Global warming. ..June snow


#21

I don’t agree with all this. But people paying taxes are leaving faster than ones that do not.


#22

Why would anyone not paying taxes leave? They get everything for free.

California’s poverty rate is equal to Pakistan.


#23

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/no-global-warming-isnt-killing-off-the-polar-bears/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-who-are-the-deniers-now/

I suspect climate science will some day be as laughable as the fat is bad and sugar is perfectly good for us science.


#24

Wow, I didn’t think it’d be this soon.


#25

It appears tech will solve the issue of too much atmospheric CO2.


#26

Not to devalue this, but, i grabbed this comment from hackernews:

“To wit; the company behind the paper in question, Carbon Engineering, is noted by Wikipedia as having “oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards” as one of it’s principal backers. And the article’s “outside expert’s opinion” quote comes from Stephen Pacal, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton- which has an “extended partnership with BP” worth a great deal of money [1]. The financial conflicts behind this research are staggering.”


#27

Bill Gates has invested in it. Energy companies are always looking for cheaper ways to get energy to sell than drilling.


#28

Super cool! Pun intended :slight_smile:


#29

Remember all the crying about the US leaving the Paris climate agreement? Turns out US green house has emissions have been declining and will continue to decline. Emissions in Europe and China are increasing. So yes, Trump is ruining the environment.


#30

The fear mongering is AMAZING.

“Ocean temperatures are less influenced by year-to-year variations in the weather. It can take more than 1,000 years for deep ocean temperatures to adjust to changes at the surface.”

Um, so the current ocean warming is due to things from 1,000 years ago before humans were consuming large amounts of fossil fuels, and there were ~300M humans on earth. Yet, earlier in the article they make it sound like it’s all due to current CO2 levels.

“Man-made greenhouse gas emissions are warming the atmosphere, according to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, and a large part of the heat gets absorbed by the oceans. That in turn is forcing fish to flee to cooler waters.”

So which is it? Are man-made emissions increasing the ocean temperature or is the ocean temperature changing due to things 1,000 years ago?


#31

It’s a combo of both.


#32

That’s literally impossible if you’re talking about deep ocean water.


#33

It is so dangerous, snow is falling from solar panels!

You better run! :laughing::laughing::laughing:


#34

It’s worth a read. The guy was paid a bunch of money to come to a specific conclusion. He made up data to do it, so the people paying him would get what they wanted. I can’t imagine any reason climate scientists would make up data like keeping their funding and job.


#36

Moral of the story is not to ever question vaccines because Pharma will make mincemeat of you. No one will do the same regarding climate change…

Just so you know, apparently a British court threw out the verdict against Wakefield’s coauthor. Wakefield just didn’t have the money to fight, and according to this, the parents fully supported Wakefield and the treatment they received. The Lancet only threw out the paper based on ethical concerns, not the material covered in the paper itself, but those concerns were overruled by British court.


The Lancet retraction here:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/fulltext

“In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false.”

The Judge’s decision here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

" 187. The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed."


#37

The lawsuit was alleging that he harmed the patients. That’s a separate issue form publishing false info.


#38

The retraction alleged ethical misconduct as the primary reason for retraction, not falsified findings. I realize most people don’t know that and so everyone thinks Wakefield made stuff up, but that’s not necessarily the case.


#39

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/lessons-from-snowpocalypse-remote-testimony-and-an-income-tax

Amazing. I thought CO2 emissions made the earth warmer. Now they are using snow to justify why a carbon tax is needed.


#40

They are what they are. I’m just depressed that so many Americans are dumb enough to believe them.


#41

For example, “San Francisco’s climate in 2080 will feel most like today’s climate near Palos Verdes Estates, California.”

Cities like Concord will now feel more like Rosedale (only 0.5 degrees warmer in the winter but also more than 60 percent drier), while San Jose will resemble Glendale (7.7 degrees warmer, with 25 percent less rain in winter).

Change is even more sweeping in the future for the North Bay. Vacaville, for example, will “feel most like today’s climate near Guadalupe Victoria, Mexico,” where the “typical summer in Guadalupe Victoria is 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer and 187.8 percent wetter than summer in Vacaville.”

LA, for example, will soon resemble Las Palmas, Mexico, if the researchers’ formula is to be believed. That means summers that are nearly six degrees warmer and a more than 2,000 percent increase in precipitation during the season.