In your mind, it appears to be yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Printable View
In your mind, it appears to be yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Pac-man is a mind-control device by the evil Namco, a large multinational.
And what do large multinationals exist to do? Yep, make money.
And what's all this climate change stuff about? Making money.
Ergo Namco is behind climate change. FACT.
If you can't see that then you're stupid. Or play Pac-man.
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Pac-man is a mind-control device by the evil Namco, a large multinational. It encourages the world to scoff pills to make it through the day and deal with their demons. Namco is Big Pharma. Completely different conspiracy right there. You seem to be conspiracy confused.
Did you not do conspiracy 101?
I think it should be a requirement before joining the interwebs.
I am reading a book at the moment called " the persuaders " and frank luntz was mentioned along with "global warming / climate change "' and it made me think of this thread
The story below from 2003 - a report on the memo in the guardian
Quote:
The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.
The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.
The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".
A Republican source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said party strategists agreed with Mr Luntz's conclusion that "many Americans believe Republicans do not care about the environment".
The popular image is that they are "in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically [sic] as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit", Mr Luntz adds.
The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced.
Environmentalists have accused the party and oil companies of helping to promulgate the view that serious doubt remains about the effects of global warming.
Last week, a panel of experts appointed at the Bush administration's request to analyse the president's climate change strategy found that it lacked "vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress".
"Rather than focusing on the things we don't know, it's almost as if parts of the plan were written by people who are totally unfamiliar with where ecosystems science is coming from," panel member William Schlesinger told the Guardian.
Mr Luntz urges Republicans to "emphasise the importance of 'acting only with all the facts in hand'", in line with the White House position that mandatory restrictions on emissions, as required by the Kyoto protocol, should not be countenanced until further research is undertaken.
The memo singles out as a major strategic failure the incoming Bush administration's response to Bill Clinton's last-minute executive order reducing the permitted level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion.
The new administration put the plan on hold, prompting "the biggest public relations misfire of President Bush's first year in office", Mr Luntz writes. The perception was that Mr Bush "was actively putting in more arsenic in the water".
"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo
Luntz is the fat bloke who Fox use to analyse Republican debates second by second and organises "focus groups".
A Science denier's report on April’s satellite data
Ya think?Quote:
2016 could still end up as a record warm year in the satellite record
More Climate related news,………Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950
Global warming attribution studies consistently find humans are responsible for all global warming over the past six decades.
A new study published in Climate Dynamics has found that humans are responsible for virtually all of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century. It’s not a novel result – in fact, most global warming attribution studies have arrived at the same general result – but this study uses a new approach.
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years in two categories: human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies. The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers are best estimates from each study. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
_________
Global warming could deplete the oceans’ oxygen – with severe consequences
The oceans are getting warmer — they are, after all, where 90 percent of global warming actually ends up. And when they warm up they expand, because that’s what warm water does. This raises our sea levels, but it also has another effect — it reduces the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. That’s simply physics: Warmer water contains less oxygen.
But it’s worse: If surface water is warmer, it doesn’t mix down as much into the ocean depths any longer. It’s less dense, and so less capable of doing that. That means that oxygen that enters the ocean in its upper layers — either through exchange with the atmosphere, or because it is generated by tiny photosynthesizing microorganisms, called phytoplankton, that hang out up there — won’t mix down into the deep as often.
“What’s happening is, there’s a physical mechanism that impedes the delivery of surface waters into the interior,” said Matthew Long, an oceanographer with the National Center for Atmospheric Research who is lead author of a troubling new study on what scientists call the “deoxygenation” of the oceans. The work appeared in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, co-authored with Curtis Deutsch of the University of Washington and Taka Ito of the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The problem is that marine life needs oxygen. If there’s less of it, that could expand the number of areas sometimes called “oxygen minimum zones” where plants, fish, and other organisms would struggle to survive.
Now, in the new study, Long and his colleagues have found that some parts of the ocean are already likely showing an oxygen deficiency, due to the effects of global warming. And by around the year 2030, their model suggests, the human role in driving widespread ocean oxygen loss will be even more apparent if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked.
_____________
World Leaders Sign Paris Climate Agreement
United States Secretary of State John Kerry joined other world leaders Friday in New York for the official signing of the Paris climate agreement.
The signing ceremony formalized the agreement member countries reached in Paris last December as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC. The deal committed world leaders to taking national actions in their countries to reduce emissions by 2020, toward the collective goal of limiting global temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius.
Representatives from about 170 countries were expected to participate in the signing ceremony, according to the UNFCCC. Kerry, who came to the stage carrying his toddler granddaughter, signed on behalf of the United States, as President Barack Obama is out of the country.
“When enough people come out and make their voices heard, when they turn their policy into a voting issue, when they work together toward the same real goal, then measurable change is possible,” Kerry said in his speech at the United Nations. “Today, as we think of the hard work ahead, I am reminded of Nelson Mandela’s very simple words: ‘It always seems impossible until it is done.’ While it isn’t done yet, today we are on the march.”
_____________
Arctic sea ice
Current Arctic sea ice hitting new record lows for each day
_____________
The deniers/conspiracy theorists (Its a con. Its a scam.) are having a bad year even when a new study shows how carbon dioxide fertilization is greening earth, but a deeper look into what a co-author states reminds us what other effects of burning fossil fuels are causing,…..
While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth's atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. "Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time."
April 2016 - Earth just recorded its warmest April on record
NASA’s number for April will not be released (for most) until Wednesday, but until then, a preview,……
Earth just recorded its warmest April on record, and it wasn't even close
April was the warmest such month on record for the globe, and yet again, we saw a near-record large margin compared to average, according to NASA data released Saturday.
The record all but assures that 2016 will set another milestone for the warmest calendar year in NASA's database, regardless of whether the rest of this year sees comparatively cooler global temperatures.
During each of the past seven months, global average surface temperatures have exceeded the 20th century average by more than 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
Until October, that 1-degree threshold had not been crossed since NASA's global temperature records began in 1880.
This is particularly relevant since the Paris Agreement on climate change specifies that countries should work to keep human-caused global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels by the year 2100.
In addition, the agreement contains language referring to the need to limit global warming to as low as 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above the preindustrial average.
The temperature records that have toppled during the past year have shown just how close we already are to these climate guardrails.
If global warming shoots past the 2-degree target, experts fear a runaway cascade of dire consequences, from a sharp increase in sea level due to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and loss of much of West Antarctica to the mass extinction of climate-sensitive species.
According to NASA, April had a temperature anomaly of 1.11 degrees Celsius, or 1.99 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 20th century average, which means the month tied with January for the third-most unusually mild month ever recorded.
The top two spots on that list are occupied by February and March, respectively.
The second-warmest April on record was in 2010, when the temperature anomaly was a comparatively paltry 0.87 degrees Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
The unusual April warmth was most pronounced across the Arctic, from Siberia to Greenland and Alaska. Southeast Asia experienced deadly heat waves occurring in Thailand and India, among other nations.
Other climate monitoring tools have shown that Arctic sea ice is precariously sparse and thin for this time of year, potentially setting the stage for another record melt season by the end of the summer.
The world was already setting more and more warm temperature records without the El Niño's assistance, but what El Niño has done is dial up the already elevated temperatures to damaging levels.
Although El Niño conditions are still present in the tropical Pacific, forecasts call for a La Niña event to develop by the fall. This will tend to dampen the release of heat from a vast swath of the tropical Pacific Ocean, and may put an end to the parade of record warm months.
However, over the long run, global warming will continue as long as greenhouse gas concentrations keep rising. The level of carbon dioxide, which is the main long-lived greenhouse gas, in the Earth's atmosphere also hit a record high.
____________
Earth’s Temperature Spiral Toward 2°C
The steady rise of Earth’s temperature as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere and trap more and more heat is sending the planet spiraling closer to the point where warming’s catastrophic consequences may be all but assured.
The graphic displays monthly global temperature data from the U.K. Met Office and charts how each month compares to the average for the same period from 1850-1900, the same baselines used in the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
At first, the years vacillate inward and outward, showing that a clear warming signal had yet to emerge from the natural fluctuations that happen from year to year. But clear warming trends are present in the early and late 20th century.
In the later, it is clear how much closer temperatures have come to the target the international community has set to keep warming within 2°C (4°F) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the 21st century. An even more ambitious target of 1.5°C (3°F) has increasingly become a topic of discussion, and is also visible on the graphic.
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State who created the famous “Hockey Stick” graph of global temperature records going back hundreds of years, said that the spiral graphic was “an interesting and worthwhile approach to representing the data graphically.”
He said that using an earlier baseline period would have better captured all the warming that has occurred, as there was some small amount already in the late 19th century.
Just how much temperatures have risen is clear in the first few months of data from 2016, it’s line clearly separated from 2015 — which was the hottest year on record — and edging in on the 1.5°C mark.
Every month of 2016 so far has been the warmest such month on record; in fact, the past 11 months have all set records, the longest such streak in the temperature data kept by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Each agency that keeps such a temperature record handles the data slightly differently, which can lead to small differences in monthly and yearly values, though the overall trend is in broad agreement for all such agencies.)
___________
World's carbon dioxide concentration teetering on the point of no return
Future in which global concentration of CO2 is permanently above 400 parts per million looms
The world is hurtling towards an era when global concentrations of carbon dioxide never again dip below the 400 parts per million (ppm) milestone, as two important measuring stations sit on the point of no return.
The news comes as one important atmospheric measuring station at Cape Grim in Australia is poised on the verge of 400ppm for the first time. Sitting in a region with stable CO2 concentrations, once that happens, it will never get a reading below 400ppm.
__________
The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in April 2016 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.54°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.93°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.76°C per century.
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2016 (+0.54°C), 2nd. 2014, 1998 (+0.31°C), 4th. 2015 (+0.30°C), 5th. 2010 (+0.27°C)
Impressive stuff Landreth
Still a scam though to make up a Carbon Derivatives exchange to swindle trillions from the pockets of the poor people of the world.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2016/05/999.jpg
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2016/05/1000.jpg
They seem to be comparing readings from these two types of thermometers.
You can change the readings on the old fashioned on by more than 1 deg by looking at it from above or below.:spin:
From the Guardian article
I agree - get rid of fossil fuels.Quote:
“There’s an answer to dealing with this and that’s to stop burning fossil fuels,”
Instead of wasting money on TAXES and CARBON CREDIT SCAMS and trade deals that encourage pollution, how about putting all the money wasted on the climate scam brigade into developing natural infrastructure? Solar on every roof in the world would cost about the same as 1 months worth of dogdy computer models from the climate scam industry .
I wonder is landreth is AGAIN TPP and TTIP, which are the death knell for any sort of impact on fighting REAL pollution.
Finally - More Co2 please. Lets get those plants growing and providing lots of food for the world hungry. Hoooorah for Co2, one of the most important and most maligned gas we have
Have you ever heard the phrase, "too much of a good thing"?Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
It's like that. ;)
7 million kids under 5 died last year of starvation. When they stop that, then lets talk about setting up a carbon credit exchange with massive inflation causing derivatives bubble (which is the aim)Quote:
Originally Posted by slackula
More destructive rubbish from the pseudo-scientist pretend humanist.
You haven't a clue about environmental sciences, basic chemistry nor even high school biology! That's evident in your climate conspiracy spiels, something no-one in their right minds would try and promote.
Your fishy red herrings you troll across the board are designed to disrupt, not to promote free exchange of information and knowledge.
The sooner an oxygen thief as you are gets his wish and starts sucking up CO2 to the max, the better.
Now now Ent, All posts should include your opinion on the subject, not your opinion of the member posting. Is this yet another subject where you can only attack the player and not the ball?
^ Ent is right in this case. This is just another example of you clinging to almost every tin foiled, crackpot conspiracy you come across. Your theory is nothing but manufactured bullshit. The real conspiracy is in convincing gullible fools like yourself that climate change doesn't exist. You are swallowing big oils cock full stop.
Doomsday nonsense. It was hotter in the past. These models are based on a tiny % of the life of earth.
Money making scam alright.
So it was hotter in 1891. Who caused the heat back then? What about 1391?
Climate scammer cant even go back far at all
Severe Ancient Droughts - A Warning to California - NYTimes.com
:chitown:
They blamed witches and sinners back then :sexy:
Ironic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allotafargina
Because it's a similar ignorance and lack of understanding of science that the denialists employ today.
Good oh. Another fool who attacks the player rather than the ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
So let's start here. Quote me ANYWHERE where I say, and I quote you, "climate change doesn't happen". Quote me. I will even allow you to use a quote where is allude to that the Climate does not change.
That is the usual attack in the "defend the fraud 101 text book". No one, even those called "deniers" which is a strategic propaganda tool hoping to make people think that those who see through the scam are holocaust deniers as well.
So anyway, quote me where I say or allude to "climate change doesn't exist".
Next, explain to me why Lord Obomba, who you think is the messiah, and is a lovey of you climate scammers, is pushing TTIP and TPP within which the clauses he and his trade empire builders have specifically put in clauses that would be damaging to the environment, and increase Co2 emissions globally. It is your mob that is pushing these, your precious BRAND obomba, your precious killary. If it was anything other than a scam, your obomba and killary would not be pushing it but they are.
Next, on the same theme, why not talk about the globalization of manufacturing, and why Free Trade pacts are the priority. If any politician or body took this seriously, they would be insisting on punitive measures for products not manufactured locally, and rewarding self sufficiency, rather than rewarding shit made in Asia going to Europe and the US, and shit made in Europe and the US going to China. This is the work of the same LEADERS who are pushing the climate scam. .
Next, talk about how this mythical Co2 scare is not simply a ploy to take the focus off of the real damage to the environment done by large companies, notably US ones. Its a ruse. Back before the climate scam religion came about, people were actually interested in real pollution, chemicals in the water and on land. They don't seem too care now though because all the greenies are wagging their tails over Co2.
Next, you might want to talk about, which seems to be a dirty word and not at all discussed by any of your climate scammer, why a Carbon Trade exchange is going to do anything to help. All this is doing is allowing richer companies to carry on regardless, and the major polluters aren't signed up to it anyway. Tell me exactly how a derivatives bubble will not come from the Exchange that is Al Gores retirement plan.
How about Co2 Tax which is all included into the exchange as well. Shouldn't the emphasis be on enforcing companies to clean up their act, rather than simply getting poor people to pay more for things?
Next, tell me what you personally do. What car do you drive? How to you generate your electricity? Air con - how often do you use that? How do you cook your food? What meat do you eat, if any, because you should be vegetarian. This goes for jet set travelling landreth flying all around the world. If he cared and believed his shite, he would not be adding to the problem. Less people flying means less flights. Less buying imported SHIT, less ships.
So, when you have played the ball on these topics feel free to come back and hack at my shins. It's a scam. The climate is changing, but around that has been built a huge scam that the media has made "trendy" so that you do not feel comfortable to question it.
And finally... the planet will be just fine. So you can sleep easy tonight. Humans might die off, but that would be a good thing. After all, most climate scammers want massive population reductions anyway so why not go all the way, and get rid of everyone. Certainly by removing enough Co2 from the air, that will happen eventually
the chemtrail thread did demonstrate the depth of his delusions... I think the only think he's not bought into is the flat earthQuote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Now he will probably start a flat earth thread. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by hazz
All right let the fun begin;
Dr. Richard Lindzen
He is employed by the Cato institute. A libertarian "think tank" created by the Koch brothers. Stike one.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Ric...dzen_quote.htm
Dr. Patrick Moore
He is not a climate scientist but a ecologist. He made the claim that the monsanto insecticide round up was safe to drink. Then he was asked to drink it;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
Dr. Will Happer
A he is also not a climate scientist but a physicist. He is also chairman of the board of George C. Marshall Institute. Described as a"non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation.
George C. Marshall Institute - SourceWatch
Now according to the article you posted they where speaking at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Well the founder of that foundation James Leininger is a member of the religious right. Oh but wait for it...
It is funded by none other then the Kock brothers...
Clearly one of those climate scientists who the deniers are always saying are bought off and only in it for the money. Now we know who is buying them and....Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Ooops. I see, he was bought by the other side.
Right so the scientists who are funded by Governments looking to introduce co2 taxes are not biased :smileylaughing: :smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
1 career for life
2 free trips around the world
Hey it's science man :smileylaughing: