Jump to content

Temperature records smashed for the 7th month in a row


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Joremarid said:

I gave you the basic equation as to which co2 affects acid base balance. Protein denaturation and thus life breaks down outside of a normal range of acid base ballance. Le chateliers principle explains what happens to a chemical equation when a component is altered. This isn't platitudes. This isn't theory. This is scientific fact. If you can disprove the effect of acid base ballance on protein denaturation and disprove le chateliers principle show it and go collect your Nobel prize. 

Let me guess, you assume there is a "normal" acid base balance on earth and ignore that this also fluctuates severely over the earths history, yet we are still all alive?  How does this happen?

Scientists predicted we'd all starve to death by now not more than 40 years ago, yet we are still alive.

Obama told us all in 2008  we couldn't drill our way out of the $4 per gallon gas costs and that we didn't have enough reserves to last. This was a falsehood almost as big as you getting to keep your health plan and Doctor if you liked them. His staff was caught on a hot mic ridiculing the general public stating they only passed Oabamacare becuase the voters were stupid. Why do you believe anything your government tells you?

Scientists predicted 15 years ago there would be way more hurricanes over the last 10 years due to global warming, yet it's been one of the quietist decade for hurricanes in some time .

If you look at this issue objectively as I have just wanting to know the truth, you will not fall prey to the lies, half truths and cooked data used to manipulate the lemmings.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Again where is the half truth in le chateliers principle?  Where us the platitudes? Science also lead to the computer and Internet which gives you a platform to speak your anti science agenda.  Take my post, remove normal and re insert "compatible with life".yes there are compatible with life pH ranges. The idea that you can add as much co2 to a system that supports life and still expect it to is ridiculous especially when based off of the logic "it's what plants crave"

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Joremarid said:

Again where is the half truth in le chateliers principle?  Where us the platitudes? Science also lead to the computer and Internet which gives you a platform to speak your anti science agenda.  Take my post, remove normal and re insert "compatible with life".yes there are compatible with life pH ranges. The idea that you can add as much co2 to a system that supports life and still expect it to is ridiculous especially when based off of the logic "it's what plants crave"

Well, Al Gore did invent the internet so you've got a good point there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gazoo said:

Let me guess, you assume there is a "normal" acid base balance on earth and ignore that this also fluctuates severely over the earths history, yet we are still all alive?  How does this happen?

Scientists predicted we'd all starve to death by now not more than 40 years ago, yet we are still alive.

Obama told us all in 2008  we couldn't drill our way out of the $4 per gallon gas costs and that we didn't have enough reserves to last. This was a falsehood almost as big as you getting to keep your health plan and Doctor if you liked them. His staff was caught on a hot mic ridiculing the general public stating they only passed Oabamacare becuase the voters were stupid. Why do you believe anything your government tells you?

Scientists predicted 15 years ago there would be way more hurricanes over the last 10 years due to global warming, yet it's been one of the quietist decade for hurricanes in some time .

If you look at this issue objectively as I have just wanting to know the truth, you will not fall prey to the lies, half truths and cooked data used to manipulate the lemmings.

 

Seriously, why don't we just quit this charade and give them the money they are asking for.  In other words, who/where should I send my global warming check to?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Seriously, why don't we just quit this charade and give them the money they are asking for.  In other words, who/where should I send my global warming check?  

We can get on the internet that Al Gore said he invented shortly before coming out with Joremarids favorite inconvenient movie that has been largely debunked.

How many times do these hpguys have to get lied to and peddled cooked data before they start questioning this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, gazoo said:

We can get on the internet that Al Gore said he invented shortly before coming out with Joremarids favorite inconvenient movie that has been largely debunked.

How many times do these hpguys have to get lied to and peddled cooked data before they start questioning this?

How many lemmings go over the cliff before the other lemmings stop?  There is your answer Gaz.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always point out the simple minded sheep conservatives as soon as they make a tired "hurr durr Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet" comment. 

