Climate continues to change.

Status
Not open for further replies.
From 1912

tumblr_inline_owhkfvWPYk1r5twus_500.png


Greenhouse gases first coined in 1896

https://www.snopes.com/1912-article-global-warming/
 
We just went from a week of 30+ deg C, to 2 days of snow.
Climate is fucking wierd!

No, that is just random weather. It is only climate related for purposes of this thread if the temperature goes up.
 
No, that is just random weather. It is only climate related for purposes of this thread if the temperature goes up.
Weather happens over a period of up to a few years. Climate happens over a few decades. Over decades, ocean temperatures have risen, icecaps and glaciers have melted, and weather has become more energetic because pumped-up hydrosphere. Those rises correlate with increased human industry.
 


If it was your intent to destroy the U.S. economy, you could do no better than contribute to Greenpeace, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Foundation, 350.org, et al or the election of people like Governors Moonbeam or Cuomo.


Those crackpots would like nothing better than to impose a new Stone Age. They'll never be happy 'til we're all living in cold, dark caves.





 


If it was your intent to destroy the U.S. economy, you could do no better than contribute to Greenpeace, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Foundation, 350.org, et al or the election of people like Governors Moonbeam or Cuomo.


Those crackpots would like nothing better than to impose a new Stone Age. They'll never be happy 'til we're all living in cold, dark caves.





No, you aren't politicizing the issue at all, at all.
 


If it was your intent to destroy the U.S. economy, you could do no better than contribute to Greenpeace, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Foundation, 350.org, et al or the election of people like Governors Moonbeam or Cuomo.


Those crackpots would like nothing better than to impose a new Stone Age. They'll never be happy 'til we're all living in cold, dark caves.






Thanks for the laugh, dipshit.
 
Babies' health suffers from being born near fracking sites, finds major study

Babies born less than two miles from a fracking site are at risk of health problems that could hamper them later in life, new research has found.

Mothers who lived within 1km (0.6 miles) of a fracking site saw a 25 per cent increase in the likelihood that their child would be born at low birth weight, be born prematurely or have other congenital issues, the study found.

Being born at low birth weight (less than 5.5lbs) has been linked to a number of future health risks, including higher risks of asthma and ADHD, as well as poorer education attainment and future professional success.
 

Heartbreaking Video Shows Starving Polar Bear Looking For Food In Ice-less Land



A heartbreaking video of a polar bear reveals as it wanders around an ice-less land, polar bear is starving and close to death. The harsh consequences of rising temperatures and sea level rise presented in the video. It is really a hard-to-watch video.

The video of a starving polar bear searching for food on a remote Canadian island has gone viral on social media and has been shared more than a million times since it was posted to Instagram on Tuesday.

When they chanced upon a polar bear wandering about in ice-less land, biologist and photographer Paul Nicklen and other filmmakers from a conservation group were in the Baffin Islands.

In his emotional caption on Instagram, Nicklen wrote that his entire team was “pushing through tears” while documenting this bear, who “certainly died within hours of this moment.”
 
That fracking study is ridiculous. Just because something shows some loose correlation doesn't prove or disprove causation. They're trying to draw a conclusion without anywhere close to accounting for a multiplicity of variabies. Short of identifying what specifically in the environment is actually causing low birth weight you have absolutely nothing; that's a bullshit story.

What do you suppose property values within that distance of a fracking site look like? Pretty impoverished? What sort of prenatal care do you think that that particular subset of the population gets? It doesn't matter where impoverished people live, they have low birth weight babies. Part of it is they lack the money for proper nutrition (or don't take advantage of WIC) and part of it is their lifestyle choices that make them impoverished in the first place.

Reminds me of all the "cancer cluster" so-called studies along powerlines.

. . .And just stop with the fucking polar bears. The polar bear population is rebounding at this point it's becoming a problem for the Inuits.
 
Last edited:
That fracking study is ridiculous. Just because something shows some loose correlation doesn't prove or disprove causation. They're trying to draw a conclusion without anywhere close to accounting for a multiplicity of variabies. Short of identifying what specifically in the environment is actually causing low birth weight you have absolutely nothing; that's a bullshit story.

What do you suppose property values within that distance of a fracking site look like? Pretty impoverished? What sort of prenatal care do you think that that particular subset of the population gets? It doesn't matter where impoverished people live, they have low birth weight babies. Part of it is they lack the money for proper nutrition (or don't take advantage of WIC) and part of it is their lifestyle choices that make them impoverished in the first place.

Reminds me of all the "cancer cluster" so-called studies along powerlines.

If the problems are INCREASING with the INCREASING of fracking....

. . .And just stop with the fucking polar bears. The polar bear population is rebounding at this point it's becoming a problem for the Inuits.

I'm sure that dead polar bear who suffered right up to its death appreciates your forthrightness, Cliff.
 
If the problems are INCREASING with the INCREASING of fracking....
...then it's not illogical to presume some causal association between the two.

And it works the other way, too. Those claiming cellphones cause brain cancer or vaccinations cause autism ignore that with MASSIVE increases of cellphone use or vaccinations we'd expect to see EQUALLY MASSIVE increases of ailments. And we don't. Because no causal relationships exist there.

Thus, to support a claim that increased fracking does NOT cause increased birth tragedies, one must show that other factors have increased correspondingly. Have they? By what measures?
 
If the problems are INCREASING with the INCREASING of fracking....



I'm sure that dead polar bear who suffered right up to its death appreciates your forthrightness, Cliff.

Just stop.

It says nothing of the sort. You made that up in your own head. Each pregnancy is an independent event and they aren't tracking mothers having babies near the site who also had babies away from the site. They are comparing two disparate populations with no control whatsoever. I could do the exact same geographical "study" and "prove" that locations near smoke shops cause low birth weight babies.

There is no suggestion at all that they compared the birth rate in that particular area prior to fracking and after. Which is what you're suggesting. They didn't study it so it doesn't say anything like what you're suggesting.

As I said, poor people live in less desireable areas. Poor people have low birthweight babies. Because poor.

Regarding your meaningless polar bear anecdote-

If somebody takes a video of a happy healthy polar bear, that suddenly means polar bears are healthy?

It's ridiculous to post that in suppprt of Phrodeau's religion. That polar bear's plight has zero to do with possible future climate. That polar bear is in distress now, while there is minimal to no change in average mean temperature.

Why don't you solve both problems by offering abortion coupons for people living near fracking sites and for polar bears?

I wouldn't worry too much about it you don't live near a fracking site and if nobody's wanted to breed with you at this point I don't think it's going to be a concern in the future.
 
...then it's not illogical to presume some causal association between the two.

And it works the other way, too. Those claiming cellphones cause brain cancer or vaccinations cause autism ignore that with MASSIVE increases of cellphone use or vaccinations we'd expect to see EQUALLY MASSIVE increases of ailments. And we don't. Because no causal relationships exist there.

Thus, to support a claim that increased fracking does NOT cause increased birth tragedies, one must show that other factors have increased correspondingly. Have they? By what measures?

Again nothing in the article suggests what you and Luke are making up. They simply looked at low birth weight babies and found out the people that live near cheap real estate located near fracking sites tend to have low birth weight babies. That's all the study shows.
 
Last edited:


..the assertion that humans have caused most of the recent global warming has not been proven. The calculation of human influence on climate is based only on unvalidated climate models as described here and here. In fact, most climate models cannot model the global warming from 1910 to 1945. If they can’t hindcast known global warming, how can they accurately forecast it? Forecasting natural warming is obviously critical to computing the magnitude of man’s impact, so we must remain skeptical of any calculation of man’s influence...


...The New York Times likes to say that more people work in the solar power generation industry than in the coal power generation industry. This sounds great until you realize that in 2016, according to EIA, solar produced 0.9% of our electricity with 373,807 people, versus coal which produced 30% of our electricity with 160,119 people. Productivity growth is where our standard of living comes from, switching to solar is going in the wrong direction. Its apparent that the NY Times is ignorant of basic economic principles. See the New York Times graphic in figure 3. What this means, is that it takes 83 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as 1 coal worker. This only makes economic sense if the solar workers are paid 1.2% of a coal worker’s pay...

-Andy May



 
By golly, it's as though Que didn't bother to look at the study.

Hydraulic fracturing could affect human health through several channels, including water and air pollution. In the fracking process, water and other chemicals are forced into shale rock to fracture it and allow the gas or petroleum trapped in the shale to be tapped. Whereas much of the previous research has focused on water pollution (1–3), several recent studies address the possible effects of chemicals that have been found in both “fracturing fluid” (the fluid that is forced into the shale in order to fracture it) and in air emissions near fractured gas wells (4–6). One study measured various air pollutants weekly for a year surrounding the development of a newly fractured gas well and detected nonmethane hydrocarbons, methylene chloride (a toxic solvent), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which have been shown to affect fetal outcomes (7).



..the assertion that humans have caused most of the recent global warming has not been proven. The calculation of human influence on climate is based only on unvalidated climate models as described here and here. In fact, most climate models cannot model the global warming from 1910 to 1945. If they can’t hindcast known global warming, how can they accurately forecast it? Forecasting natural warming is obviously critical to computing the magnitude of man’s impact, so we must remain skeptical of any calculation of man’s influence...


...The New York Times likes to say that more people work in the solar power generation industry than in the coal power generation industry. This sounds great until you realize that in 2016, according to EIA, solar produced 0.9% of our electricity with 373,807 people, versus coal which produced 30% of our electricity with 160,119 people. Productivity growth is where our standard of living comes from, switching to solar is going in the wrong direction. Its apparent that the NY Times is ignorant of basic economic principles. See the New York Times graphic in figure 3. What this means, is that it takes 83 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as 1 coal worker. This only makes economic sense if the solar workers are paid 1.2% of a coal worker’s pay...

-Andy May




Andy May. Petrophysicist. :rolleyes:
 
Just stop.

It says nothing of the sort. You made that up in your own head. Each pregnancy is an independent event and they aren't tracking mothers having babies near the site who also had babies away from the site. They are comparing two disparate populations with no control whatsoever. I could do the exact same geographical "study" and "prove" that locations near smoke shops cause low birth weight babies.

There is no suggestion at all that they compared the birth rate in that particular area prior to fracking and after. Which is what you're suggesting. They didn't study it so it doesn't say anything like what you're suggesting.

As I said, poor people live in less desireable areas. Poor people have low birthweight babies. Because poor.

Regarding your meaningless polar bear anecdote-

If somebody takes a video of a happy healthy polar bear, that suddenly means polar bears are healthy?

It's ridiculous to post that in suppprt of Phrodeau's religion. That polar bear's plight has zero to do with possible future climate. That polar bear is in distress now, while there is minimal to no change in average mean temperature.

Why don't you solve both problems by offering abortion coupons for people living near fracking sites and for polar bears?

I wouldn't worry too much about it you don't live near a fracking site and if nobody's wanted to breed with you at this point I don't think it's going to be a concern in the future.

You have no idea what you're talking about so just quit your shit. You've been proven to be a wannabe and a liar over and over again. You literally just typed bunch of disjointed words and expect us to believe your nonsense.
 
You have no idea what you're talking about so just quit your shit. You've been proven to be a wannabe and a liar over and over again. You literally just typed bunch of disjointed words and expect us to believe your nonsense.

Wasn't "disjointed" your word of the day from yesterday? I can see you're still having trouble with it.

Let me help you with that:

"Trying to work disjointed into his sentence, Luk produced a disjointed thought."
 
You have no idea what you're talking about so just quit your shit. You've been proven to be a wannabe and a liar over and over again. You literally just typed bunch of disjointed words and expect us to believe your nonsense.



BeD9aCQ.jpg


1lYuBIk.jpg


d3qryz0.jpg


 
Wasn't "disjointed" your word of the day from yesterday? I can see you're still having trouble with it.

Let me help you with that:

"Trying to work disjointed into his sentence, Luk produced a disjointed thought."

Let me try it again..

"Que is a lying pile of crap and a terrible door-to-door vacuum salesperson."

Yes?
 
If the problems are INCREASING with the INCREASING of fracking....



I'm sure that dead polar bear who suffered right up to its death appreciates your forthrightness, Cliff.



Top Halliburton executive sips fracking fluid with colleagues in industry show stunt

by Yadullah Hussain
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/31/haliburton-fracking-fluid/?__lsa=aeaf-b57f


...Halliburton executives took it upon themselves to drink some of their latest fracking fluid to show just how harmless it is.


“It was absolutely the first time I drank fracking fluid — you can be sure of that,” said Michael Binnion, President of QOGA and CEO of Questerre Energy Corp. a couple of days after Monday’s event, noting that 20 to 25 executives drank the brew. “I feel fine. There was quite a build-up, but it was a bit of a let-down as it was less viscous than I thought it would be, but more viscous than water. And very stale-tasting.”


http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/31/haliburton-fracking-fluid/?__lsa=aeaf-b57f

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top