Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[B-Man]

This should be an instructive moment in your life. Unfortunately It likely won't be.

 

"A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." -- Bruce Lee

 

 

.

[Nanker]

I'm a little chilly today. Should I be concerned?

[OCinBuffalo]

Robot finds thick ice

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-161703215.html

Ah, I see we've moved forward from calling the climate scientists who were stuck in the ice that, according to them, wasn't supposed to be there...."adventurers"...to what they are: climate scientists. In an instant, Yahoo prints the actual truth, after having lied, like its nothing? Not a thing about "we assisted in propagating the adventurers cover story last year". Hilarious.

snow storm can't change minds

 

http://www.latimes.c...1124-story.html

Yeah, and given that the LA Times is one of many media outlets who also ran the "adventurers" story....it's hilariously ironic that they are bemoaning the "different sets of facts" as if they aren't directly responsible for creating a slew of non-facts and printing them for 10 damn years.

 

When the Chairman of Ethics in Science gets cold busted(by a timestamp...still hilarious) forging documents in support of Global Warming, in a lame attempt to discredit an organization who was set up for the very purpose of being a watchdog to monitor the "facts"? When his colleagues, rather than ostracizing him, do a better job of closing ranks around him than any corrupt police department protecting its own ever has?

 

When the head of the IPCC writes a book that clearly demonstrates his delusions of grandeur....and the LA times responds to these facts by acting as if psychological problems exist equally on both sides?

 

Pardon me if I don't take the "consensus", this story, or the fact that it is sourced by a guy "working towards his marketing degree" very seriously.

 

You're damn right LA Times: we do have 2 sets of facts. The ones you manufacture and then toss in with the real facts. Thus, we have to routinely go through the exercise of extracting the manufactured crap here, on this board....which is why these threads always last 80 pages.

 

Here's an idea LA Times: hire some F'ing editors that aren't "narrative seekers". And while you're at it? Stop pretending like common sense is a psychological disorder. The FACT is that it's far past time for your employees to do some introspection, and come clean on your decade of psychological commitment to this "story".

Great Lakes ice already

 

http://www.mlive.com...tml#incart_2box

Now, I wonder: in which pile of facts does this story belong?

 

How are my political leanings effecting my ability to comprehend that there's more ice than normal in the Great Lakes this year?

 

I mean, after all, there must be a psychological reason for my belief that there is more ice this year.

It can't be that there's simply more F'ing ice this year.

 

Now you can see how desperate they truly are. Once again: behavior. "Our lies aren't convincing people, so, they must have a psychological issue". Hilariously: that is the textbook definition of projection.

Edited November 30, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[tomato can]

this is absolutely correct. it's nice to see someone else saying this for a change. the only things I'd add is that Netflix is another of the companies who doesn't want to be charged for sucking up all that bandwidth, and that it will be interesting to see Google's take on the issue once they have deployed their own ISP infrastructure (they're laying down fiber here in Austin to begin offering their 1G internet service).

 

another part of the proposed net neutrality is to make the internet a utility, giving the federal government regulatory power over it. does anyone think that they wouldn't exercise control over content like they do with television and radio?

 

I came across this today.....

 

 

Google Fiber is a 1 Gigabit internet service that accomplishes high speed internet access through fiber optic cable to each home instead of an area node. Google offers three plans for customers:

• Free 5 Megabit service with a one time 300 dollar fee.

• 1 Gigabit internet service for 70 dollar a month. (5x comcast highest priciest speed.) (300 dollars waived)...

 

• 1 Gigabit Internet service and 150 full HD channels for 130 a month. (300 dollar fee waived.)

With other benefit including a competitive edge to local businesses and schools, more widely and quicker accessible information and competition in the internet marketplace I'd like to ask if Google fiber were to ask for early sign-ups in the Chicago area, to see which areas would actually get that service, how many of you would sign-up?

[Azalin]

I came across this today.....

 

 

Google Fiber is a 1 Gigabit internet service that accomplishes high speed internet access through fiber optic cable to each home instead of an area node. Google offers three plans for customers:

• Free 5 Megabit service with a one time 300 dollar fee.

• 1 Gigabit internet service for 70 dollar a month. (5x comcast highest priciest speed.) (300 dollars waived)...

 

• 1 Gigabit Internet service and 150 full HD channels for 130 a month. (300 dollar fee waived.)

With other benefit including a competitive edge to local businesses and schools, more widely and quicker accessible information and competition in the internet marketplace I'd like to ask if Google fiber were to ask for early sign-ups in the Chicago area, to see which areas would actually get that service, how many of you would sign-up?

 

I'm somewhat familiar with Google Fiber's deployment plans and service options, since I work for their biggest competitor in this region. Aside from that, Net Neutrailty is a topic that deserves it's own thread.

[tomato can]

I'm somewhat familiar with Google Fiber's deployment plans and service options, since I work for their biggest competitor in this region. Aside from that, Net Neutrailty is a topic that deserves it's own thread.

 

I was just sharing what their service options were that I came across. Your comment was spot on in seeing what their stance would be after deploying their own ISP infrastructure. Net Neutrality definitely deserves its own thread.

[OCinBuffalo]

I was just sharing what their service options were that I came across. Your comment was spot on in seeing what their stance would be after deploying their own ISP infrastructure. Net Neutrality definitely deserves its own thread.

Net Neutrality has had its own thread. Many times. The issue is clear as a bell for anyone who has bothered to familiarize themselves with the material, therefore, it's hardly worth discussing. But, if you want to start yet another thread, and decry poor Google's position that they deserve more for less. Go ahead. I will bring my axe.

 

The very notion that Google is now building it's own ISP infrastructure? That should tell a person of >= average intelligence the following:

1. The status of the Net Neutrality law = never going to happen

2. Google's goals haven't changed, they are merely changing tactics....because of #1.

3. Because of #2, Net Neutrality's entire reason for being is clear beyond all doubt. They tried to pass a law to rip us all off, they failed. Now they are doing what they want the harder and more expensive way.

4. By creating their own infrastructure, they hope to compete the existing ISPs out of business by providing content, via software that is only accessible using their infrastructure(that's why software always rules, no matter what hardware companies try to do to lock you in. In the end, software people(like me): circumvent. See this: http://phonegap.com/ We've been using phonegap for years, and have contributed code and testing to that project. More importantly we deploy real-world architecture using it, which lends them our cred. And....so much for Apple's app approval process = so much for hardware lock in.)

 

But despite all of this, they will ultimately fail, just like NFL Ticket failed to make DirectTV dominant. Once again, the internet doesn't take kindly to any company trying to dominate it, and Google is going to learn this lesson when their supposedly ISP-only content is either hacked, converted, or integrated and then web serviced to the other ISPs....most likely by some free-to-pay services. It will be PhoneGap all over again.

 

Thus, what's left to discuss? New thread? I'm just going to cut/paste this into that new thread.

Edited December 3, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[ExiledInIllinois]

Good, who needs Miami anyway:

 

https://news.vice.com/article/the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-retreating-at-a-much-higher-rate-than-previously-thought

[DC Tom]

Good, who needs Miami anyway:

 

https://news.vice.co...viously-thought

 

Published in Geophysical Research Letters? That's about two steps up from publishing it in Discover magazine. Publishing in a journal of "Letters" isn't nothing...but it basically means "We're in too much of a hurry to be truly rigorous, and need to avoid full peer review."

[ExiledInIllinois]

Published in Geophysical Research Letters? That's about two steps up from publishing it in Discover magazine. Publishing in a journal of "Letters" isn't nothing...but it basically means "We're in too much of a hurry to be truly rigorous, and need to avoid full peer review."

 

Yeah... I figured as much. I wasn't worried too much about the content, just when will Miami be under water. The suspense is killing me.

Edited December 4, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois

[tomato can]

Net Neutrality has had its own thread. Many times. The issue is clear as a bell for anyone who has bothered to familiarize themselves with the material, therefore, it's hardly worth discussing. But, if you want to start yet another thread, and decry poor Google's position that they deserve more for less. Go ahead. I will bring my axe.

 

The very notion that Google is now building it's own ISP infrastructure? That should tell a person of >= average intelligence the following:

1. The status of the Net Neutrality law = never going to happen

2. Google's goals haven't changed, they are merely changing tactics....because of #1.

3. Because of #2, Net Neutrality's entire reason for being is clear beyond all doubt. They tried to pass a law to rip us all off, they failed. Now they are doing what they want the harder and more expensive way.

4. By creating their own infrastructure, they hope to compete the existing ISPs out of business by providing content, via software that is only accessible using their infrastructure(that's why software always rules, no matter what hardware companies try to do to lock you in. In the end, software people(like me): circumvent. See this: http://phonegap.com/ We've been using phonegap for years, and have contributed code and testing to that project. More importantly we deploy real-world architecture using it, which lends them our cred. And....so much for Apple's app approval process = so much for hardware lock in.)

 

But despite all of this, they will ultimately fail, just like NFL Ticket failed to make DirectTV dominant. Once again, the internet doesn't take kindly to any company trying to dominate it, and Google is going to learn this lesson when their supposedly ISP-only content is either hacked, converted, or integrated and then web serviced to the other ISPs....most likely by some free-to-pay services. It will be PhoneGap all over again.

 

Thus, what's left to discuss? New thread? I'm just going to cut/paste this into that new thread.

 

I'm not defending google....no axe needed. Honestly I was never even familiar with Net Neutrality until I read about in this thread. I don't always get a chance to read the forum and missed those other threads about it. After reading that they are deploying their own ISP I then came across what plans they might be offering in my area and shared it. You explained exactly what it is they are doing and I won't be ordering from them now that I am familiar with it did some reading about it. Screw google.

Edited December 4, 2014 by tomato can

[DC Tom]

Yeah... I figured as much. I wasn't worried too much about the content, just when will Miami be under water. The suspense is killing me.

 

Coincidentally, I was doing some reading on sea level estimations just when you posted that. As it turns out, the magnitude of error in sea level estimates is the same order of magnitude as the estimated annual rise in sea level due to global warming (as it turns out, the accuracy of sea level estimates is an open question - there're derived from tidal measures against a terrestrial reference point, and there's so many local and global factors and uncertainties that go into tidal measures that an accurate measure of error is still practically impossible.)

 

And that order of magnitude is "3 millimeters per year." The idea that Miami will be under four feet of water in forty years...that's about 30 millimeters per year, or a ten-fold increase in the inaccurate estimates of current sea level rise (more like a 40-fold increase in the inaccurate average sea level rise over the past 100 years). That...would be quite an accelleration in sea level rise. Enough to sound more alarmist than scientific.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Coincidentally, I was doing some reading on sea level estimations just when you posted that. As it turns out, the magnitude of error in sea level estimates is the same order of magnitude as the estimated annual rise in sea level due to global warming (as it turns out, the accuracy of sea level estimates is an open question - there're derived from tidal measures against a terrestrial reference point, and there's so many local and global factors and uncertainties that go into tidal measures that an accurate measure of error is still practically impossible.)

 

And that order of magnitude is "3 millimeters per year." The idea that Miami will be under four feet of water in forty years...that's about 30 millimeters per year, or a ten-fold increase in the inaccurate estimates of current sea level rise (more like a 40-fold increase in the inaccurate average sea level rise over the past 100 years). That...would be quite an accelleration in sea level rise. Enough to sound more alarmist than scientific.

 

I don't care what that other dude says about you... You are all right!

 

So what you are saying is, MIA won't be under water... Dang it! How do those bastards seem to escape calamity.

[Gary M]

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-underwater-excavation-reveals-lost-levantine.html

 

"Submerged under five metres of water due to prehistoric sea-level rise"

 

Hmmm, even with no SUVs burning gas!

[Koko78]

http://phys.org/news...-levantine.html

 

"Submerged under five metres of water due to prehistoric sea-level rise"

 

Hmmm, even with no SUVs burning gas!

 

Dino farts.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm not defending google....no axe needed. Honestly I was never even familiar with Net Neutrality until I read about in this thread. I don't always get a chance to read the forum and missed those other threads about it. After reading that they are deploying their own ISP I then came across what plans they might be offering in my area and shared it. You explained exactly what it is they are doing and I won't be ordering from them now that I am familiar with it did some reading about it. Screw google.

Well, I am glad that you are now familiar. This is no different than any other issue for me: I post the facts, then I base my conclusions on them.

 

Also, understand that the very same thing will happen with government buffoons trying to impose taxes, or try to control "our neighborhood" with their agenda. The internet is the only truly tolerant/free place, thus it's worth defending. All that new tax crap? Already been circumvented by 2 APIs that I'm aware of, and there may be more I'm not. It's always fun for me(Spitzer's "war on sales tax"...that lasted 3 days?), when a buffoon politician strolls onto our chosen battlefield assuming an easy victory. Sun Tzu would laugh his ass off at these people. We've already won the battle before it begins.

 

But, Net Neutrality will never die, for the reasons I said above. True liberals, who by definition abhor this sort of behavior, are left in the cold by Google et al, and get 0 $. No. Only the real "top down" leftist, who is exactly in line with Google's "top down", leftist philosophy, gets the cash.

 

And, by the way, if you know WTF you are doing, and thus can look at Obamacare's business and technical design properly? You find the same thinking: "top down"/take control away. There is no coincidence. The same awful thinking currently running at our government...is also running at Google et al.

 

EDIT: If you want a concrete, real-world example, look no further than this: http://rubyonrails.org/. These clowns have been telling people that "convention" is the diametric opposite of "configuration", and therefore, the best thing to do is let them tell you what your software needs are, since they are most likley to be "conventional", for years. Look: you're no different than the next guy, and since they know better than you anyway, just take what they give you and run along. The existence of McDonald's proves this entire ethos false. But hey, they know better...and your needs and considerations in your business are therefore: irrelevant. Hmmm....how like Obamacare.

 

This is why it's always hilarious to hear any leftist talk about "corporations" and "bad behavior"....from their Apple device. Both Apple and Microsoft have always been about "control" as well. They learned it from IBM. Maybe now that Jobs is dead, and Gates seems oblivious, things will change. IF Google, Applie or the rest were Oil companies, using the same tactics?

 

Hell, every far-left buffon would be in the streets rioting.

Edited December 11, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh, and to get back on topic?

 

"Convention vs. Configuration" is EXACTLY the same as Global Warming, or Obamacare: a hoax designed to give a small # of people a ton of control over the very existence of others.

 

It should be no surprise which part of the country these same awful ideas originate.

Edited December 11, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/23/touchy-feely-science-one-chart-suggests-theres-a-phraud-in-omitting-ocean-acidification-data-in-congressional-testimony/

 

Touchy Feely Science – one chart suggests there’s a ‘pHraud’ in omitting Ocean Acidification data in Congressional testimony

Anthony Watts / 1 week ago December 23, 2014

“…startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.””

Willis Eschenbach tips me to a story by Marita Noon, titled:

What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud?

I’ve reproduced portions of it here, with a link to the full article. The graph with ALL the data is compelling.

“Ocean acidification” (OA) is receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the global warming/climate change narrative is built.

The science and engineering website Quest, recently posted: “Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, we have been mining and burning coal, oil and natural gas for energy and transportation. These processes release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It is well established that the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere is a major cause of global warming. However, the increase in CO2 is also causing changes to the chemistry of the ocean. The ocean absorbs some of the excess atmospheric CO2, which causes what scientists call ocean acidification. And ocean acidification could have major impacts on marine life.”

Within the Quest text is a link to a chart by Dr. Richard A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Feely’s climate-crisis views are widely used to support the narrative.

Feely’s four-page report: Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy, offered on the NOAA website, contains a similar chart. This chart, titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” begins at 1850. Feely testified before Congress in 2010—using the same data that shows a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

…

The December edition of the scientific journal Nature Climate Change features commentary titled: “Lessons learned from ocean acidification research.”

However, an inquisitive graduate student presented me with a very different “lesson” on OA research.

Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.” Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there is real world data. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.

Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising as instrumental ocean pH data has been measured for more than 100 years since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. He went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart beginning in 1850 lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.

Wallace sent Bard email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the........................

Edited January 2, 2015 by 3rdnlng

[KD in CA]

Good, who needs Miami anyway:

 

https://news.vice.com/article/the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-retreating-at-a-much-higher-rate-than-previously-thought

 

Does it strike anyone as funny how we constantly get headlines about how XXX is doing YYY "much faster than previously thought"?

 

How can that be if the science was previously settled??

Edited January 3, 2015 by KD in CT

[ExiledInIllinois]

I guess this is a good thread to post it in. I mentioned earlier this year how the month of February 2014 in Chicago had the lowest murder total since 1957... It was brutally cold nobody could get their frozen fingers to pull a trigger!

 

Also, every day on the expressway to work they have a sign w/traffic fatalities in Illinois. 2014 was down by a good 200 or so from 2013. I noticed last winter that the total was down from the previous year, 2013. Was it the brutal cold and snow? Of course, just like the murders, everybody was hunkered down in their homes.

 

Thanks global climate change!