You have to get passed the physiological effect the alarmist have instilled upon the population. People have seen the models fail. Yet we keep hearing we are all headed for calamity. At the same time you put people under threat of loss. Kind of like a punishment. That's why more then 50% of the population of North America doesn't believe none of this. Then we look at the people pushing this upon us. We see at the 1%ers doing this. Not only here in the states but aboard. Also directed at third world nations. So basically we are saying they can't developed at rapid pass using the same techniques we used. The same techniques China uses. And so on. So we are punishing them as well. And they aren't even the cause of the problems. We want to get rid of coal as the base load, but we don't want nuclear. It all adds up to what we have. People just not going along with the agenda. Shoving down people's throats isn't working. Making people fear isn't working. I myself and under the impression the 1% create 33% of emissions in the states. Yet it's the people we want to "punish" so to speak. So we are punishing poor people for the rich peoples mistakes. At home and abroad. Most people are fine staying close to home. Living a more organic lifestyle. People are simple. Are you guys? There has to be a better way of doing this. This approach hasn't worked in the past. It's nice to talk data, but when people just tune out it does no good.
You do realize that 90% of scientist work for university's and colleges that are funded by the government. The government will always skew facts for the better of money. Every scientist through the ages that did not conform to the government has always had there reputations ruined and were never able to gain funding. Those with the most money will always win And yes cnn is a democratic channel they are the lest left than msnbc just like Fox News is far right. Cnn- clinton news network
basically this approach here is all wrong. It doesn't work. The scientist are in bed with the wrong group of people.
They are take for example 12 teachers in Atlanta were standing trial on a number of charges for changing test grades well they did it for the government money 11 out of the 12 were taken to jail Just imagine that is in a public school system what would a cooperation or a university scientist do to keep its federal grant money I'm not saying that the government lies to the people but they only tell the half truth. Climate change is happening is it the global warming that they preached when I was in school maybe not, is it the global cooling that is happening now who knows If the arctic ice is melting and Antarctica is gaining more ice who's to say that is is not a naturally occurring process this earth goes through ?
Here's the thing about science, it's always changing and theories are always being disproven. Not so long ago everyone thought the world was flat (some still think it is but moving on) point is science gets it wrong more often than you think. It's like learning how to do something the wrong way and never learning the right way to do something. You still do it but it's all wrong.
@ Don Actually, no, I don't know that "90% of scientists work for universities and colleges that are funded by the government". Do you have a source to back that claim up or did you hear it from "a guy at NASA" ? While I'm at it, you keep implying that it's all some government "conspiracy" to steal money from the people. What proof do you have of that? And do you realize it'd have to a be worldwide conspiracy of nearly all governments? Do you seriously think they all could keep something like that secret for decades?
Ok, so you don't trust the government. Will you believe the flipping oil companies? "Mar 31, 2014 - ExxonMobil Releases Reports to Shareholders on Managing Climate Risk “It is equally essential that society manages the risk of climate change by increasing energy efficiency and by investing in research into technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” “The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action,” said Colton. “ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.” http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-releas ... imate-risk Exxon's known it for awhile. They aren't stupid. They plan ahead. Of course that didn't stop them from funding deniers. It saved them money. They really didn't want to come out and say climate change was real and happening either, but they were under a lot of pressure from shareholders who also weren't stupid and wanted to know what Exxon was doing to keep their investments safe.
