Federal Government Confirms Nearing Apocalypse -- it's very hard to dismiss this. - Page 44 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15058866
Hindsite wrote:Sounds like the left-wing and fake news media giving more aid and comfort to our enemies.

No way man! I warned folks that climate change freaks are " known Commies, never trumpers and all around fake news stooges with a few Iranians tossed in …….. ENEMIES! ENEMIES ALL! " What more can I do to satisfy Trump Cultists?
#15058889
jimjam wrote:No way man! I warned folks that climate change freaks are " known Commies, never trumpers and all around fake news stooges with a few Iranians tossed in …….. ENEMIES! ENEMIES ALL! " What more can I do to satisfy Trump Cultists?

Perhaps you could donate to President Trump's keep America great campaign and get you a couple Trump 2020 shirts, like me, and be sure to vote a straight Republican ticket in November.
#15058919
Hindsite wrote:Comparing conditions at only two points in time or examining trends over a short period is not sufficient to understand the impact of long-term climate change on sea ice. Scientists can only understand how sea ice is changing by comparing current conditions to long-term averages.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/SeaIce


Not sure what you are trying to claim with this cut and paste but the last paragraph is extremely relevent.

Looking at the average over the last 170 years using the he best available data (Walsh 2016) shows we are well outside normal on summer ice extent and trending towards zero.

Image
#15059040
Truth To Power wrote:Fact.

No, comparing what's happening to historical changes in climate is bullshit.

Yes, I do: it means the one using the term is lying about others' beliefs.

So now you're walking it back as merely "belief". The term "climate change" does not refer to historical changes. So as I said, you know EXACTLY what is meant by the term.
#15059053
Truth To Power wrote:Why are the empirical data on arctic sea ice before 1979 being systematically censored, deleted, removed, erased and suppressed by anti-CO2 hysteria propagandists?


Why are the terms "global warming" and "climate change" being systematically censored, deleted, removed, erased and suppressed by anti- global warming hysteria propagandists? Impeached President Trump, in his relentless attack on the truth, has ordered that the terms "global warming" and "climate change" literally cannot be used by his stooges in the federal government.

Image

Impeached President Trump's EPA appointed leaders as of last week ^
#15059064
BeesKnee5 wrote:Not sure what you are trying to claim with this cut and paste but the last paragraph is extremely relevent.

Looking at the average over the last 170 years using the he best available data (Walsh 2016) shows we are well outside normal on summer ice extent and trending towards zero.

Image

It still does not prove an apocalypse is nearing. Changing weather is normal.
Praise the Lord.
#15059066
Hindsite wrote:It still does not prove an apocalypse is nearing. Changing weather is normal.

Praise the Lord.


Maybe properly defining apocalypse will be a better idea.

As far as I concern, apocalypse in the sense hinted by the Book of Revelations is not provable by any science phenomenon. And the Revelations does tell us about a big war after 1000 years of stability, neither of which we can see ourselves near.

More importantly it is not very relevant to climate change anyway.
#15059074
Patrickov wrote:Maybe properly defining apocalypse will be a better idea.

As far as I concern, apocalypse in the sense hinted by the Book of Revelations is not provable by any science phenomenon. And the Revelations does tell us about a big war after 1000 years of stability, neither of which we can see ourselves near.

More importantly it is not very relevant to climate change anyway.

So in reality, it is very easy to dismiss this.
Praise the Lord.
#15059198
BeesKnee5 wrote:It's not that it isn't maintained, it's what it is maintained from.

This is what the guy who dreampt up MAISIE has to say on it.

'MASIE repackages data from the NIC, and incorporates an ice edge hand drawn by analysts working with whatever satellite data they have available at the time. It is an “operational” product designed to produce a “best effort” ice edge each day, based on whatever data may be available at the time.
Visual data is obviously not available in winter, and the ice edge is often obscured by clouds in summer. Synthetic Aperture Radar can “see in the dark” and through clouds, but suffers from different limitations. The whole of the Arctic isn’t covered every day for example. In addition, and unlike the SII, data from different satellite sensors is incorporated which means there are inevitably inconsistencies from day to day and from year to year. There is also an element of “human subjectivity” because different analysts are working with different sources of data from one day to the next. Since the quantity and quality of data varies the time series will not be consistent over time.
On the other hand the SII was designed to use a consistent methodology over a long period of time using a single type of sensor. 100% automatically processed passive microwave data is the “gold standard” when it comes to determing sea ice trends. It is subject to some biases and thus is not necessarily as accurate on a given day as MASIE. However, the biases are consistent over time, so the time series will be consistent over time. This means that year-to-year comparisons and trend estimates will be more accurate in the passive microwave data than in MASIE.'

