Chef Jim Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Hmmmm....will they get other jobs if they can't work on the rigs? Now I know why you use the word obfuscate so often. It's for favorite tactic. When you can't answer a question you play dumb(er). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Now I know why you use the word obfuscate so often. It's for favorite tactic. When you can't answer a question you play dumb(er). So no answer then? I thought so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 So no answer then? I thought so Sure I'll answer. Maybe they will maybe they won't. Doesn't matter one bit in this conversation. But what is guaranteed is that killing the proposal will likely eliminate the addition of thousands of jobs. Question. Is that a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Sure I'll answer. Maybe they will maybe they won't. Doesn't matter one bit in this conversation. But what is guaranteed is that killing the proposal will likely eliminate the addition of thousands of jobs. Question. Is that a good thing? Its not good on the job front no. But I hope they get jobs someplace else I think Republicans hurt job growth more, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Its not good on the job front no. But I hope they get jobs someplace else I think Republicans hurt job growth more, though Ah yes the old hope strategy. And with regard to the bolded part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Sure I'll answer. Maybe they will maybe they won't. Doesn't matter one bit in this conversation. But what is guaranteed is that killing the proposal will likely eliminate the addition of thousands of jobs. Question. Is that a good thing? or it killing the proposal will save thousands of tourist based jobs and sea food industry jobs, or do you think putting those jobs in jeopardy is a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 or it killing the proposal will save thousands of tourist based jobs and sea food industry jobs, or do you think putting those jobs in jeopardy is a good thing? Explain how those jobs will be threatened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Explain how those jobs will be threatened? 2 for 5 lazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Explain how those jobs will be threatened? http://www.protectourcoastnow.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) New paper: "Ocean dominates the planetary heat budget and takes thousands of years to equilibrate" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1002%2F2016GL068041 … I have no idea why anybody missed this, but, I did not. In essence they have proven that the ocean is not the excuse for where the missing warming from the last 18 years has gone. Specifically, if the ocean were the hiding place for the heat, at best, it would act as such over centuries, not in 18 years. Moreover, the study shows that there is no simplistic formula for the heat to have been transferred to the ocean(uptake). That's what "non-linearlly" means. It means that no one can say that X amount of heat can be sunk in the ocean over Y time, and be right. It also shows that you can't get a repeatable pattern from one forcing scenario to the next, and that different parts of the ocean act differently. Taken together, these 2 things mean that the speculation that the ocean is hiding the missing heat: is not capable of being called "science". And if there was any doubt, they put it down by explaining that short term modeling has 0 chance of reflecting long term results, largely because the long term mechanism for the ocean responding to "preturbed" surface temperature is NOT understood. That basically vacates any definitive claim that anyone makes about the short term hiding of heat in the ocean. The ocean would need centuries to hide the heat, and its only been 18 years. There ends this speculation. But of course, my personal favorite: this paper presents a serious, and most likely unanswerable, challenge to the simplistic estimations of sea level rise. That means: "the seas are rising!" is bunk. For all anyone knows the seas are receeding. There is no SCIENTIFIC proof either way. We are all constantly told to respect science by the left. OK, the left, here's peer-reviewed science...now let's see you respect it. Edited March 15, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 http://www.protectourcoastnow.com/ Fair enough. That talks mostly about the environmental impact and I'm just talking about the jobs. Is killing this proposal an net job loser? Neither of us know for sure. I think it will be a net loss but that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Sorry OC................Wired does not agree with you................we are doomed WIRED: Sea Level Rise Is Predictable. It Will Be Anything From Bad to Awful. . http://bit.ly/22jZVGw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) Sorry OC................Wired does not agree with you................we are doomed WIRED: Sea Level Rise Is Predictable. It Will Be Anything From Bad to Awful. . http://bit.ly/22jZVGw Oh yeah, hardware guys have an opinion? Here's what I tell all hardware guys about everything: STFU, get back in your hole, and instead of talking about things you don't understand, go try fixing just one of the 60 open tickets you have today. Dudes that review hardware for a living, and basically sell positive articles for ad space, aren't worth my time. I cancelled my Wired subscription in 2000, for Pete's sake. It was right after they told us all that that WI-FI was dead, and that the wireless web was a bridge too far. EDIT: No I am not shitting you. I