BajaNomad

Ocean front dwellers look out

 Pages:  1  2

DianaT - 7-24-2015 at 09:14 AM

Quote: Originally posted by DianaT  
Quote: Originally posted by PaulW  
Difficult to ID them because they are the silent majority. And they do not want publicity as I said before. Their studies and findings are out there and not in the general public view. We only get snips if their findings and they contradict the reports that have the warming agenda to publicize.


Okay, I want to learn more. Since they won't go public, where can we access information as to their existence and their findings?

It is difficult to know if something is valid or not if it remains in the shadows.

I am serious as for the sake of my grandchildren, I would LOVE to know that all the other scientists are wrong.



I guess this is my contribution to the "dogpile", but it is serious question. For the sake of my grandchildren I would love to find out that all I read from scientists around the world is wrong. That would make me very happy.

So is this not a legitimate question? Who are these hidden scientists and how does one find information about them?

Not being a scientist myself, I do defer to them and like to read different perspectives.

But calling this all a dogpile does little to answer the request for clarification.

TMW - 7-24-2015 at 09:51 AM

The local Weatherman does not believe in Global Warming as presented. He does believe the earth is gradually getting warmer and explains why in his blog. The part about CO2 is near the end of the article.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/weather/blog/112585264.html

Back ground on Miles Muzio.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/kbak/bios/149308035.html

DianaT - 7-24-2015 at 10:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by TMW  
The local Weatherman does not believe in Global Warming as presented. He does believe the earth is gradually getting warmer and explains why in his blog. The part about CO2 is near the end of the article.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/weather/blog/112585264.html

Back ground on Miles Muzio.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/kbak/bios/149308035.html


Thank you. That is a start. He is one who thinks warming is going to continue no matter what humans do. Thus, the associated problems will continue.

More? With his blog, he obviously does feel he needs to keep conclusions hidden. So why would other scientists feel the need to go underground.

Mexitron - 7-24-2015 at 10:44 AM

From the blog:
"Someone commented on my last posting that I had failed to mention the impact of Global Warming on all of this, saying I didn’t believe in it. Indeed, I have always represented that the earth is gradually getting warmer. I have concluded, however, that humanity is unable to change what is naturally happening despite our misguided efforts to command the skies. And to that point, I expect the world will continue slowly warming in response to solar stimulation. As the oceans warm they release more carbon dioxide from a dissolved state in the waters to free gas in the atmosphere, hence, the increased CO2 levels. Warming causes CO2 elevation, not the other way around."

Not sure about his science---the earth gets warmer via perturbations in the earth's orbit/rotation...as explained earlier the upper atmosphere should be warming first if this is a long term orbital phenomenon. Its not, the lower atmosphere is warming currently.

dtbushpilot - 7-24-2015 at 10:45 AM

Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Dt you got thin skin man. Or in denial, and can't stand the question. Which is it?

A guy posts "Difficult to ID them because they are the silent majority. And they do not want publicity as I said before. Their studies and findings are out there and not in the general public view. We only get snips if their findings and they contradict the reports that have the warming agenda to publicize. "

And people ask for an explanation and you jump on your soap box. Let the someone explain what he means. Maybe its a secret society that has all the answers.:lol:


"Thin skin"? Me? you obviously don't know me and you must not have read what I wrote.

The discussion was going along fine until Paul made a comment that you and a few others didn't agree with. You chose to attack him first with your "Oh yea? Prove it!" attitude then insulted him with the secret society MJ insult. Goat calls his opinion "hogwash, bezel calls it nonsense" and must have swallowed too much Koch. Goat calls him (and includes me) pathetic while the whole group demands justification for his claim. Then you call me thin skinned for making my comment and continue with your "secret society" joke. You are the only one who made secret society jokes, Paul never implied that there was one.

Why do you want proof? You will just attack it as BS. Do your own research if you are really interested, my guess is you won't, your mind is already made up and that's ok with me.

AKgringo - 7-24-2015 at 11:13 AM

DT, Some of us realize that you were not denying, or pushing a set of beliefs.

I thought you were just trying to chase the trolls back were they belong, so that others can still use the bridge for an exchange of ideas.

dtbushpilot - 7-24-2015 at 11:29 AM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo  
DT, Some of us realize that you were not denying, or pushing a set of beliefs.

I thought you were just trying to chase the trolls back were they belong, so that others can still use the bridge for an exchange of ideas.



Thank you AK, that was my intent, misguided as it may have been...

motoged - 7-24-2015 at 11:40 AM

DT is presently calling some scientists.....as well as dog-pilers....





Not thin-skinned at all, he presents his views as he sees 'em....

And he is optimistic.....as you can see he trusts his belt and doesn't think suspenders are needed ;D :saint:

rts551 - 7-24-2015 at 11:51 AM

Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot  
Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Dt you got thin skin man. Or in denial, and can't stand the question. Which is it?

A guy posts "Difficult to ID them because they are the silent majority. And they do not want publicity as I said before. Their studies and findings are out there and not in the general public view. We only get snips if their findings and they contradict the reports that have the warming agenda to publicize. "

And people ask for an explanation and you jump on your soap box. Let the someone explain what he means. Maybe its a secret society that has all the answers.:lol:
If their findings are not out there for the general public to view, how the hell am I supposed to find them?

"Thin skin"? Me? you obviously don't know me and you must not have read what I wrote.

The discussion was going along fine until Paul made a comment that you and a few others didn't agree with. You chose to attack him first with your "Oh yea? Prove it!" attitude then insulted him with the secret society MJ insult. Goat calls his opinion "hogwash, bezel calls it nonsense" and must have swallowed too much Koch. Goat calls him (and includes me) pathetic while the whole group demands justification for his claim. Then you call me thin skinned for making my comment and continue with your "secret society" joke. You are the only one who made secret society jokes, Paul never implied that there was one.

Why do you want proof? You will just attack it as BS. Do your own research if you are really interested, my guess is you won't, your mind is already made up and that's ok with me.

If their findings are not out there for the general public to view, how the hell am I supposed to find them?
The discussion was going along fine as long as people agreed with you. I am open to facts. not just nay saying.

rts551 - 7-24-2015 at 11:53 AM

Quote: Originally posted by motoged  
DT is presently calling some scientists.....as well as dog-pilers....





Not thin-skinned at all, he presents his views as he sees 'em....

And he is optimistic.....as you can see he trusts his belt and doesn't think suspenders are needed ;D :saint:


I know. Its alright for him to insult. Geeze, I am not as optimistic....pull up your pants.

DianaT - 7-24-2015 at 12:03 PM

I can only speak for myself, but I did not see Paul as expressing his opinion. It was a curious post that talked about silent hidden scientists. That rather rings the bells of conspiracy.

No one can discuss their findings if they are secret. It does sound like an underground secret society. . Maybe it is not, but there has still been no answer as how to find them and their research.

To espress an opinion is very different than saying there is secret research that for some reason is only available in snips.

Paul's opinion is his and that is fine. It is about those secret scientists and who they are,where are they,and what do they say.

wessongroup - 7-24-2015 at 01:23 PM

What she said ^^ :):)

As for secret science ...



"We didn't come all this way for safety" .. :lol::lol:

and that bike looks like a lot of fun ... eating my heart out :biggrin::biggrin:

[Edited on 7-24-2015 by wessongroup]

bajacamper - 7-24-2015 at 02:42 PM

Now that's what I'm talking about. Makes perfect sense.

Alm - 7-24-2015 at 05:41 PM

Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
I went out this morning and stuck a stick in the sand where the water comes up. This afternoon it did not reach it. Now I KNOW that you guys don't know what you are talking about. Its a fact.

It's not "us guys", but "them scientists". To question whether they know what they are talking about, requires an amount of knowledge and education comparable to theirs.

There is such a word as "abrupt". Changes don't have to be (and in nature they rarely are) steady.

Bajatripper - 7-24-2015 at 08:39 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  


Well, there was a suitable site called Yucca Mountain but folks got scared I guess. Might indeed find a use for the spent fuel someday.


This is the reason why some of those who have looked at Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository got scared:

Geology

The formation that makes up Yucca Mountain was created by several large eruptions from a caldera volcano and is composed of alternating layers of ignimbrite (welded tuff), non-welded tuff, and semi-welded tuff. The tuff surround the burial sites is expected to protect human health as it provides a natural barrier to the radiation. It lies along the transition between the Mohave and the Great Basin Deserts.

The volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through fractures. While the fractures are usually confined to individual layers of tuff, the faults extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 600 to 1,500 ft (180 to 460 m) below the surface. Future water transport from the surface to waste containers is likely to be dominated by fractures. There is evidence that surface water has been transported down through the 700 ft (210 m) of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in less than 50 years.

Some site opponents assert that, after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers, these cracks may provide a route for movement of radioactive waste that dissolves in the water flowing downward from the desert surface. Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility.

The area around Yucca Mountain received much more rain in the geologic past and the water table was consequently much higher than it is today, though well below the level of the repository.

Earthquakes
Nevada ranks fourth in the nation for current seismic activity. Earthquake databases (the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile (80 km) radius of Yucca Mountain.

DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. Rises in the water table caused by seismic activity would be, at most, a few tens of meters and would not reach the repository. The fractured and faulted volcanic tuff that Yucca Mountain comprises reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years. The engineered barrier system components will reportedly provide substantial protection of the waste from seepage water, even under severe seismic loading.

In September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility, hundreds of feet east of where it was originally thought to be located, beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels. (don't you just love these "experts"? And they think they are qualified to make 10,000-year predictions!) The discovery required several structures to be moved several hundred feet further to the east, and drew criticism from Robert R. Loux, then head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, who argues that Yucca administrators should have known about the fault line's location years prior, and called the movement of the structures “just-in-time engineering.” In June 2008, a major nuclear equipment supplier, Holtec International, criticized the Department of Energy's safety plan for handling containers of radioactive waste before they are buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump. The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts".

Probably not a good idea to put spent nuclear fuel with a who-knows-how-long half-life cycle in a volcanic area where it could be launched into the atmosphere some day--to say nothing of the earthquakes coupled with the fractures that lead directly down to the water table...no matter what the "experts" say about how safe containers might be built. We have some containers up here at the Hanford Nuclear Reserve that are slowly leaking their radioactive waste into the Columbia River. The reason nobody can settle on a place to build a storage facility is that there just isn't a place that is guaranteed not to be subjected to a natural disaster some day. Hence, they keep piling the spent fuel in "temporary storage."








[Edited on 7-25-2015 by Bajatripper]

wessongroup - 7-25-2015 at 01:06 AM

Not sure why some get up set at a little flooding

Hell, there are a lot of place in the US and other places that are in "flood Plains"

DHS and/or FEMA in the US has a web site that tells how to become "certified" for Flood Insurance :biggrin::biggrin:

http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/160?id=13...

not sure who covers Tornados :lol::lol:


SFandH - 7-25-2015 at 07:09 AM

Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot  


Do I think that scientific findings funded by the energy companies could be skewed by their personal agenda? Of course. The same holds true for science funded by our government (who has an agenda of it's own) or any other source. It is naďve to assume otherwise in my opinion but if you don't agree that's ok with me. :biggrin:


It's clear to me why some scientists funded by the energy industry may present conclusions that are influenced by the energy industry. That is, there is no man-made global warming.

What's not clear to me is why scientists all over the world funded by their respective governments would present conclusions that global warming, this time, is man-made if they did not believe it to be true. What do the world governments have to gain by convincing people global warming is man-made if it were not true?

In other words, what is the objective of this government agenda folks like PaulW are talking about?

[Edited on 7-25-2015 by SFandH]

Timinator - 7-25-2015 at 07:34 AM

I can guarantee the top NASA Climate scientist as well as all 16 of his co-authors are as corrupt as corruption gets. They live for, and will supply you with data to fit any scenario you can think of. It's about grants, contracts and most important of all, the "follow-up" contract. I worked for them, they are immoral POS! Period.

rts551 - 7-25-2015 at 08:09 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Timinator  
I can guarantee the top NASA Climate scientist as well as all 16 of his co-authors are as corrupt as corruption gets. They live for, and will supply you with data to fit any scenario you can think of. It's about grants, contracts and most important of all, the "follow-up" contract. I worked for them, they are immoral POS! Period.


How about the rest of the world's scientists? The thought that 90% of the world's scientists are corrupt makes me wonder if the world is flat. Even the Pope has some faith in science.

Timinator - 7-25-2015 at 09:12 AM

Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Quote: Originally posted by Timinator  
I can guarantee the top NASA Climate scientist as well as all 16 of his co-authors are as corrupt as corruption gets. They live for, and will supply you with data to fit any scenario you can think of. It's about grants, contracts and most important of all, the "follow-up" contract. I worked for them, they are immoral POS! Period.


How about the rest of the world's scientists? The thought that 90% of the world's scientists are corrupt makes me wonder if the world is flat. Even the Pope has some faith in science.



How about the rest of the worlds scientists? They weren't part of the project and aren't privy to ANY of the original data or QA/QC data. They go by what they've heard other people say. No different than you looking at a post here and replying. Real scientists don't jump on board ANYWHERE, ANYHOW or ANYWAY like they do with this topic. There aren't that many qualified climate scientists to start with and most of them work work for the Government or directly paid by Government projects. They must keep the money coming in or they're gone. On top of that, ALL the scientists working for any Public agency aren't the best and brightest, they're the ones who couldn't get jobs in the private sector. That's just how it is.

Not to mention, Government projects on Climate are given to the lowest qualified bidder. That means despite having 60+% of the contract money going to "overhead/accounting" to provide all the reporting CRAP the government requires, they have to cut every corner they can to get the data to begin with.

monoloco - 7-25-2015 at 09:28 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Timinator  
Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Quote: Originally posted by Timinator  
I can guarantee the top NASA Climate scientist as well as all 16 of his co-authors are as corrupt as corruption gets. They live for, and will supply you with data to fit any scenario you can think of. It's about grants, contracts and most important of all, the "follow-up" contract. I worked for them, they are immoral POS! Period.


How about the rest of the world's scientists? The thought that 90% of the world's scientists are corrupt makes me wonder if the world is flat. Even the Pope has some faith in science.



How about the rest of the worlds scientists? They weren't part of the project and aren't privy to ANY of the original data or QA/QC data. They go by what they've heard other people say. No different than you looking at a post here and replying. Real scientists don't jump on board ANYWHERE, ANYHOW or ANYWAY like they do with this topic. There aren't that many qualified climate scientists to start with and most of them work work for the Government or directly paid by Government projects. They must keep the money coming in or they're gone. On top of that, ALL the scientists working for any Public agency aren't the best and brightest, they're the ones who couldn't get jobs in the private sector. That's just how it is.

Not to mention, Government projects on Climate are given to the lowest qualified bidder. That means despite having 60+% of the contract money going to "overhead/accounting" to provide all the reporting CRAP the government requires, they have to cut every corner they can to get the data to begin with.
Funny, that hasn't been my experience with the NOAA scientists that I know. They are government employees, not "low bid" contractors. I have spent hours discussing these issues with them and they have always been very careful not to express their personal opinions or make assumptions, but to focus on the data that they have gathered. They are very careful about their data collection methods and their jobs certainly don't depend on them fudging it. I would also take issue with your statement that "they are not the best and the brightest", the ones that I know are dedicated, smart, and serious about what they do. Not everyone is motivated exclusively by money.

[Edited on 7-25-2015 by monoloco]

ncampion - 7-25-2015 at 09:46 AM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
What do the world governments have to gain by convincing people global warming is man-made if it were not true?

In other words, what is the objective of this government agenda folks like PaulW are talking about?

[Edited on 7-25-2015 by SFandH]


Let's face it, governments live for crises! If there was no crisis for them to "save" us regular people from, why would we need them. Governments are constantly trying to inflate their importance to the citizens. If there were no water shortages, power shortages, gas shortages or climate changes for them to save us from, their importance would be diminished. That's the hidden agenda.

bajabuddha - 7-25-2015 at 09:59 AM

Quote: Originally posted by ncampion  
Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
What do the world governments have to gain by convincing people global warming is man-made if it were not true?

In other words, what is the objective of this government agenda folks like PaulW are talking about?

[Edited on 7-25-2015 by SFandH]


Let's face it, governments live for crises! If there was no crisis for them to "save" us regular people from, why would we need them. Governments are constantly trying to inflate their importance to the citizens. If there were no water shortages, power shortages, gas shortages or climate changes for them to save us from, their importance would be diminished. That's the hidden agenda.


HORSE HOCKEY. "Hidden agenda" my heinie. Government has just a few other cookies on their plate, like Iran nukes, destabilization of the entire muslim Middle East not to mention possible nuclear threat with Iran/Israel... North Korea, ISIL/ISIS, idiot ultra-right gun nuts and movie theaters, police out of control, prisons out of control... right or wrong, the POTUS has aged over 20 years in his face and I really don't think his concerns on "hidden agenda" of global climate change is a major factor. Climate change, yes. Hidden agenda? C'mon really?

And, if you really want a "hidden agenda" from Government on "there is no climate change" it would be from Big Oil and Big Industry companies who with huge contributions pull the puppets' strings, and that was the LAST administration, who denounce there is such a thing.

I've stayed out of this for a reason; this BS comes up every 3 -4 months with a different title but same-o thread with same people saying the same things over and over, and i'm not going to change your mind with my beliefs and you damn-sure ain't gonna change mine, but "hidden agenda"? Oh, please. I suggest conspiracy.com with like-minded agreed consensus nonsense. Nomania at its' best.

Mexitron - 7-25-2015 at 10:04 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Bajatripper  
Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  


Well, there was a suitable site called Yucca Mountain but folks got scared I guess. Might indeed find a use for the spent fuel someday.


This is the reason why some of those who have looked at Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository got scared:

Geology

The formation that makes up Yucca Mountain was created by several large eruptions from a caldera volcano and is composed of alternating layers of ignimbrite (welded tuff), non-welded tuff, and semi-welded tuff. The tuff surround the burial sites is expected to protect human health as it provides a natural barrier to the radiation. It lies along the transition between the Mohave and the Great Basin Deserts.

The volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through fractures. While the fractures are usually confined to individual layers of tuff, the faults extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 600 to 1,500 ft (180 to 460 m) below the surface. Future water transport from the surface to waste containers is likely to be dominated by fractures. There is evidence that surface water has been transported down through the 700 ft (210 m) of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in less than 50 years.

Some site opponents assert that, after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers, these cracks may provide a route for movement of radioactive waste that dissolves in the water flowing downward from the desert surface. Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility.

The area around Yucca Mountain received much more rain in the geologic past and the water table was consequently much higher than it is today, though well below the level of the repository.

Earthquakes
Nevada ranks fourth in the nation for current seismic activity. Earthquake databases (the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile (80 km) radius of Yucca Mountain.

DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. Rises in the water table caused by seismic activity would be, at most, a few tens of meters and would not reach the repository. The fractured and faulted volcanic tuff that Yucca Mountain comprises reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years. The engineered barrier system components will reportedly provide substantial protection of the waste from seepage water, even under severe seismic loading.

In September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility, hundreds of feet east of where it was originally thought to be located, beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels. (don't you just love these "experts"? And they think they are qualified to make 10,000-year predictions!) The discovery required several structures to be moved several hundred feet further to the east, and drew criticism from Robert R. Loux, then head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, who argues that Yucca administrators should have known about the fault line's location years prior, and called the movement of the structures “just-in-time engineering.” In June 2008, a major nuclear equipment supplier, Holtec International, criticized the Department of Energy's safety plan for handling containers of radioactive waste before they are buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump. The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts".

Probably not a good idea to put spent nuclear fuel with a who-knows-how-long half-life cycle in a volcanic area where it could be launched into the atmosphere some day--to say nothing of the earthquakes coupled with the fractures that lead directly down to the water table...no matter what the "experts" say about how safe containers might be built. We have some containers up here at the Hanford Nuclear Reserve that are slowly leaking their radioactive waste into the Columbia River. The reason nobody can settle on a place to build a storage facility is that there just isn't a place that is guaranteed not to be subjected to a natural disaster some day. Hence, they keep piling the spent fuel in "temporary storage."

[Edited on 7-25-2015 by Bajatripper]


So the waste is safer leaving it next to the ocean at San Onofre? Or Diablo Canyon?

wessongroup - 7-25-2015 at 12:53 PM

To eliminate the concern over the findings of science, as based in ensuring a job and/or monetary reward

We could go back to where the "Church and/or King/Queen was in charge of science AND its findings .. :biggrin::biggrin:

As for San Onofre and Diablo .. be happy they are not approaching disposal the same as Japan.

Seems they have a significant "storage" problem .. given land storage limitations of an Island and are dumping it into the Ocean .. No significant "risks" there HUH :biggrin::biggrin:

And the excellent point on how many "plates" the President has to keep up in the air ... is spot on .. Comes back to what has moved from back burner to front daily

This is just one of many significant issues humans face ... so lets have a beer and chill a little, we are all in the same boat, enjoy it while ya can :biggrin::biggrin:

[Edited on 7-25-2015 by wessongroup]

Timinator - 7-25-2015 at 02:56 PM

My old bosses are riddled all over NOAA's and NCAR's top positions and running most every GW data collection study AND analysis. The same one's that fudged the data back when I audited the data that was used in the first GW Models (that I also worked on). That data, was completely unusable for it's originally intended purpose which was Acid Rain studies. Why? Because it didn't meed the QA/QC for the study. But, since it wasn't distinguished to not be used for GW it was. Why again? Because it's the largest temperature data set ever collected in the lower 48. Go talk to your buddies again, this time be armed with more than their opinions that keep them employed.

These guys would and did do anything they needed to get follow studies and extended contracts. I was there, I worked with them and I was part of the studies.

wessongroup - 7-25-2015 at 03:08 PM

Perhaps an understanding of what the scope of subject is:

"Atmospheric sciences is an umbrella term for the study of the Earth's atmosphere, its processes, the effects other systems have on the atmosphere, and the effects of the atmosphere on these other systems. Meteorology includes atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric physics with a major focus on weather forecasting. Climatology is the study of atmospheric changes (both long and short-term) that define average climates and their change over time, due to both natural and anthropogenic climate variability. Aeronomy is the study of the upper layers of the atmosphere, where dissociation and ionization are important. Atmospheric science has been extended to the field of planetary science and the study of the atmospheres of the planets of the solar system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_sciences

And here is a "tip" on arguments, as it relates to gender :biggrin::biggrin:





[Edited on 7-25-2015 by wessongroup]

bezzell - 7-26-2015 at 09:59 PM

haha not only is she gonna 'go after the guns' ... she's also going after the 'patheticos' ! :lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-climate-...

'two eyes and a brain' :lol::lol:

chuckie - 7-27-2015 at 07:57 AM

"REDNECK" Buddha shoulda throwed "REDNECK" in there somewheres.....

monoloco - 7-27-2015 at 10:28 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Timinator  
My old bosses are riddled all over NOAA's and NCAR's top positions and running most every GW data collection study AND analysis. The same one's that fudged the data back when I audited the data that was used in the first GW Models (that I also worked on). That data, was completely unusable for it's originally intended purpose which was Acid Rain studies. Why? Because it didn't meed the QA/QC for the study. But, since it wasn't distinguished to not be used for GW it was. Why again? Because it's the largest temperature data set ever collected in the lower 48. Go talk to your buddies again, this time be armed with more than their opinions that keep them employed.

These guys would and did do anything they needed to get follow studies and extended contracts. I was there, I worked with them and I was part of the studies.
So your premise is that because you worked for some idiots that employed shoddy science and fudged data, all climate scientists do the same? Seems like a stretch to me.

chuckie - 7-27-2015 at 10:58 AM

It is a stretch and not true.... Contracts at NOA and NCAR were/are awarded on many factors, price being one. Vendor rep. past performance, personnel quals etc. all are considered, each given a weight in the consideration. Follow on's were subject to even tighter evaluations...Seems to be a lot of smoke and animosity on Timinators part...????

bajabuddha - 7-27-2015 at 11:30 AM

.... I wonder what he got fired for.... ;)

chuckie - 7-27-2015 at 11:32 AM

He's a dang ol redneck....

toneart - 7-27-2015 at 05:03 PM


-Monoloco, in response to Terminator:

"Not to mention, Government projects on Climate are given to the lowest qualified bidder. That means despite having 60+% of the contract money going to "overhead/accounting" to provide all the reporting CRAP the government requires, they have to cut every corner they can to get the data to begin with.
Funny, that hasn't been my experience with the NOAA scientists that I know. They are government employees, not "low bid" contractors. I have spent hours discussing these issues with them and they have always been very careful not to express their personal opinions or make assumptions, but to focus on the data that they have gathered. They are very careful about their data collection methods and their jobs certainly don't depend on them fudging it. I would also take issue with your statement that "they are not the best and the brightest", the ones that I know are dedicated, smart, and serious about what they do. Not everyone is motivated exclusively by money.


-Bajabuddha, in response to ncchampion:
HORSE HOCKEY. "Hidden agenda" my heinie. Government has just a few other cookies on their plate, like Iran nukes, destabilization of the entire muslim Middle East not to mention possible nuclear threat with Iran/Israel... North Korea, ISIL/ISIS, idiot ultra-right gun nuts and movie theaters, police out of control, prisons out of control... right or wrong, the POTUS has aged over 20 years in his face and I really don't think his concerns on "hidden agenda" of global climate change is a major factor. Climate change, yes. Hidden agenda? C'mon really?

And, if you really want a "hidden agenda" from Government on "there is no climate change" it would be from Big Oil and Big Industry companies who with huge contributions pull the puppets' strings, and that was the LAST administration, who denounce there is such a thing.

I've stayed out of this for a reason; this BS comes up every 3 -4 months with a different title but same-o thread with same people saying the same things over and over, and i'm not going to change your mind with my beliefs and you damn-sure ain't gonna change mine, but "hidden agenda"? Oh, please. I suggest conspiracy.com with like-minded agreed consensus nonsense. Nomania at its' best."

Here is me saying "YES!...and YES! :smug:


bajabuddha - 7-27-2015 at 08:28 PM

.... thank you, Tony. :coolup: (still trying to figger out the 'redneck' part)

Timinator - 7-28-2015 at 06:20 AM

No, those shoddy guys I used to work with and for are the most awarded Climate Scientists in the United States and world today. That's my point. I have no ax to grind at all, I retired at 41 years old many years ago working on these studies......

It's a lie, it's just politicians moving your money around. When has the Left every come out with ANYTHING based on science that proved to be the truth? Ever? Anything?

Look at what they did with Healthcare; Based on 5 lies they told over and over again. They knew they were lies but they said it and their blind followers repeat it to this day.

1) "most people don't like their healthcare plan" Over 80% off all people with a healthcare plan were happy with it.

2) "it will only cost 900B". It's 2.4 Trillion and still climbing.

3) "the average family will save $2400/year" Anybody saving anything out there?

4) "if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your plan" Ha, ha, ha.

5) "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Ha, ha, ha, ha!

So, having worked on climate change studies and having seen all aspects of the studies fudged to get the results desired by the people paying for the studies, I'm more than a little skeptical, I'm actually kind of peeed at all the blind followers of anything the left pushes.

The GW models use data. Nobody can see the data or see the QA or QC of ANY of the data because it's a lie. What more do you need?

Follow the money. When you run into a brick wall, scratch your head and ask why.

Oh, one more thing. When ANY DATA from a study is shown to disprove the desired result. That studies data isn't used at all. It's not required to so it's just shelved. None of the data is the property of the company who took it, it's the governments who paid for it and there are non-disclosure forms with every study. The most transparent administration my ass.




[Edited on 7-28-2015 by Timinator]

chuckie - 7-28-2015 at 06:37 AM

AHA! He's grinding a political axe, now I understand....the other allegations, before he tried to change the subject to healthcare etc. are mostly BS...

SFandH - 7-28-2015 at 06:45 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Timinator  
When has the Left every come out with ANYTHING based on science that proved to be the truth?


Watch out, hazardous logic ahead, politics have entered the scientific debate.

This WAS a pretty good thread because political ideology was left out.

You're correct Timinator, leftist scientists around the world are out to steal your money by producing bogus data. Quick, buy a gun and some gold, and move to the outback.

bajabuddha - 7-28-2015 at 07:00 AM

Just a matter of time until "THE LEFT" or "THE RIGHT" came into play, off-topic and soap-box. Surprised it took until page 7. I'm gonna go get some tin-foil. Have fun, Timmy.

chuckie - 7-28-2015 at 07:19 AM

Shame too....The people he is attempting to malign at NOA, ENCAR, NREL, and CU are some of the best.....

No Worries

MrBillM - 7-28-2015 at 08:00 AM

As they say (more or less) "A Rising tide lifts all Turds".

So, most should be OK.

Anyway, no need for concern until Bangladesh goes under.

Really, no need to worry then.

That cheap clothing they make is produced elsewhere.

Right now, there seems to be more danger from escalators gone berserk than the oceans rise.

At least in China.

SFandH - 7-28-2015 at 08:25 AM

Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM  


Anyway, no need for concern until Bangladesh goes under.



That is going to be more horrible than it already is. 161 million people (1/2 US population) in an area about the same as Kansas, much of which is barely above sea-level.

It makes Miami's future flooding problems trivial, unless you live there. Or New Orleans, or Philly, or New York, or Rotterdam, or........etc.

[Edited on 7-28-2015 by SFandH]

Timinator - 7-28-2015 at 08:45 AM

Oh, so now GW wasn't introduced by the Left, pushed by the left and funded by the left? If you don't think politic's is heavily involved, you'd be wrong for the second time in as many minutes.

Just who do you think is pushing for and funding the studies? I didn't know you could put your head that deep in the sand? See I learned something today too!



David K - 7-28-2015 at 08:58 AM

Great exchange amigos!
I was in Baja, so am just now reading this thread. If we can share without insults, life is good.

For the thread subject...
We had dinner at Alfonsina's Sunday afternoon, on a concrete pad that was there when I first went to Gonzaga Bay, in 1965. The concrete pad (upon which Alfonsina's kitchen is built) is still just as far above sea level as back then! 50 years later of "rising sea levels" should be visible, one would think? The sandbar still connects to the island at low tide, too.

Live happy... and worry less about predictions. I do like BajaGringo's cartoon, but no one nation should be punished nor should one government be empowered, over some scientist's 'predictions', in my opinion.

chuckie - 7-28-2015 at 09:34 AM

Yeah, But Alfonsina drug it back toward the beach in 1976, by hooking up a tractor supplied by the kommunists to it, just to fool the Demopublicans.....That's cheating.....What dumb nonsense .....

chuckie - 7-28-2015 at 10:22 AM

So, Timinator? Please tell us please with some degree of detail. EXACTLY who funds the research and studies done by these mentioned agencies...Thanks....waiting for your detailed reply.....

rts551 - 7-28-2015 at 11:16 AM

Some of the stuff was making good argumentative sense. Science was actually being discussed. gone now

bajabuddha - 7-28-2015 at 11:19 AM

Yup, there goes the neighborhood.... and it was such a quiet week.

I think i'll fly to China and sell ViagLa, and try to save the totuava. :lol:

DaliDali - 7-28-2015 at 11:27 AM

I was just by Playa Coyote on Conception Bay Friday...

The famous palm tree is still out of water, still green and appears thriving.
Just saying.

dtbushpilot - 7-28-2015 at 11:45 AM

Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Some of the stuff was making good argumentative sense. Science was actually being discussed. gone now


Although science was being discussed I wouldn't exactly call it "argumentative sense". For that you need more than one side represented. When Paul and Tim dared to present an opposing view they were insulted and called names. It's hard to have a back and forth exchange of ideas or opinions when you are getting kicked in the crotch. When Tim shared his personal professional experience, not second or third hand, not a link to a left wing web site but actual professional experience he was spat upon and dismissed as a loon. Your little group is only tolerant of discussion that follows your way of thinking, if anyone should dare to share a different message its "kill the messenger" so we can get back to our little fun time.

Carry on guys, I doubt that there will be many more challenges for you on this thread. :no::no:

DaliDali - 7-28-2015 at 11:55 AM

Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot  
Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Some of the stuff was making good argumentative sense. Science was actually being discussed. gone now


Although science was being discussed I wouldn't exactly call it "argumentative sense". For that you need more than one side represented. When Paul and Tim dared to present an opposing view they were insulted and called names. It's hard to have a back and forth exchange of ideas or opinions when you are getting kicked in the crotch. When Tim shared his personal professional experience, not second or third hand, not a link to a left wing web site but actual professional experience he was spat upon and dismissed as a loon. Your little group is only tolerant of discussion that follows your way of thinking, if anyone should dare to share a different message its "kill the messenger" so we can get back to our little fun time.

Carry on guys, I doubt that there will be many more challenges for you on this thread. :no::no:


It seems to be that way with most political topics.

If your against abortion, you're a hater of women.
If your against illegal immigration, you're a hater of Hispanics.
If your against re-distribution of wealth, you're a hater of "fair"
If your against more taxation, you hate the poor.
If your against Planned Parenthood, you're a hater of choice.
If you don't agree with Obama, you hate blacks.

And be damned if your not all in on GW, you're a hater of science.

Just saying


[Edited on 7-28-2015 by DaliDali]

rts551 - 7-28-2015 at 12:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot  
Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Some of the stuff was making good argumentative sense. Science was actually being discussed. gone now


Although science was being discussed I wouldn't exactly call it "argumentative sense". For that you need more than one side represented. When Paul and Tim dared to present an opposing view they were insulted and called names. It's hard to have a back and forth exchange of ideas or opinions when you are getting kicked in the crotch. When Tim shared his personal professional experience, not second or third hand, not a link to a left wing web site but actual professional experience he was spat upon and dismissed as a loon. Your little group is only tolerant of discussion that follows your way of thinking, if anyone should dare to share a different message its "kill the messenger" so we can get back to our little fun time.

Carry on guys, I doubt that there will be many more challenges for you on this thread. :no::no:


Seems like the only person to get their feelings hurt was you. carry on.:fire:

toneart - 7-28-2015 at 01:05 PM

Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  
Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot  
Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Some of the stuff was making good argumentative sense. Science was actually being discussed. gone now


Although science was being discussed I wouldn't exactly call it "argumentative sense". For that you need more than one side represented. When Paul and Tim dared to present an opposing view they were insulted and called names. It's hard to have a back and forth exchange of ideas or opinions when you are getting kicked in the crotch. When Tim shared his personal professional experience, not second or third hand, not a link to a left wing web site but actual professional experience he was spat upon and dismissed as a loon. Your little group is only tolerant of discussion that follows your way of thinking, if anyone should dare to share a different message its "kill the messenger" so we can get back to our little fun time.

Carry on guys, I doubt that there will be many more challenges for you on this thread. :no::no:


It seems to be that way with most political topics.

If your against abortion, you're a hater of women.
If your against illegal immigration, you're a hater of Hispanics.
If your against re-distribution of wealth, you're a hater of "fair"
If your against more taxation, you hate the poor.
If your against Planned Parenthood, you're a hater of choice.
If you don't agree with Obama, you hate blacks.

And be damned if your not all in on GW, you're a hater of science.

Just saying


[Edited on 7-28-2015 by DaliDali]



"Your"=possesive...something that is yours. Why do you use "your" incorrectly? You need to use you are or the contraction which is you're. Don't make me draw conclusions as to why you align with the wrong side. :rolleyes:

dtbushpilot - 7-28-2015 at 01:20 PM

Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot  
Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Some of the stuff was making good argumentative sense. Science was actually being discussed. gone now


Although science was being discussed I wouldn't exactly call it "argumentative sense". For that you need more than one side represented. When Paul and Tim dared to present an opposing view they were insulted and called names. It's hard to have a back and forth exchange of ideas or opinions when you are getting kicked in the crotch. When Tim shared his personal professional experience, not second or third hand, not a link to a left wing web site but actual professional experience he was spat upon and dismissed as a loon. Your little group is only tolerant of discussion that follows your way of thinking, if anyone should dare to share a different message its "kill the messenger" so we can get back to our little fun time.

Carry on guys, I doubt that there will be many more challenges for you on this thread. :no::no:


Seems like the only person to get their feelings hurt was you. carry on.:fire:


No worries rts, my feelings aren't hurt at all. Interesting that you would draw that conclusion from my post. Perhaps you are used to having people's feelings hurt by the things you say and are jumping to conclusions.....:light:

DaliDali - 7-28-2015 at 01:35 PM

Quote: Originally posted by toneart  
Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  
Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot  
Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Some of the stuff was making good argumentative sense. Science was actually being discussed. gone now


Although science was being discussed I wouldn't exactly call it "argumentative sense". For that you need more than one side represented. When Paul and Tim dared to present an opposing view they were insulted and called names. It's hard to have a back and forth exchange of ideas or opinions when you are getting kicked in the crotch. When Tim shared his personal professional experience, not second or third hand, not a link to a left wing web site but actual professional experience he was spat upon and dismissed as a loon. Your little group is only tolerant of discussion that follows your way of thinking, if anyone should dare to share a different message its "kill the messenger" so we can get back to our little fun time.

Carry on guys, I doubt that there will be many more challenges for you on this thread. :no::no:


It seems to be that way with most political topics.

If your against abortion, you're a hater of women.
If your against illegal immigration, you're a hater of Hispanics.
If your against re-distribution of wealth, you're a hater of "fair"
If your against more taxation, you hate the poor.
If your against Planned Parenthood, you're a hater of choice.
If you don't agree with Obama, you hate blacks.

And be damned if your not all in on GW, you're a hater of science.

Just saying


[Edited on 7-28-2015 by DaliDali]



"Your"=possesive...something that is yours. Why do you use "your" incorrectly? You need to use you are or the contraction which is you're. Don't make me draw conclusions as to why you align with the wrong side. :rolleyes:



Despite your political nonsense....you (your/you're) got the point and you proved it by your (you're) aligning on one side or the other and therefore showing your hate colors to anyone who disagrees with you.

FYI....the edit was not successful. I saw my mistake early and corrected it but I did not show up as corrected.
If YOU"RE offended, go fishing.

rts551 - 7-28-2015 at 01:41 PM

Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  
Quote: Originally posted by toneart  
Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  
Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot  
Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Some of the stuff was making good argumentative sense. Science was actually being discussed. gone now


Although science was being discussed I wouldn't exactly call it "argumentative sense". For that you need more than one side represented. When Paul and Tim dared to present an opposing view they were insulted and called names. It's hard to have a back and forth exchange of ideas or opinions when you are getting kicked in the crotch. When Tim shared his personal professional experience, not second or third hand, not a link to a left wing web site but actual professional experience he was spat upon and dismissed as a loon. Your little group is only tolerant of discussion that follows your way of thinking, if anyone should dare to share a different message its "kill the messenger" so we can get back to our little fun time.

Carry on guys, I doubt that there will be many more challenges for you on this thread. :no::no:


It seems to be that way with most political topics.

If your against abortion, you're a hater of women.
If your against illegal immigration, you're a hater of Hispanics.
If your against re-distribution of wealth, you're a hater of "fair"
If your against more taxation, you hate the poor.
If your against Planned Parenthood, you're a hater of choice.
If you don't agree with Obama, you hate blacks.

And be damned if your not all in on GW, you're a hater of science.

Just saying


[Edited on 7-28-2015 by DaliDali]



"Your"=possesive...something that is yours. Why do you use "your" incorrectly? You need to use you are or the contraction which is you're. Don't make me draw conclusions as to why you align with the wrong side. :rolleyes:



Despite your political nonsense....you (your/you're) got the point and you proved it by your (you're) aligning on one side or the other and therefore showing your hate colors to anyone who disagrees with you.

FYI....the edit was not successful. I saw my mistake early and corrected it but I did not show up as corrected.
If YOU"RE offended, go fishing.


How is what Toneart says, "hate"? Sounds like a number of people throwing the "hate" stuff out just because someone questions what they say. Typical I guess.

bajacamper - 7-28-2015 at 02:05 PM

Ya want detail huh. All those "scientists" making theses computer predictions are wearing white coats with name tags. Credible? You betcha!!

gnukid - 7-28-2015 at 03:58 PM

Here is the cofounder of GreenPeace discussing the importance of CO2 in the atmosphere.

shari - 7-28-2015 at 04:26 PM

uh yeah...co-founder of Greenpeace and lobbyist for the forest industry...traitor....correction....sell out

[Edited on 7-29-2015 by shari]

SFandH - 7-28-2015 at 04:39 PM

Everything he says is true. However he did not address the greenhouse effect caused by CO2. What about that?

Is he saying CO2 is a good thing therefore more is better?

Consider this. Nobody argues that O2, oxygen, is a necessary gas. Of course it is. O2 is 21% of the atmosphere. We couldn't live without it. Would 31% be a bad thing? Think about how much easier it would be to breathe. Folks with bad lungs would love it.

Could more of it be a bad thing?

Ask a forest fire fighter or any fire fighter for that matter. He'd say yup, we don't want anymore O2 in the air. The forests/cities would burn down lickity split. More O2, the hotter the fire.

Likewise, there's an optimum amount of CO2. Too much, the ice melts and things get way too hot for us humans.

If he's arguing that global warming isn't happening, he's really unconvincing. Which makes me wonder. What is the point he's trying to make?

[Edited on 7-29-2015 by SFandH]

ncampion - 7-28-2015 at 05:09 PM

Oh, so Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD, Ecology, is a biased "bad" scientist, but the "good" scientists who are paid from government grants are not biased. By the way, where did you say you received your PhD from?

monoloco - 7-28-2015 at 07:53 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Timinator  
Oh, so now GW wasn't introduced by the Left, pushed by the left and funded by the left? If you don't think politic's is heavily involved, you'd be wrong for the second time in as many minutes.

Just who do you think is pushing for and funding the studies? I didn't know you could put your head that deep in the sand? See I learned something today too!



Just curious, do you believe that the 10 billion tons of carbon released by human activities annually has zero effect on the climate?

wessongroup - 7-28-2015 at 10:44 PM

"Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903, becoming the first Swedish Nobel laureate, and in 1905 became director of the Nobel Institute where he remained until his death.[1] The Arrhenius equation, Arrhenius definition of an acid, lunar crater Arrhenius, the mountain of Arrheniusfjellet and the Arrhenius Labs at Stockholm University are named after him. Today, Arrhenius is best known for his study published in 1896, on the greenhouse effect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Not sure of his politics ... nor, who funded his work, at that time

1948

Killer smog claims elderly victims

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/killer-smog-claim...

[Edited on 7-29-2015 by wessongroup]

bezzell - 8-10-2015 at 07:53 AM

Thank god there's a god to take care of all of us!! :lol::lol::lol:

http://www.theworldcounts.com/themes/our_environment

Terry28 - 8-10-2015 at 08:29 AM

Once again Kids.....The really cool thing about science is it's true..even if you don't believe it.........

gnukid - 8-10-2015 at 09:07 AM

If a guy has a white coat you have to do whatever he says

elgatoloco - 8-10-2015 at 09:11 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Terry28  
Once again Kids.....The really cool thing about science is it's true..even if you don't believe it.........


:yes:

durrelllrobert - 8-10-2015 at 09:27 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Terry28  
Once again Kids.....The really cool thing about science is it's true..even if you don't believe it.........


So, does climate change result in El Nino/ La Nina cycles or do El Nino/ La Nina cycles result in climate change? Only Al Gore, the proment global warming scientist, knows for sure.

Also, is the 0.0001 increase in the CO2 level in te atmosphere since the start of the industrial revoution (300 ppm to 400 ppm) really dangerous?

The acceptable time frame of industrial revoultion was between 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. In particular, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. Some economists say that the major impact of the Industrial Revolution was that the standard of living for the general population began to increase consistently for the first time in history, although others have said that it did not begin to meaningfully improve until the late 19th and 20th centuries.[2][3][4]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
[/url]

[Edited on 8-10-2015 by durrelllrobert]

redmesa - 8-10-2015 at 09:44 AM




[Edited on 8-10-2015 by redmesa]

[Edited on 8-10-2015 by redmesa]

motoged - 8-10-2015 at 11:54 AM

Coastal shoreline issues....

It hasn't hit Baja yet....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/stinking-seaweed-piling-high-on-beaches-in-tourism-dependent-caribbean-1.3185228
 Pages:  1  2