New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: “Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda
Source:
The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/ ... al-scientists-battle-un-agenda
Published: Jul 15, 2012
Author: Written by William F. Jasper
Post Date: 2012-07-15 17:54:38 by SJN
Keywords: None
Views: 10781
Comments: 37
It is the best of times, it is the worst of times — for science. Over the past several years, the world has been spectator to an alarming meltdown as one serious scandal after another has publicly exposed many of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations, institutions, and publications as being captives of rigid ideologues who employ rigged computer models, fraudulent “evidence,” censorship, and intimidation to advance a radical “green” political agenda and to squelch genuine scientific inquiry and debate. Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 “Climategate” e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda. Two defections were particularly striking as world leaders and tens of thousands of delegates, NGO activists, and journalists gathered in Rio de Janeiro in June for the United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. In an interview with the U.K. Guardian on the eve of the summit, James Lovelock (photo above), the British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, mocked sustainable development as “meaningless drivel,” and said the UN makes “a mess” of everything it gets involved with. In 2006, Lovelock, one of the world’s most famous environmentalist gurus, asserted that due to global warming “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” He now says his predictions were “alarmist,” and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a “green religion.” Lovelock also endorses nuclear power and expanded development of natural gas through hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” But his ultimate heresy is his withering rejection of so-called “renewable energy,” especially wind power, as a viable replacement for carbon-based fuels. (See here and here). “We rushed into renewable energy without any thought,” says Lovelock. “The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant.” He has upset many of his erstwhile green brethren for attacking wind turbines and wind farms as “ugly and useless.” Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is another recent green heretic. A founding father of Germany’s environmental movement and a director of one of Europe’s largest alternative energy companies, Vahrenholt stunned the "greens" in February of this year with publication of the climate-skeptic book Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun), which scorches the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other alarmists. Co-authored with noted geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning, the book was published by one of Germany’s premier book publishers and (amazingly) received hugely positive reviews in the major German media. On February 7, Germany’s leading daily newspaper, Bild (16 million circulation), devoted a half page to the Vahrenholt story, under the headline: “The CO2 Lie: Renowned team of scientists claim the climate catastrophe is fear-mongering by politics.” Bild followed up with a series of stories on Vahrenholt’s defection and the mounting evidence of massive fraud from the climate alarmists. Germany’s flagship weekly news magazine Der Spiegel featured a four-page exclusive interview with Vahrenholt. Europe’s climate-alarmism industry was shellshocked. On June 18, two days before the opening of Rio+20, Vahrenholt sent another shock, with an op-ed in Britain’s Telegraph entitled “Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist.” “For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory,” Vahrenholt wrote in the Telegraph. “Recent experience with the UN’s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.” Vahrenholt faults the IPCC for, among other things, treating the solar influence on our climate as negligible. Current research by many scientists, he points out, indicates “it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years.” Crash Goes the “Consensus” “All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind,” stated UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, before the UN’s 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. “All agree”? “Existential threat”? In this statement, the chief UN bureaucrat took the false “consensus” claim a quantum leap beyond even Al Gore’s lurid assertions. The Gore choir has been declaring for years that there is an overwhelming “consensus” among scientists that catastrophic AGW is real and imminent. According to Ban Ki-moon, we’ve gone beyond consensus to unanimity, and not just among scientists but “all,” presumably meaning every person on Earth agrees that global warming is a dire threat to humanity’s very existence. That, of course, is nonsense. However, while Ban’s unanimity plea is easily recognizable as patently ridiculous, the consensus claim has bamboozled a great many people, including scientists who should know better. Aside from the fact that science is not determined by consensus, but by observation, experimentation, and measurement, the truth is that the AGW “consensus” involves a relatively small coterie of climate scientists who have been placed in key gatekeeper positions, enabling them to co-opt the claim of “scientific consensus” on AGW, while squashing dissenting voices and branding all dissenters as “cranks,” “outliers,” or, even, “deniers.” The use of the “denier” label is an especially odious tactic, intentionally aimed at smearing fellow scientists who dissent from AGW theory as equivalent to Holocaust deniers. The Climategate e-mails showed top climate activists at major universities and other institutions conspiring to punish scientists with opposing viewpoints and to prevent them from being published in the scientific literature. It also showed that they were going to great lengths to doctor their evidence to make it “prove” their preordained outcomes. What’s more, they have refused to make their data publicly available to scientific peers for independent review — as genuine scientific procedure demands — and when pressed on the issue, have claimed that the evidence has been “lost.” Some of the top names in climate alarmism — Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Rajendra Pachauri, Stephan Ramsdorf, James Hansen, Peter Gleick — demonstrated repeatedly that they are engaged in abusing science for a global political agenda. The AGW consensus scam is one of the most astounding frauds in all of history, not only because it is patently false, but also because it is being used to propel the most sweeping and authoritarian scheme for global economic, social, and political regimentation the world has ever seen. This is not merely a theoretical scientific debate; the alleged “science” is being used to drive policy and legislation — at a global level. The policies they have already succeeded in imposing have caused devastating impacts, especially on the world’s poorest populations. The additional policies they propose would cause even more horrendous results. The AGW alarmists insist that “science has spoken,” and it is telling us, they say, that we must subject ourselves to UN-mandated global governance — which is to be determined, of course, by scientists who toe the UN-approved, IPCC-certified party line. Although the liberal-left mainstream media has chosen to side with the climate alarmists, the other side of the story has been getting out through the alternative media. In April of this year, 49 former top NASA scientists and astronauts released a letter they had earlier sent to NASA administrator Charles Bolden expressing their belief that the claims of NASA, and specifically its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), “that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.” A large number of noted climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, oceanographers, geologists, and scientists in virtually every field has been challenging the claims of the UN’s IPCC and vigorously denouncing the politicization of IPCC “science” to promote costly and draconian global policies. Some of the IPCC’s most severe critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science. Former and current IPCC experts who have spoken out against the IPCC’s abuse of science include such prominent scientists as: Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; Dr. John Christy, a climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA; Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas; Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences; Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher; Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans. The above-mentioned IPCC experts represent only a tiny subset of the scientists involved in the climate debate who take serious issue with the alarmist claims. More than 31,000 scientists in the United States have signed a petition urging the U.S. government to reject the kinds of AGW policies proposed by the UN and environmental extremists. The Petition Project, organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, refutes claims that there is any kind of “consensus” regarding man-made global warming as a crisis or existential threat. The petition reads, in part: The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. More than 1,000 internationally renowned scientists have gone further; they have not merely signed a petition, but have made public statements challenging key claims of the AGW alarmists. Published in 2010, in a report by Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, this important collection of statements is an update of a similar report of 700 scientists’ statements published by Senator James Inhofe of the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. The 1,000+ lineup of scientists reads like a Who’s Who of the global scientific community. It includes: Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics, Princeton University; Dr. Leonard Weinstein, 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and presently a senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace; Nobel Prize-winning Stanford University physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of the geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University; Burt Rutan, renowned engineer, inventor, and aviation/space pioneer; Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist; Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks; Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Dr. Ian D. Clark, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada. Again, the aforementioned experts represent but a small sampling of the distinguished company of international scientific heavyweights who dispute the so-called AGW consensus. This is important to note, as the climate alarmists have gone to great lengths in using the logical fallacy of “argument by authority” to convince us that only right-wing whackos and illiterate wingnuts reject Al Gore’s “the science is settled” trope. The IPCC alarmists and their media allies never weary of telling us that the IPCC’s reports represent the views of 4,000 climate scientists who endorse the IPCC’s sense of crisis and alarm. However, as researcher John McLean reported in his 2009 study entitled “The IPCC Can’t Count Its ‘Expert Scientists’: Author and Reviewer Numbers Are Wrong,” the UN’s preeminent science body double-counts scientists and further pads their numbers by counting many non-scientific personnel who participate in the research assessments. Finally, the IPCC’s non-scientist policy wonks who write the political conclusions of the IPCC reports hijack whatever real science has been done by its qualified experts, falsely attributing a nonexistent consensus or unanimity to the scientific teams and ignoring the reservations or dissenting opinions of the non-conformists. McLean’s analysis, published by the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI), found that the “4,000 scientists” consensus claim for the IPCC’s 4th Assessment (2010) was spectacularly exaggerated. He notes: Fifty-three authors and five reviewers are all that might generously be said to have explicitly supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate. Forget any notion that 4,000 scientists supported the claim or even the 3750+ people as mentioned by the IPCC. Also forget any notion that all 2890 individuals who were authors, reviewers or both supported the claim. The only explicit evidence is for support from just less than 60 individuals. Please note, the number of scientists in the IPCC report that the organization may honestly be able to say have endorsed the IPCC’s AGW catastrophism, is more on the order of 50-60 individuals, not 4,000. That is a very significant discrepancy, to say the least! It has taken a long time for the thousands of AGW skeptics (or “climate realists,” as many prefer to be called) to come to the fore. Why is that? Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a former AGW believer himself, says most scientists are so busy in their own specialties that, like most laymen, they don’t consider that the “consensus” may be completely contrived. But that has changed, he says. “Each one of us was working in his or her own niche,” says Shaviv. “While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW picture. So many had to change their views.” Until recently, the AGW alarmists definitely had the upper hand. For one thing, they have been organized. For another, they have been outspending the climate realists by a huge order of magnitude. In 2007, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, showed that proponents of man-made global warming enjoyed a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. The alarmists had received a whopping $50 billion — mostly from the federal government — compared to “a paltry $19 million and some change” for the realists. A 2009 study entitled “Climate Money,” by Joanne Nova for the Science & Public Policy Institute, found that the U.S. government had sunk $79 billion into climate-change-related activities (science research, alternative energy technology, foreign aid, etc.) between 1989 and 2009. That total does not include additional massive funding from state governments, foundations, and corporations. Similar levels of funding have been poured into “climate policy” by European Union institutions and the national governments of European nations and Japan. This super-extravagant lavishing of state funding on a new scientific field has created an instant global climate industry that is government-fed and completely political. However, these sums, impressive as they are, represent only the very tip of the mountain of “climate cash” that has the political classes panting and salivating. They smell not only tens of billions of dollars for research and technology, but also hundreds of billions for “climate debt” foreign aid, and trillions to be made in CO2 cap-and-trade schemes. The politicization and corruption of climate science is, perhaps, most clearly evident from the continuing cavalcade of shocking scandals: Climategate, Climategate 2.0, Himalayan Glaciergate, Alaskan Glaciergate, Amazongate, Sea Levelgate, Fakegate, Satellitegate, Antarctic Sea Icegate, Hockey Stickgate, Hurricanegate, Surface Weather Stationgate, Russiagate, etc. The Germany-based engineer P. Gosselin has catalogued 129 climate scandals at his website, NoTrickZone.com. Fortunately, each of these transgressions against the integrity of science has caused new circles of scientists to become aware of, and outraged by, the chicanery being employed by the political operatives masquerading as scientists. And the genuine scientists are stepping into the gap in increasing numbers to fight for truth and to expose the climate-change flim-flam artists who are perverting science.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: SJN (#0)
The Oil Age | Peak Oil | LATOC • Hot by Linda the Ozarker ... www.theoilage.com/hot-by-...the-ozarker-t7407-30.html 10 posts - 3 authors - Jul 7 8-) EIA 6C degree rise over 1760 Pre Industrial baseline by 2035. US, Russia, German, Austrian Lake E core samples: 4 Interglacials in a 2.8 ... The exceptional climate warming in the Arctic, and the inter-hemispheric interdependencies, weren't known before the Lake E studies, the scientists say. Lake E was formed 3.6 million years ago when a huge meteorite hit Earth, leaving an 11-mile-wide crater. It's been collecting layers of sediment ever since. The lake is of interest to scientists because it has never been covered by glaciers. That has allowed the uninterrupted build-up of sediment at the bottom of the lake, recording hitherto undiscovered information on climate change. Cores from Lake E go far back in time, almost 30 times farther than Greenland ice cores covering the past 110,000 years. The sediment cores from Lake El'gygytgyn reflect the climate and environmental history of the Arctic with great sensitivity, say Brigham-Grette and colleagues. The physical, chemical and biological properties of Lake E's sediments match the known global glacial/interglacial pattern of the ice ages. Some warm phases are exceptional, however, marked by extraordinarily high biological activity in the lake, well above that of "regular" climate cycles. www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124565 To quantify the climate differences, the scientists studied four warm phases in detail: the two youngest, called "normal" interglacials, from 12,000 years and 125,000 years ago; and two older phases, called "super" interglacials, from 400,000 and 1.1 million years ago. According to climate reconstructions based on pollen found in sediment cores, summer temperatures and annual precipitation during the super interglacials were about 4 to 5 degrees C warmer, and about 12 inches wetter, than during normal interglacials. The super interglacial climates suggest that it's nearly impossible for Greenland's ice sheet to have existed in its present form at those times. Simulations using a state-of-the-art climate model show that the high temperature and precipitation during the super interglacials can't be explained by Earth's orbital parameters or variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases alone, which geologists usually see as driving the glacial/interglacial pattern during ice ages.
What a load of bullshit. Prove that. You can't. Your sources suck dude.
That's where it all falls apart, dude. It's not science, it's wishful thinking.
. It's not science, it's wishful thinking. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...;} I was looking for more form you, biff....;} US, Russia, Germany, Austria Joint Team. Longest Sedimetary Core ever drilled. "The data reported come from analyzing sediment cores collected in 2009 from under ice-covered Lake El'gygytgyn in the northeast Russian Arctic. "Lake E" was formed 3.6 million years ago when a huge meteorite hit the Earth and blasted out an 11-mile (18 km) wide crater. It has been collecting layers of sediment ever since. Moreover, the meteorite luckily hit one of the few areas in the Arctic not eroded by continental glaciers, leaving the thick sediment record remarkably undisturbed and continuous. Consequently, cores from Lake E reach back in geologic time nearly 30 times farther than Greenland ice cores covering the past 110,000 years. The sediment cores from Lake El´gygytgyn reflect the climatic and environmental history of the Arctic with great sensitivity. The physical, chemical and biological properties of the sediments match the glacial/interglacial pattern known globally for the ice ages. However, it is conspicuous that some warm phases are exceptional, marked by extraordinary high biological activity in the lake, well above the background of rather regular climate cycles. Read more at: phys.org/news/2012-06-arc...e-thought-linked.html#jCp You've got better data, you need to contact the USGS immediately....;}
Prove that. You can't. Your sources suck dude. The first problem for you, A K, is that you don't believe the World exists more than 6 000 years ago. The second, Is that you call bullshit on Science agreed to by the US, Russia, Germany, and Austria. And 'Prove that' is what we've just done and showed. The Link is above for your perusal. Greatest Science article of the year. You task is to prove that the above is false. Waiting.....while Lake Mead keeps dropping and Hoover Dam moves to stop producing electricity by 2017. Man, St Louis is going to be HOT today.....;}
"We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island," he says. "Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're seeing remarkable changes in the weather already. "The Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon dioxide and global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000 years. But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way as many of the species that we've seen disappear. "Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years," he says. "A lot of other animals will, too. It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off. "Mitigation would slow things down a bit, but there are too many people here already." It's an opinion shared by some scientists but drowned out by the row between climate change sceptics and believers. I should note that this last point—the problems attending growth being drowned out by a bogus debate about the climate science—is essential if you want to understand why the human species may become extinct in the next few hundred years. This same behavior has been called fiddling while Rome burns, and humans seem to be especially adept at it.
EIA 6C degree rise over 1760 Baseline by 2035 = 100% Extinction. More of that stinkin' science. So.... 2025 will be about 4C rise. Scientists don't Model this because humans won't be here.
I didn't criticize the data.
. For the earth to be much older then 10000 years you will have to solve a few problems. First there isn't enough helium in the atmosphere. Secondly for the age you speculate the sun would have had to been a whole lot bigger or it would have already burnt out. It would have had to be so big that it would have burnt the earth. You lack common sense and cling onto long dis proven scientific theories such as evilution and billions of years. Real science is on my side. Now run along and solve the two problems I have presented to you.
So why post? U don't agree with the science.
I don't have to solve shit. Look, why don't you source me a Science Journal of ANY KIND that has the Earth at 10000 years old. Waiting for the Adam, Eve, and Jesus rode Dinosaur pics.....;} That's insane....and Good Luck on that next 10 000 year old planet appearing to take you on in O 5 years.....;}. Hoover Dam stops producing electricity 2017.
EIA 6C degree rise over 1760 Baseline by 2035 = 100% Extinction. More of that stinkin' science. So.... 2025 will be about 4C rise. Scientists don't Model this because humans won't be here.
Right. Bad science. Politics masquerading as science. Too much dishonesty. Both sides are guilty, actually.
. Your point about the climate change data model being flawed is well taken.
Right. Bad science. Politics masquerading as science. Too much dishonesty. Both sides are guilty, actually. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......intake of breath..... BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA and we come to it.... "Both sides are guilty, actually. " They ALL do it....;} And along with: "No one could've predicted this" And "As you may know" (But of course not from this source because this is the First we've talked about it.....LMFAO....8D In the Meantime The ONE SIDE that counts: The Planet is unihabitable by humans by 2025....has been saying as much (minus the Exact Date for when the yeast like critters actually succeeded in Eating so much and destroying so much and putting so much of their waste into the cycle that annililation was inevitable.... THAT Side.... The Dirty Fuckin Hippie Side....which has been Shit on From A thin oxygen level Altitude by ALL the $$$ the MadMEn could get their fuckin hands on...Side has been....wait for it.... Right all along. ;} Quite possibly, says climate modeller Pier Luigi Vidale at the University of Reading, UK. He thinks plants and soils might explain some of the unprecedented heatwaves. Where land is covered by vegetation, much of the sun's heat is absorbed by plants. They stay cool - and keep the land cool - by sucking up water and letting it evaporate from their leaves. But when the soil dries out, plants close their pores and stop transpiring. "It is the same as if you don't drink any water and stop sweating," says Vidale. When the sun's heat is no longer channelled into evaporating water, it all goes into the land and the air above it. The result is a jump in temperature.
Yeah. Just like when you said millions in Florida would be dead now. Why don't you talk about that anymore?
Yeah. Just like when you said millions in Florida would be dead now. Why don't you talk about that anymore? And thank you. Of course you can't find that yukon quote....;} but you keep ad libbing it..... Be right back.....;} AHHH yess.... Nice to be at your Master's feet while they control the Immediate News Release..... Jul 17 New report sheds light on an alarming trend: Government muzzling scientists 0share0 Leave a comment It’s getting harder and harder to be a scientist in America these days — especially if you work for, or work with the federal government, or if you cross one of the favored companies of our political leaders. We encountered this first-hand as we tried to investigate the BP oil spill and its aftermath here in the Gulf. Scientific experts who dared contradict the rosiest scenarios came in for a [...] 2 years and 2 1/2 months and everything but USSAbp approved advertising is all we've got. Like How long before Fukushima starts dying....how would you know? LMFAO You, A K A, are Proud of the censorship and ridicule all who proclaim reality in it's face.....;} 'Roads in Antarctica...WTF !!??....;}
The Fcuk ALl is that you and yours actually think you're getting away with something... even as the 'crime' wraps it's tentacles around your neck.....;} "Back in September 2010, two of the outstanding scientists who did research on behalf of my law firm — Dr. William Sawyer, a Florida-based toxicologist, and Marco Kaltofen, the head of Boston Chemical Data in Massachusetts — started receiving unsettling calls from government attorneys after they reported finding disturbing levels of potentially toxic hydrocarbons in seafood. Instead of embracing their research, lawyers from the National Oil Spill Commission suggested they’d performed the research without proper permits; one said he was acting on a complaint from a major seafood distributor. The lawyers backed off after the calls were reported in the media, but the episode certainly suggested a government more interested in appeasing the powerful than in independent, untainted science."
The 2010 BP oil spill accelerated the loss of Louisiana’s delicate marshlands, which were already rapidly disappearing before the largest oil spill in U.S. history, a new study reports. As the oil washed into the marshlands, it coated and smothered thick grasses at their edge. When the grass died, deep roots that held the soil together also died, leaving the shore banks of the marshlands to crumble, said Brian Silliman, the University of Florida researcher who led the new study. Silliman found that the oiled marshes of Louisiana had receded at a rate of about 10 feet a year — or double the normal (and already disturbing) rate of erosion of key wetlands in my home state. That’s an alarming statistic — but it’s still just a statistic. Sometimes to really understand the impact that Deepwater Horizon had on the bayou, you need to go out and see for yourself. Today, I read a short but outstanding piece in the Atlantic about a place called Cat Island, a barrier island in Plaquemines Parrish, where the marshes clearly have not recovered. The piece is heartbreaking — here’s an excerpt: Cat Island’s mangrove forests used to be impenetrably dense." But it's just birds....right A K A....as long as it's not fetus' in the womb...then you can kill every other life form on the planet. Cause you and your zioFundy's got another one lined up.. and you're all ready to jump.....;}
By 2115 the Planet will be healing again....;}
You're stupid. I have bird feeders and a pond with a small man made river that the birds flock to in this heat. I value birds and cockroaches more then liberals.
Oh, bullshit. The planet is fine. You're a fucking lunatic.
. Jimmy didn't want to address it, lol.
. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I&feature=youtu.be SALBY_02.08.11
I value birds and cockroaches more then liberals. Lol..well said.
SALBY_02.08.11 I don't watch vids....slows my computer down....;} EIA 6C degree rise by 2035. Humans die off at 3C +....;} As good as it gets right now.
Oh, bullshit. The planet is fine. You're a fucking lunatic. You're a moron. You and your zio fundy Militia buddy's and Your 1% Masters are the Only ones who think so. We're in Climate Runaway and this is Planet Hell....;}
Heat? You mean it's hot? No....how hot is it where you and your birds live , A K? Any records? And the Arctic goes ice free ALLL of the time. It's almost seasonal..... ICe Island twice the size of Manhattan calves off Petermann Glacier, NW Greenland... Bridges in Greenland being washed away now.
The truth replaced by silence is evil.... see Big Oil, which will be gone in any form you recognize, in about 5 years.... Family: Oily Seashells and Tarballs Led to Sickness | Mobile AL, Pensacola FL News, Weather, Sports | WPMI-TV | Local15TV.com Seeded on Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:58 PM EDT () A Foley family said they became seriously ill after swimmingon the beach in Gulf Shores where tarballs and oily sea shells were washing up Sunday. James Nolan said their bodies were coated in a tacky, brown tar Cat 4/5 between Houston - New Orleans by Aug 20....;)
I don't watch vids....slows my computer down....;} That's quite convenient for you then.
Somehow I am confident that didn't slow the fool down from watching algore's "Inconveni ent Truth" propaganda ... ;)
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." Michael Rivero
Even though cockroaches are a lot like Leftards because they are so disease ridden and hard to get rid of???
Choosing and voting for a presidential candidate is like picking which STD you want to suffer from….
Quite....Prevention is worth way more than the cure....;} A Three line synopsis of the vid should always be possible for you. 1) Tell me what you're gonna tell me. 2) Tell me. 3) Tell me what you told me. Simple.....;}
Like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=W...k&feature=player_embedded Synopsis: Big River Greenland eats 20 ton tractor like candy. Verious Stills of Tractor being pulled into maelstrom of river. Big River ate the tractor. 20 ton tractor just totally disappeared. Like that, SNJ.....;}
Salby talks on CO2 in our atmosphere.
Good. CO2 is at 400 + ppm in the Arctic. The Arctic is now 2C degrees above 1760 Baseline. Runaway is here as Greenland setting all time Melt Flood records. Anything besides that?
That's about it.... Go watch it. You may actually find it interesting.
#2. To: mcgowanjm (#1)
The exceptional climate warming in the Arctic, and the inter-hemispheric interdependencies, weren't known before the Lake E studies, the scientists say. Lake E was formed 3.6 million years ago when a huge meteorite hit Earth, leaving an 11-mile-wide crater.
#3. To: mcgowanjm (#1)
Simulations using a state-of-the-art climate model show that the high temperature and precipitation during the super interglacials can't be explained by Earth's orbital parameters or variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases alone, which geologists usually see as driving the glacial/interglacial pattern during ice ages.
Say hi to your mom for me.
#4. To: Biff Tannen (#3)
(Edited)
That's where it all falls apart, dude.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#2)
What a load of bullshit.
#6. To: SJN (#0)
#7. To: All (#6)
(Edited)
#8. To: mcgowanjm (#4)
Say hi to your mom for me.
#9. To: mcgowanjm (#5)
#10. To: Biff Tannen (#8)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
For the earth to be much older then 10000 years you will have to solve a few problems.
#12. To: All (#11)
#13. To: mcgowanjm (#10)
U don't agree with the science.
Say hi to your mom for me.
#14. To: Biff Tannen (#13)
Bad science. Politics masquerading as science. Too much dishonesty.
#15. To: Biff Tannen (#13)
U don't agree with the science.
#16. To: mcgowanjm (#15)
The Planet is unihabitable by humans by 2025..
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)
(Edited)
The Planet is unihabitable by humans by 2025..
#18. To: All (#17)
#19. To: All (#18)
#20. To: All (#19)
#21. To: mcgowanjm (#19)
But it's just birds....right A K A....as long as it's not fetus' in the womb...then you can kill every other life form on the planet.
#22. To: mcgowanjm (#20)
By 2115 the Planet will be healing again
Say hi to your mom for me.
#23. To: Thunderbird (#14)
Say hi to your mom for me.
#24. To: mcgowanjm (#1)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I have bird feeders and a pond with a small man made river that the birds flock to in this heat.
#26. To: SJN (#24)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I&feature=youtu.be
#27. To: Biff Tannen (#22)
By 2115 the Planet will be healing again
#28. To: A K A Stone (#21)
You're stupid. I have bird feeders and a pond with a small man made river that the birds flock to in this heat.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#16)
(Edited)
Yeah. Just like when you said millions in Florida would be dead now. Why don't you talk about that anymore?
#30. To: mcgowanjm (#26)
SALBY_02.08.11
#31. To: SJN (#30)
#32. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I value birds and cockroaches more then liberals.
#33. To: SJN (#30)
That's quite convenient for you then.
#34. To: SJN (#30)
(Edited)
That's quite convenient for you then.
#35. To: mcgowanjm (#34)
#36. To: SJN (#35)
Salby talks on CO2 in our atmosphere.
#37. To: mcgowanjm (#36)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]