Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 103. (Read 636455 times)

Hahaha.  Ya, everybody and their brother is trying to stick their snout into the climate change trough.  Yet more evidence that the whole thing is a massive rent-seeking and control grid sham.

While cheerleading that so called warp drive, I was listening to the father of the emdrive and:
https://youtu.be/4hTdSg47h3k?t=15m40s
From 15m and 40s

What a terrible idea.

I'm beginning to entertain the hypothesis that although there are a lot of political and economic forces driving the 'virtual' climate change, one of them might be being widely under-considered.  Geo-engineering.

If one wanted to, say, be 'Owning the weather by 2025' and had outlined the technical details for doing so back in the 1990's, there is a thorny problem in how to convince one's own domestic population and the populations around the world that it is an appropriate thing to be doing.  I submit that 'saving the world from catastrophe in the form of global warming' would be one way to do this.

The simple fact is ignoring to save your soul will have exceptionally grave consequences if Hell is true.  These deniers want to wait for "proof" which will only exist after death and their body, as we know it, has been destroyed...


 

Hurricane Danny fizzles: Why are there fewer big hurricanes?

The US is in a historic hurricane drought, according to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. The fading of Hurricane Danny, which peaked as a Category 3 storm over the Atlantic, came as no surprise Saturday.



ATLANTA — Hurricane Danny, a small hurricane that at one point reached Category 3 status as it moved across from Africa toward the Leeward Islands, has weakened quickly and by Sunday should be reduced to tropical storm status. An unusually strong atmospheric wind shear can be seen on satellite images Saturday literally whisking the storm away.

To be sure, Danny remains a dangerous development. Slated to hit the Virgin Islands early in the week, the storm could still cause wind-and-rain damage to island interests. But its days as a hurricane are likely over as El-Nino-fueled shearing winds discombobulate its core, weakening it in the process.

“After [Friday's] nearly flawless appearance on satellite images, Danny is now showing signs of a more hostile environment,” writes Brian McNoldy, senior research associate at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, on his weather blog. “The micro-hurricane is surrounded by dry air, and is entering a belt of strong vertical wind shear.”


Such hurricane-killing conditions fit a familiar pattern, notable against a national look-back at hurricane Katrina, a category 3 storm that devastated the Gulf Coast, and particularly New Orleans, nearly 10 years ago. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center recently updated its 2015 hurricane season outlook to say there’s a 90 percent chance that the number of sizable storms will be below normal; its previous chance estimate for a below-normal storm year was 70 percent.

Save for hurricane-turned-cyclone Sandy in 2012, the US mainland has been spared any major hurricane destruction since a spate of big storms, including hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Dennis, struck the Gulf Coast in the mid-2000s. Indeed, a 9-year “drought” in Category 3 or greater storms that reach land is unmatched by any stretch since at least 1850, according to a 2015 NASA study.

That’s not to say it’s been a dull season so far. Already, two big tropical storms – Ana and Bill – have struck the US mainland. (Ana hit South Carolina; Bill struck Texas).

But as for storms building enough brawn to be a real threat, not so much.

Unusually high atmospheric wind shear caused by a historic El Nino event in the Pacific, cooler than normal Atlantic water temperatures, air pressure differentials between the Atlantic and the East Pacific, and even dust from Saharan sand storms all play into dynamics that affect the easterly African weather waves that sometimes curl into Atlantic hurricanes.

Indeed, the same wind shear that’s dismantling Danny is likely the biggest reason for such a stretch of quiet storm years. (Remember, 2005 had 11 named storms, seven of which hit land and five of which caused major damage.)  Colorado State University meteorologist Philip Klotzbach found that wind shear has been record-breaking this summer in the Caribbean, exceeding conditions present during the big El Nino year of 1997.

"As hurricanes develop from thunderstorms, they need to grow tall in the atmosphere as heat and moisture is concentrated in the middle of the storm," the Washington Post's Angela Fritz wrote last month. "If winds are too strong at the upper levels, it can tear a young storm apart, or even prevent it from developing in the first place."

But stay tuned: No matter how battered by wind shear, Danny could still pack a punch by the time it inches across the Atlantic, and – if current tracks hold – might yet threaten the US mainland after passing over the Leeward and Virgin Islands early in the week.

“I've gotten a lot of questions from south Floridians about this storm, and as of now, there is no cause for concern … just cause for attention,” writes Mr. McNoldy, on his blog.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0822/Hurricane-Danny-fizzles-Why-are-there-fewer-big-hurricanes


---------------------------------------
How can this be? We know global warming is killing us, by the minute, with bigger hurricanes everyday...

Global Warming: Getting worse
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/04/global-warming-getting-worse/

Let them ban whoever they want, If they go crazy with bans another website will emerge and replace Reddit.

lol

and yet people buy this.

beeing 1% above of an 50 year average is so dumb since by definition, there have been even higher and lower data to calculate it..



 

Yes, using the logical error of the "Irrefutable hypothesis," which is part and parcel of the Precautionary Principle.

Yet they all will travel in private jets, not skype, they all will read printouts published on tons and tons of paper, not PDFs on their smart phones. They will meet and agree to tell us how we should behave to save the planet: we should stop breathing.

From the comments on this article on WattsUpwithThat.com

Our world’s leading environmental problems: Lack of pure clean air to breath and pure clean water to drink.Exists no Climate threat. Only stupid non educated so called scholars not understanding Facts not Fiction, Facts are what matters

Theories built on computer models are what we who became systemprogrammers in early 70’s called and still calls Shit in ->Shit out…. It takes more than a model using less than 1/4 of needed premisses who needs to be proven true to write a solid and sound program…. IF you correct any data what so ever – then your program isn’t sound nor solid any more. Simple as that.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/17/the-recurrent-problem-of-green-scares-that-dont-live-up-to-the-hype/

Today on the radio it was all about that incapable french president lobbying for the climate summit in the end of this year.

The speaker launched the subject, saying climate is indeed^tm changing, since the updated^tm records of temperature during july reached the critical^tm point of 1% rise in comparaison with the average temperature during the last 50 years.

friggin retards.

Well, he's just wrong.  He may believe his thermometer, but we all know that his data has to be processed through the Department of Adjustments before it's correct.

Please show at least a basic understanding of Syence before posting trivia like this.

Dem Rep Offers Irrefutable Proof Global Warming Is Real Using Cutting Edge Scientific Method... His car’s thermometer.






http://michellemalkin.com/2015/08/18/dem-reps-proof-of-global-warming-refuted-using-same-scientific-method/

Obama, Clinton Foundation Donors Sold ‘Green’ Fuel to Military for $149 per Gallon







San Francisco’s Solazyme also received millions in stimulus funds from DOE



The CEO and Board of Directors of Solazyme, a company the military paid $149 per gallon for “alternative” fuel, have donated more than $300,000 to Democratic candidates and committees, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

Recipients of significant donations included the Obama Victory Fund and the Democratic National Committee. Additionally, Solazyme donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report found that the Department of Defense (DOD) paid Solazyme $149 per gallon for fuel made of algal oil, costing taxpayers a total of $223,500 in 2009. The group also received a $21 million stimulus grant from Department of Energy in 2009.

“Based in South San Francisco, Solazyme’s mission is to improve our lives and our planet by producing sustainable, high-performance oils and ingredients derived from microalgae,” the company states. Solazyme claims that their process serves as a better alternative to limited resources such as petroleum, vegetable oils, and animal fats.

Three members of Solazyme’s Board of Directors have donated hundreds of thousands to Dems, which include more than $50,000 in donations that benefited President Obama.

Solazyme’s co-founders, Jonathan Wolfson and Harrison Dillon, have together donated more than $7,000 to Democratic candidates and committees.

A member of Solazyme’s management team, Peter Licari, donated to both Republicans and Democrats before he was employed by Solazyme. Licari donated $16,000 to Republicans and more than $25,000 to Democrats while he was employed by Complete Healthcare Resources.

“Solazyme has been propelled over the years by an extraordinary group of people,” states Wolfson. “Our employees, customers, partners and investors have been and will continue to be our greatest resources.”

DOD has stated that one of its strategic energy goals is to expand its energy supply options by investing in alternative fuels such as the kind Solazyme produces. This type of renewable fuel comes at much higher cost than petroleum fuel.

From fiscal years 2007 to 2014, the DOD purchased 32 billion gallons of petroleum fuel for $107.2 billion, which comes to $3.35 per gallon. This means that Solazyme’s price per gallon was 44 times that of the average price of regular petroleum fuel.

Christine Travis, manager of corporate communications for Solazyme, said the $149 per gallon figure is “incorrect” and that the number is inflated due to research and development costs.

“The dollar amount you cited is incorrect because that total cost includes the R&D portion we performed at the request of the DOD that was part of the testing and certification program with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy,” said Travis.

