Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:14 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 854 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1646
The BIG question is not if the climate is changing , it's more about HOW MUCH MAN IS CONTRIBUTING TO IT .
If the climate didn't change , we wouldn't be here talking about it.

S4B states "
There has been 7 global warming and cooling events in the last 10,000 years. Based on chemical analysis in ice, it is proven that the current event is man-made."

It has NOT been proven . It has only been proven that man has had SOMETHING to do with it for the simple reason that there are more ' men ' on this rock. Of course ' man ' and the chemicals and substances that ' man ' has created in the past 10,000 years will show up as residue in ice just as volcanic ash has also been found in the same samples. That's a given but to say that the current event is ' made-made ' is quite a stretch , imo.

I would love to see all the people using this scare tactic to start walking to work and using candles to study their 'scientific' data.
Then I might start to believe them.

_________________
may you have the bank account of a republican and the sex life of a democrat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7484
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
8 years from now, he'll still be following the conspiracy theorist anti-global warming cult.



Reality sets in...


THE HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING FINGERPRINT

How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels.

Stratosphere Cooling, Troposphere Warming
Suke Manabe and other scientists, when modeling the climate in the 1960's at the Princeton Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, showed that increased CO2 would cause the lower atmosphere to warm and the upper atmosphere to cool (or warm less). This hypothesis has been observed in the data, which further supports the general accuracy of the models. Virtually all climate models show that this is what should happen, and the observed data shows that this is occuring.

Isoptope Evidence
When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen-14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-10) through a nuclear reaction:

14N + p → 14C + n

This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.

Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans.
...
The above chart from the EPA has been notated with specific events to show how events that impact social economics systems impacts growth of industrial greenhouse gases.
...
Attribution
Assessment of natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) influences indicate that the climate system would be relatively stable without industrial atmospheric influences such as greenhouse gases and aerosols.

Source: Attribution

It is reasonably clear that without anthropogenic forcings the climate would be closer to thermal equilibrium relative to the Holocene radiative forcing.

SUMMARY
Since carbon-14 is created during exposure in the atmosphere, low isotope carbon-14 has not been subjected to atmospheric exposure and therefore must have come from underground. In other words, we dug it up, burned it, and now low isotope carbon-14 is in the atmosphere. That is how the two origins of carbon can be clearly identified, by the isotopic signature.

Said another way, low isotope carbon-14 is from fossil fuels, while the rest of the carbon has been in the natural cycle for longer periods. Longer expose times increase the C-14 in the molecule. Carbon that is stored and released through natural processes such as the normal seasonal carbon breathing that occurs in plant life has a longer atmospheric lifetime.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro ... man-caused



The corporate profit driven anti-global warming propaganda narrative that the these Right Wingers subscribe to is pure science fiction. It's a cult.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 6819
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
pedro2 wrote:
The BIG question is not if the climate is changing , it's more about HOW MUCH MAN IS CONTRIBUTING TO IT .
If the climate didn't change , we wouldn't be here talking about it.



THAT is indeed the question - i.e. not if it is changing, but what caused it.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7484
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Petroleum and Propaganda
The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry


http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/pet ... ropaganda/


Big Oil has been covering up climate risks even longer than we thought


Last fall, it was revealed that executives at oil giant ExxonMobil have known about fossil fuels’ role in global warming since the late 1970s, but proceeded over the next four decades to cover up that information and block all efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.

In December, it was discovered that Exxon wasn’t alone. Nearly every major oil company was well aware of the dangers of climate change. In fact, Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, Shell, Sunoco, and Texaco, as well as Standard Oil and Gulf Oil (the predecessors of Chevron), regularly shared their climate research between 1979 and 1983 as part of a task force convened by the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade group.

But the cover-up goes back even further than that, it turns out. According to documents uncovered and released yesterday by the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), oil executives have been covering up the climate risks of fossil fuels since at least 1957.

CIEL president Carroll Muffett told The Huffington Post that “This story is older and it is bigger than I think has been appreciated before.”

The documents, according to Muffett, show that the industry was “clearly on notice” about the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change by 1957. But Muffett added that the industry was “shaping science to shape public opinion” even earlier than that, perhaps as far back as the 1940s.

