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

One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

    Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
    But that is the politics of the alarmists - global control of energy by force to achieve socialist utopia.



    Not from the links I have repeatedly posted. What part of global warming is mans fault? This is the very first question I asked alarmists over a decade, how do you determine the proportion of causal agents? The fact is there is no global warming as what we have seen is within normal variation. So, there can be no part of what does not exist that is mans fault.



    Thanks for being honest. So, you admit you have no way of knowing the part of global warming - that does not exist - is mans fault.



    You can say you are skeptical in theory but not in practice. In practice, you are an alarmist.



    Only an alarmist would take cautionary measures for something that is not a problem and it is not known how much the cautionary measures will help.

    Liberals often try to make it seem their radical desires to completely change the social order that has so successfully met the needs of man over the centuries is so reasonable and avoids risk. This does not hold up to scrutiny. Liberals like you turn a blind eye to the risk to freedom of embracing socialist ideology.
    Did you even look at my link? And why are you even bothering asking alarmists how global warming works when they often aren't scientists? Ask an actual scientists or research the science behind global warming yourself. And why did you not respond to the policies I proposed? I suppose nuclear power plants and electric cars are too extreme for you? And you completely missed the point of not knowing what harm will result from our strange experiments on the planet. It seems absolutely absurd to me that you think we should do absolutely nothing about something that can lead to nothing good and which might have world wide implications. And I'm NOT just talking about global warming right now. As I've said many times we don't know the full effects our use of resources is having on the Earth.
    Last edited by AJG; 06-19-2013, 11:47 AM.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

      Originally posted by AJG View Post
      Did you even look at my link?
      Yes, why?

      Originally posted by AJG View Post
      And why are you even bothering asking alarmists how global warming works when they often aren't scientists?
      You do not get it. How can someone rationally be an alarmist if they do not even understand the science?

      Originally posted by AJG View Post
      As I've said many times we don't know the full effects our use of resources is having on the Earth.
      This reveals the repeated fallacious Appeal to Ignorance you make. In logical, statistics and law the conclusion to come to is that in the absence of evidence, you reject the claim. You, however, accept the claim that the effects we have on Earth could be bad.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

        Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
        Yes, why?



        You do not get it. How can someone rationally be an alarmist if they do not even understand the science?



        This reveals the repeated fallacious Appeal to Ignorance you make. In logical, statistics and law the conclusion to come to is that in the absence of evidence, you reject the claim. You, however, accept the claim that the effects we have on Earth could be bad.
        It isn't exactly appeal to ignorance. I mean we understand there is science behind global warming and we also know about some of the negative effects our use of natural resources has had on the planet. And again, any scientific model no matter how accurate is speculation until it comes true or it was proven to be false.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

          Originally posted by Brexx View Post
          Again from the study you linked:

          More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000,

          Words like "suggest" and "probably" indicate uncertainty.
          There is always uncertainty in science. My point is, while the data showing an increase in stratospheric water vapor is thin, there is no data indicating otherwise.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

            Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
            Did you forget this one?

            1934 is the hottest year on record

            The 1930's were pretty hot. Ever wonder how the dustbowl happened?
            Did you intend to link to a web site debunking the claim that a US heat wave in 1930's disproves global warming? Or maybe you think the 2% of Earth's surface covered by the US is a good indicator of global temperatures.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

              Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
              The planet has been cooling since 1998 and a whole thread here covers this in detail.
              Except the two warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010. If you think it's been cooling since 1998, then you don't understand linear regression.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                Originally posted by Cleisthenes View Post
                Except the two warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010. If you think it's been cooling since 1998, then you don't understand linear regression.
                The problem is that world wide temperatures and the average for the world has not been collated reliably until the 1950's Yes Hadley Centre has been keeping temperature records since 1850 but that has not been worldwide records only industrial and modern world.

                Satellite measurements of the WHOLE world didn't start till the 1980's.

                Logic says that we only have 33 years of accurate world records yet there are many, primarily on the left screaming like chicken little and wanting laws changed now.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                  Originally posted by AJG View Post
                  It isn't exactly appeal to ignorance. .
                  Yes, it is classic Appeal to Ignorance.

                  Originally posted by AJG View Post
                  I mean we understand there is science behind global warming
                  This is like saying there is a science behind alchemy.

