Page 258 of 366 FirstFirst ... 158208248254255256257258259260261262268308358 ... LastLast
Results 3,856 to 3,870 of 5480
  1. #3856
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ I'm hoping when people wake up and start to notice the Billion$ these huckersters have bilked us of a RICO investigation/trial puts them behind bars where they rightfully belong.



    the spores... lol.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #3857
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Heck, I'm gone a week and another 5-6 pages has been added.

    [I've been busy researching the interaction of global warming and gravity in the Austrian Alps - using skis ]

    All together now:


  3. #3858
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    As if the "pal reviews" the cult conducts on it's own work were not heinous enough. How about supposedly legit journals letting the persons who’s papers are being challenged be one of the reviewers? Unfreakinbelievable. While Ryan O'Donnell tries to take the high road in the responses this is IMHO unforgivable. In what other field of science does this occur in the peer review process? Seems like a direct contradiction of it's purpose... good read anyway.

    RC’s duplicity prods Jeff Id out of retirement
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #3859
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Enmore View Post
    Heck, I'm gone a week and another 5-6 pages has been added.
    otoc took his toys and went home again - kinda quiet around here since then........

  5. #3860
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Ah HA!! Here we go. The real root cause behind man made global warming climate change climate disruption. MAGNETS!!

    Magnetic polar shifts causing massive global superstorms

    Obviously this cannot be the result of some naturally occurring phenomina that has been taking place since the earth was formed. It MUST be due to the impact us 33bil hoomans are having on the earths magnetic fields!

    Think about it.. magnets are in about every electric generator and motor! SAVE THE EARTH!! DESTROY ALL WINDMILLS!! STOP DRIVING YOUR PRIUS YOU EARTH HATING SOB'S!

    Don't wanna change your lifestyle? Not to worry. Scooter/Dutch Co. (a wholly owned subsidiary of jimz enterprises) is here to help you save the planet anyway! We are now offering.. at a limited introductory offering.. magnetism credits. Send your monay now!!!
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 02-08-2011 at 02:17 AM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #3861
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^
    Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

    Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

    It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

    “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

    “Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”
    A poll at one of those Climate Change conferences would get about the same result...

    h/t Legal Insrrection

  7. #3862
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Oof.. that's gonna leave a mark...

    Coffin, meet nail. – more on Steig’s reconstruction issues

    For those who are not mathematically inclined and did not entirely follow the discussion about Eric’s reconstruction in the previous post, well, a picture is worth a thousand words.

    This is what happens to Eric’s reconstruction when you:


    Top row: Add the designated trends to the Peninsula stations

    Second row: Remove the designated trends from the Peninsula stations

    Third row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and add the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya

    Fourth row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and add the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya

    Please note how Eric’s reconstruction responds quite well to changes in the Peninsula . . . except it teleconnects them to the Ross Ice Shelf and the south pole.

    Please also note how Eric’s reconstruction does not respond at all to changes in the only two West Antarctic land stations they used: Russkaya and Byrd.

    Anything that he “got right” . . . as I said before . . . was by accident.



    I am quite tired of people who are willing to spend tens of pages during a review making claims without bothering to check. I am quite tired of people who are willing to spend a couple of hours writing posts about how they “got it right” and I “got it wrong” without bothering to check.

    Eric . . . feel free to confirm this for yourself. I assume you have your own code handy.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #3863
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ A poll at one of those Climate Change conferences would get about the same result...
    That's exactly what I thought when I read it. I was going to show that article too, but you got there 1st.

    This is also from Professor Jonathan Haidt (a social psychologist at the University of Virginia):

    "If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community," he said. "They'll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they'll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value."
    Bingo.


    Full article here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/sc...r.html?_r=5&hp

    (Free NY Times account needed)

  9. #3864
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Continuation of above story...

    “Reviewer A” responds

    The row over the issue of Antarctica warming continues. After a number of articles appeared at the Air Vent, Lucia’s, and Climate Audit, Dr. Steig responds at RealClimate with some accusations of his own. I offered Dr. Steig a guest post here, with no caveats, so that he could get maximum exposure, twice. He didn’t bother to respond.

    This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own. This failure of peer review falls squarely into the lap of the Journal of Climate for allowing such nonsense in the first place.


    But IMHO, Dr. Steig bears responsibility too, he should have said “no”, realizing what a conflict of interest this was.

    He confirms in the latest RealClimate essay that he was in fact “Reviewer A”. He also complains that he wasn’t allowed to see the final draft. This is due to the fact that JoC had to bring in another reviewer to break the 88 page log jam created by “Reviewer A”.

    The analysis of the difference between the 3rd and 4th (final) drafts at Climate Audit reveal this:

    MrPete

    Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 10:06 PM | Permalink
    Here is a comparison of Rev 3 and Rev 4. All text changes are marked up — including totally minor changes. I hope this works for the reader. (Personally, I would primarily trust this to provide pointers to areas of change as it is not obvious how to reliably discern exactly what the old/new text was.)

    To my admittedly inexperienced eyes, the changes appear relatively minor.

    Perhaps one of the authors can speak authoritatively on a) whether Wm C’s question (about round 4 reviews) has any standing, and b) whether Eric Steig’s disclaimer (based on not having seen these changes) is appropriate.
    So it seems Dr. Steig’s complaint is empty, and the situation mostly a result of his own doings. Still it points back to the failure of peer review at JoC. They should not have invited Dr. Steig to be a reviewer in the first place. had they not, this whole ugly row would be non-existent.

