, Graham Lloyd, of The Australian, wrote, “Australia’s peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue. After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said “a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.”
Carbon taxes will make already unaffordable energy even more prohibitive for Americans because presently, most energy is produced by fossil fuels. Taxes inevitably get passed on to consumers.
What about the “revenue neutral” argument that government would offset revenue increases by lowering business taxes? That’s yet another government promise. Remember the others about “if you like your health plan you can keep it”, etc.? When was the last time politicians surrendered revenue once they got their hands on it?
In California, state gas taxes are 54.5 cents, which added to the federal per gallon tax, raises the taxes on each gallon to 70 cents. Local and state governments cannot control spending, so these taxes are siphoned off for purposes other than roads and transportation. But state lawmakers are complaining about budget shortfalls and they want even more. “The states consider themselves, in general, to be horribly besieged budgetarily and aren’t talking about anything to reduce revenue from any source,” observes the Tax Foundation’s William Ahern. Carbon tax will be no different.
In any event, if you are pinning your hopes of management of carbon emissions on Hank Paulson, you might want to reconsider. This is the fellow that sold us on the notion that he had to provide liquidity to the nation’s failing banks via bailouts, so that the credit clog would get broken up. Then he hooked a pipeline up that pumped into Wall Street and little to none to Main Street.
In carbon taxes, we see more government for the rich and by the rich. Can you afford more of that?
It's your dumb thread, you post something credible.
For once.
It's fucking ironic that someone that wants to believe in the evil of big corporations, conspiracies and the global elite is constantly completely owned by them.
Drool indeed...
http://roxanne1000.newsvine.com/_new...climate-change
Who wants to believe in big corporations, besides you ??
You're the company man, the BP apologist.
I hope they are paying you for this crap.
Now you're as delusional as Softcock...
I don't even know who 'Softcock' is meant to be.
A Freudian analyst would have something to say about some of your nickname choices, which are of course nicknames of nicknames...
This of course does not include the $7000 each you paid for the Iraq war.
Last edited by Seshmeister; 07-01-2014 at 06:51 AM.
Who gives a shit ??I don't even know who 'Softcock' is meant to be.
A Freudian analyst would have something to say about some of your nickname choices, which are of course nicknames of nicknames...
I have something to say about Freudian analysts and snobbery...
Maybe you need a new social worker, as Krusty would say...
Fuck, just come live in my world if you want to experience climate change. The predicted precipitation and flooding has become a reality.
Wake up and smell the fucking coffee.
"Ya know what they say about angels... An angel is a supernatural being or spirit, usually humanoid in form, found in various religions and mythologies. Plus Roth fan boards..."- ZahZoo April 2013
The climate has been changing since the beginning of time...
The following message is brought to you by KKKoch Industries Inc........
Eternally Under the Authority of Satan
If you ever sober up and grow back a few brain cells, you should look back at these pages and reflect upon your ignorance...
Not at this pace...
Oh bull, says who ??
Rain, floods and landslides are nothing new, and are not cause to sound the climate change alarm...
It's laughable that people actually think giving big corporations and governments more tax money will change the climate. Most western governments can't even run themselves and most big corporations are ran by a colluded group of corporate gangsters. Honestly people. Do you think a bunch of incompetents and criminals are going to make any kind of difference?
All while people are starting to protest their governments in the streets over austerity measures, someone is trying to push the world into war (Eastern Europe, The Middle East, and the relations of China and Japan are all volatile).
The west can't even make a banking system work decent and it's going to save the world? What a joke.
Might be someone adding chlorine to the gene pool. You have that ark built yet?
Says my fucking eyes. I grew up in mountains and glaciers. Yes, the glaciers were melting even back then, but the amount they receded in the first 1/2 of my life could be recorded in inches. The second 1/2 of my life they are recorded in yards.
And floods in the drought-prone prairies? We just went through the most intense rainfall in Canadian history...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