read that flying to the valley, only to have the usual turds at my portal company come tell me the same thing. There actually was a 6 month window where the same idiots that are now spouting "convention over configuration" were spouting "wifi is dead". You know who those turds always are? Hardware guys that have somehow escaped their hole, and are pretending to be technical architects and enterprise designers. They think because they touch machines, they understand systems. EDIT2: Ask a hardware guy how many psychology classes they've taken. Ask them how many organizational theory classes. Hell, ask them how many accounting classes. The answer is always: none. So, no, they will never understand systems, because they don't even know what they don't know: people, and more importantly, how people perceive and act to organize...which...is how accounting became accounting, or in your case, how nursing became nursing. These guys aren't computer scientists. They are technicians. Thus, the chances of them understanding the science involved here is 0. EDIT2(con't): Initially I didn't even read the article beacuse it came from Wired. However, after skimming it, I will note that the expert scientist they brought in to talk about population shifts...actually brought up the need to have "Nostradumus working for you" in order to get it right. Now, I ask you: when the expert scientist you brought in specifically for this article says he doesn't know what's going to happen...does that mean your headline should be "Sea Level Rise Is Predictable. It Will Be Anything From Bad to Awful"? Or, should you go for something a little less definitive? This is why Wired gets no respect amongst legit IT people. You might as well listen to Kim F'ing Kommando on Saturday radio. That is a hilarous show...for me, and those like me. These people are hacks that simply aren't capable of creating or processing raw techincal data. No. They have to have somebody do the thinking for them, turn the data into information for them, dumb it down to their level, and then they take it from there. Edited March 16, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Seriously? You should hear yourself. http://www.carbonneutralearth.com/why_recycle_plastic.php Seriously. Allow me to modify my previous post so it applies more specifically to you: If your argument relies so heavily on lies and distortion in order to succeed, then you've pretty much invalidated it as far as I'm concerned. Beginning to get the picture, pajama boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article65948497.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article65948497.html Mother Nature is a B word. Good luck to you and yours trying to stop her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Mother Nature is a B word. Good luck to you and yours trying to stop her. If only people recycled more, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 If only people recycled more, eh? Speaking of conservation and stuff our water district out here has done a pretty good job of helping people conserve water. They send charts and graphs showing you your water usage. Ours spiked a few months ago by 100 gallons a day! They said the biggest offender is your toilet. Checked and found out we had a leaky toilet. That leaky toilet was wasting about 3,000 gallons of water a month. We do our best to conserve like catching water from when the shower water is heating up and use that to water the garden in the summer and fill the toilet tanks when we flush in the winter. So I felt pretty bad about wasting that much water. They say the US wastes over 1 trillion gallons of water a year due to leaks. So they offer water conserving shower heads and faucet aerators for free which is pretty cool. Oh wait they are not free. I almost fell into the Bernie trap. And see gator we don't hate all government. Sometimes they do some good things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 http://www.miamihera...le65948497.html From NOAA: Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year. (0.12 inches is roughly 3 mm) Another Study Satellite altimetry data suggest that sea level rose by about 2.39±0.48 mm per year between 2005 and 2011. They estimate that between 1993 and 2012 sea level rise averaged 3.13 mm per year. Which is pretty close to the global mean sea level from the TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 satellite altimeters at 2.9 ±0.4 mm per year. Notably between 2005 and 2011 the rate of sea level rise actually decreased relative to the 1993 to 2012 rate. The study that gator links to uses assumes a rise of 0.9 meters and 1.8 meters by 2100. That works out to an average sea level rise of 10.7 mm per year and 21.4 mm per year respectively. Just another study based on a dubious assumption which has no connection to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 From NOAA: (0.12 inches is roughly 3 mm) Another Study They estimate that between 1993 and 2012 sea level rise averaged 3.13 mm per year. Which is pretty close to the global mean sea level from the TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 satellite altimeters at 2.9 ±0.4 mm per year. Notably between 2005 and 2011 the rate of sea level rise actually decreased relative to the 1993 to 2012 rate. The study that gator links to uses assumes a rise of 0.9 meters and 1.8 meters by 2100. That works out to an average sea level rise of 10.7 mm per year and 21.4 mm per year respectively. Just another study based on a dubious assumption which has no connection to reality. Regarding the bolded. Coincidence? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts