TexasCHLforum.com

We knew this had to be coming.....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStor ... s-25692995

President Barack Obama is pledging new U.S. help for other nations struggling to address global warming, as heads of state from around the world converge for a major summit on climate change.

Obama will use his speech at a U.N. summit Tuesday to announce plans to sign an executive order requiring the U.S. government to take climate change into account when it spends money overseas to help poorer countries, the White House said. The U.S. will also offer vulnerable communities abroad new tools to address the effects of climate change through science and technology.

The measures join a host of commitments Obama will announce at the summit, where more than 120 world leaders will gather on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly to galvanize support for a global climate treaty to be finalized next year in Paris. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the summit's host, is expecting leaders to come with specific pledges in hand to mitigate climate change, as a way to show they're serious about ambitious emissions reductions in the treaty.

Great, not only will we give money to people who hate us, thinking that we can buy their favor, but we will also fund their conversion to "Green"........ at a time when we can barely afford to fund our own industrial conversion (what's left of it) to arbitrary standards set by The Great Dictator. And he is going to do it by executive order instead of through Congress.

I hope the traitors in the democrat party understand one thing..... the genie THEY unleashed cannot be put back into the bottle. Sooner or later, "other than democrats" will control both houses of congress, the executive, and the courts; and the system the traitors put into place can also be used against them. There will be such a howling and gnashing of teeth, but I am going to take some bitter satisfaction in telling them whenever the opportunity presents that "THIS SITUATION is the result of YOUR votes. You REVELED triumphant when the precedent was set of using executive orders to bypass the democratic process and enforce your agenda, now drink happily from your own bile." In the meantime, we've turned over sovereignty over our own affairs to Ban Kee Moon. Lovely. Just lovely.

Forum rules prevent me from using the kind of language that accurately describes these cretins.

STUDY LINKS CHANGING WINDS TO WARMING IN PACIFIC
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 2-15-40-23
BY JEFF BARNARD
ASSOCIATED PRESS

A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related to global warming.

The study compared ocean surface temperatures from 1900 to 2012 to surface air pressure, a stand-in for wind measurements, and found a close match.

"What we found was the somewhat surprising degree to which the winds can explain all the wiggles in the temperature curve," said lead author Jim Johnstone, who did the work while a climatologist at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington.

—————SNIP—————

It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change.

—————SNIP—————

"This may say more about the state of climate modeling than it says about causes of warming in the Pacific Northwest," Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, said in an email.

Mr. Caldeira goes on to challenge the validity of this modeling further, without explaining why we must take his modeling as the gospel.

And herein lies the problem......computer modeling, based on data 100 years old or more. It doesn't matter WHERE you start your data model, there is always older data going back millions of years that will invalidate your model. So whose is right? They can't answer that without throwing in their personal agenda biases.....which are NOT scientific, but rather social/political.....and they want the rest of us to follow policies they recommend based on science which is hazy at best. This is why I persist in calling it junk science......because the conclusions are junk.

myntalfloss wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:BTW, 246 record low temperatures set first 10 days of September.


http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/there ... l-warming/

Anygunanywhere

Try to think macro rather than micro.

There are always abberations in data. You can't cherry-pick. Just because you had a relative that smoked until they turned 90 doesn't mean that tobacco isn't bad for you.

97-98% of the REAL scientists that study climate think that the earth is getting warmer and that the science is settled. If you went to 100 doctors and 98 of them said that you have cancer and 2 of them said, "Nah, you're good to go" , what would you do? I don't know about you, but I'd take the chemo.

You're always going to be able to find an echo chamber blog somewhere that will support your misconceptions. But, quoting Neal DeGrasse Tyson, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. "

Here's a couple to start you out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ge-report/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... -of-doubt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, the problem isn't whether or not climate is changing. Like death and taxes, climate change is one of the things we have always been able to count on. The problem is people trying to pin that on mankind, and then using the accusation as an underpinning for massive social engineering, MOST of which involves three things: 1) loss of employment; 2) increased cost of living; and 3) further losses of personal liberty. Among climatologists who agree that the planet is warming, there is NOT a consensus that it is man-made. That is still very much as yet to be determined. Until it is a proven fact, I am NOT submitting to their bullying. Period.

I'm not having any of that.

koine2002 wrote:What your addressing is what I like to call "preserving the illusion of control." Many of the hot-button political issues of our day from socializing health care, entitlements, climate legislation, and even anti-gun propaganda is largely an effort to preserve the illusion that we humans are actually in control of the world. It provides an illusion of safety in something we can see, hear, touch, smell, and feel. However, in the long game, such things do little other than make us "feel" safe.

Exactly. I know Who is in control, but not everyone shares that belief. Be that as it may, the notion that this collection of 6 billion miniscule fly-specks can engineer the planet into doing our will is beyond preposterous, and plunges deeply into hubris.

The problem with hubris is that it never goes unpunished in the end, but along the way, millions have to die or have the quality of their lives crumpled inward to satisfy the vanities of the hubristic. My copy of The Owner's Manual says in Proverbs 16:18 "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." (ESV).

Those who will not submit to the climate change dogma are called "deniers". We deny nothing. EVERYBODY knows the climate is changing. You don't have to be a genius to see it. But the entire premise of the alarmist argument is based on a faked "hockey stick" in the data, which has been proven to be fraudulent and virtually disavowed by climatologists (see below). Even most of the alarmists conceded that the hockey stick data is shakey, but they can't give it up because they've got nothing else, and they want to rule the world based on this shaky data. We don't deny that the climate is changing. We deny the shaky data, and the conclusions drawn from it. That's just smart thinking.

And that's another thing......this notion that 98% of scientists agree that it is man-made is eyewash. Maybe 98% of (outspoken leftist) scientists (who are not climatologists) agree that it is man-made. But among climatologists.......those people whose special area of competence is climate change........the issue is still very much in doubt, with maybe as much as half of them not drinking the man-made coolaid, some still on the fence, and some believing it. If THEY are not unanimous, then it really doesn't matter what a collection of sociologists, behaviorists, anthropologists, physicists, and mathematicians believe. Climatology is NOT their area of competence. This would be analogous to allowing a PhD in fluid dynamics perform your heart surgery, just because he has a micro understanding of how blood behaves inside of blood vessels. No matter how much his hubris drives him to try and convince others that his knowledge is enough to safely perform the surgery, I'm not letting him near MY heart with a knife in his hand, because despite all of his knowledge, he does not know what he's doing.

The alarmists decry the shrinkage of glaciers in one area as evidence of global warming. Yes.....well.....that's true.......but they are growing in other areas.

The alarmists decry the fact that temperatures are, on average, a degree hotter in parts of the globe. Yes......well......that's true.....but they are getting colder in other parts of the globe.

Etc., etc., etc.

And on this flimsy evidence, mullet-heads like the "girl" (I'm not sure what it is) in the OP's article want to decrease the male population and force everyone to live in hives..........and the DUMBEST part is that they think people will submit to this foolishness. People have revolted violently over less radical impositions than this (Tea Tax, Boston Harbor, etc.). What makes this foolish twit imagine that anybody with a brain would just knuckle under to her fantasy? And how far have we fallen intellectually as a culture when a lint-brained idiot like that is actually taken seriously by some?

cb1000rider wrote:That sounds like a reasonable assessment with realistic questions to me...
It's much better than spinning it into a political "liberal" issue and totally discounting it.

The problem with climate change isn't climate change. The earth's climate has been changing continuously since it was first formed. The problem with it is our curious need to assign a cause for it, and then to generate social/political policy to "deal with it".

I read recently that the tiny insect population inside average human dwelling here in the United States (mites, etc) is greater than the number of people on the planet. I don't know it that is true or not, but one thing IS true, and that is that the non-human biomass of the planet outweighs the human biomass by billions or trillions to one. ALL of that biomass exudes gasses of some kind or other. Alarmists are upset that cow farts contribute metric tons of methane to the atmosphere, and they want to decrease the production of methane by decreasing animal husbandry. I would reply by pointing out that before we had all these cattle, buffalo roamed the plains in herds so vast that they darkened the earth......and each and every one of them was a prolific farter. So by the alarmists' logic, it is a good thing that the white man nearly eradicated the buffalo.

Humanity's goal shouldn't be to limit the liberty of human beings to try and stop the unstoppable—climate change—it should be to use use human ingenuity to adapt to the change in whatever ways are necessary for survival........ie. warmer or cooler clothing fabrics, more efficient heating/cooling of homes, architecture which heats and cools more efficiently, etc., etc., etc.

EDITED TO CORRECT A SPELLING ERROR....

Dave2 wrote:

Karen Seto wrote:And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

Seriously?!?

She has apparently never observed what happens when you put too many rats into one cage.