CIEL has created a website, SmokeandFumes.org, to house all of the documents it uncovered, which include industry histories, scientific articles, oral testimonies, and patents that span more than fifty years of oil industry research and activities.

“They offer compelling evidence that oil executives were actively debating climate science in the 1950s, and were explicitly warned about climate risks a decade later,” according to CIEL. “Just as importantly, they offer glimpses into why the industry undertook this research, and how it used the results to sow scientific uncertainty and public skepticism.”

Some 20 state attorneys general in the U.S. have joined an effort spearheaded by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman to investigate and prosecute the companies, including Exxon, that have actively worked against attempts to combat global warming.

Many have pointed out that Big Oil has seemingly followed the playbook developed by Big Tobacco when that industry tried to protect its business model by burying information about the health impacts of smoking tobacco and lying to the public about it.

The difference is, Big Oil is still getting away with it, funding millions of dollars of junk science, pushing public relations campaigns that downplay fossil fuels’ contribution to climate change, and fueling the campaigns of climate deniers in Congress, Jeremy Funk of Americans United for Change said in a statement.

“Like Big Tobacco, Big Oil spent decades orchestrating a deception campaign that undermined our public health,” Funk said.

“After similarly damning internal tobacco industry memos surfaced of a coordinated cover-up of their products’ dangers, states and consumers’ families were rewarded billions of dollars in damages and tough new regulations were put in place by the court system and Congress.”


https://news.mongabay.com/2016/04/big-o ... r-thought/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 5068
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb-diane-bean-counter wrote:
So neither of you can come up with "free market capitalist" countries that had a 9% growth in GDP and 72% wage growth. Figured as much.


Reading comprehension. Look into it, MORON. :roll:

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7484
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
...meaning you can't name any.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 5068
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb-diane-bean-counter wrote:
...meaning you can't name any.


Your point is MOOT, you idiot. And I've already explained why. :roll:

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2016 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 5635
Location: Between the Badges
First US offshore wind farm to open off Rhode Island coast in 2016

http://www.accuweather.com/en/features/trend/first-us-offshore-wind-farm-block-island-rhode-island-industry-seeks-further-growth-expansion-energy-future/54057815

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7484
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
First, they tried to say, "global warming doesn't exist"...

...yet...


Sea-level rise claims five islands in Solomons: study
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... &ocid=iehp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5864
Location: Eastern CT coast
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:

I'm sending in a resume, it's 3m/5k to the Block Island Ferry :)

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 4477
Location: Over there! (last)
Tom Toles
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 2566
Location: SLS
Congress: Obama Admin
Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress ... nge-plans/

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 4477
Location: Over there! (last)
Once again, pedro promotes Fox News...or should I say Faux News?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 2566
Location: SLS
That's kinda funny because in the past election season , it looks like CNN , MSNBC & other ' news ' sites were promoting the ' faux ' news.
According to those sites , Hillary was going to win an election by an astronomical amount and the Rep party was all washed up.
Seems the only ' news ' outlet that had it even close to being right was your hated ' Faux ' news.
Might be another reason thinking people don't understand your side's arguments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 29948
Location: Somewhere in time
pedro1 wrote:
That's kinda funny because in the past election season , it looks like CNN , MSNBC & other ' news ' sites were promoting the ' faux ' news.
According to those sites , Hillary was going to win an election by an astronomical amount and the Rep party was all washed up.
Seems the only ' news ' outlet that had it even close to being right was your hated ' Faux ' news.
Might be another reason thinking people don't understand your side's arguments.



She did win my an astronomical amount (nearly 3 million votes, surpassing all others before her) and she lost the electorial colledge in 3 states by less than 1/15 of a percent of the votes cast in those states... :idea:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 2566
Location: SLS
I've seen reports that if you take Calif & Ny out of the mix , Trump won by a large margin with the popular vote.
In Calif you only need to show a driver's license to vote , right ? And you can show fake docs to get the driver's license so how many of those votes were legal ??
IF we didn't have the electoral college , Hillary would have won just from the Ca and NY votes but what does that say to the rest of the country ? It tells them that they don't count and that just pisses off a lot of people . Trump went to talk to those people , Hillary didn't.
That is why the system is set up as it is and imo , that's not a bad thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 4816
pedro1 wrote:
I've seen reports that if you take Calif & Ny out of the mix , Trump won by a large margin with the popular vote.


I'm a teenage swimsuit model if you leave out the age and gender part. :smoke:

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 2566
Location: SLS
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 4477
Location: Over there! (last)
Steve Breen
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 4816
pedro1 wrote:
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


That might be funny if it were true.

Prove it.

But you can't.

So what does that say about your 'recall'?

I trust scientists more than your recall.
Because, science.

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 4816
Plook wrote:
pedro1 wrote:
That's kinda funny because in the past election season , it looks like CNN , MSNBC & other ' news ' sites were promoting the ' faux ' news.
According to those sites , Hillary was going to win an election by an astronomical amount and the Rep party was all washed up.
Seems the only ' news ' outlet that had it even close to being right was your hated ' Faux ' news.
Might be another reason thinking people don't understand your side's arguments.



She did win by an astronomical amount (nearly 3 million votes, surpassing all others before her) and she lost the electorial colledge in 3 states by less than 1/15 of a percent of the votes cast in those states... :idea:

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 2566
Location: SLS
punknaynowned wrote:
pedro1 wrote:
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


That might be funny if it were true.

Prove it.

But you can't.

So what does that say about your 'recall'?

I trust scientists more than your recall.
Because, science.



Does Humor Belong On A Zappa Forum Anymore :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 29948
Location: Somewhere in time
pedro1 wrote:
punknaynowned wrote:
pedro1 wrote:
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


That might be funny if it were true.

Prove it.

But you can't.

So what does that say about your 'recall'?

I trust scientists more than your recall.
Because, science.



I got it, it just slipped by him...everyone is a little tense with Trump in...hell he didn't even want to win, that is the funny part... :smoke:

Does Humor Belong On A Zappa Forum Anymore :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 4816
pedro1 wrote:
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


Joe and Mika are particularly terrible on there. I think I quit watching msnbc in 2014. There's still a couple fact-based people who talk on there trying to bridge the GAP. But they consistently get cease and desist letters from big corporations and death threats from trolls just for reporting the truth.

And No, I wouldn't make that up just to hurt somebody's feelings. Nor do I think it's funny.

Something funnier:
Experimentation shows that if you fart enough you can clear a room. This assumes that they have somewhere else to go and that your farts stink.
Experimentation also shows that if enough millions of tons of pollutants are pumped into the atmosphere, the pollutants effect the weather. People and animals and plants also get sick, and sometimes die. This assumes that there is weather, and plants, and animals, and people. Science knows what is in some of the pollutants and they are learning how weather works. They are also having to learn how they interact. Pollutants effect the weather. Weather also effects people, animals and plants. Soil erosion, too. It doesn't take an Ivy League grad to realize that soon no-one will be able to pay their 'disaster-proof' insurance premiums because of the constant droughts and floods and hurricanes where they didn't use to be, and the attendant loss of resources due to these lost farmlands, coasts and real estate.

People who run businesses that publicly deny the effect of their industries, I liken to greedy babies that won't change their diapers, or have them changed by somebody else. The governments of the world are willing to help. The industries that soil everything with their waste, by and large do not. They should be held accountable.

On a practical level I understand why the industries refuse to acknowledge they are the ones walking around with the filthy diapers, flinging their shit around on to everybody else - even unto the air!~ It's because they're greedy and are so damn full of themselves about the 'service' they provide. Most of them believe that it would cut into their profits to clean up their own damn mess. So, as a result, surprise, surprise, Trump and Tillerson and Putin want to drill in the arctic, now that it is melting.

What I do not understand are those that parrot the industries' talking points without getting paid for it. Yes the msm and cable snooze get paid a helluva lot not to talk about it, too. How is it to their benefit to do so, pedro, if they're getting paid to keep mum?

See? I'm trying to have a discussion!
Let's see what happens...

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Sydney, OZ
Great shit there, Punknay! Science is science, and bullshit is bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 854 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group