Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Eco-idiots

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Brexx View Post

    What I think of the IPCC should not matter to you. You have faith in them. You don't want them defunded, and you quote them to back your argument that extreme weather events are getting worse. Now, when I point out that they changed their tune on that in 2013 are you saying you don't accept that because I posted it? They back-tracked on what they said in 2007 which is what you were using to back your argument.

    I accept their (IPCC) correction of their mistake in 2007, but I still think they should be abolished. In fact, all of the billions of dollars being spent on man made climate change research should be ended. Aren't we constantly being told the science is settled? When you throw great gobs of money at scientists to study human effects on climate they are going to keep coming up with stuff, and the scarier the better. No crisis=no funding, that's why there is such an effort to discredit and silence those scientists who don't go along with the alarmist narrative.
    I heard an interesting discussion on my favorite fake news networks about how Trump got rid of job killing regulations that would make it harder to build in places prone to flooding. I guess it's better to let them build then give them federal aid when god decides to wash them away. Why are ocean level's rising?Too many sailors peeing into the sea?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Originally posted by redrover View Post

      I heard an interesting discussion on my favorite fake news networks about how Trump got rid of job killing regulations that would make it harder to build in places prone to flooding. I guess it's better to let them build then give them federal aid when god decides to wash them away. Why are ocean level's rising?Too many sailors peeing into the sea?
      Wouldn't that be controlled by local zoning rather than the president?

      As for the ocean levels, they have been rising for about 10,000 years, so its not your SUV.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Originally posted by Brexx View Post

        What I think of the IPCC should not matter to you. You have faith in them. You don't want them defunded, and you quote them to back your argument that extreme weather events are getting worse. Now, when I point out that they changed their tune on that in 2013 are you saying you don't accept that because I posted it? They back-tracked on what they said in 2007 which is what you were using to back your argument.

        I accept their (IPCC) correction of their mistake in 2007, but I still think they should be abolished. In fact, all of the billions of dollars being spent on man made climate change research should be ended. Aren't we constantly being told the science is settled? When you throw great gobs of money at scientists to study human effects on climate they are going to keep coming up with stuff, and the scarier the better. No crisis=no funding, that's why there is such an effort to discredit and silence those scientists who don't go along with the alarmist narrative.
        Did they backtrack on their 2007 report? Are you sure? Let's take another look at a link I suspect you failed to read:
        Since 1950, the number of heat waves has increased and widespread increases have occurred in the numbers of warm nights. The extent of regions affected by droughts has also increased as precipitation over land has marginally decreased while evaporation has increased due to warmer conditions. Generally, numbers of heavy daily precipitation events that lead to flooding have increased, but not everywhere. Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s. In the extratropics, variations in tracks and intensity of storms reflect variations in major features of the atmospheric circulation, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation.
        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...n/faq-3-3.html
        They never claimed it was all disaster, everywhere. Compare the above with the 2nd party's reference to the IPCC 2013 report.

        As for abolishing climate change studies, that is suicidal. Will that make really mean hurricanes go away? Will that help us better prepare for climate change? If the deniers control gov't. and want to deny humans cause climate change, then it is a simple matter (for them) to ignore recommendations to control human behavior related to the climate. If gov't. wants to ignore all studies, including the ones that don't mention human activity, it should come right out and make that claim.

        Think anyone in the gummint will go there?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Originally posted by Brexx View Post

          Wouldn't that be controlled by local zoning rather than the president?

          As for the ocean levels, they have been rising for about 10,000 years, so its not your SUV.
          The president can use the soapbox to prevent huge losses, due to FEMA and other federal agencies pissing away funds to re-build in any flood zones within US territory. How does the prez or other federal official prevent local zoning from pissing away federal funds? You will be able to answer this question, Brexx.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post

            Did they backtrack on their 2007 report? Are you sure? Let's take another look at a link I suspect you failed to read:

            https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...n/faq-3-3.html
            They never claimed it was all disaster, everywhere. Compare the above with the 2nd party's reference to the IPCC 2013 report.

            As for abolishing climate change studies, that is suicidal. Will that make really mean hurricanes go away? Will that help us better prepare for climate change? If the deniers control gov't. and want to deny humans cause climate change, then it is a simple matter (for them) to ignore recommendations to control human behavior related to the climate. If gov't. wants to ignore all studies, including the ones that don't mention human activity, it should come right out and make that claim.

            Think anyone in the gummint will go there?
            Comparing what they said in 2007 to what they said in 2013 its hard to call it anything but a backdown. Basically they said there is no real evidence of an increase in extreme weather events, which is not what they said in 2007.

            Will throwing billions of dollars per year at more acc research make hurricanes go away? Of course not. Will "controlling human behavior" make hurricanes go away? Not bloody likely.

            If we really believe the climate alarmist hypothesis that human caused co2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic climate change, then we should be spending our billions on getting ready for it, not trying to prevent it. Why? There is no end in sight to human co2 emissions. But what do we see? Do we see levees being build in a mad rush to deal with this impending disaster? Do we see waterfront property values falling like wounded ducks? No. What we see is fear mongering to get people to change their light bulbs and ride bicycles, and big international deals that involve nothing more than wealth transfer from us to third world dictatorships. That's going to save us from hurricanes??

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Originally posted by redrover View Post
              I heard an interesting discussion on my favorite fake news networks about how Trump got rid of job killing regulations that would make it harder to build in places prone to flooding. I guess it's better to let them build then give them federal aid when god decides to wash them away. Why are ocean level's rising?Too many sailors peeing into the sea?
              Ocean levels aren't "rising." LOL No one is going to be fishing in the streets anytime soon.

              I'll just bet you can find it said to be true somewhere though. The north and south poles are melting and Santa needs a new home ... probably somewhere in Brazil - ...

              ... that's a whole different problem for another thread though... but yeah, the poles AREN'T melting away either. The moon isn't made of bleu cheese either.

              Anyways,..

              Below is an enlightening read for those interested in learning why this theory of man caused "global warming" really has no real data to support it. Interested in learning that there is no scientific "consensus" on it - that's a lie too.

              The most interesting thing about this is the observable fact that our media and our politicians are trying to get us all to believe in it !!

              It's non-sense based on fraud, yet we're told every day that it's truth ! Every time the weather does something different, even many of our local weather reporters suggest it's cause is "global warming."

              That this lie is repeated over & over and over & over and over and over & over and over & over and over has had a brainwashing effect on a sizable number of people.

              This is the interesting part. Repeat a fraud, a lie, enough times and it becomes the accepted truth !

              Believe it or not

              Believe it.

              We're seeing it occur !!


              ------------------------------------------

              Climate change temperature data problems

              Reasons exist to have serious investigations of the whole of climate change (aka global warming) science.

              Global warming inevitably rests on current temperatures setting records in geologic time, or at least since early human civilization. And this is where the 1998 Nature article by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcom Hughes depicting what has become known as the iconic "hockey stick" graph becomes critical. The "hockey stick" showed modern temperatures far hotter than in the year 1400.

              The hockey stick graph was adopted into the third assessment report (2001) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and contradicted a chart that had appeared only eleven years before in an earlier IPCC assessment report. The hockey stick eliminated what had traditionally been considered the hottest era, the Medieval Warm Period.

              As reasonably accurate thermometers were not developed until well into the 19th century, one would wonder how earlier temperatures were measured. The answer is the use of proxy data – namely, ice cores, tree rings, bee pollen, ocean and lake sediment. But a reasonable person would have to wonder by what standards these items are interpreted.

              This leaves only modern thermometer data sets, the primary one being that of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), "an estimate of global surface temperature change ... using current data files from NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]." The entire 137-year monthly data set, from 1880 through June 2017, in degrees Celsius anomalies (deviations from the corresponding 1951-1980 means), updated monthly, is available in spreadsheet and text forms.

              But the land and seas surface data from which the above is derived suffers serious flaws as far as indicating "global" warming. First of all, it is not, as implied, indicative of global surface temperatures. The NOAA website contains in the upper-left-hand corner a small and easily overlooked but important map denoting the location of land-based temperature measurement stations around the world and years of coverage, reproduced below. Not surprisingly, data for more than about 110 years exist only for the United States; Japan; southeastern Australia; and some areas in Europe, Asia, and India. Nearly all of Africa, South America, Antarctica, Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, and Asia contain only a few decades of weather data, from widely dispersed stations.

              As NOAA notes, this Global Historical Climatology Network monthly (GHCN-M, version 3) "provides monthly mean temperature data for 7,280 stations from 226 countries and territories, ongoing monthly updates of more than 2,000 stations to support monitoring of current and evolving climate conditions, and homogeneity adjustments to remove non-climatic influences that can bias the observed temperature record. The release of version 3 monthly mean temperature data in 2011 introduced a number of improvements and changes from the previous release that included consolidating 'duplicate' series, updating records from recent decades, and the use of new approaches to homogenization and quality assurance."

              The above quote from NOAA itself raises many important issues. First, while one may at first be impressed that data are collected from "7,280 stations," that is less impressive when compared to the 57.5 million square miles of land surface area in the world, because each station represents approximately 7,900 square miles on average. Moreover, "ongoing monthly updates" are obtained from only "2,000 stations," each therefore representing 28,750 square miles, represented by a square of about 170 miles per side. Only a handful of these stations have been around since the 1880s. Finally, the last sentence should raise concerns about "adjustments" to data, possibly biased toward greater warming, as discussed in a video by Tony Heller, posted July 2, 2017. Mr. Heller provides his vita at his website.

              After describing how satellite data were recently adjusted to reflect hotter land-based temperature data, Heller focuses on how the GISTEMP itself was adjusted in 2016, to show how NASA has doubled the warming anomalies between 1880 and 1999, beginning at the 4:30 mark in his video. In other words, this is the above mentioned NOAA data and apparently what the above quoted last sentence on the NOAA website refers to. The adjustments lowered temperature anomalies in earlier years and raised them in later years. Heller then returns to describing how Carl Mears, at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), then adjusted satellite data in recent weeks. Heller points out that the Figure currently on the RSS website is not the one a mere few weeks ago, providing a screenshot of the former Figure at the 6:30 mark!

              Ocean temperature data, also collected only since the 1880s, has also been significantly corrupted by adjustment, as described in a March 27 American Thinker article, which extends criticism to the broader underlying global warming theory. Uncooperative data are periodically adjusted to show more warming, as Rick Moran summarizes a recent study detailing three major such adjustments in the past.


              http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._problems.html

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                Comparing what they said in 2007 to what they said in 2013 its hard to call it anything but a backdown. Basically they said there is no real evidence of an increase in extreme weather events, which is not what they said in 2007.

                Will throwing billions of dollars per year at more acc research make hurricanes go away? Of course not. Will "controlling human behavior" make hurricanes go away? Not bloody likely.

                If we really believe the climate alarmist hypothesis that human caused co2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic climate change, then we should be spending our billions on getting ready for it, not trying to prevent it. Why? There is no end in sight to human co2 emissions. But what do we see? Do we see levees being build in a mad rush to deal with this impending disaster? Do we see waterfront property values falling like wounded ducks? No. What we see is fear mongering to get people to change their light bulbs and ride bicycles, and big international deals that involve nothing more than wealth transfer from us to third world dictatorships. That's going to save us from hurricanes??
                The reaction to climate change should be "all of the above" (except pumping money into tinpot dictatorships), with the addition of a controlled decline in human population worldwide. I would like to see waterfront properties on hurricane coasts be either self-insured or prohibited altogether. I would like to see levees built only where it makes sense, rather than repeated attempts to save a section of flood zone that will only face a significant increase.in flooding as the years pass. Link:
                Many flooded families had recently completed repairs to homes damaged during the 2016 “Tax Day” floods. At some point it's not worth rebuilding in the flood plain again and again. Given Houston’s median home price of $300,000, the value of those 40,000 homes destroyed could be upwards of $15 billion.
                https://www.forbes.com/sites/christo.../#aa3f9885774f

                Supposing FEMA follows thru with programs to return swampland to -uh- "swampland", the federal gov't. also needs assurance that there won't be future "major economic development" on that same land, via "special zoning permits". That means sanctions on ethically challenged, local gov't. officials, who would allow the sale of swampland to their own grandmother. If we don't see FEMA or other fed gov't. agencies get ornery with bad actors at the local level, we'll be throwing away more tax dollars on areas that should never be developed.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  The reaction to climate change should be "all of the above" (except pumping money into tinpot dictatorships), with the addition of a controlled decline in human population worldwide. I would like to see waterfront properties on hurricane coasts be either self-insured or prohibited altogether. I would like to see levees built only where it makes sense, rather than repeated attempts to save a section of flood zone that will only face a significant increase.in flooding as the years pass. Link:
                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/christo.../#aa3f9885774f

                  Supposing FEMA follows thru with programs to return swampland to -uh- "swampland", the federal gov't. also needs assurance that there won't be future "major economic development" on that same land, via "special zoning permits". That means sanctions on ethically challenged, local gov't. officials, who would allow the sale of swampland to their own grandmother. If we don't see FEMA or other fed gov't. agencies get ornery with bad actors at the local level, we'll be throwing away more tax dollars on areas that should never be developed.
                  One wonders how a fascist gov't would reduce populations worldwide? I doubt they would depend upon voluntary birth control. Large wars and plagues are very effective, given what happened to the population of europe during one of their plagues. Starvation is slower, but it would work. But it would have to be something which would not put at risk those who rule. The only question is whether or not human beings are capable of such plans? Yes sociopaths who IMO end up in positions of power have no conscience. Which means the ends will justify the means. What is a few billion deaths when your assets are at stake? Or they, in their great wisdom may see such reduction as essential so that all of us do not perish.

                  Yet I do believe this finite earth with finite resources introduces a real limitation on how many humans can be supported. We know what happens when any animal population exceeds the ability of the area to support them in their numbers. Who knows? It could be that new germs and viruses will appear on their own and do the balancing without us being involved.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    The reaction to climate change should be "all of the above" (except pumping money into tinpot dictatorships), with the addition of a controlled decline in human population worldwide. I would like to see waterfront properties on hurricane coasts be either self-insured or prohibited altogether. I would like to see levees built only where it makes sense, rather than repeated attempts to save a section of flood zone that will only face a significant increase.in flooding as the years pass. Link:
                    https://www.forbes.com/sites/christo.../#aa3f9885774f

                    Supposing FEMA follows thru with programs to return swampland to -uh- "swampland", the federal gov't. also needs assurance that there won't be future "major economic development" on that same land, via "special zoning permits". That means sanctions on ethically challenged, local gov't. officials, who would allow the sale of swampland to their own grandmother. If we don't see FEMA or other fed gov't. agencies get ornery with bad actors at the local level, we'll be throwing away more tax dollars on areas that should never be developed.
                    Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. We are told that in recent years the rate of rising has increased. Who knows if that is true or not? With all the tinkering and "adjusting" of data its hard to have faith in any of it. At any rate it is highly unlikely that sea levels are going to stop rising any time soon, and that's a good thing as it would take an ice-age to do that. So, sooner or later there are only two choices for low laying coastal areas - evacuate or build dikes, sea-walls, etc.

                    We know that during the interglacial period previous to this one sea levels were several meters higher than they are now. So we shouldn't assume that we are causing sea level rise and that we can do anything to stop it. If we are actually contributing to it we could possibly slow it down a bit, but how many trillions of dollars is it worth to slow down sea level rise by maybe a mm or so a year?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                      Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. We are told that in recent years the rate of rising has increased. Who knows if that is true or not? With all the tinkering and "adjusting" of data its hard to have faith in any of it. At any rate it is highly unlikely that sea levels are going to stop rising any time soon, and that's a good thing as it would take an ice-age to do that. So, sooner or later there are only two choices for low laying coastal areas - evacuate or build dikes, sea-walls, etc.

                      We know that during the interglacial period previous to this one sea levels were several meters higher than they are now. So we shouldn't assume that we are causing sea level rise and that we can do anything to stop it. If we are actually contributing to it we could possibly slow it down a bit, but how many trillions of dollars is it worth to slow down sea level rise by maybe a mm or so a year?
                      Oh the panacea for sea level rise is of course carbon taxes. It redistributes trillions, yes sir, quite the scheme. Even better than slave labor globalism, for everyone pays for this, even the professional class, the upper middle class. The ones who can actually afford it.

                      In so far as sea level rise, well that happens naturally with or without our help. Looks like a boom to economic activity to me, sorely needed these days domestically, unless we bring in illegal laborers from south of our border to do those jobs.

                      Perhaps the alarmists should be praying for another ice age. That would fix the co2 levels. Or we might have to burn even more fossil fuels to delay it. Bright side, we could reclaim land off our coasts. Might find ancient civilizations in the process, as much of our nation is under a couple miles of ice. Which is why I find a warming planet as insurance. Regardless, it is a much better option than the other.
                      Last edited by Blue Doggy; 09-18-2017, 12:29 PM.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                        Oh the panacea for sea level rise is of course carbon taxes. It redistributes trillions, yes sir, quite the scheme. Even better than slave labor globalism, for everyone pays for this, even the professional class, the upper middle class. The ones who can actually afford it.

                        In so far as sea level rise, well that happens naturally with or without our help. Looks like a boom to economic activity to me, sorely needed these days domestically, unless we bring in illegal laborers from south of our border to do those jobs.

                        Perhaps the alarmists should be praying for another ice age. That would fix the co2 levels. Or we might have to burn even more fossil fuels to delay it. Bright side, we could reclaim land off our coasts. Might find ancient civilizations in the process, as much of our nation is under a couple miles of ice. Which is why I find a warming planet as insurance. Regardless, it is a much better option than the other.
                        Yes, a warming planet is better than the alternative. A long range graph of earth's temp shows we are in a very cool period. A little warming shouldn't surprise or worry us.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                          Yes, a warming planet is better than the alternative. A long range graph of earth's temp shows we are in a very cool period. A little warming shouldn't surprise or worry us.
                          According to the graph I have seen using ice cores, we have been very stable when compared to the past several hundred thousand years, for the past ten thousand years. There were such wide fluctuations leading up to the last ice age, off the charts in both ways cold and warming spikes. And the climatologists have no real idea as to the causes. So, there is so much we do not know about what creates major climate change. And I knew this way before the IPCC wanted evidence in regards to man and his co2. Which of course led to my skepticism given they were displaying such certainty along with a consensus which is not what one generally hears in science.

                          Anyways if we stopped all co2 production today, the warming will continue or so they say long into the future. If we can use the past as reference, humanity has always benefitted from a warming and if it opens up more land to the north to farm, it would be needed for a growing population. I guess we can wait til the next ice age to thin down population, which will happen naturally which isn;t a pretty sight.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                            Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. We are told that in recent years the rate of rising has increased. Who knows if that is true or not? With all the tinkering and "adjusting" of data its hard to have faith in any of it. At any rate it is highly unlikely that sea levels are going to stop rising any time soon, and that's a good thing as it would take an ice-age to do that. So, sooner or later there are only two choices for low laying coastal areas - evacuate or build dikes, sea-walls, etc
                            We know that during the interglacial period previous to this one sea levels were several meters higher than they are now. So we shouldn't assume that we are causing sea level rise and that we can do anything to stop it. If we are actually contributing to it we could possibly slow it down a bit, but how many trillions of dollars is it worth to slow down sea level rise by maybe a mm or so a year?
                            Combine flat coastal areas in hurricane zones with rising sea levels. That means evacuation, not building dikes or sea walls. A sea wall of epic proportions, that could keep out a massive surge from a hurricane, would at the same time serve as a dam to catch a 30-40 inch rainfall (from same hurricanes). Best to locate elsewhere.

                            Houston was a good location until recently, as far as a port location for petroleum/refinery operations. As population increased, local officials caved in to development interests, and allowed "permanent" construction on the worst (least secure) land. As petroleum demand falls off, it would be best to continue depopulating Houston, starting with the least secure zones. Other tech, service and port employment still keeps Houston in the Big City category, just one with "swamp & forest" strips in between urban areas, which might be connected with bridges constructed to hurricane/flood standards. Aside from the nauseating hypocrisy of political and economic leaders who will claim they "planned the new Houston", it might be a much more liveable city than the one existing today.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                              According to the graph I have seen using ice cores, we have been very stable when compared to the past several hundred thousand years, for the past ten thousand years. There were such wide fluctuations leading up to the last ice age, off the charts in both ways cold and warming spikes. And the climatologists have no real idea as to the causes. So, there is so much we do not know about what creates major climate change. And I knew this way before the IPCC wanted evidence in regards to man and his co2. Which of course led to my skepticism given they were displaying such certainty along with a consensus which is not what one generally hears in science.

                              Anyways if we stopped all co2 production today, the warming will continue or so they say long into the future. If we can use the past as reference, humanity has always benefitted from a warming and if it opens up more land to the north to farm, it would be needed for a growing population. I guess we can wait til the next ice age to thin down population, which will happen naturally which isn;t a pretty sight.
                              Declining population can happen voluntarily, BD. I'm barely more optimistic than you as far human character, but we could reach a goal -more than 30%- strictly by family planning, with no coercion. Declining native born populations are happening right now, in various parts of the world. These declines are voluntary, fully controlled by individuals of child-bearing age. It is not being discussed in MSM or in open gov't. meetings, for obvious reasons. No dictators or microbes needed, and this strategy will come in very handy for the coming flat economy and abandonment of certain areas rendered inhospitable.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                Declining population can happen voluntarily, BD. I'm barely more optimistic than you as far human character, but we could reach a goal -more than 30%- strictly by family planning, with no coercion. Declining native born populations are happening right now, in various parts of the world. These declines are voluntary, fully controlled by individuals of child-bearing age. It is not being discussed in MSM or in open gov't. meetings, for obvious reasons. No dictators or microbes needed, and this strategy will come in very handy for the coming flat economy and abandonment of certain areas rendered inhospitable.
                                The most effective population controller is prosperity. Almost all first world countries have a birth-rate below replacement level. That's why they have to import third world people. Unfortunately for the "save the planet" bedwetters, prosperity requires the very thing they want to destroy- capitalism.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X