Everything. You're supposed to be mad about everything. That's the only emotion Trump allows.
Liberalism ruins everything it touches.
- Thread starter BooRad
- Start date
Stumpsprouts
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Asheville
This political infighting between colleagues who care for trees, a key component of wildfires, is really depressing. We should be working together to improve management practices and make this world more habitable for all, not arguing over some dumb shit a politician said.
TreeCo
Carpal tunnel level member
The California fires deserves it's own thread.
Daniel
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Suburban Philadelphia (Wayne)
you just believe the sources of information you were taught to trust ... if you take a closer look at the actual science and listen to leading experts like Judith Curry, you'll find that the subject is far more complex and the science isn't settled. And even if we got to net zero carbon, there is no science that says that will improve the climate. When you think of carbon tax... think Enron. WHen you think of the way the MSM covers climate change, think WMDs... it a bunch of lies and twisted stories, fabrications, and deceipt...
I had a geeky client, Joel, a PhD chemist, tell me that carbon wasn't an issue and global warming was not supported by the data... I told him he was crazy and that he must have been looking at fossil fuel industry sponsored science... He assured me he wasn't and that he was part of a group of independent scientists that study the suject and share thier findings.. I thought, he's got to be crazy, but he sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about. A few months later the climategate emails detailing the level of scientific fraud at play among the top climate scientists in the world ...
Global data from weather stations across the globe, all went to one University, and was held by a small group of scientists... For years they wouldn't make the raw data avaiable or even provide the logarithms they were using to manage the data, even in defience of court orders...
And what ever happened to Al Gore.. after his propaganda was thoroughly debunked... he got paid off to the 100 million plus mark and slithered ito obscurity..
so when those emails came out, showing the level of corruption involved in the climate hoax, it struck me that my intuition had told me that Joel was telling the truth...
so I was like you at one time... believing the MSM misinformation.. but my eyes are opened to the truth... now here you come telling me that knowing that truth is like calling the earth flat.... that's like the guy that was telling me to use a tauntline hitch instead of a french prussic...
And what exactly are you doing?
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
There are many sources of environmental information that can’t be changed. What the record mens can be studied.
The geological record
Dendrochronilogy
Gas bubbles from polar glaciers
Pollen layers in ancient soils
Most navies of the world have required their crews to collect at least daily locations with air and water temperatures. Using modern mathematics to account for improvements to location has left centuries of data to mine
The Royal/English Navy digitized ships logs going back those centuries and has teased out some pretty convincing snapshots of how ocean water temperatures and weather systems have changed, or not, over those same records
In the end when records are compared as time goes along and human population increases there is an equal change
THEN…along comes the Industrial Revolution driven by burning coal etc and all of the graphable data started to spike. The graphs are no longer a gradual ramp-like increase. The graphs look like mountain profiles
The geological record
Dendrochronilogy
Gas bubbles from polar glaciers
Pollen layers in ancient soils
Most navies of the world have required their crews to collect at least daily locations with air and water temperatures. Using modern mathematics to account for improvements to location has left centuries of data to mine
The Royal/English Navy digitized ships logs going back those centuries and has teased out some pretty convincing snapshots of how ocean water temperatures and weather systems have changed, or not, over those same records
In the end when records are compared as time goes along and human population increases there is an equal change
THEN…along comes the Industrial Revolution driven by burning coal etc and all of the graphable data started to spike. The graphs are no longer a gradual ramp-like increase. The graphs look like mountain profiles
Daniel
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Suburban Philadelphia (Wayne)
can you cite some sources? Perfect Tom.... please put the puzzle pieces together for us.. how does the industrial revolution effect climate? deforrestation? burning of fossil fuels ? how does it work...
in the meantime here are statements from some of the climategate emails:
‘I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding inthe real temps to each series for the last 20 years(i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’sto hide the decline.’PhilJonesNovember 16,1999
‘I can’t see either of these papers being in thenext IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them outsomehow—even if we have to redefine what thepeer-review literature is!’PhilJonesJuly 8,2004
‘If they ever hear there is a Freedom of InformationAct now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file ratherthan send to anyone.’PhilJonesFebruary 2,2005‘
The scientific community would come down onme in no uncertain terms if I said the world hadcooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only sevenyears of data and it isn’t statistically significant …As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I wouldlike to see the climate change happen, so thescience could be proved right, regardless of theconsequences. This isn’t being political, it is beingselfish.’PhilJonesJuly 5,2005
‘I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filteredcurve before I give the talk again as that’s trendingdown as a result of the end effects and the recentcold-ish years.’MikeKellyOctober 26,2008
‘Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting,I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Verytempted.’BenSanterOctober 9,2009
‘When the FOI requests began here, the FOI personsaid we had to abide by the requests … Once theybecame aware of the types of people we weredealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry andin the Environmental Sciences school—the head ofschool and a few others) became very supportive.PhilJonesDecember 3,2008
Source: All Climategate emails are available at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
NO! Do your own reading and research. I’ve been formally absorbing climate change since the U of Mn professor talked about it in a class in 1973. Everything since then either supports climate change or it’s whack a doodle blathering. Easy to sort. People out.
Daniel
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Suburban Philadelphia (Wayne)
Here's real climate change fir you...
And I assure you, I have done plenty of reading.. likely more than you
And I assure you, I have done plenty of reading.. likely more than you
bobs yeruncle
Participating member
- Location
- Golden Horseshoe
this just gives me a blank page
Daniel
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Suburban Philadelphia (Wayne)
Here's a little more on the climategate emails
In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia’s CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line “IPCC & FOI,” “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise … can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same … We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise.”
Mr. Jones emailed later that he had “deleted loads of emails” so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, “Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.”
The Russell report states that “On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data.” Really? Here’s what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]”
Then there’s the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: “On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this.”
Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann’s work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.
But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: “I think we should stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that “I think the community should … terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels … and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.”
Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I’m hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it’s becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that’s nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course, Mr. Russell didn’t look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That’s because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.
In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia’s CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line “IPCC & FOI,” “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise … can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same … We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise.”
Mr. Jones emailed later that he had “deleted loads of emails” so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, “Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.”
The Russell report states that “On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data.” Really? Here’s what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]”
Then there’s the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: “On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this.”
Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann’s work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.
But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: “I think we should stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that “I think the community should … terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels … and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.”
Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I’m hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it’s becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that’s nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course, Mr. Russell didn’t look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That’s because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
I’ve read the Master and Commander series two and a half times. That doesn’t make me either a surgeon/physician nor a Master and Commander
evo
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- My Island, WA
This is the research I’ve read.
Daniel
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Suburban Philadelphia (Wayne)
The pollen layers are generally found in lakes, bogs or other bodies of water.
The ice bubbles are from either Greenland or Antarctica.
The research you read has been corrupted. These scientists have ulterior motives and conspired to silence other scientists who disagreed... that's not science anymore... it's propaganda... Just follow the money
No, your scientists have ulterior motives. Their research is fabricated or corrupted.
evo
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- My Island, WA
Actually the pollen studies I’ve read, are from my back yard.
Additionally we have compressed peat layers that expose themselves on the beaches. Pick them apart and you find flattened branches, cones and other preserved plant matter. They were compressed from the mile thick ice sheet.
Further more there is the chuckanut formation which was put down BEFORE the cascades showed up. Who knew cinnamon grew here in the PNW. Yet there is that pesky continental drift thing..
My neighbor of 8 years was the head of NOAA NW. we had many conversations on how he had to change the wording of his research durning the last time America was great, other wise he risked getting the department shut down. That is incentivized censorship, Daniel.
Climate change is real, get that through your thick skull. It’s human caused. We can’t fix it but we can mitigate how far down this road we go. Do we know the full big picture? Nope. We won’t as we are looking at it like looking through a drinking straw or perspective. Maybe another 100 years and that generation will let us know exactly when we crossed that line.
Last edited:
evo
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- My Island, WA
Buzz kill, California has enough water, it’s just mismanaged. And much closer than No Cal.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Tulare Lake - Wikipedia
Daniel
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Suburban Philadelphia (Wayne)
The extent to which climate change is man madevis debatable... deforestation, farming, chemtrails... there's a lot of things humans do...
Carbon dioxide isn't harmful. Increases in CO2 are not driving climate change... reducing CO2 won't change the climate in any quantifiable way for at least the next few decades if at all...
There's inertia built into the system... taxing carbon isn't going to do anything except put money in the pockets of those at the top of the scam and freeze and starve the world's poor.
There's nothing clean about electric cars when mining the lithium, cobalt etc devastates the environment... and there is no way you can replace petroleum fuels with wind and solar... no amount of capacity to make up the difference... and energy demands are just going to keep growing..
In the meantime we're only one major natural disaster away from extinction when enough nuclear power plants meltdown to kill every mammal on the planet....
The only reasonable path forward is developing new energy technologies that make the old ones obsolete... I believe they have already been invented, but are being suppressed by the same cabal that's trying to tax air...
Carbon dioxide isn't harmful. Increases in CO2 are not driving climate change... reducing CO2 won't change the climate in any quantifiable way for at least the next few decades if at all...
There's inertia built into the system... taxing carbon isn't going to do anything except put money in the pockets of those at the top of the scam and freeze and starve the world's poor.
There's nothing clean about electric cars when mining the lithium, cobalt etc devastates the environment... and there is no way you can replace petroleum fuels with wind and solar... no amount of capacity to make up the difference... and energy demands are just going to keep growing..
In the meantime we're only one major natural disaster away from extinction when enough nuclear power plants meltdown to kill every mammal on the planet....
The only reasonable path forward is developing new energy technologies that make the old ones obsolete... I believe they have already been invented, but are being suppressed by the same cabal that's trying to tax air...
Daniel
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Suburban Philadelphia (Wayne)
That's the same trick Al Gore used...
He asked all those scientists if the climate has been getting warmer... then if more than half that warming is due to human activity... those questions don't say anything about carbon dioxide, but that was enough to dupevthe masses into thinking carbon is the bad guy... turns out increases in CO2 have reduced the need for fertilizer by around 16 percent
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
-
-
-
Light 14 or 16" narrow kerf bar for 200t or 201t- Started by southsoundtree
- Replies: 9
-