Travis says that this month Solazyme announced they are supplying renewable fuel to UPS and that it has been a few years since they’ve worked with DOD on fuels.

However, she praised the Navy’s effort to increase their use of alternative fuels.

“We applaud the Navy for pursuing the bold goal of supplying its operations with 50 percent alternative fuels by 2020. Our dependence on oil from foreign nations—some of them hostile, some of them unstable—is one of the greatest threats to our security as a nation and to our allies overseas who rely on Persian Gulf oil and have no or insignificant indigenous petroleum resources of their own.”

In regards to co-founders and board of directors donating to Democrats, Travis said Solazyme has no policy on political contributions.

“Our company does not have a PAC, and our company does not have a policy on employee or board member political contributions,” Travis said. “Anyone in our company can support anyone they want.”


http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-clinton-foundation-donors-sold-green-fuel-to-military-for-149-per-gallon/


------------------------------------
"Hey hey! Ho ho! Deniers have to go! Hey hey! Ho ho! This is what science looks like! Hey Hey! Ho ho!"

What is striking about the global warming industry is that its growth is driven more or less entirely by “policymaking,” i.e., government mandates and other policies. This is why “green” businesses contribute so lavishly to the political campaigns of politicians who drink the global warming Kool-aid.

Hmmm, yes and most policy is made by people that nobody voted for in any so called elections. Heck, the corporate owned congress rubber stamps even freely admit that they hardly read what they,re handed to pass. Cheap whores, fantastic returns.

nope, its about feedin' em pizzas.





kawabongaaa

But I was looking at Moon landing Conspiracy theories and then at 911 stuff - you know those planes really didn't hit those towers and I saw this-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE

Surprise surprise. It is not about saving little turtles from drowning after all...

GLOBAL WARMING: A $1.5 TRILLION INDUSTRY


POSTED ON AUGUST 9, 2015 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN ENVIRONMENT


The Climate Change Business Journal has calculated that global warming is now a $1.5 trillion a year industry. The Business Journal’s report is not available for free online, but its findings are reviewed by the Insurance Journal. They are eye-opening, to say the least:

The $1.5 trillion global “climate change industry” grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal.

The San Diego, Calif.-based publication includes within that industry nine segments and 38 sub-segments. This encompasses sectors like renewables, green building and hybrid vehicles.

One of the most lucrative segments of the global warming money tree is consulting:

That also includes the climate change consulting market, which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the U.S.

Included in this sub-segment, which the report shows is one of the fastest growing areas of the climate change industry, are environmental consultants and engineers, risk managers, assurance, as well as legal and other professional services.

What is striking about the global warming industry is that its growth is driven more or less entirely by “policymaking,” i.e., government mandates and other policies. This is why “green” businesses contribute so lavishly to the political campaigns of politicians who drink the global warming Kool-aid.

Ferrier believes the [Obama administration’s Clean Power] plan may eventually prove to be a driver of further growth in the industry. That is if the plan withstands any legal challenges from states, industries and entities opposed to it. …

Policy, or the anticipation of new policy, has been one of the biggest drivers of the industry, the report shows.

A survey of those already in the industry conducted just prior to the U.S. economic downturn, while the industry was a peak growth, shows that 53.5 percent of those polled felt that U.S. or state climate change policy development would be a “strong positive” driver of growth in their business. More than one-third felt that policymaking would have a “very strong positive” impact on their growth.

This is why Big Green has become a principal source of funding–since the advent of Tom Steyer, likely the second most important source of funding, after unions–of the Democratic Party. A $1.5 trillion industry that can survive only by relying on the coercive powers of government will inevitably be a major force for statism.

By way of comparison, Koch Industries, which is often accused of funding global warming realism–I think any such funding has been minuscule–has estimated annual revenues of $115 billion, less than 10% the size of Big Green. Exxon Mobil, the largest American oil company, has annual revenues of around $365 billion. That makes Exxon Mobil about one-quarter the size of Big Green. More important, Exxon Mobil doesn’t depend on government largesse to make a profit. It produces commodities that are useful and that people willingly buy. So it has nowhere near the incentive of Big Green to devote resources to influencing the political process.

$1.5 trillion a year will buy a whole lot of scientists, not just in the United States but around the world. With that kind of money at stake, it is little wonder that global warming hysterics would rather “adjust” past temperature data than admit that their models are wrong, and have no skill at predicting future climate.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/global-warming-a-1-5-trillion-industry.php

Doh