• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Climate change

05900

Embrace the BRAAAAAAP!
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
10,696
4,560
113
Where the Buffalo roam
Psaki, Pelosi and Joe say it cost the Climate nothing...
Hippocrates at their best: Listening to CBS morning show talk to William Shatner about his ride into space, and him saying we are at a emergency stage to do some thing about the environment, and how fragile the environment really is and all the news staff agreeing. Ok boys and girls, what exactly was the carbon footprint cost of that little joyride for 4 rich people to brag they went into space? Not only calculating all the fuel burned for the ride, but transportation of the support staff, equipment, all the transportation of camera and news crews and recovery-return transportation of the equipment. Funny how a media carnival such as that creates no pollution at all. FJB
 

stum1967

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Nov 26, 2007
467
715
93
Central North Dakota
So they say it is a La Nina winter coming due to the DROP in water temperature in the central Pacific. If this year was the hottest on record, then???????
 

leisureexpress

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Feb 27, 2008
21,254
45,308
113
244493899_10225672410218326_8542671383843021634_n.jpg
 

Skidoox

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Sep 4, 2001
33,952
64,956
113
Provo, UT
1634824668638.png

A new “peer-reviewed” paper has been released from Cornell University titled “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature.”

The study is yet another attempt to convey the nebulous notion that widespread scientific consensus exists regarding the primary causal factor behind climate change. A previous study, spearheaded by climate blogger activist John Cook, concluded in 2013 there was “97 percent consensus.” Despite near-universal acclaim and its citation by leading policymakers such as the United Kingdom’s energy minister, the study was inherently flawed.

Dr. Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia explains, “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Even the Guardian -- typically a stalwart supporter of climate activism -- ran a headline stating: “The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up.”

After a thorough analysis, more than 100 published articles shredded the study’s faulty methodology and completely rejected its postulated consensus level of 97 percent.
1634824688986.gifYet, Cook’s baseless study was still used as the inspiration for today’s release from Cornell -- which, unsurprisingly, is similarly flawed. Regarding the researchers’ methodological approach, the article’s press release states, “In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020.”

More at American Thinker.
 
C
Sep 8, 2014
266
95
28
Crested Butte
View attachment 378397

A new “peer-reviewed” paper has been released from Cornell University titled “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature.”

The study is yet another attempt to convey the nebulous notion that widespread scientific consensus exists regarding the primary causal factor behind climate change. A previous study, spearheaded by climate blogger activist John Cook, concluded in 2013 there was “97 percent consensus.” Despite near-universal acclaim and its citation by leading policymakers such as the United Kingdom’s energy minister, the study was inherently flawed.

Dr. Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia explains, “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Even the Guardian -- typically a stalwart supporter of climate activism -- ran a headline stating: “The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up.”

After a thorough analysis, more than 100 published articles shredded the study’s faulty methodology and completely rejected its postulated consensus level of 97 percent.
View attachment 378398Yet, Cook’s baseless study was still used as the inspiration for today’s release from Cornell -- which, unsurprisingly, is similarly flawed. Regarding the researchers’ methodological approach, the article’s press release states, “In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020.”

More at American Thinker.
Its probably only 95%
At best!
 

Hawkster

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 22, 2010
8,168
6,394
113
AK
A couple of weeks back I was talking to an new customer that inherited one of my systems I installed a good twenty plus years ago .

Anyway this person and I started talking about climate change since it's right up this persons alley that just so happens to work for noaa for many many years.

It was really interesting till I gave my perspective on climate change , I told this person I use to be into uplands and waterfall hunting for many years , massive decoys is the key :) , anyway I mentioned how the migration patterns has shifted over the years .

It's quite funny how mother nature has it's own GPS and does not abide to markers .

I mentioned out of speculating that it must have something to do with the planet shifting a few degrees on it's axis every so often .

That's when I got the look , deer in the headlights , crickets . Absolutely nothing , ziltch , noda .

How is this even possible ? Don't believe me ? Ask a person that works in wildlife , they'll give you a common sense reply for you to judge for yourself.

Mother nature is a well oiled machine and when she's done with this **** show she'll toss these greenie earth muffin bitches like the infectious toxic disease they are .
 
C
Sep 8, 2014
266
95
28
Crested Butte
A couple of weeks back I was talking to an new customer that inherited one of my systems I installed a good twenty plus years ago .

Anyway this person and I started talking about climate change since it's right up this persons alley that just so happens to work for noaa for many many years.

It was really interesting till I gave my perspective on climate change , I told this person I use to be into uplands and waterfall hunting for many years , massive decoys is the key :) , anyway I mentioned how the migration patterns has shifted over the years .

It's quite funny how mother nature has it's own GPS and does not abide to markers .

I mentioned out of speculating that it must have something to do with the planet shifting a few degrees on it's axis every so often .

That's when I got the look , deer in the headlights , crickets . Absolutely nothing , ziltch , noda .

How is this even possible ? Don't believe me ? Ask a person that works in wildlife , they'll give you a common sense reply for you to judge for yourself.

Mother nature is a well oiled machine and when she's done with this **** show she'll toss these greenie earth muffin bitches like the infectious toxic disease they are .
It does shift on its axis in a very predictable manner.
Weird that noaa was baffled
 

Hawkster

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 22, 2010
8,168
6,394
113
AK
#778
That posting should be hilarious but instead it's a horror show . I've been asking for years why is it the electrical and rail companies can not colocate thier businesses ? No excuses excepted , This day and age and they still can't get along , are they not usually unions ??
Again no excuses power lines , communication and rail have absolutely no excuse why they can not work together . There is only one explanation , greed.
Again no excuses , the maintenance of rail and above ground power more so is even more prone and have absolutely no time for failure , so why can they not work together ?
Power and rail could put a system in that would finally upgrade a high maintenance system that is older than the pony express .

Here's an example from the other direction, could you imagine the expense, problems and resistance of actually getting it done by not having all the required utilities colocated to the d mark of a project/new construction?
 
Premium Features