maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:12 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 418 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:38 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20951
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15927
Also, I feel the need to call your attention to your "fallacy of the excluded middle" rejoinder.

My concern about global warming does not lose credibility on account of my desire that my family and friends survive the consequences. It's good to have an ecology that is diverse, interesting, and sustainable, both for making an economic living and also just for general entertainment. Likewise, it's better that many Americans survive the crisis (since it can no longer be avoided anyhow).

So, in recognizing the facts of CO2 forcing and global warming I'm just following the best science. There's no credible alternative explanation at this point. Anyone who claims otherwise does not know anything about climatology nor, likely, about scientific method. I'm taking the position that offers clear benefits to Americans in re energy independence, political leadership if one cares about that sort of shit, will reduce the chances that the USA will get dragged into a war over this, etc. Good for all Americans.

I therefore hope for American national policies that will mitigate the potential effects and reduce the likelihood of the worst outcomes like global war. But in the end, even if the US gov't following the lead of such as yourself fails to prepare or take steps to mitigate the effects, individuals/families/communities CAN take such steps.

So... prep or do not. But if the maximum bad happens, don't expect those of us who are taking steps to provide refuge for those who are not.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:14 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 12119
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 16336
You're a moron. Not much point in saying more than that.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:16 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20951
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15927
Another logical fallacy from Mr. Scientist. :lol:

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:09 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 12119
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 16336

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:49 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16334
Reputation points: 13228
Quote:
The problem with the NOAA data is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data.
Fiddling With Temperature Data
Jack Dini image

By Jack Dini —— Bio and Archives October 3, 2018

Fiddling With Temperature Data
They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5 F since the 19th century., which is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows. The problem with the NOAA data is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data show no warming over the past century. The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5 F, which is the warming claimed in the article.

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up.

All of the claims in the Climate Central article were bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year. 1

Here’s another example of NOAA exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data. This time the data concerns the early 2018 record-breaking cold across the northeastern US which NOAA is trying to erase from history. 2

If you believe NOAA’s charts, thee was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather.
(Continued)
https://canadafreepress.com/print_frien ... ature-data


_________________
“Political Language… is Designed to Make Lies Sound Truthful… and to Give an Appearance of Solidity to Pure Wind.” — George Orwell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:41 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 16154
Reputation points: 720
abradley wrote:
Quote:
The problem with the NOAA data is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data.
Fiddling With Temperature Data
Jack Dini image

By Jack Dini —— Bio and Archives October 3, 2018

Fiddling With Temperature Data
They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5 F since the 19th century., which is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows. The problem with the NOAA data is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data show no warming over the past century. The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5 F, which is the warming claimed in the article.

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up.

All of the claims in the Climate Central article were bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year. 1

Here’s another example of NOAA exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data. This time the data concerns the early 2018 record-breaking cold across the northeastern US which NOAA is trying to erase from history. 2

If you believe NOAA’s charts, thee was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather.
(Continued)
https://canadafreepress.com/print_frien ... ature-data


No surprise at all, the same old denialist blues again.

Of course there are adjustments to make data comparable. Like comparing directly bucket based sea water temperatures, engine room intake water temperature and Argo Floats data will give all similar warming trend when used separately. But each has a different bias, especially this engine room intake temperature in the time when the average size of ships was growing. The Argo floats are the best, measuring always at the same depth sea water.

And then there was a change in the time of day NOAA measured the temperature for each day. I have no idea why, they did that in the 1960's. Some conspiracy theorist might think that it was the start of the climate change hoax. :lol:

But the idea of greenhouse gases is much older though.

And in the article there is no actual evidence, no proof of any obfuscation at all. But references to other silly blogs or news paper articles. It is not a good reference of scientific confidence if one references Delingpole. :lol:

OTOH all the data is publicly available and there are indeed contrarian scientists available to raise a red flag for fraud. But so far no one had raised the flag. Only ignoramuses who don't know anything do it.

Empty barrels make the most noise. :lol:

PS. Don't be one. ;)
PPS. Understanding adjustments to temperature data. Made by a real scientist. But perhaps too nuanced for you.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 16154
Reputation points: 720
An other thing is that the Trump does not know what information his administration is issuing. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. :lol:

Eric Levitz wrote:
Image

The Trump Administration Anticipates Catastrophic Global Warming by 2100

Last month, the Trump administration released a report that predicted global temperatures will be 4°C higher by the end of this century, assuming current trends persist. World leaders have pledged to keep global temperatures from rising even two degrees (Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, with the understanding that warming beyond that could prove catastrophic. The last time the Earth was as warm as the White House expects it to be in 2100, its oceans were hundreds of feet higher. Which is to say: The Trump administration ostensibly, officially expects that, absent radical action to reduce carbon emissions, within the next 80 years, much of Manhattan and Miami will sink into the sea; many of world’s coral reefs will be irreversibly destroyed by acidifying oceans; vast regions of the Earth will lose their primary sources of water; and a variety of extreme weather events will dramatically increase in frequency.

And the White House believes that this fact is an argument for loosening restrictions on carbon emissions.

The report that disclosed the administration’s forecast for global warming was not a memo detailing president Trump’s intention to reenter the Paris Climate Accord, or to appoint Naomi Klein as his new EPA director. It was an environmental-impact statement justifying his decision to repeal previously scheduled, federal fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles built after 2020 — a deregulatory measure that will add 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the end of this century, according to the government’s own estimates.

As the Washington Post revealed Friday, the administration uses its four-degree warming estimate to argue that eliminating 8 billion tons worth of emissions won’t be enough to change the climate outlook, by itself, so the federal government shouldn’t bother.

After all, the entire world would need to make enormous cuts in emissions to avert catastrophic warming — and that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

This argument is deplorable in its nihilism. But its core assumption is also patently absurd. The administration’s analysis is premised on the notion that there is no relationship between what the United States does with regard to climate regulation, and what the rest of the world’s countries do. Which is totally bogus: Not only can the U.S. lead by example, it also has the power to coerce other countries into emulating the carbon standards we set for ourselves. As Trump is fond of pointing out in other contexts, America is the greatest economic and military power in the world, and has enormous leverage over foreign governments. Earlier this year, the White House forced European companies to suddenly suspend their business with Iran — for no coherent reason — simply by threatening to deny such firms access to the U.S. banking system. If the Trump administration decided to make reducing carbon emissions the No. 1 objective of its foreign policy — which is just about the only rational priority, if it genuinely believes that failure to reduce emissions will drown America’s coastal cities — then it could ensure that our nation’s carbon regulations would be adopted by others (and thus, would have multiplier effects).

Of course, it’s far from clear what “the Trump administration” genuinely believes. By all appearances, Donald Trump thinks climate change is quite possibly a “Chinese hoax,” while some of the administration’s evangelicals appear to welcome it as a sign of the eschaton’s hastening. The “climate change is real — but inevitable — so let’s just live for the moment” line was the work of some poor National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) bureaucrats tasked with inventing a rational argument for a policy rooted in avarice and spite.

That said, if one assumes that the entire leadership of the Republican Party has concluded that human civilization will not survive Barron Trump, then their governing agenda starts to make a lot more sense. Exacerbating inequality and subordinating the commons to short-term profit maximization isn’t in the enlightened medium-term interests of the GOP donor class — but in the medium-term, we’ll all (apparently) be dead!


Actually this not funny at all. You are driving on mountain road and there is a cliff on your left side. You see a sign for a tight right turn and you think that you can not make the right turn, so you make the left turn to make a left turn to make the eventual happen quicker. There was a time America was the bus driver. :roll:

But then I don't think that mileage regulation repeals means so much. The American car industry can not afford to make gas guzzlers that sell nowhere else than in the red states of the USA. Not even in California. Not to mention Europe.

Trump can cry a river why don't American cars sell in Europe. But what does he understand.

Chuck Trump.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20951
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15927
Meh. The 25% EU import tax on US made vehicles is obviously about EU manufacturer protection. Ford would sell more F-150s in the EU were it not for that little bit of typical EU hate-mail.

Anyhow the US has different needs. EU doesn't make vehicles that can go where I was last week. None.

As for catastrophic... that needs to be defined. But yes it's going to be strong warming and famines in India and China. A bad thing? Maybe not. Fk China.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:47 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 12119
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 16336
Image

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:42 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 16154
Reputation points: 720
mdiehl wrote:
Meh. The 25% EU import tax on US made vehicles is obviously about EU manufacturer protection. Ford would sell more F-150s in the EU were it not for that little bit of typical EU hate-mail.

Anyhow the US has different needs. EU doesn't make vehicles that can go where I was last week. None.

As for catastrophic... that needs to be defined. But yes it's going to be strong warming and famines in India and China. A bad thing? Maybe not. Fk China.

Ignorance is bliss. ;)

EU tariff for passenger cars is 10%, not 25% as you believe.

The tariff is applied to any third country, a country not having a special treaty with the EU, like Japan. In this sense the US is an any third country.

But when last summer EU suggested removing car related tariffs, Trump, in his incomprehensible wisdom declined the offer.

As for off-road vehicle, your proposition is questionable.

But I think the ideal off-read vehicle for you would be one that drives you there, but not back. :lol:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 418 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group