Is this hypocrisy?

[Dick7Access]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

This is not about GW. This is about who you believe.

Home | Larry Bell
Obama Climate Report Finds Sky Falling

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/Obama-Climate-Report-NCA/2014/05/27/id/573515#ixzz33LNLhgfW


You might say this guy is a nut job, and you could very well be right. I don’t know as I don’t know anything about Larry Bell, but if many people who I admire say he is right on, and Nancy P. said he is wrong, who do you think I am going to believe. (I know I am fixated on N.P.) I would go to a shrink, but I can’t find one I trust.

 

[Dick7Access]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

If you have a position and you believe you are right, then push it for all it's worth, but don't lie about it. It will be found out and diminish what others believe about what you say after that.
Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up To ‘Satisfy Public Demand’

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/s...de-up-to-satisfy-public-demand/#ixzz33LmhVwZR
​

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

Read more closely. It wasn't lie nor was it simply "made up" from nothing. They always said how they came up with the numbers. This is their best guess because they don't have the funding to do anything more accurate.

Counting isolate white bears roaming in a white landscape is not an easy task.

It certainly doesn't prove global warming is not happening.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

I want to hear your solutions.

How about on a personal level?

For many years we lived on an old farm beyond the edge of the grid. This was powered by solar panels.

Last year we moved into town. Nine months ago we installed a 5 kW PV system. In that time it has produced just over 6 MWhrs of electricity.

We used about twenty percent of that which is about half of what we used all together. We exported the other eighty percent of the solar.

(Rooftop solar in Australia now exceeds 3GW and has resulted in a greatly reduced afternoon peak demand. Along with improvements in efficiency this has caused the mothballing of two coal fired power plants and cancelled any consideration building more.)

We always choose high efficiency appliances. Our lights are LED.

We have solar hot water with an LPG boost. We cook on LPG. A 45 kg (100 pound) cylinder of gas lasts for well over a year.

Our windows use glass designed to limit the heat transfer. We have quality curtains on the windows and wool insulation in the ceiling. Floor coverings are effective at insulation.

We have a thermostatically controlled air circulation system that pulls warm air from the roof cavity into the house on cold days. In warm weather it pulls cool air from under the house.

We use reverse cycle air conditioning when necessary. It is only used for heating on a handful of nights in winter.

In summer we cool the house with the aircon during the day using the solar power. It is used at night only on the hottest days. I am working on a storage air conditioning system that will make ice during the day for cooling on summer nights.

After this I will develop enhanced heat storage systems.

I laugh when people try to tell me solar doesn't work.

Our main vehicle is a Hyundai i30 diesel hatchback. It uses about 5 litres per 100 km. Far from being a "shoe box" is has plenty of space. (It even accommodates our 2KW PA system including a subwoofer, mains and fold back speakers, mics, stands, lighting and mixer when we go to gigs.)

I ride a bicycle whenever practical. And a unicycle when I am being impractical.

 

[Steve R.]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

This morning I was greeted by the Washington Post article: In Norfolk, evidence of climate change is in the streets at high tide. That article continues to foster the notion that sea-level rise is a direct effect of global warming.

The situation is much more complex. Essentially, the article miss-characterizes subsidence as being sea-level rise. This inappropriately suggests that the supposed sea-level rise is proof of global warming. Of course that does not mean that sea-level rise is not also occurring. Both processes can occur simultaneously.

Sea levels are rising faster in Southeastern Virgina than anywhere else on the East Coast, in part because the land is sinking .12 inches per year. (Emphais added)

Third, the land around Norfolk is sinking, a phenomenon called “subsidence,” due in part to continuing adjustments in the earth’s crust to the melting of glaciers from the last ice age. Plus, the city is slowly sinking into the crater of a meteor that slammed into the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay 35 million years ago. (Emphasis added)

Particularly interesting:

At high tide on the small inlet next to Norfolk’s most prestigious art museum, the water lapped at the very top of the concrete sea wall that has held it back for 100 years.

So, the potential of flooding has been known for 100 years. Time to move the structure independent of the validity of global warming causing sea level rise. Which makes the quote below an absurd plan-of-action. Instead of planning ahead, its stand-and-fight. Mother Nature will eventually get her way.

The city hired a Dutch consulting firm to develop an action plan, finalized in 2012, that called for new flood gates, higher roads and a retooled storm water system. Implementing the plan would cost more than $1 billion — the size of the city’s entire annual budget — and protect Norfolk from about a foot of additional water.

--------------------------------------------

Wikipedia article on the Chesapeake Bay Crater.

The crater is also one of three factors contributing to the sinking of land near the Chesapeake Bay. For example, Hampton Roads is gradually sinking at a rate between 15 and 23 centimeters (5 and 7.5 inches) per century. This is occurring because of the slippage of the coast into the crater, the reverse effects of “isostatic rebound” of the crust of the earth from the weight of long absent glaciers north of Maryland, and groundwater removal.

----------------------------------------

A Washington Post reader, kaasmaster, provided this link: Chesapeake Bay impact crater adds to sea level rise. While a good informative read, it makes the common mistake of assuming that land subsidence is the same as sea-level rise. It isn't.

Scientists say the sea is rising at a faster pace in the Chesapeake Bay due to a meteor that collided with the region 35 million years ago.

Tis article also makes another significant comment. (Again sinking land is not sea-level rise.)

Another effect that can contribute to sea level rise is the withdrawal of underground water supplies. If the amount of groundwater decreases, the weight of rock layers above the groundwater compacts softer layers downward, Sanford said. This can amount to centimeters of change over decades.

About 80 percent of sinking land nationwide is caused by groundwater withdrawals, according to USGS data.

 

[Dick7Access]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

True but when you indoctrinate young minds like school children to race home and guilt trip their parents based on misleading data. That's not only shameful but should it be a crime.

And when your caught manipulating the data your standard answer is "it doesn't disprove it...alarmist rubbish.

Isn't that the drum I have beating. Sure lying about polar bears does prove something. It proves he is a lair. It's not about counting white polar bears on white snow. It's about him lying. I didn't call him a lair. He called himself a lair.
"If you like your Polar Bear, you can keep your Polar Bear."

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

That article continues to foster the notion that sea-level rise is a direct effect of global warming.

Yes. Stuff like this adds to the confusion.

The rise is about 3.2 mm per year, mostly from expansion due to the temperatrue rise of the water. A significant contribution is from melting glaciers and even some from the extraction of ground water.

This site has the real data the actual sea level rise.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

It is measured from satellites and checked against a range of tide gauges.

Somewhat ironically, it is published by a university in a land locked state.

As you can see a few years ago the level fell quite significantly. Global Warming skeptics took great pride in pointing this out. One even published a doctored version that made the fall greater and it was referenced over and over again.

As the page points out, the reason for the fall was the La Nina which put so much water onto the land, covering vast areas of South East Asia and Australia.

Of course, once the level went above the trend the skeptics didn't want to talk about it any more.

 

[Bladerunner]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

"An Inconsistent Truth" http://aninconsistenttruth.com/

interesting interview

 

[Dick7Access]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

"An Inconsistent Truth" http://aninconsistenttruth.com/

interesting interview

I come I knew all that before the clip?

 

[Vassago]

Sorry, I had to fix the thread title. It was driving the OCD grammar policeman in me wild!

 

[Brianwarnock]

Sorry, I had to fix the thread title. It was driving the OCD grammar policeman in me wild!

oh! so that's what this thread is about.


brian

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

"An Inconsistent Truth" http://aninconsistenttruth.com/

interesting interview

Once again your "evidence" it is focused mainly on discrediting Al Gore. The real issue isn't about a person.

Answer me these questions.

1. Did Jim Bakker's hypocritical shortcomings discredit everything about Christianity?

2. Does the fact that 95 percent of scientists (rather than unanimous) agreement mean that the majority should be ignored and the version favoured only by the five percent should prevail?

3. Most people don't have much idea on technical issues. Does their lack of comprehension constitute proof that the science is wrong?

4. The closest the interview gets to science is the "discussion" about carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Salt is also perfectly natural. Indeed we cannot survive without it. Would you consider it a pollutant if it was added to your drinking water?

There is absolutely nothing of any substance to refute the facts of global warming.

People who understand science can come to only one conclusion. The anthropogenic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is heating the planet in a way that is extremely likely to be dangerous.

Unfortunately most people simply depend on what they are being told which is why it is important that the fraud of climate change skepticism needs to be exposed.

 

[Vassago]

oh! so that's what this thread is about.


brian

I'm glad I could clear that up.

 

[Steve R.]

Today, I went to the barbershop to get a haircut, beckoning me was the cover of Time Magazine screaming "Eat Butter". Sounded good to me. The theme of the article was that scientists were wrong in promoting a low fat eating style. Since, a PDF of this article does not appear to be available, I found this summary on Food24. Food24 writes:

The influential news magazine's "Eat Butter" article vindicates high fat diets saying scientists have conceded they were wrong to label fat the enemy all this time.
...
TIME has reported that scientists have now admitted to being wrong about their findings regarding the LCHF, ketogenic, Atkins, and Paleo diets. For decades we’ve been told that saturated fat (ie. fat that comes from animal sources such as red meat, poultry and full-cream dairy) is bad for one’s health – and has been associated with heart disease, diabetes and obesity. But only in recent years have sugar and refined carbs become the culprits.

The reason for this posting is actually related to the global warming debate. Low fat diets, for many years, have been considered established ironclad science. Now that claim is "losing weight" based on additional research. Given that progress, would global warming, as an anthropogenic event, also be subject to "losing weight"?

As an anecdotal note, by switching to a low carb diet over a year ago, I lost 30 pounds. For a while, I lost an unbelievable pound a day for twenty straight days. This weight loss adds credence to the theme of Time Magazine story promoting a low carb diet, but doesn't serve as substantial proof. I may have simply been one of the lucky ones.

In conclusion. Revisions to established science in one field does not negate the supposed established science in another field, such as global warming. The basic significance of this story is that it is simply another case (of many) where an established science has "lost weight" based on further research. The debate on global warming, i would expect, will continue to evolve.

 

[Dick7Access]

Today, I went to the barbershop to get a haircut, beckoning me was the cover of Time Magazine screaming "Eat Butter". Sounded good to me. The theme of the article was that scientists were wrong in promoting a low fat eating style. Since, a PDF of this article does not appear to be available, I found this summary on Food24. Food24 writes:



The reason for this posting is actually related to the global warming debate. Low fat diets, for many years, have been considered established ironclad science. Now that claim is "losing weight" based on additional research. Given that progress, would global warming, as an anthropogenic event, also be subject to "losing weight"?

As an anecdotal note, by switching to a low carb diet over a year ago, I lost 30 pounds. For a while, I lost an unbelievable pound a day for twenty straight days. This weight loss adds credence to the theme of Time Magazine story promoting a low carb diet, but doesn't serve as substantial proof. I may have simply been one of the lucky ones.

In conclusion. Revisions to established science in one field does not negate the supposed established science in another field, such as global warming. The basic significance of this story is that it is simply another case (of many) where an established science has "lost weight" based on further research. The debate on global warming, i would expect, will continue to evolve.

Excellent! Same thing with salt. The so called experts go back and forth.
I not sure I believe that part about getting a haircut. I have been on Morehead and couldn't find a barber shop.

 

[Bladerunner]

Lets get real people. There is NO global warming, The ocean water is NOT rising and Yes Co2 is good for something. It keeps you alive.

Someone said the other day the ocean water was rising at New Orleans. No New Orleans is Sinking? Yeah, Go ahead and check the facts. If the water was rising at NewOrleans, then it should be rising the same 150 mi. away at Mobile Alabama BUT it is NOT..

Get over it Glaxom it is not happening and much as you would like for everyone to live in a pup tent.

 

[Dick7Access]

Eggs and sugar are flip flops. The list of back pedals is endless. The more they know, the more they find they don't know.

Do they have eggs and sugar behind the "Orange Curtain"?

 

[Vassago]

You guys really don't believe the ocean is rising? Living in Florida, I have to seriously disagree with you. We are losing land and it shows.

Global warming IS happening. The only real dispute is if we are impacting it and what level that impact might be. Regardless on our impact on climate change or global warming, there is no disputing that we are polluting the hell out of the Earth selfishly and unnecessarily for the sake of convenience and greed. If we can all treat the Earth better by producing lower emissions and waste, and by chance that helps reduce the speed global warming is occurring, well that sounds like a win/win to me. Can't we just focus on leaving the Earth better for future generations rather than bicker about who's causing global warming?

We are coming out of an ice age. What that means for the Earth probably won't be determined in our lifetime.

 

[Bladerunner]

You guys really don't believe the ocean is rising? Living in Florida, I have to seriously disagree with you. We are losing land and it shows.

Global warming IS happening. The only real dispute is if we are impacting it and what level that impact might be. Regardless on our impact on climate change or global warming, there is no disputing that we are polluting the hell out of the Earth selfishly and unnecessarily for the sake of convenience and greed. If we can all treat the Earth better by producing lower emissions and waste, and by chance that helps reduce the speed global warming is occurring, well that sounds like a win/win to me. Can't we just focus on leaving the Earth better for future generations rather than bicker about who's causing global warming?

We are coming out of an ice age. What that means for the Earth probably won't be determined in our lifetime.

OK, The Mobile, AL. should have rising waters and they don't. You still getting you informations from liberal NUTS.

p.s. it is not who is causing Global warming, Climate Change Environmental adjustments, It is If it is really happening. Rem. those 3,000 scientist who wrote papers about Global Warming. Well now.............seems it is about 4-500 scientist and the rest just red the first ones reports. OH, MY

It is not happening people about the same way the Sunni Muslims are going to get with us and sing Kumbaya.

 

[Bladerunner]

You guys really don't believe the ocean is rising? Living in Florida, I have to seriously disagree with you. We are losing land and it shows.

Global warming IS happening. The only real dispute is if we are impacting it and what level that impact might be. Regardless on our impact on climate change or global warming, there is no disputing that we are polluting the hell out of the Earth selfishly and unnecessarily for the sake of convenience and greed. If we can all treat the Earth better by producing lower emissions and waste, and by chance that helps reduce the speed global warming is occurring, well that sounds like a win/win to me. Can't we just focus on leaving the Earth better for future generations rather than bicker about who's causing global warming?

We are coming out of an ice age. What that means for the Earth probably won't be determined in our lifetime.

Maybe your beaches are eroding away.