    At CA, this commenter sums it up pretty well:

    movielib

    Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 5:03 PM | Permalink
    Eric Steig has replied to Ryan:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../odonnellgate/

    There seems to be a lot of arm waving about O’Donnell being wrong about… well, everything.

    There is what I’d call a personal attack against “O’Donnell, Condon, and McIntyre,” comparing them unfavorably with such “legitimate, honest commenters” as “Susan Solomon or J. Michael Wallace, or, for that matter, Gavin Schmidt or Mike Mann or myself [i.e. Steig].” You see, he thinks people like O’Donnell and McIntyre are not legitimate honest commenters. The compulsory word “deniers” is also thrown in.

    Steig claims O’Donnell is going to “retract [his] allegations” against Steig. It’s very vague and I sure don’t know what he’s talking about.

    He says he was a reviewer for the first three drafts of the O’Donnell et al. paper but not for the “markedly different” fourth draft so he hadn’t seen it before publication.

    Curiously, Steig does not address the point that is the subject of this thread.
    I’ll carry ODonnell’s statement here when he completes it, including making whatever changes/retractions he sees fit.

    In the meantime, the Journal of Climate editors should probably be made aware of the mess they created by allowing this conflict of interest to occur in the first place.

    The bottom line that has been lost in the fog of this war is that Antarctica isn’t warming as much as is claimed, and most of the statistically significant warming is confined to the peninsula.
    ^^^ Another fine example of Pal review.



    Not only do the cultists "review" each others work.. they also "review" that of competing scientific papers. What could possibly go wrong eh??

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #3865
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    The wake effect of wind turbines:



    This rather freaky photo is the 'Horns Rev 1' wind farm off the west coast of Denmark. Normally the wake turbulence behind each shredder is invisible, but it's there nonetheless.

    There are 80 identical turbines in this particular wind farm. Although they look small in this photo, the hub height alone is 262 ft up and they each have a wingspan 38 feet longer than a Boeing 747.

    These major turbulent effects show why each windmill has to be spaced so far apart. Too bunched up and they seriously get in each others way. Also, the wind behind a turbine is slower than when it hits the blades as energy has been extracted. If, like the photo, the wind direction is directly in line with a row of turbines, the front row is getting around 30% more energy than the one behind it, reducing their already dire performance still further.

    For land based wind farms they have to be careful where they put overhead power lines as the increased wind vibration from the blades causes greater wear on cables and insulators.

    You also wouldn't want to get anywhere near a wind farm if you are in a light plane, glider or helicopter I would suggest.

  11. #3866
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Apparently if we don't let the EPA enforce cappintrade through regulation (because the legislation was stillborn in the Senate and bamma has no other way), some sh*t-4-brains (D)emorat claims terrorists will "win".

    Dem Rep. Markey: If GOP Blocks The EPA, The Terrorists Win

    Desperation sure is ugly..
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 02-10-2011 at 10:46 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #3867
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Wind Power Could Kill Millions of Birds Per Year by 2030

    American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization, said today that the build-out of wind energy proposed by the federal government to meet a Department of Energy target of generating 20% of the nation’s electricity through wind power is expected to kill at least one million birds per year by 2030, and probably significantly more.

    ABC considers the one million estimate, which is based on a 2005 paper1 and widely cited by the wind industry, as likely a significant underestimate of bird mortality. For example, a more recent 2009 estimate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) indicated that approximately 440,000 birds were already being killed per year2. At the time, 22,000 turbines were in operation representing 25GW of installed capacity, a fraction of the 300GW of production capacity needed to meet the 20% by 2030 target. Wind farms are also expected to impact almost 20,000 square miles of terrestrial habitat, and over 4,000 square miles of marine habitat by 2030, some of this critical to threatened species.
    Meh, environmentalists only care if they're covered in oil.

    http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandrepor...es/110202.html

  13. #3868
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Enmore View Post
    Meh, environmentalists only care if they're covered in oil.

    http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandrepor...es/110202.html
    I wonder how many die each year from aircraft strikes, or auto strikes or just fly into buildings, trees and mountains?

    Maybe we should move to subterranian, banish motor vehicles and ground all aircraft? Oh, and bulldoze all above ground obstacles including mountains.......

  14. #3869
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Enmore View Post
    The wake effect of wind turbines:

    That's a freaky picture. If it were of oil rigs, it would be famous.

  15. #3870
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Fuggin-A!!

    House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs

    A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.

    The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency's climate authority.

    The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.

    Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.

    “It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling," Simpson said in a statement. "It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached."

    The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA's budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee's budget.

    “I realize that many of these cuts will not be popular, but the simple truth is that you can’t spend money you don’t have," Simpson said.

    The bill also prohibits funding for the president's climate change policy adviser. Carol Browner, who currently holds the position, announced last month that she is resigning. Republicans acccused Browner of holding too much influence over White House climate policy.

    The legislation includes funding limitations on another of the Obama administration’s other energy and environment priorities. It would cut funding for the Bureau of Land Managements “wild lands" policy, which would allow the Obama administration to protect lands that have not been formally designated as wilderness land. Republicans have railed against the policy, arguing it could result in restrictions in oil and gas drilling.

    It would also prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from terminating a license review for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The repository has been marred by years of regulatory delay and President Obama moved to abandon the project when he became president.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •