| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3415135/Wa shington-s-official-snowfall-17-8-inches-way-weath er-observers-LOST-measuring-device-blizzard.html When you are told that 2016 is the warmest year on record. ..... with no error mentioned, and an accuracy of one hundredth of one degree. ....... keep in mind it is very difficult to measure the temperature of a room to one degree. To one tenth degree requires a large number of calibrated temperature measurement tools......... to the point you are really measuring the waste heat from the tools. Not the room. Any thousandth or hundredth or even tenth of a degree number you read is not real. Not measured. It's a calculated average number based on a long list of assumptions and fudge factors. And that is for a ten by ten room indoors. For a planet? & when you change one assumption you change the correction. Which the Climate change folk do every year and tell you a trend exists. A trend does exist. Every year they change the correction to the average of a small sample with less than three degrees accuracy over a planet to get the answer they want. | ||
| Sifo |
Looks like no all scientists are buying into the global warming charade. Of course we knew that already, despite the constant 97% claims. It's pretty sad when science that is paid for by the public is done in secrecy though. Then used to drive policy. That sounds a lot more like politics than science. C&P in it's entirety... 300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data
| ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2016/02/04/progressi ve-exercise-science-community-embarrasses-itself/ | ||
| Ducbsa |
Good summary http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/clim ate-change-the-long-view.php | ||
| Ducbsa |
I never served, so I don't have a good perspective, but this sounds demoralizing: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pen tagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/?p age=all#pagebreak This is in line with not bombing the ISIS oil fields. | ||
| Chauly |
"Gentlemen, choose your weapons!" provided of course, that discharge or detonation of those weapons will not release emissions of CO2, toxic fumes, heat plume, high velocity gases, or other some such that would damage the immediate environs of the target. Think before you "pickle"! | ||
| Hootowl |
Please, let this silliness be over soon. | ||
| Sifo |
I actually checked to make sure I wasn't reading a piece from The Onion half way through. Less than a year for some real change! | ||
| Hootowl |
I Hope they Change it back! | ||
| Aesquire |
Even more insane...... The Air Force spent a couple of Bazillion Quatloos converting a B-52 bomber to run bio-fuel. Now it's not a crazy idea to have a backup fuel source for the day the Arabs or Russia or Iran cut off oil. The current prices are only this low because Saudi Arabia is fighting ISIS and Russia and Iran by making oil cheap. That could stop or reverse any second. ( I would be filling the U.S. national oil reserves right now if I was in charge ) However. Bio-fuel produces more Carbon dioxide than oil based jet fuel so the Greenies demanded they stop testing the converted B-52. Not a joke. | ||
| Torquehd |
Anytime a government purchase is made, the authorized purchaser is required by law to make every attempt to purchase recycled and eco-friendly products. I suspect some units strictly adhere to that guidance. Some do not and there's virtually no oversight in that regard. However, if someday I find my company unable to do offroad driving training or if there's a mandatory turn-in directive for all diesel equipment without DEF, I wouldn't be surprised. I wonder how many eco-companies lobbied for this and will get astronomical contracts, and how many officials are getting kick-backs out of these new regs... | ||
| Aesquire |
The greenie movement historically is meant to destroy western industry and weaken western civilization. Making the Armed forces carbon neutral? Perfect example. Vladimir probably has that order framed on his wall. A clever commander would factor in the carbon emissions of the enemy eliminated. Not just breathing, but lifetime emissions. At the extreme use Saddam's example, he ordered the Kuwaiti oil fields burned. Pity George the Younger didn't use that as the reasoning for freeing Iraq. Of course ultimately the extreme greens can use your lifetime carbon footprint as the justification for genocide. .....or anything. | ||
| Ducbsa |
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/brea king-supreme-court-blocks-obamas-climate-plan.php Key passage: "Obama’s EPA was betting that the slow legal process would mean that they’d have a lot of things in place, and many utilities would have complied with the EPA’s dictates, before the law was settled at the Supreme Court." | ||
| Aesquire |
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-gl obal-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-en joy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/ | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, Svensmark's report was published over six years ago, thus the recent manipulation of weather station data in order to refute it. Still no cooling though, just no warming. I really like this approach for its elegant simplicity and rock solid empirical basis. Even Scientific American is starting to recognize the truth after so many years of promoting alarmism. And even more inconvenient to the alarmist narrative, yet more reality with which to contend: | ||
| Sifo |
Even Scientific American is starting to recognize the truth after so many years of promoting alarmism. Do they have small minds, or simply expect me to have a small mind? Their very first paragraph...
They only see three possibilities? With their three questions 1) Is it real? 2) Is it man-made? 3) Is it dangerous? You should come up with eight possibilities, not three. That assumes that each question has a simple yes/no answer though. Non of them do. To me, that's been one of the biggest problems with this debate since the beginning. Any deviation from a 100% positive yes to any of those points has put you into the science "denier" category. You got the same result if you simply said that the effect wasn't as severe as they claimed. I hate to say it, but I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Do they really want to be considered a magazine of science? They've still got a long ways to go in my book. Why has it taken so may years for them to soften their stance on what has clearly been wrong for a very long time now? They have ignored the science that they claim to be adherent too. There's a important question if we are going to start injecting science into control of the climate. That is what we are talking about here when we talk about modifying our behavior based on climate. It's one thing for our actions to actually modify the climate. It's a very different thing to act with the purpose of modifying the climate. So if we are going to do the latter, it seems to me that we should first ask a very important question. I have asked this to many people on the AGW side many times. I have never gotten anything close to a coherent answer. The question is "What should the climate be?" Given that climate has never been a constant, it seems just a little bit ludicrous to believe that somehow the global temperature that we had when we first sent a satellite into orbit for the purpose of recording global temperatures just happened to be the time when the climate was the exact ideal for anything. Yet for some reason, the seems to be the target global temperature that is desired by the masses that want to control things. This subject is simply painful because of the simplistic views that the AGW crowd seems to have. If you can't bend to their simplistic world view, you must believe in a flat earth. It would be nothing more that entertainment if not for their very real desire to control things that have very real effects on our lives. Suddenly at that point, it become a very real fight for reality. These people simply don't operate in the same reality that I do. | ||
| Aesquire |
Crisis = power. The Global Crisis folk have told us since the 1970's what the goal is. Control your life. Unelected bureaucracy in charge. No more nation states. State control of where you live, what you eat, what you own, everything is to be controlled to save the planet. From you. The logic is there. Humans ruin everything. The Enlightened must rule to save us from ourselves. It is obvious anyone questioning that is an enemy of the People. Hi. Fellow enemies. | ||
| Sifo |
And even more inconvenient to the alarmist narrative, yet more reality with which to contend: Why does National Review seem to have a better grasp on science that Scientific American?  | ||
| Torquehd |
I never liked CFL's. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/26934 9-greens-faced-with-nightmare-scenario-at-the-supr eme-court “It just doesn’t seem like the Republicans are interested in solving climate change,” Coequyt added. global climate policy director for the Sierra Club I worked all day in minus 20 F windchill. I have every heater in my house going full tilt. My storm door has measurable ice on it. The temperatures haven't gone up in 18 damn years, and the Huns are expected to cross the Danube this year.... The Fall of Rome, brought us by politics and Climate Change...... I may have the Huns confused with the military age refugees from Barry's Wars, but the rape and pillage part is very nostalgic. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376%E2%80%93382) Climate change. It's real. | ||
| Aesquire |
I replaced the 6, 100 watt incandescent bulbs in my basement with 100 w equiv. CFL's. Half died inside a year. Flipping the switch and descending into the gloom is a test of balance, memory, and years of martial arts training in biofeedback control of the eye. Even better, when I painted the walls with expensive waterproofing paint, I'd find myself painting the shadows over and over again, trying to make the wall one single shade..... before figuring out ALL the walls had diagonal shadows from the CFL bulbs and no amount of paint on the planet could make the walls one color. ( thus the name of my Basement... The Pit Of Shadows ) Now that LED bulbs are getting cheaper, and considerably better, the CFL's are hitting the Lowes disposal bin. I still have first gen cluster led lights in the ceiling recesses that I installed 8 years ago. The one over the sink in the kitchen has been on continuously, ( except for about a day's worth of power failure ) since I bought it. And the new ones are massively better. I'm a conservationist. Forcing a generation to buy poisonous ugly light bulbs should be grounds to bury Nancy Pelosi in pig manure, slowly. | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, that National Review article really nails the insanity of believing that today's politicians can control reality on century long timescales. The Gore Horse Manure Treaty? ( Mankind's Only Hope For Survival!! ) I read a great article that, using the uncorrupted NASA data, points out that we will actually be under the Paris Treaty limits if we do absolutely nothing. We do need a replacement for fossil fuels. it needs to be made of something other than food. It can't displace farm land. and it must be renewable. Burn Politicians. There seems to be an unlimited supply. They are full of hot air. ( thus removing them MUST be a priority to fight Global Warming ) and very greasy, in so many ways. | ||
| Sifo |
I've got three light fixtures on the front of my house, three bulb a piece. They are lit all night, every night. Every spring and fall I would have to replace the burnt out bulb. I was looking forward to new technology that would last longer and save me money on my electric bill. I spent a good chunk of change on CFLs for those fixtures when the became available. I had a few that never lit. At least those got replaced for free by the store I bought them from. Come the cold weather, and many of them wouldn't light at all. By spring time, I had as many burnt out as I would with the old style bulbs. I trashed them all. It was an expensive experiment. Eventually I got some LED bulbs. When lit, they look exactly the color of the incandescent bulbs they replaced. It's been 4 or 5 years now and I haven't replaced a single bulb. They were about the price of the CFLs, have better light quality, and have lived up to the long life hype. They also are cheaper to burn than CFLs. Government really SUCKS at picking winning technologies. Probably because it's a matter of political favors to them, rather than evaluation of technologies. | ||
| Aesquire |
General Electric spent a lot in bribes to "have no choice" but to close their Syracuse NY light bulb plant and move to a Chinese factory to produce poison dim bulbs. The reason the U.S. nuclear power program used Uranium was to produce Plutonium for bombs. Today all over the country spent fuel rods sit in pools as per Law, awaiting transport to the Congressionally mandated recycling centers. That were never built. ( because......Congress ) Early automobile development in England was long delayed because the law required an advance team ( on horseback ) with lights and flags to proceed the car and warn traffic of its coming. When Congress outlaws human driven cars and motorcycles...... for your safety, in a world of robot cars, some will notice the bribes, and it won't matter. Btw. Will your robot car be programmed to sacrifice your life to save children? When I cut off the Robot car to keep it from running over the children leaving the school bus, will it curse me like the humans do? Or just ram me? Or drive into a building? | ||
| Blake |
Gee Tom, the guy had to get the article published. I bet that was no small task. Don't become too concerned with the details that you miss the huge unprecedented concession Scientific American is making. Every month or so there are new scientific papers being released that are challenging the IPCC's narrative. The one that I linked to above is rock solid, about impossible to question. Others are exposing the error in the presupposition that the IPCC has been basing all its work upon, that warming is primarily man caused and leading to global catastrophe. Spread the information as much as possible. When intelligent people see it, they are at least given cause to be skeptical of the alarmist narrative. Then show them how the historic surface temperature measurements have been repeatedly manipulated so as to not defy the IPCC narrative. Then show them the emails between scientists colluding to hide the data contradicting their narrative, and their conspiracy to shut out the work of skeptical scientists. The evidence against the political schemers is overwhelming. Our media is so thorough corrupt, but we have ourselves and the power of the Internet, at least for now. China already has their claws into ICAAN. I digress. <sigh> | ||
| Blake |
Compact fluorescent light bulbs? Before LEDs, I liked 'em! CFLs have worked great for us, the only complaints being the slow warm-up time for the early models; newer bulbs have solved that issue. Besides, it was kind of nice first thing in the morning suffering from night vision dilation to have the light gradually intensify over 20 or 30 seconds. I think we have typically used Sylvania and Phillips brand bulbs. All freakin "made in China", cause GE and Phillips couldn't see their way to investing in new factories. Idiots! I digress. There have been a few of our CFL bulbs that didn't live up to their advertised lifespan, but the vast majority seem to have exceeded it. I was originally very skeptical, and so wrote the date of install with a black sharpie onto the base of each bulb. I recently went through a period spanning a few years replacing burned out bulbs in most all our fixtures around 28 or 29 out of 33 bulbs in total. All but a few were over four years old, a few were over eight years, from the first round of CFL bulbs we ever used. We even use regular indoor CFL bulbs at the front porch and in our back patio/entry lighting. They're under roof and/or the eave, so largely protected from weather; the birds and insects are fond of them. Those too lasted well over four years. They do warm up slowly in the cold, so probably not viable up North. If the CFL bulbs were typically falling well short of their advertised lifespan, have no doubt that some enterprising class action lawyer would be all over that. It would be easy money. But regardless, the new LEDs are so much better, even more efficient, way longer lasting, instant full brightness even in cold, and no need for hazardous waste handling protocol for disposal. So far we're up to eight LED bulbs. One thing that is intriguing is the huge market effect the twenty year LED bulbs will have. The market for replacement bulbs will essentially be decimated. LEDs for vehicles are a godsend! At roughly eight times the efficiency of incandescent headlight bulbs, for motorcycles we'll either have reduced weight via a lighter generator or another 50 watts of surplus capacity for our auxiliary power supply sockets.  But we digress. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple -timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0 Technology... Government. While I can agree with the Feeb that it would be good to have the contents of the phone of a murderer Jihadi, they are asking Apple to create a hacking tool to get into the phone, and once that tool is made, and handed to them, they can then hack every Apple Phone. The battle between privacy and the government's desire to look at your stuff is a Constitutional question. I want to stay on the individual rights side. But, we are at war. The trouble is that for political reasons, ( or insanity, or personal reasons, depending on who ) we don't have a clearly defined enemy, except American Citizens... with published lists of "probable terrorists" mostly being folk who don't agree with the Administration. So I'm mixed on this one. I don't want the FBI to hack my phone, ( I figure they already can. Not that there's anything on my phone I'm ashamed of... I think ) and can see the point of view of the folk at Apple. I also want the FBI to catch terrorists. Opinion? | ||
| Reepicheep |
The only people I don't agree with are the ones that claim either extreme. That there isn't a security risk, or that there isn't a privacy concern. There are both, and its a matter of choosing which bad thing you let happen to achieve which good thing. | ||
| Sifo |
The FBI should be asking Apple to crack this one phone. Asking them to essentially provide the key to all phones is a bit like telling the post office that the FBI is allowed to open any mail it sees fit to do so with. Who's watching the watch dogs? |