It's literally a scientifically illiterate circle jerk in here. It's amusing to watch them bounce between there isn't warming, there's cooling, actually nothing is changing at all, but even if it is it's not a big deal, but nothing is happening, to no it's really cooling. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gazoo said:

We can get on the internet that Al Gore said he invented shortly before coming out with Joremarids favorite inconvenient movie that has been largely debunked.

How many times do these hpguys have to get lied to and peddled cooked data before they start questioning this?

Where did I comment on mmgw, al gore, or his movie?  I commented on the idea that co2 levels didn't matter because "that's what plants crave"

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lostone said:

This thread is a clear case of no matter what you believe, you can find data to validate any belief you hold.  I bet I can find some articles that say to consume as much sugar as possible because sugar is good for you.

There are some things we just know as a fact.

Our government lies to us. This has been proven countless times, as recently as " it was a movie that caused the attack by some protestors and it just coincidence it was anniversary of 9/11" and " if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan, period". Fort Hood terrorist attack "Workplace violence". 

Since we know we are lied to all the time by government, why wouldnt one question reports prepared by government agencies like NASA? 

We also know for a fact, have the UN official on camera saying global warming isn't about the environment, it's about wealth distribution". We already know wealth distribution is EXACTLY what CAP and Trade pushed by the progressives does.

We already know for a fact literraly dozens of five alarm predictions of global warming have already been proven to have been wrong. We have a long track record of wildly inaccurate predictions by climate scientists. The same scientists that can't even tell us  for sure if it's going to rain tomorrow, but claim to be able to predict the end of civilization due to the global temperature increasing by less than one degree over the last 150 years which is far less than many temperature fluctuations prior to the industrial revolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few predictions from Earth Day 1970:

1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”

This warning was made by Harvard biologist, Dr. George Wald who had won the Nobel Prize in Medicine three years earlier. Dr. Wald passed away in 1997 but civilization is hanging in there.

2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”

The brilliant Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich may have been thinking of the third world when he made that prediction because here in the Western World, obesity seems to be bit of a problem.

3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”

Dr. Ehrlich made this prediction as well shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.

4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”

Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said ”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world will be in famine.” Sigh.

5: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”

On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gazoo said:

A few crazy predictions from Earth Day 1970:

1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”

This warning was made by Harvard biologist, Dr. George Wald who had won the Nobel Prize in Medicine three years earlier. Dr. Wald passed away in 1997 but civilization is hanging in there.

2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”

The brilliant Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich may have been thinking of the third world when he made that prediction because here in the Western World, obesity seems to be bit of a problem.

3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”

Dr. Ehrlich made this prediction as well shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.

4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”

Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said ”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Sigh.

5: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”

On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t

You have to love faculty lounge predictions.  That's why the elites are running this country right into the ground.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, pzummo said:

Pollution = Bad.  We agree.

I don't agree with letting the government put carbon taxes on the public, put additional restrictions on the public, and putting the burden on the public to fix this problem.  I don't agree with any of that, because we did not create this problem.  The Dems always look at the public with their hands out wanting them to fund the next big problem we didn't create with false promises that they can fix it.  Was it the public's fault people couldn't afford healthcare?  No.  But the government sure as **** took from the public in order to fix it, from anyone that pays taxes and can afford to pay the full price of coverage.  Let's squeeze every drop we can out of the public making it even harder for them to move up the social ladder, while we help corporations make bigger profits.

The government needs to do their f'ing job.  They have data centers using a ton of electricity to keep track of our communications.  They have data centers using a ton of electricity to manage our healthcare.  They have landfills of waste polluting the entire planet (land, sea, and air).  People need to wake up.  The problem is not the 20% from the public.  The problem is the 80% of this system of waste, and a bloated government is the most wasteful of all.  

Honestly, I can't understand why anybody would support the Dems at all at this point.  Raising taxes on the middle class and upper middle class makes it more difficult to get to a point of financial security.  If I work my *** off to provide for my family, pay my taxes, and live a life making good choices, who are they to say I can't have a car that goes 0-60 in 3 seconds for some weekend fun?  Who are they to expect me to pay them money for that privilege like they provided it to me, while they are just making it harder for me to indulge in a luxury I want to indulge in?  Because my 100 miles per week or 5000 miles per year is going to make a dent in the 5B+ tons of pollution all of their buddies are dumping into the environment.  And why are you so willing to give up personal choice in addition to your hard earned money to a government that has a history of not spending it very well, and rarely in the general public's best interest?  

In case it went unnoticed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pzummo said:

In case it went unnoticed.

Agree with everything you said. Many, except for the most ideological, are realizing they have been conned by the democrats and establishment republicans. We need a businessman in the White House to clean some of the corruption out.

Get ready for a president Trump, who just coincidentally will be giving a speech on energy independence over the next week or so. Only a brain-damaged ideological leftist would do everything in their power to shut down fracking ( that also gets us clean burning natural gas)in the states yet continue to buy oil from hostile nations that use our wealth transfer to fund terrorism. 

While Trump could suck as a president, a highly successful businessman who surrounds himself with highly talented, capable, knowledgable people ( as opposed to ideologues and college professors who only think they know everything) would give this county a much better chance at turning around than voting in the second coming of Obama and perpetuate these crippling destruction policies him and his ideological progressives have implemented the last 7 years.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Joremarid said:

I gave you the basic equation as to which co2 affects acid base balance. Protein denaturation and thus life breaks down outside of a normal range of acid base ballance. Le chateliers principle explains what happens to a chemical equation when a component is altered. This isn't platitudes. This isn't theory. This is scientific fact. If you can disprove the effect of acid base ballance on protein denaturation and disprove le chateliers principle show it and go collect your Nobel prize. 

Joremarid, you bring up a good question in regards to Le Chateliers principal. Could it be explain with the notion of tossing a pebble in a pool, watching the waves expand away from the insertion point, but then smooths back over time? The real issue with using LCP is that we do not know the elements starting point. 

We saw the oil spill in La in 2008/09 and everyone cried that the environment was harmed for ever. Well, the sea water, the wave action broke it down to the point we can't even notice the damage. 

Co2 is a life giver to our planet. It greens our planet. It's also a very, very minor element in our atmosphere. Its a tiny trace element in comparison to the others. Co2 from volcanic processes far out weighs what man has added to our planet. Think about the Billions of years of fire, volcanic eruptions and ask, where did the carbon, Co2 go? The answer is simple but complex. The earth absorbs it, uses it and grows with it. Plants are fed by it, grow, die and become carbon once again. Our oceans, very misunderstood trap it and our sea's are conveyor belts for life as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points dirty hairy.

Here is my problem with a lot of science coming from government funded sources who are clearly pushing an agenda and have been caught red handed numerous times doing so.

A climate scientist could make the argument to their devout followers that if I empty a bucket of water into the Atlantic Ocean that my actions are harmful as it can be scientifically proven that I just raised the sea level. However, a peer review study may indicate that since I took the water from a river flowing into the Atlantic I really did not contribute to the rise of the sea level, and even if I had gotten the water from a fresh water lake the rise in sea level caused by my actions was not statistically significant. 

We KNOW FOR A FACT we are being lied to by the government yet some insist on believing what govermenment agencies tell us about global warming and dismiss any peer review that questions these government studies.

To your point above, you are correct to point out the earths ecosystem has made corrections for all kinds of historic events that have been exponentially more dramatic than what is going on today by mankind. Scientists claimed Prince William Sound was permanently destroyed by Exxon Valdez yet I visit it just 15 years later and there was zero evidence of an environmental disaster, it was a pristine teeming with wildlife area.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Free Radical said:

Stop pretending you care about peer reviewed studies. Global warming is so unanimous amongst the scientific community you might as well be a flat earther. 

Radical, please allow the adults to continue this conversation without your input. We are actually debating this topic in a polite manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do liberals hate science? The Left has long claimed that it has something of a monopoly on scientific expertise.

For instance, long before Al Gore started making millions by claiming that anyone who disagreed with his apocalyptic prophecies was “anti-science,” there were the “scientific socialists.” “Social engineer” is now rightly seen as a term of scorn and derision, but it was once a label that progressive eggheads eagerly accepted.  Masking opinions in a white smock is a brilliant, albeit infuriating and shabby, rhetorical tactic. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Science is the language of facts, and when people pretend to be speaking it, they’re not only claiming that their preferences are more than mere opinions, they’re also insinuating that anyone who disagrees is a fool or a zealot for objecting to “settled science.”

Put aside the fact that there is no such thing as settled science. Scientists are constantly questioning their understanding of things; that is what science does. All the great scientists of history are justly famous for overturning the assumptions of their fields.

The real problem is that in politics, invocations of science are very often marketing techniques masquerading as appeals to irrefutable authority. In an increasingly secular society, having science on your side is better than having God on your side – at least in an argument. 

But the real intent behind so many claims to “settled science” is to avoid having to make your case. It’s an undemocratic technique for delegitimizing opposing views and saying “shut up” to dissenters.  For example, even if the existence of global warming is “settled,” the policies for how to best respond to it are not. But in the political debates about climate change, activists say that their climatological claims are irrefutable and so are their preferred remedies. 

Why are liberalism’s pet issues the lodestars of what constitutes scientific fact? If climate change is the threat they claim, I’d rather spend billions on geoengineering to fix it than trillions on impoverishing economic policies that at best slightly delay it. It doesn’t matter; I’m the Luddite buffoon for thinking ethanol subsidies and windmills are boondoggles.  Even more outrageous: If you dispute, say, the necessity of spending billions on windmills or on killing the coal industry, you are not merely wrong on climate change, you are “anti-science.” Intellectually, this is a monument of asininity so wide and tall, even the mind’s eye cannot glimpse its horizon or peak.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Statick said:

123 degree record in India...:o

So tell me, what exactly does that mean to you?  That mankind is warming the planet? Really?

Are you aware what's been happening here in the United States? A sharp, prolonged siege of Arctic air shattered daily, even April monthly record lows in the Northeast and Great Lakes as April 2016 kicked off.

A few daily record low temperatures were set Sunday morning including Dubois, Pennsylvania (12 degrees); Youngstown, Ohio (15 degrees); Erie, Pennsylvania (20 degrees); Bluefield, West Virginia (20 degrees)

Lows Saturday morning, April 9, dipped into the teens below zero in the Arrowhead of Minnesota. Duluth, Minnesota (4 degrees) and St. Cloud, Minnesota (13 degrees) set new daily record lows. 

Of course, all this is "records" as far as a microscopic period of world history. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Statick said:

It means to me that if some of us keep sticking our heads in the sand, that the world is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas...

So the hot temperature is proof mankind is warming the world but the cold temperatures mean nothing to you, and anyone who disagrees with your apocalyptic prophecies is “anti-science" with their head stuck in the sand.

ok

Are you aware of all the apocalyptic prophesies surround AGW that have already been proven wrong?  Are you aware climate scientists have been caught red handed trying to deceive the public? Are you aware a UN Offical was recorded saying Global Warming isn't about the environment but a scam to transfer wealth from wealthy countries to poor countries? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gazoo said:

So the hot temperature means something but the cold temperatures mean nothing to you, and anyone who disagrees with your apocalyptic prophecies is “anti-science".

ok

Not particularly my POV, but I can see that you're one of those overly-defensive persons. One who gets p*ss on your head and say that it's raining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...