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.
#15059199
Truth To Power wrote:Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.
Lol!
I highlighted that MAISIE is unsuited to measuring trends as it's sources are inconsistent.

I've now quoted a lead researcher in the project confirming this.

That your source of choice chose MAISIE as evidence of trend should tell you something about their reliability.
#15059200
jimjam wrote:Why are the terms "global warming" and "climate change" being systematically censored, deleted, removed, erased and suppressed by anti- global warming hysteria propagandists?

They aren't. I see "climate change" everywhere. In fact, the constant, relentless, wall-to-wall media coverage of the continuing non-event of climate change is effectively proof that someone is spending an immense amount of money to whip up anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.
#15059205
Truth To Power wrote:They aren't. I see "climate change" everywhere. In fact, the constant, relentless, wall-to-wall media coverage of the continuing non-event of climate change is effectively proof that someone is spending an immense amount of money to whip up anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.


And yet the Trump administration has censored scientists who work for the federal government.

https://www.sciencealert.com/report-tru ... ate-change


    Report: US Officials Are Actively Censoring Press Statements on Climate Change
    PETER DOCKRILL 9 JUL 2019
    The ramifications were and are terrifying. A study published in March found the threat of rising seas in California has been vastly underestimated.

    By century's end, researchers said, California will be looking at up to US$150 billion of property damage annually, with millions of people at risk along the coast – residents previously assumed to be safe from the dangers of surging, stormy seas.


    You may have heard about this. But there's a good chance you didn't.

    For such thunderous, grave news, the body that led the research, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), made things sound decidedly less dire when they announced the findings.

    While the study openly contemplates an "extreme scenario [that] could equate to over 3 million residents at risk across the state by 2100", the USGS's press release on the research makes scant reference to climate change, presenting the findings almost like a valuable opportunity for governmental and commercial entities "planning for future infrastructure" in the world's fifth largest economy.

    It wasn't supposed to be this way, according to a damning new report by E&E News journalist Scott Waldman.

    In his investigation, Waldman says the USGS's sanitised spin on the findings of its own research was part of a years-long campaign by officials inside President Donald Trump's administration to censor references to climate change in federal agency communications.

    "It's been made clear to us that we're not supposed to use climate change in press releases anymore," an anonymous federal researcher told Waldman.


    "They will not be authorised."

    According to the report, the original draft of the press release on the California coastline findings was "significantly altered" by Trump officials, who also delayed the publication of the findings for several months.

    The original text of the release – written by the researchers themselves – did ultimately see the light of day, but only on the website of Point Blue Conservation Science, an environmental non-profit that contributed to the study.

    Point Blue's release doesn't pull the punches like the taxpayer-funded version does.

    "According to the study, even modest sea level rise projections of 10 inches (25 centimetres) by 2040 could flood more than 150,000 residents and affect more than US$30 billion in property value when combined with an extreme 100-year storm along California's coast," the original release states.

    "Even a typical winter storm, when combined with elevated sea levels, could threaten US$100 billion of coastal real estate across the Golden State annually."

    The E&E News report says the press release went through the office of USGS director James Reilly, who was appointed by the White House in 2018.


    Reilly, The New York Times reported in May, has ordered his agency to limit the scope of its climate models, not making future projections on the impact of climate change beyond 2040, which scientists say will be misleading.

    According to Waldman though, tampering with and censorship of USGS press releases pre-dates Reilly's appointment as director of the agency – but correlates squarely with presidential timelines.

    "In the last year of the Obama administration, USGS distributed at least 13 press releases that focused on climate change and highlighted it in the headline," E&E News reports.

    "Since then – from 2017 through the first six months of 2019 – none has mentioned climate change in the headline of the press release… Some briefly mentioned climate change in the body of the release, while others did not refer to it at all."

    For a body whose motto is 'Science for a changing world', this alleged censorship of press releases – among broader suppression of information on human-caused climate change by the Trump administration – amounts to an incredible disservice to the American people who fund the USGS to conduct scientific research on their behalf.

    "It's an insult to the science, of course, but it's also an insult to the people who need this information and whose livelihoods and in some cases their lives depend on this," climate change policy researcher Joel Clement from the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs told E&E News.

    "What's shocking about it is that this has been taken to a new level, where information that is essential to economic and health and safety — essentially American well-being — is essentially being shelved and being hidden."

    The full USGS-led findings on the projected coastal impacts of climate change in California are reported in Scientific Reports, and you can read Waldman's article in full right here.

So while you are peddling conspiracy theories, the actual evidence shows that the powerful in government and in business are actually suppressing information on climate change.
#15059225
Senter wrote:No, comparing what's happening to historical changes in climate is bullshit.

No, it is science. What is really bull$#!+ is claiming that anyone could understand what's happening without comparing it to historical changes in climate.
So now you're walking it back as merely "belief".

