They do not worry at the cost to millions of humans. I actually appreciated petroleum far more once I studied a great book, cited below. This cuts out the drama. This is science.
I don't know how you persist in error when facts can be easily learned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change - - - Updated - - - You lack reading comprehension, because my "rant," which contains points you absolutely cannot refute, said nothing about politics. - - - Updated - - - Ok. The actual numbet is 97%. I was off by two percentage points. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
What facts? That wiki as a rule ignores basic rules of logic? I don't have to do any more reading to know that
41 of the over 11,000 scientists is not 97 percent. And you claim your math is top notch? And of course my judgement was and is you vote Democratic party. I can smell poop even when it is not in sight. I don't need a person to tell me they just pooped. And your diatribe seems so unscientific.
Where are you getting your numbers? In the Wikipedia page I linked to, the following is stated: "Of the published climate researchers that state a position, just over 97% of them say humans are causing global warming." Look at the massive list of scientific bodies supporting the theory, then compare it the tiny list of scientific bodies that don't. And when you look at the few who don't, they all just so happen to have a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry. (For example, there's The American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the American Institute of Professional Geologists. Most geologists in industry work for Big Oil in some capacity.)
A study shown by Burt Rutan examined all IPCC papers. 41 stated man warms earth on purpose. The vast majority took no position. A middle number suspect man has something to do with warming. Then we have this very famous climatologist who blew off the IPCC report and blasted it. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09...-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/ By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotSeptember 28, 2013 12:34 AM Climate Depot Exclusive
Burt Rutan is highly intelligent and famous. Burt in his video explains the results of the study done on the IPCC papers. [video=youtube;oxFm1TXshZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxFm1TXshZY[/video]
I have not quoted Geologists but certainly the underground business is their field. I once hired a Ph.d. on a BART Job in San Francisco based on his expertise with geology. I was able as the job assistant boss to purchase at Stacy's book store in Palo Alto, CA the defining book on drilling for oil. While I was not drilling for oil,. I made use of the techniques used to drill for oil on this job. We had company engineers who came up with the idea and for the most part we pionerred the use of Bentonite on excavating for a concrete shaft over the BART tunnel. To comprehend this, imagine a rectangle on the ground of 24ft by 48 ft. We installed concrete walls by digging a number of trenches that outlined the 24x48 rectangle and poured to a depth of about 92 feet the reinforced walls that are 4 feet wide. Water from below water tables flowed below so we had to keep a clean hole and not cause other nearby buildings to collapse into our operation. We used many thousands of gallons of slurry. Slurry is bentonite mixed in water. When put into a hole, it prevents water tables from flowing through. It acts as a sealant. They use it in oil wells for the same reason. Today other jobs have used that same technique. We had engineers from as distant as Japan show up to see how it is done. OK, how does relate to the topic. Easy, you brought up geologists as if they would be a strange breed cat working for oil companies. Oil companieis depend on top notch geologists and I had to hire one at a then high price of $800 per day and we paid his living expenses plus his travel expenses. We had the job shut down for 3 days and it was costing the company a lot of money for the delay. I was asked by the Geologist if we had any ideas. I was the specialist on the job and I told him I wanted to add Bicarbonate of Soda to counter the effects of the cement. We had been pouring in huge amounts of Soda Ash to try to control the PH. The problem was the slurry was not slurry, it was like common mud and not able to do the job. The fix solved it. Me and Tim the superintendent got into an argument when I told him ahead of the Geologist what the solution was. Tim decided to pump in more water. It did not work. But the Bicarbonate of Soda worked very well.
Nobel Laureate SMASHES the Global Warming Fraud Global Warming Fraudsters are always whining about anyone who disagrees with Al Gore and them. Always. They claim dissenters are "stupid" and "don't know science" and of course they never EVER have the credentials which are satisfactory to Global Warming Fraudsters. In contrast, anyone who agrees with Global Warming Fraudsters is instantly accepted. No requirements necessary. Well this Nobel Laureate is brilliant, and he does his homework. The fallacy of the argument from authority states that truth is not a function of the credentials of the person espousing it. But the credentials are definitely here as well. He studied the best anyone put forth on "climate change" and understood very clearly that it is all a hoax, intended to transfer wealth to universities, researchers verifying Al Gorism, and third world crapholes who are receiving billions from gullible Americans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly: "I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case." That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers. In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-
I don't understand your focus on American politics in a question about science and measurements. Do you really think that American politics can influence science everywhere? Do you think that temperature measurements in Denmark are somehow influenced by the Democratic Party in the US? If yes... Then you have a problem. Watch the 30 odd videos by Hadfield. He is both funny and intelligent. Furthermore he sources everything so you can check any claim he makes. Here is the first video. Watch them all and tell me whether you still think the science is a somehow a Democratic conspiracy. [video=youtube;52KLGqDSAjo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP[/video]
Let me try this gambit. I presume by your texts you more than want, and you intensely desire the common citizen rush to your side, with hair flashing flames,and do something to stop this alleged global warming scare. I suggest were this true,we should see plenty of proof inside the budgets of states and the Feds. I see chat. I see derision used as a tool trying to bully far too many citizens towards this cause, in effect, stampeding us all. I bring up politics since far too many scientists, specialists in climate, do not agree. Even the way the IPCC shamelessly championed this as an emergency gives off an odor. Sure, I love watching videos. I will research who made the video. The way the Democrats research this. As I recall, in Paris they got signatures by not pretending this is some emergency. By the way, I presume you realize Hadfield is a news reporter. He spoke of being a member of the media reporting on climate. So one more time. We common citizens are to do what to stop your fright?
THANK YOU! G'BYE!!! If only he would take all of his Global Warming Hypocrite friends with him, and take a long, long "ecotour." (sic) "Ecotour" is another of those one word oxymorons, like "gay" and "feminist" and "progressive." “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 http://www.investors.com/politics/e...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
In other news, world champion dart thrower analyzed the Warrior game last night, watch this 10 hour video to hear his expert opinion.
You seem unable to accept the fact that there is a world outside the US. I do not know what to tell you honestly.
Lol. Right here I am trying to show usfan how to spot pseudoscience in 30 sec. If a Nobel winning physicist spent 11/2 days it means he did the most thorough job, checked and double checked his conclusion. Spotting pseudoscience is a part his job. It took me less than 2 days to go through the 1st IPCC report, google, open my text and cross reference books to see that it was a garbage. And it is not even by job, more like a hobby. And I don't have to report to the public. He was horrified. It was a shock for him. I was disgusted. But not shocked. I had been watching the scientific community for quite a while. Lol.
As a follow up, the greatest dog trainer alive has watched the first two episodes of "Genius" and has written a brief paper explaining why Hawking is a fraud.
No I didn't. I already knew that geologists are an important part of the oil industry. That was actually my point: It's no coincidence that people whose careers depend on the fossil fuel industry would attack the theory of global warming. - - - Updated - - - A lot of people are intelligent and famous. I don't know why I should trust the interpretation of an engineer over the consensus of climate scientists.
But none of this is relevant. When you have two sides arguing, you need to look at both sides' motives. The climate scientists have no motive other than science. The people who attack the theory of global warming often have ties to industries who benefit from the theory being disregarded. Is it any coincidence that Big Oil has invested so much money into the anti-science narrative?
This argument is a fail. Oil has no more relevance to global warming than does the making of bread. The making of Champagne or the Soft Drink industry. Another similar industry is the dry ice industry. Those have more actual relevance than does oil. Most of those supporting AGW simply are not climate scientists. There is no consensus among actual climate scientists. Witness some well known scientists, such as Judith Curry and Dr. Richard Lindzen. - - - Updated - - - I know the motive of the alarmists. RAW power. They hope to control the people's of the planet.
When I first heard this typical remark, I checked to find out what the oil industry policy is. Strangely they wanted to be in the forms of industry that took advantage of this terrorism by the AGW community. I believe my recall is that Shell Oil early got into the anti carbon dioxide industries.
It is a good thing for plants, especially the ones we like to eat. We pump extra co2 into grow houses for healthier plants. Which has led to some folks saying every fossil fuel energy plant should be surrounded by green houses and a way to plumb in co2 so some of it gets taken in by plants. Pretty good idea. We could also help to control co2 levels if they worry us about getting higher by planting co2 loving plants worldwide. Put a few people to work for a couple decades. Of course, this would not funnel the money to the right people so we do not want to go the natural route. I gotta prediction which is based upon fact. If we continue to cut down our rain forests, co2 will go in in the atmosphere. So, we are hardly worried about co2 for if we were, we would force a stoppage of deforestation. We only want to address co2 if the banksters who will handle the money from carbon taxes get to dip their pelican sized beaks in it before it gets to MNCs in Africa, to build infrastructure, for other MNCs who will then have access to extremely poor Africans who will work cheaper than the communist Chinese and communst Vietnamese, to make MNCs max out their profits even greater. Follow the money my chimp friends. Always, follow the money, and where it ends up. Or, you will be a 'mark'.
There are certain calculation of smoke stacks and smoke footprint which would not allow any accumulation of smoke particles and accordingly CO2 around PPs but grant safe concentrations for residents to breath. unless you put green houses on smoke stack and up in the air around them the idea is illiterate.
