Page 14 of 145 FirstFirst ... 49101112131415161718192464114 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 2881

Thread: Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

  1. #261
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,643
    yeah, didn't think you'd read any of that stuff.

    i didn't paint any of those guys as working for the oil companies, just the one you posted about on the last page. my comment about big oil spending money still stands and also has nothing to do with your accusation.

    who's disingenuous?

  2. #262
    You are!

    Here's the guys complete bio w/ the good, bad and ugly as opposed to a hit piece by the guys at SS.

    I'll have a post on those motherfuckers up shortly...

    Varenholt had studied Chemistry in Münster and started his professional career at the federal Umweltbundesamt (environmental protection agency) in Berlin and the Ministry for Environment of Hesse. From 1984 till 1990 he was in a leading role in Hamburg, first as Staatsrat for environment, 1990 to 1991 for the administral Senatskanzlei, and the Umweltsenator (senator for the environment) in Hamburg from 1991 to 1997.

    In 1998 he entered the energy industry and until 2001 was on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary. In 2001 he moved to post of CEO of the wind turbine company REpower Systems AG and remained there until 2007. From February 2008 he was CEO of electric power company RWE subsidiary RWE Innogy, a post he will step down from in mid-2012. Prof. Dr. Varenholt has a doctorate in Chemistry. In 1999 he was made an Honorary Professor of chemistry at the University of Hamburg.[1][2][3]

  3. #263
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,643
    "hit piece"

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    "shit piece"
    Fify

  5. #265
    So when ITC posts a slanted take on a climate skeptic, it's a shit piece. But when you post slanted takes on climate science, it's legit?

  6. #266
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,643
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdoublezero View Post
    So when ITC posts a slanted take on a climate skeptic, it's a shit piece. But when you post slanted takes on climate science, it's legit?

  7. #267
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Fify
    good one

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Well then, what in the hell is he doing on the IPCC panel!?

    I wait...
    Maybe he's an awesome weatherman?
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  9. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdoublezero View Post
    So when ITC posts a slanted take on a climate skeptic, it's a shit piece. But when you post slanted takes on climate science, it's legit?
    I don't think you get it. If you begin looking you will see just who is driving the slander machine in all of this. You step out of line and take a stand in opposition to the IPCC and your reputation will be smeared. From the wholly noxious use of the word "denier" - a despicable practice of applying this loaded term to the constant drumbeat of "oil" and "heartland" when these scientists,many left-leaning, are using the forums which are available. I understand the opportunism of the oil lobby and ultra conservatives in using these platforms...but I think you'd be hard pressed to show a monetary link for the research. Heartland hears that "so and so" has come out with new research and Heartland calls and offers a forum. Heartland is not paying for the science and then putting it on display. They are base-line opportunists with little in the way of a moral compass sans the salvation they believe will come from oil profits. I guarantee you these scientists who disagree would love a more open looking forum.

    The shills for shell stuff is just smear. These are academics and they come from all over the political spectrum. A great many are ultra liberal and if you will do some background you will find similarities with your own thinking. At that point you may ask yourself "why are these people arguing against something we all 'know' is true."

    Once you see their numbers and determine they are not morally corrupt nor bat- shit crazy you may begin to actually hear the arguments they are making.
    Last edited by Lectro; 01-15-2014 at 09:54 AM.

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    I don't think you get it. If you begin looking you will see just who is driving the slander machine in all of this. You step out of line and take a stand in opposition to the IPCC and your reputation will be smeared. From the wholly noxious use of the word "denier" - a despicable practice of applying this loaded term to the constant drumbeat of "oil" and "heartland" when these scientists,many left-leaning, are using the forums which are available. I understand the opportunism of the oil lobby and ultra conservatives in using these platforms...but I think you'd be hard pressed to show a monetary link for the research. Heartland hears that "so and so" has come out with new research and Heartland calls and offers a forum. Heartland is not paying for the science and then putting it on display. They are base-line opportunists with little in the way of a moral compass sans the salvation they believe will come from oil profits. I guarantee you these scientists who disagree would love a more open looking forum.

    The shills for shell stuff is just smear. These are academics and they come from all over the political spectrum. A great many are ultra liberal and if you will do some background you will find similarities with your own thinking. At that point you may ask yourself "why are these people arguing against something we all 'know' is true."

    Once you see their numbers and determine they are not morally corrupt nor bat- shit crazy you may begin to actually hear the arguments they are making.
    OK, so ... slanted sources are OK if they support your viewpoint. Got it.

  11. #271
    If climate change is not enough to persuade you that we ought to do things differently, would other issues like harmful pollution or limited resources convince you?

  12. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by WFFaithful View Post
    If climate change is not enough to persuade you that we ought to do things differently, would other issues like harmful pollution or limited resources convince you?
    Those issues can be taken on their own and in a time frame that does not significantly alter developing countries...many of which cannot possibly sustain the costs of implementing technologies -- costs we are struggling to absorb.

    My argument is with the crowd telling us that the "end is nigh" with all the attendant tropes as you'd find in a Bronze Age manuscript..."boiling seas and a landscape destined to look like Mars". I mean this type narrative provides strong competition for the Book of Revelations.

    On a personal level I am very involved with almost every aspect of recycling...at least as regards most commercial and res haz mats, computers, peripherals,industrial lacquers, ink,network gear, concrete,asphalt, tires,pallets etcetera,etc.

    Our trucks also run on special diesel from recycled oil.

  13. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Those issues can be taken on their own and in a time frame that does not significantly alter developing countries...many of which cannot possibly sustain the costs of implementing technologies -- costs we are struggling to absorb.

    My argument is with the crowd telling us that the "end is nigh" with all the attendant tropes as you'd find in a Bronze Age manuscript..."boiling seas and a landscape destined to look like Mars". I mean this type narrative provides strong competition for the Book of Revelations.

    On a personal level I am very involved with almost every aspect of recycling...at least as regards most commercial and res haz mats, computers, peripherals,industrial lacquers, ink,network gear, concrete,asphalt, tires,pallets etcetera,etc.

    Our trucks also run on special diesel from recycled oil.
    No kidding. You recycle just about every article you can cut and paste.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  14. #274
    The Australian Open says Lectro
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  15. #275
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    government funds the vast majority of research in this country, climate related or otherwise so comparing big oil to it is fucking stupid and dishonest, and you know it
    The US spends something like $400b total. The US government R&D budget is around $140b.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...pment_spending

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42410.pdf‎

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by WFFaithful View Post
    If climate change is not enough to persuade you that we ought to do things differently, would other issues like harmful pollution or limited resources convince you?
    This has never at any time been about people not wanting to "do things differently", it's about a CO2 theory that is claimed will be catastrophic if not addressed immediately.

    Believers believe CO2 will be catastrophic, that it is possible to generate energy with basically no environmental footprint, and that big oil is blinding non-believers into buying it's product and not developing the no footprint energy source.

    Non-believers don't think CO2 will be catastrophic for a variety of reasons, believe that we should pursue energy solutions that have low environmental impact, but recognize that carbon sources are the most efficient and cheap energy source available, with one of the smallest environmental footprints. If CO2 is not catastrophic it makes all the sense in the world to burn carbon while developing new technology, even low cost carbon sequestration technology if it pleases the believers.

    There is little doubt that if the catastrophic CO2 theory is bunk, then carbon sources are probably the most all around environmentally friendly energy source. The theory will be doing harm, not good. That's part of the null hypothesis that never gets questioned.

  17. #277
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,643
    Quote Originally Posted by pourdeac View Post
    The US spends something like $400b total. The US government R&D budget is around $140b.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...pment_spending

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42410.pdf‎
    hm, the seocnd link was broken. im wondering what percentage of the R&D total is biomedical related. i should've stated climate/environment related research was backed by uncle sam, but I could be wrong.
    Last edited by ImTheCaptain; 01-17-2014 at 12:12 PM.

  18. #278
    BBC report on the dramatically cooling sun. One scientists suggests that there is a 20% probability we'll be in a Maunder Minimum in 40 years, which means Little Ice Age. That was actually forecast more than a decade ago by some solar cycle modelers (not in report).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    hm, the seocnd link was broken. im wondering what percentage of the R&D total is biomedical related. i should've stated climate/environment related research was backed by uncle sam, but I could be wrong.
    That all depends on how one labels the research. There's a tremendous amount of private energy research looking for other energy sources and such that IMO would fall into these fields since it's related.

    Maybe this link will work. It'd a PDF.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...,d.cWc&cad=rja

  20. #280
    While the Little Ice Age is called "regional" by one scientist in the BBC report and basically a wash temperature wise, there is a tremendous amount of peer reviewed data that refutes that notion. It's pretty obvious the period was global. I'm not sure how anyone could ignore it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    Asia

    In China, warm-weather crops, such as oranges, were abandoned in Jiangxi Province, where they had been grown for centuries.[41] Also, two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China (AD 1660-1680, 1850–1880).[42]
    Mesoamerica

    An analysis of several proxies undertaken in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, linked by its authors to Mayan and Aztec chronicles relating periods of cold and drought, supports the existence of the Little Ice Age in the region.[43]
    Southern Hemisphere

    Since the discovery of the Little Ice Age, there have been doubts about whether it was a global phenomenon or a cold spell restricted to the Northern Hemisphere. In recent years, several scientific works have pointed out the existence of cold spells and climate changes in areas of the Southern Hemisphere and their correlation to the Little Ice Age.
    Africa

    In Southern Africa, sediment cores retrieved from Lake Malawi show colder conditions between 1570 and 1820, suggesting the Lake Malawi records "further support, and extend, the global expanse of the Little Ice Age."[44]

    A novel 3,000-year temperature reconstruction method based on the rate of stalagmite growth in a cold cave in South Africa suggests a cold period from 1500 to 1800 "characterizing the South African Little Ice age."[45]

    In Ethiopia and Mauritania, permanent snow was reported on mountain peaks at levels where it does not occur today.[41] Timbuktu, an important city on the trans-Saharan caravan route, was flooded at least 13 times by the Niger River; there are no records of similar flooding before or since.[41]
    Antarctica

    Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age.[46] An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin in the Antarctic Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[47] The authors note "other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear."
    CO2 mixing ratios at Law Dome

    The Siple Dome (SD) has a climate event with an onset time that is coincident with that of the LIA in the North Atlantic based on a correlation with the GISP2 record. This event is the most dramatic climate event seen in the SD Holocene glaciochemical record.[48] The Siple Dome ice core also contained its highest rate of melt layers (up to 8%) between 1550 and 1700, most likely because of warm summers during the LIA.[49]

    Law Dome ice cores show lower levels of CO2 mixing ratios during 1550–1800 AD, leading investigators Etheridge and Steele to conjecture "probably as a result of colder global climate."[50]

    Sediment cores in Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, have neoglacial indicators by diatom and sea-ice taxa variations during the period of the LIA.[51]

    The MES stable isotope record suggests that the Ross Sea region experienced 1.6 ± 1.4 °C cooler average temperatures during the LIA in comparison to the last 150 yr [52]
    Australia

    There is limited evidence about conditions in Australia, though lake records in Victoria suggest that conditions, at least in the south of the state, were wet and/or unusually cool. In the north of the continent, the limited evidence suggests fairly dry conditions, while coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef show similar rainfall as today but with less variability. A study that analyzed isotopes in Great Barrier Reef corals suggested that increased water vapor transport from southern tropical oceans to the poles contributed to the LIA.[53] Borehole reconstructions from Australia suggest that, over the last 500 years, the seventeenth century was the coldest in that continent, although the borehole temperature reconstruction method does not show good agreement between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.[54]
    Pacific Islands

    Sea-level data for the Pacific Islands suggest that sea level in the region fell, possibly in two stages, between AD 1270 and 1475. This was associated with a 1.5 °C fall in temperature (determined from oxygen-isotope analysis) and an observed increase in El Niño frequency.[55]
    New Zealand

    On the west coast of the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the Franz Josef glacier advanced rapidly during the Little Ice Age, reaching its maximum extent in the early eighteenth century, in one of the few places where a glacier thrust into a rain forest.[33] Based on dating of a yellow-green lichen of the Rhizocarpon subgenus, the Mueller Glacier, on the eastern flank of the Southern Alps within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, is considered to have been at its maximum extent between 1725 and 1730.[56]
    South America

    Tree-ring data from Patagonia show cold episodes between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670, periods contemporary with LIA events in the Northern Hemisphere.[57][58] Eight sediment cores taken from Puyehue Lake have been interpreted as showing a humid period from 1470 to 1700, which the authors describe as a regional marker of LIA onset.[59] A 2009 paper details cooler and wetter conditions in southeastern South America between 1550 and 1800 AD, citing evidence obtained via several proxies and models.[60]

    18O records from three Andean ice cores show a cool period from 1600-1800 [61]

    Although it only provides anecdotal evidence, in 1675, the Spanish explorer Antonio de Vea entered San Rafael Lagoon through Río Témpanos (Spanish for "Ice Floe River") without mentioning any ice floe and stated that the San Rafael Glacier did not reach far into the lagoon. In 1766, another expedition noticed that the glacier did reach the lagoon and calved into large icebergs. Hans Steffen visited the area in 1898, noticing that the glacier penetrated far into the lagoon. Such historical records indicate a general cooling in the area between 1675 and 1898, and "The recognition of the LIA in northern Patagonia, through the use of documentary sources, provides important, independent evidence for the occurrence of this phenomenon in the region."[62] As of 2001, the border of the glacier has significantly retreated compared to the borders of 1675.[62]

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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