I'm not walking anything back. We can't be sure they actually believe their claims, but let's be charitable.
The term "climate change" does not refer to historical changes.

If it doesn't mean "change in climate," why use the term, "climate change"? Why not use an accurate term like, "hysterical, anti-scientific, anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda"?
So as I said, you know EXACTLY what is meant by the term.

Yes: it means the person using it is lying about others' views.
#15059226
BeesKnee5 wrote:Looking at the average over the last 170 years using the he best available data (Walsh 2016) shows we are well outside normal on summer ice extent and trending towards zero.

Image

Walsh's data are not the best available; they are self-evidently fabricated trash, as they show no significant variation for 140 years during which contemporaneous reports described wide decadal-scale variations in sea ice. Why are Walsh's fabricated data so profoundly at odds with Vinnikov's much more accurate 1980 data?

Image

Why are Walsh's fabricated data also deeply at odds with the MASIE data, which show no discernible trend?

Image
#15059232
Truth To Power wrote:Walsh's data are not the best available; they are self-evidently fabricated trash, as they show no significant variation for 140 years during which contemporaneous reports described wide decadal-scale variations in sea ice. Why are Walsh's fabricated data so profoundly at odds with Vinnikov's much more accurate 1980 data?

Image

Why are Walsh's fabricated data also deeply at odds with the MASIE data, which show no discernible trend?

Image


Do you think Vinnikov had access to more data in 1980 than Walsh in 2016?

Do you think showing 1m KM2 variation matches with today's trend?

You are incredibly poor at reading charts.

Notice the source is Vinnikov 1980?

What do you think Vinnikov research showed in 1999?

Image

Maybe we should look at Vinnikov 2005 as well. Linear trend shows ice extent falling 320,000km2 per decade from 1972 to 2004. We are currently 613,000km2 lower than 2004 which equates to a fall of 383,000km2 per decade, suggesting the rate of fall is accelerating.

Image

Perhaps you chose not to understand that with access to more information we gain a better understanding. Tell me, what evidence do you have that the research of Vinnikov in 1980 was more accurate than his research in 1999 and 2005?

You are nothing but a fool being spoonfed selected information to keep you blind.
#15059273
Truth To Power wrote:They aren't. I see "climate change" everywhere. In fact, the constant, relentless, wall-to-wall media coverage of the continuing non-event of climate change is effectively proof that someone is spending an immense amount of money to whip up anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.


You are right. Global warming and climate change get lots of media coverage since (DUH!) for all but the Trump cultists and our less astute citizens this could end up the biggest story of the century. I was referring to censorship of the truth by Impeached President Trump and his weak kneed suck ups.

Throughout the Trump administration’s first year in office, the Environmental Protection Agency has been quietly scrubbing mentions of climate change and tweaking related language on its website – an effort critics have decried as scientific censorship.

The US Department of Agriculture has forbidden the use of the words ‘climate change’.

and

The Interior Department has been accused of deleting climate change references from previous press releases. In 2017, The Washington Post reported that the agency deleted a line mentioning climate change in a press release about a study on flood risks to coastal communities. That line was: “Global climate change drives sea-level rise, increasing the frequency of coastal flooding.”

Earlier this year, leaked documents revealed Mr Trump’s administration was creating a panel to challenge climate threat assessments, headed by a climate change denier who once compared the “demonisation” of carbon dioxide to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. William Happer, who also serves on Mr Trump’s national security council, is a beneficiary of Robert Mercer, a far-right billionaire who funds climate denialism.

and

lots more that I don't have time for
#15059285
The heat in the world’s oceans reached a new record level in 2019, showing “irrefutable and accelerating” heating of the planet.

The world’s oceans are the clearest measure of the climate emergency because they absorb more than 90% of the heat trapped by the greenhouse gases emitted by fossil fuel burning, forest destruction and other human activities.

The new analysis shows the past five years are the top five warmest years recorded in the ocean and the past 10 years are also the top 10 years on record. The amount of heat being added to the oceans is equivalent to every person on the planet running 100 microwave ovens all day and all night.
#15059293
AGW is real, and it will likely be irreversible, and it will likely have devastating effects on human civilisation. But in the long term, it will probably be a good thing for humanity....

Fossil fuel burning is postponing the next ice age.

Personally, I would rather see London and New York flooded than see the whole of the UK under two miles of ice for the next 100,000 years. Dunno about you.
  • 1
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 50

In this case, Dershowitz is almost right. On th[…]

Don't vote for Biden

US killed 600,000 people in Iraq. Does that make u[…]

[KS mod note: Posts discussing religion and evol[…]

Election 2020

To many big words for you? I just skip over the […]