No I don't remember where I got the info because I was working and driving at the time But for everything else I've posted came with the articles And no I don't believe the oil companies but I also don't believe the data is correct because who ever the puts the data in to a readable text could be using outliers that will skew the data Do I believe the government is telling us the whole truth no I don't Scientist grants or funding from companies and the government for their research that is how most scientist are able to conduct such research But also lets go back to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico the clean up operation was done by halbert or something like that which was run or owned by a politician who made millions off of it Don't remember where I read but al gore was worth 2.1 million dollars before this global warming crap now he's worth 200 million dollars
What I also know is my college chemistry text book says that volcanoes make up more green house gasses than what humans do in a year
I have to repeat I am somewhat impressed by the amount of work science deniers do to promote an indefensible political position. It involves searching the internet to root out the few crazies and liars who write mouth foaming blogs against the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. It involves promoting wild conspiracy theories which have no possible basis or reality. It involves painstaking crafted false arguments and hyperbole. But most importantly, it involves the willful ignorance and avoidance of the whole of the scientific community around the world. In fact, because they realize that the actual science organizations (like NASA) are the only credible sources, science deniers are in the most awkward position of trying to rely on misquotes from these very organizations to support their position, when even the most perfunctory review of the actual websites supports the science of climate change. Finally, when they do post these poor assertions and quotes, they look foolish when they are completely debunked and exposed for the frauds they are. (A very telling sign of this is that instead of responding to the fact that they were debunked, they instead wait, and post a different quote or set of wild assertions. Otherwise they put their fingers in ther ears and pretend none of the evidence or sources is real). I know I said this before. But it is the only true response to the willful ignorance to facts, logic, or data, as well as the paranoid delusions currrently expressed by Don.
Your text book is wrong. "This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors." http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... or-humans/ That was 2009. Globally in 2013 we hit about 39 billion tons of CO2 emissions. And the fact that Al Gore made money by investing in carbon reduction isn't really a good argument why we should ignore the problem anymore than the fact that Haliburton made money cleaning up the Gulf would be a good argument that we shouldn't have cleaned up the Gulf. Yes, politicians and people with connections make money by virtue of their connections or insider knowledge. They always have. That doesn't mean we should simply ignore problems. The problems aren't going to go away by themselves and someone is always going to make money off the solutions. Yes, the government lies. So does the private sector. But they don't lie about everything, all the time. If you go through life paranoid and suspicious about everything and everyone, you're not going to get very far nor accomplish very much. Sometimes you have believe the evidence, especially when it's overwhelming and you have this many credible people and organizations telling you that we have a problem.
We need to put more money into science and plant more trees. USA home sweet home needs to fix it's economy and put money into NASA. Then we have a stay here and fix the problems plan and a last ditch leave Earth plan.
Trying to make me look bad on a tap tap game with all your data and facts. Let's put it in a kaw point of view with the Apoc zaft war Zaft has nothing to loose Apoc can loose it all (probably not) but could Now government could loose it all if certain things come to light your right government does not lie all the time but statistics and the person who is doing those statistics are getting paid by some one be that a cooperation or government. With that said people who were ousted were ousted because they believed their data to be correct which went against the government data. Most of the data collected by nasa comes from people like me and you or a college student or professor that happens to be doing an experiment. I call what I have posted is taking your side with my side to figure out what is true you have one(government) and another (ousted scientist) saying two different things As I have stated before yes humans do impact the earth are they nearly as bad as what the government is saying my personal belief is no because weather moister temp. And most of all co2 is always changing. For example we had to stop using ddt because it was a compound that composed up of a chlorine molecule and if that chlorine molecule got in to the atmosphere it would create a whole in the ionosphere which would allow the Suns radiation to come through Well look at the whole above Antarctic it is shrinking So who was right and who was wrong The biggest problem is wasteful spending on the part of the government on things like for example paper work has to go through 15 different peoples hand before a conclusion. Telling people that the government will always have your back is like saying a killer bee won't kill you Life is about being informed and not conforming because someone said so
Don DDT is a chemical banned for agricultural use as its carcinogenic and had deadly effects on biodiversity for example the bald eagle ( the bird on the great deal of the USA) You may have meant CFC's in regards to the ozone layer and the hole that developed in it over the South Pole in the 1980's
Septentrio, facts and data appear to have a tendency to upset Don. Especially when his made up version of facts is demonstratively incorrect. Please do not upset him further
Belmullet 1981–2010 averages TEMPERATURE (degrees Celsius) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year mean daily max 8.9 9.1 10.4 12.2 14.6 16.2 17.6 17.8 16.5 13.7 11.0 9.2 13.1 mean daily min 3.7 3.6 4.7 5.8 7.9 10.4 12.2 12.2 10.7 8.4 6.0 4.2 7.5 mean temperature 6.3 6.4 7.6 9.0 11.2 13.3 14.9 15.0 13.6 11.1 8.5 6.7 10.3 absolute max. 13.9 15.1 19.5 24.4 26.6 27.0 29.9 27.7 25.4 20.1 16.3 14.9 29.9 min. maximum -1.1 0.7 3.1 6.3 8.0 11.3 12.5 12.1 11.6 7.4 3.4 0.9 -1.1 max. minimum 10.7 11.0 11.0 12.0 15.3 16.5 17.5 17.6 16.8 15.5 13.9 12.3 17.6 absolute min. -8.1 -5.4 -5.7 -2.1 0.2 1.4 5.1 3.1 0.8 -1.7 -4.5 -7.6 -8.1 mean num. of days with air frost 4.0 3.8 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 3.5 14.1 mean num. of days with ground frost 10.6 10.0 6.5 5.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 5.6 10.0 52.3 mean 5cm soil 4.9 4.9 6.4 9.3 12.9 15.6 16.8 16.1 13.6 10.2 7.4 5.4 10.3 mean 10cm soil 5.3 5.3 6.6 9.0 12.3 14.9 16.2 15.8 13.7 10.7 7.9 5.9 10.3 mean 20cm soil 5.8 6.0 7.2 9.6 12.8 15.3 16.6 16.5 14.5 11.5 8.7 6.5 10.9 RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%) mean at 0900UTC 86.0 85.8 84.1 81.1 78.7 81.4 84.9 85.1 84.5 85.7 86.1 86.8 84.2 mean at 1500UTC 81.7 79.1 77.5 73.7 73.3 77.2 79.7 79.2 77.9 80.0 82.3 84.3 78.8 SUNSHINE (hours) mean daily duration 1.4 2.3 3.1 5.2 6.1 5.2 4.4 4.4 4.0 2.8 1.6 1.2 3.5 greatest daily duration 8.3 9.6 11.6 14.1 15.5 15.9 15.1 13.9 12.1 10.4 8.2 7.2 15.9 mean num. of days with no sun 10.3 6.0 5.9 2.7 2.0 2.8 3.5 3.2 3.7 5.5 8.3 10.8 64.8 RAINFALL (mm) mean monthly total 134.0 97.1 99.2 72.0 70.4 72.1 79.0 101.9 101.8 145.9 134.0 137.4 1244.8 greatest daily total 44.7 31.3 25.6 25.9 42.2 38.9 33.2 49.5 62.6 79.6 43.0 41.7 79.6 mean num. of days with >= 0.2mm 23 20 22 18 17 17 20 20 20 23 23 23 246 mean num. of days with >= 1.0mm 19 16 17 13 13 12 14 15 15 19 20 19 192 mean num. of days with >= 5.0mm 10 7 7 4 4 4 5 6 6 10 10 9 82 WIND (knots) mean monthly speed 15.4 14.6 14.0 12.2 11.6 11.4 11.1 11.2 12.0 13.3 13.3 13.8 12.8 max. gust 94 93 88 75 66 63 67 56 73 73 80 93 94 max. mean 10-minute speed 55 60 58 43 42 45 45 40 50 52 47 59 60 mean num. of days with gales 7.0 4.8 3.1 1.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.5 2.6 3.1 4.4 29.6 WEATHER (mean no. of days with..) snow or sleet 4.5 4.2 3.1 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.0 17.3 snow lying at 0900UTC 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.6 hail 9.2 7.8 7.4 4.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 3.3 5.6 7.5 47.7 thunder 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.9 7.2 fog 1.0 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.9 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.7 15.1