ADVERTISEMENT

Climate Scientists Say, "Oops"

Anybody that denies researches are not influenced by the flowing of dollars of global warming are not being honest with themselves. The researches at these schools and research think tanks survive by getting funding. I should know, I try to grab some of those $$$$ when I can. hahaaaa
 
Three platforms where republicans are losing the American public:

1. Trump - We don't allow incessant lying and BS behavior in our children, and we don't want it in our leadership.

2. Healthcare - Americans want a healthcare system that offers the opportunity for basic coverage for all without penalizing those with pre-existing conditions. This is the issue Dems ran on during the mid-terms......and won....BIGLY.

3. Climate change - Why we choose to listen to the position of "politicals" tied to the fossil fuel industry defies rational thought. And the claim "climate change is a money grab for research dollars" also doesn't make sense when you consider, as the effects of climate change become more prevalent, the NEED to know the why, when, what, where and how will grow. In other words, there's a need for the research - not because we've been duped into believing a false narrative, but because the effects of climate change are here....we're living with it.

Seems strange to me how some can accept that climate change is a research money grab; then, totally ignore money the fossil fuel industry is pouring into the debate - attempting to debunk the research while buying political support.

If you really want to follow the money, the really big money, you might want to start with the Koch brothers.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...ment-the-koch-brothers-campaign-becomes-overt

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/...l-have-taken-millions-koch-brothers-and-exxon

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-big-money-in-politics-blocked-u-s-action-on-climate-change

https://www.gq.com/story/billionaires-climate-change
 
Last edited:
Chevy1 said:
Seems strange to me how some can accept that climate change is a research money grab; then, totally ignore money the fossil fuel industry is pouring into the debate - attempting to debunk the research while buying political support.
Click to expand...

It’s not strange at all. It’s a complete money grab. Liberal groups and governments are pouring billions into promoting the “causes”. Why can’t there be billions researching and promoting why the “causes” blindly accepted are not completely truthful?

The Koch bros are a drop in the bucket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
raleighherdfan said:
It’s not strange at all. It’s a complete money grab. Liberal groups and governments are pouring billions into promoting the “causes”. Why can’t there be billions researching and promoting why the “causes” blindly accepted are not completely truthful?

The Koch bros are a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...

Damn!

Shell Oil Company even admits climate change induced from burning fossil fuels/ CO2 emissions.

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html
 
wvkeeper(HN) said:
Please don't tell me you linked a Greenpeace article that I'm supposed to take seriously.

That's like putting a Stormfront post in here when discussing Israel.
Click to expand...
Well.....can't argue that one.

gotta admit I was readin', cuttin' and pastin' pretty quick. Probably should have left that one off the list
 
raleighherdfan said:
It’s not strange at all. It’s a complete money grab. Liberal groups and governments are pouring billions into promoting the “causes”. Why can’t there be billions researching and promoting why the “causes” blindly accepted are not completely truthful?

The Koch bros are a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...

"reveling in ignorance has become a central qualification to be able to call yourself a conservative in this era.... to the country's great detriment."
 
  • Like
Reactions: extragreen
GK4Herd said:
Science...unlike ideology...corrects itself when they are wrong. Something about the truth meaning more than the agenda.
Click to expand...

this takes me back to the time I posted a link to all those incorrect environmentalist/alarmist predictions that libs have lapped up like fools over the last 40 years.
 
19MU88 said:
this takes me back to the time I posted a link to all those incorrect environmentalist/alarmist predictions that libs have lapped up like fools over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

Missed that. Loved to see the link.
 
19MU88 said:
I’d guess most likely you forgot.
Click to expand...

Not likely. Link?

I ask with no hopes of you producing it because I’m quite certain that your memory of it is distorted and finding it would only prove that point.
 
i am herdman said:
We are allowed to have different opinions. Again, I said we are in a warming period. Where we disagree is what the cause of this is. What I find funny, is all the alarmist and basically climate change amublance chasers run around going OMG look at the hurricanes now. What they don't talk about is the 20 year or so pattern where there weren't major hurricanes or they don't about bad storms in the 1960's or other years where there were similar patterns. Are the hurricanes worse or is the poopulaton near the coast more now and there is a bigger problem when they hit? They don't talk about LaNina and ElNino(sp?) years that influence the patterns and those are always present.

I remember the same alarm bells when all these folks were talking about ice ages back in the 70's or 80's.


There is an absolute money trail. If you are a professor at let's say Marshall and you can get a large grant to study global warming. Then, what are you going to do? Ring alarm bells and draw attention to it. If you are at NOAA and you can get money to keep your job or get money for research what are you going to do?

There are certainly a list of scientist and PHD level folks who disagree with the man made causes of global warming. That info is readily available.

Most academic types of I know believe in it. But, they also are pretty much on the left leaning side of most issues.

We just disagree. I am not dumb or uneducated. I just don't believe in all of the hub bub.
Click to expand...


As I said earlier I’d have some time over the Thanksgiving break to address these items. Here’s the thing herdman...you have a laundry list of faulty assertions in your above response that a reply would be overwhelming. I’m going to pick off one at a time over the next week. But it doesn’t matter...six months down the road you will come back and make the same faulty assertions. Take the “folks were talking about ice ages back in the 70s and 80s” comment. No...they weren’t.

Here is my response to the same assertion in a thread you participated in back in January of this year on the topic of ice age...






You’re throwing a lot out there, but I’ll address a couple items that has actually been discussed before. First off it is a misnomer that scientist in the 1970s were predicting an ice age. Only a small percentage predicted cooling and it prompted sensational headlines such as this Time Magazine cover from 1973...


big-freeze.jpg



The only problem with this is that Time (and several other publications) cherry-picked the information they chose to present. Why not? Time's job was to sell magazines and not necessarily advance the truth. There was a comprehensive study done to determine where the science community actually stood on the issue in the 1970s.

In a study of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979, of forty-nine papers that took a position on the issue, 42 said that the earth was warming and listed co2 as the culprit. Only seven papers expressed the belief that it was cooling. So 86% of the papers predicted the same thing being said today.

Here is a copy and paste of some additional reading on the subject...






  • Check out this New York Times article from 1956 that discusses a forecasted increase in global temperatures as emissions from burning fossil fuels increase atmospheric CO2. Thanks to George Morrison for the heads up.


  • The 1979 report from the National Academy of Sciences, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment" finds "when it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes."
 
The above response in January shows definitive evidence that the overwhelming scientific thought in the 1960s and 1970s were that carbon was going to heat the place up. In the science review section of the NYT in 1956 there is an article that highlights the beginnings of scientific thought on the matter...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf


The title of the headlines was...”Warmer Climate on Earth Might be Due to More Carbon Dioxide in the Air.”


Click it and read it (I doubt you will)...especially the part about man’s culpability. This was in 1956. Then we have 42 out of 49 peer reviewed scientific papers that took a stance on the matter saying carbon was heating the earth...not cooling it.


I’ll be sure to book mark this thread though. Because I’m positive that herdman and 88 will say the same thing about the ice age prediction 6 months from now. It’ll save me some typing.


Other repeated fallacies of herdman’s thread will be addressed later. In the meantime I expect no direct refutation of the above facts, but I’m sure I’ll get a wall of “I just think” and “follow the money” replies. Probably even get a link to an article from someone on the Heartland Institute’s payroll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU
Next on the herdman list is hurricane activity. This is somewhat of a strawman argument by deniers because they don’t even understand what the present science even says. For example, do you remember when @wvkeeper(HN) posted the tweet by Ryan Maue back in September of 2017 stating that there was no increase in hurricane activity over last 50 years?


https://marshall.forums.rivals.com/...hurricane-frequency-over-last-50-years.34903/


So here we have a climate denier (Maue) using the information gathered by scientist to disprove something that the scientist never said to begin with. Lol. It’s ridiculous and anyone with a shred of intellectuall honesty could weed through this and see that the denier lemmings will come out of the woodwork and say....but, but, but...global warming! Oh by the way...Maue is employed by the Cato Institute.


Here is my response back in 2017...

I'm glad you guys are celebrating the information that science has been telling you for the last 15 years. I can go back 15 years and provide numerous studies that suggest that frequency increase isn't an issue. I even said the same on this board in the last month prior to the Maue statement. What scientist have also said was that although the frequency might not change, due to rising temperature levels in the ocean, the severity of the Hurricanes will increase. And evidence shows that they have.

The question is...why would Ryan Maue be releasing information that only confirms what studies have been showing for 15 years as though it is some type of revelation? It's simple...Ryan Maue is employed by the Cato Institute...a foundation that was founded by Charles Koch. This already known information will create the end zone dancing on politically like minded people like we see on this thread as though they got some kind of confirmation for their previously held positions.

In the meantime, we're seeing a rise of storm intensity just as predicted. But...but...but...global warming.



The study of hurricane activity and intensity is in its infancy. There’s still a lot of things not known. But the best science right now states that...

*Hurricane frequency is not increasing significantly.
*The last two decades have shown an increase in hurricane intensity, but most of the predicted hurricane intensity increase is predicted later in this century.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

*Of course damage has increased partly because there is more stuff (buildings, houses, people, etc.) in the impacted areas. Yet deniers hold this up as proof that liberals and scientist are touting property damage as proof of increased intensity. Again...a strawman argument with no basis.

*A primer on why scientist believe that hurricane intensity is increasing: The oceans are warming. That’s a definitive measure that can’t be argued. The energy that drives hurricanes are from ocean heat. This is why our Gulf hurricane season run from June through November with the highest intensity coming in July and August. Because our oceans are warming, there is more energy in the system. The prediction of increasing ocean temperatures fuels the prediction of increasing intensity. Also add to that the fact that ocean levels have been rising with the sharpest increase over the last decade...

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

...it’s only logical to see that storm surges will increase as well. Also there is more water in the system due to increased ocean temperatures (something about evaporation) so therefore more water is being seen dropped with increases in flooding. But don’t take my word for it...


https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-6-3.html


The bottom line on the hurricane statement as displayed by this exact same argument here over a year ago, is that deniers are using the information provided by science to disprove the assertions they aren’t even making.


Here’s some additional links for an abundance of information on the studies behind hurricanes. Of course deniers won’t read it. It’s just too easy to wait six months and post the same old arguments...




 
I am not going to do a ton of research. I am busy.

The standard bearer Hurricane for the Carolinas was Hurricane Hazel in 1954. That is 19 and 54. Storm suge of 18 feet in areas and destroyed basically 90 % of ocean front property from Pawleys Island SC to to near Topsail Island NC. This was the big one fro NC and SC

The next standard bearer for SC was Hurriane Hugo in 1989. 22 ft storm surge locally in the Francis Marion forest and near Mclellanville, SC.

Galveston TX hurricane of 1900. Yes, 1900 killed over 8,000

Lake Okeechobee Hurricane in 1925 killed 2,500

Hurricane in LA in 1893 killed 1,100

Big Cat Hurricane Camille in 1969 had 200 mph winds and tore stuff up from the Gulf to VA.

1935 Labor Day Hurricane in Florida.

The point is these were all before this Global Warming phenomenon.

We go in cycles and yes, there is more development on the coast. Look up pictures of Myrtle Beach or Carolina Beach, NC in the 1950's, 1960's, and even 1970's and compare them now.

Now, we do have a problem with storm run off. See hurricane Florence and Harvey. I agree there. Water runs off of pavement in sub-divisions.

Hurricane Sandy? Nobody would have cared if it did not hit a population center of NJ and NY. That is why it was so expensive.

What was Florida's population in 1950? Now? What was NC population in 1954? There were not even interstates to Raleigh or Wilmington, NC.

The storms are no more intense than they were before. Thy cycles are nearly the same.

What is different? News media 24 hours a day. Vast population growth and development which intensifies the damages.

I know, I have property on the direct coast. I worry every hurricane season. But, Global warming is not my biggest worry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wvkeeper(HN) and ThunderCat98
Ditto on the red herring that storms today cost a lot more in damage than storms in the past. There is incredibly more growth in areas that are prone to disaster so of course more homes and death are going to happen.

It's just silly to think that raising taxes on the rich and closing coal plants is going to magically make the fires and storms not be as bad. As usual there are lots of things that can be done, but people aren't interested things that can be done, only in those things that can be made to condemn one side or the other.

If you're actually interested in climate change then unlike Al Gore and all the other big-name morons who seem to speak up on the stuff all of the environmentalists should be pushing for more nuclear power, but no we can't have that so let's spend all kinds of money on retrograde ideas like wind and solar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: big_country90, ThunderCat98 and i am herdman
extragreen said:
Fine. Where you live becomes the nuclear waste dump site.
Click to expand...

I live within 4 miles or so as the crow flies from a nuclear reactor. I am within 2.5 of the lake that cools it. Their property is also a buffer zone next to my subdivision. Across our road is one of their alert sirens they test monthly. They also provided me with a weather alert radio. In 2010 they handed out free iodine pills if you wanted them(within a 10 mile radius).

I have lost 0 night sleep over that nuclear plant and it is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. It has room for expansion of another reactor. But, no we can't do that because the enviro wackos won't let it happen. It would reguire raising the lake level a few feet and they will sue and block it because of some bat, mole, weed, or fungus.

The wackos would have us riding horses and they would be the first to gripe about saddle sores.

People like that cannot be pleased.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU and wvkeeper(HN)
i am herdman said:
I live within 4 miles or so as the crow flies from a nuclear reactor.
Click to expand...

None of your ranting has anything to do with what I said, unless your neighborhood nuclear power plant buries radioactive waste IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. And it doesn't.
 
extragreen said:
None of your ranting has anything to do with what I said, unless your neighborhood nuclear power plant buries radioactive waste IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. And it doesn't.
Click to expand...
No, the rods are a vast 4 miles away and the reactor is the same.
 
wvkeeper(HN) said:
Ditto on the red herring that storms today cost a lot more in damage than storms in the past. There is incredibly more growth in areas that are prone to disaster so of course more homes and death are going to happen.

It's just silly to think that raising taxes on the rich and closing coal plants is going to magically make the fires and storms not be as bad. As usual there are lots of things that can be done, but people aren't interested things that can be done, only in those things that can be made to condemn one side or the other.

If you're actually interested in climate change then unlike Al Gore and all the other big-name morons who seem to speak up on the stuff all of the environmentalists should be pushing for more nuclear power, but no we can't have that so let's spend all kinds of money on retrograde ideas like wind and solar.
Click to expand...

I’m okay with nuclear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU
19MU88 said:
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...irst-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Print it out this time or learn to use google. I’m guessing your brain not great at retaining information.
Click to expand...


Lol...please tell me you aren't linking articles written by shills from the American Enterprise Institute. Lol.

Okay...here's a little bit about that publication.

"David H. Koch is on the American Enterprise Institute's National Council, whose members "serve as ambassadors for AEI, providing AEI with advice, insight, and guidance as [it] looks to reach out to new friends across the country."[17]

Between 2002 and 2013, the American Enterprise Institute received a total of $867,289 in funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.[18]"

And why stop there...

The American Enterprise Institute received $19,840,954 from DonorsTrust between 2002 and 2011.[22]

A report by the Center for Public Integrityexposes a number of DonorsTrust funders, many of which have ties to the Koch brothers. One of the most prominent funders is the Knowledge and Progress Fund, a Charles Koch-run organization and one of the group's largest known contributors, having donated at least $8 million since 2005. Other contributors known to have donated at least $1 million to DonorsTrust include the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, Donald & Paula Smith Family Foundation, Searle Freedom Trust, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation.[23]

Since its inception in 1999, DonorsTrust has been used by conservative foundations and individuals to discretely funnel nearly $400 million to like-minded think tanks and media outlets.[23] According to the organization's tax documents, in 2011 DonorsTrust contributed a total of $86 million to right-wing organizations. Many recipients had ties to the State Policy Network (SPN), a wide collection of conservative state-based think tanks and media organizations that focus on shaping public policy and opinion.


Sourcewatch.org...


https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Enterprise_Institute
 
Nice ad hominem. Just ignore the article because a left wing shill site funded by democrats says AEI is a right wing org funded by republicans.

Perfect example of 2018 politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio herd
Chevy1 said:
Three platforms where republicans are losing the American public:

1. Trump - We don't allow incessant lying and BS behavior in our children, and we don't want it in our leadership.

2. Healthcare - Americans want a healthcare system that offers the opportunity for basic coverage for all without penalizing those with pre-existing conditions. This is the issue Dems ran on during the mid-terms......and won....BIGLY.

3. Climate change - Why we choose to listen to the position of "politicals" tied to the fossil fuel industry defies rational thought. And the claim "climate change is a money grab for research dollars" also doesn't make sense when you consider, as the effects of climate change become more prevalent, the NEED to know the why, when, what, where and how will grow. In other words, there's a need for the research - not because we've been duped into believing a false narrative, but because the effects of climate change are here....we're living with it.

Seems strange to me how some can accept that climate change is a research money grab; then, totally ignore money the fossil fuel industry is pouring into the debate - attempting to debunk the research while buying political support.

If you really want to follow the money, the really big money, you might want to start with the Koch brothers.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...ment-the-koch-brothers-campaign-becomes-overt

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/...l-have-taken-millions-koch-brothers-and-exxon

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-big-money-in-politics-blocked-u-s-action-on-climate-change

https://www.gq.com/story/billionaires-climate-change
Click to expand...
LOL keep telling yourself you are right on those three
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Dorrej said:
Nice ad hominem. Just ignore the article because a left wing shill site funded by democrats says AEI is a right wing org funded by republicans.

Perfect example of 2018 politics.
Click to expand...
but we are supposed to bow down and believe everything Snopes says!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Dorrej said:
Nice ad hominem. Just ignore the article because a left wing shill site funded by democrats says AEI is a right wing org funded by republicans.

Perfect example of 2018 politics.
Click to expand...


In this case I agree with you. I did not check the source of the fact checker and see that it leans left. I almost always check the source because getting an accurate account is important to me. So in this case I’ll eat the crow.

I do however stand by AEI being very right leaning. It is a conservative think tank...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute


...and according to AllSides (always rated among best non partisan fact checking sites) the AEI is considered “far right”...

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/american-enterprise-institute

...and according to another site known for its non-partisan fact checking, Media Bias Fact Check, AEI is considered Right leaning and says this...

Analysis / Bias

According to Open Secrets AEI almost exclusively supports Republican candidates through donations.

In review, AEI is closely associated with conservatism and neoconservatism, although it claims to be non-partisan. Policy wise they advocate for lower taxes, fewer protections for consumers and the environment, and cuts to the social safety net. In articles they use minimally loaded words and generally source properly. However, there is moderate use of loaded words especially when discussing climate change: The climate empire strikes out: The perils of policy analysis in an echo chamber. While the American Enterprise Institute does not deny climate change is occurring, they frequently downplay human involvement and reject the consensus of climate scientists in favor of further deregulation of emission standards.



The bottom line is I take full responsibility for using SourceWatch without first checking it out. However, I stand by the assertion that AEI is a right leaning conservative think tank that has taken donations from the oil industry. They are by their very own definition dedicated to “democratic capitalism” and “free enterprise”. I have nothing against capitalism and free enterprise and believe in many of the principles of them, but I certainly wouldn’t expect an unbiased article on global warming from someone who is/has been associated with them.
 
OK. Why did the house flip with Dems gaining 39 seats? Was it Nancy Pelosi?
 
Last edited:
ohio herd said:
Ha ha, it flips in the mid term all the time, but I am sure you already know that
Click to expand...
I believe we were discussing "why" the house flipped during the last election.

AND...after what had to be a ton of thought and consideration, you landed on the answer, "because".
 
i am herdman said:
Hurricane Hazel in 1954
Click to expand...

It's late and has been a long day with a lot of travel, but I did want to touch on Hazel.

First, the surge was really high because it made landfall during the highest lunar tide of the year, at perigee. Dumb luck there. Hazel is also an example of how warmer waters affect hurricanes: it tracked over the Gulf Stream.

Bottom line: a strong storm during the highest tide of the year is bad news.
 
wvkeeper(HN) said:
Ditto on the red herring that storms today cost a lot more in damage than storms in the past. There is incredibly more growth in areas that are prone to disaster so of course more homes and death are going to happen.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree. The only reliable measurement of hurricane intensity is scientific measurement of pressure, wind speed, size of the wind affected area, and storm surge (although again, this is affected by tides, and rising ocean levels have an effect).

By number we have way more tornadoes than 150 years. 150 years ago many were not reported. Same idea.
 
Global Warming 37 degrees on the coast of SC this morning.

Global Warming summed up:

i-call-bullshit-tshirt-large.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MichiganHerd

Don’t forget

Replies
1
Views
167
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
extragreen
extragreen
imherdfan

SHR

Replies
2
Views
331
Old Fairfield - Premium Forum
imherdfan
imherdfan
extragreen

DOGE Claims It Has Saved Billions.

Replies
6
Views
64
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
extragreen
extragreen
ThunderCat98

Recycling is stupid.

Replies
9
Views
465
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
KyMUfan
KyMUfan
30CAT

Pedo admin requires 'corrupt' DEI 'ideological litmus test' on NASA innovation funding, scientists say: A threat to national security

Replies
2
Views
124
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
extragreen
extragreen
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back