                  Originally posted by AJG View Post
                  and we also know about some of the negative effects our use of natural resources has had on the planet.
                  Do we know about some of the positive effects our use of natural resources has had on the planet? Or is it a one-tailed bias?

                  Originally posted by AJG View Post
                  And again, any scientific model no matter how accurate is speculation until it comes true or it was proven to be false.
                  Speaking of speculative modeling, are you aware of how many predictions of global warming have not come true?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                    Except the two warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010. If you think it's been cooling since 1998, then you don't understand linear regression.
                    How is this for linear regression?
                    6a010536b58035970c0134854ca443970c_pi_xlarge.png

                    Note the yellow comment: Not a single IPCC or other climate model predicted this trend. What does that tell you about alarmists predictive capabilities? It is amazing the arrogance from devout religious when their religious beliefs do not match with experience of reality. I am sure this has been presented and scowled at by alarmists but I thought I would post it here again just for fun.

                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../There...d-in-1998.html
                    Global Climate Chaos: Climate cooling since 1998
                    No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off

                    Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                      On the topic of negative impacts on taking action against green house gasses, we have this as a perfect example.

                      WASHINGTON — President Obama is preparing regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, senior officials said Wednesday. The move would be the most consequential climate policy step he could take and one likely to provoke legal challenges from Republicans and some industries.

                      Electric power plants are the largest single source of global warming pollution in the country, responsible for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. With sweeping climate legislation effectively dead in Congress, the decision on existing power plants — which a 2007 Supreme Court decision gave to the executive branch — has been among the most closely watched of Mr. Obama’s second term.

                      The administration has already begun steps to restrict climate-altering emissions from any newly built power plants, but imposing carbon standards on the existing utility fleet would be vastly more costly and contentious.

                      Obama Readying Emissions Limits on Power Plants - New York Times
                      The White House Office of Management and Budget raised the social cost of carbon — a monetary estimate of the damages caused by carbon emissions — from $21 per metric ton to $35 per metric ton, which some experts say could allow the White House to move forward with greenhouse gas limits on power plants.

                      “The big regulatory action that they’re looking at — that would certainly would be the most costly and have the biggest impact on the economy — are the rules for new and existing power plants,” Jeff Holmstead, air quality chief at the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush, told the Hill.

                      “The new regulations attempt to force standards on coal emissions that would not only be incredibly expensive, but impossible to achieve even with advanced technology,” said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. “Even worse, there would be no benefit from these new regulations.”


                      Obama Renews Emissions Push - WSJ.com

                      Untold billions of expense foisted on the consumer, hobbling the economy due to increased energy costs, and all on science that's still controversial.

                      Seems that the chicken littles have been squawking into the president's ear.

                      You know what? All those who believe in man made global climate change and green house gasses causing it, can all pull themselves off of the electrical grid. That would achieve the reduction in emissions that they so desire by reducing demand.

                      Until you do that, FOAD. Don't be costing me more money.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                        Where did you get the articles from? I am particularly offended by Electric power plants are the largest single source of global warming pollution in the country, A connection between global warming and pollution is implied that does not exist since there has been global warming many times without man-made pollution. Conversely, it is possible there is pollution that is not connected to global warming.

                        Just another example of the media advancing an obvious agenda. The Left is more obviously misanthropic. Waste is a necessary requirement to life. Reading their writings one would think waste is at odds with life.
                        Last edited by JohnLocke; 06-20-2013, 06:45 AM.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                          Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                          Note the yellow comment: Not a single IPCC or other climate model predicted this trend. What does that tell you about alarmists predictive capabilities? It is amazing the arrogance from devout religious when their religious beliefs do not match with experience of reality. I am sure this has been presented and scowled at by alarmists but I thought I would post it here again just for fun.

                          http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/envi...d-in-1998.html
                          Global Climate Chaos: Climate cooling since 1998
                          No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
                          Apparently you don't realize that 98% of the Earth's surface lies outside of the United States. Since the IPCC is concerned with GLOBAL temperatures, it's not really surprising that they failed to predict a cooling trend in the US.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                            Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                            The problem is that world wide temperatures and the average for the world has not been collated reliably until the 1950's Yes Hadley Centre has been keeping temperature records since 1850 but that has not been worldwide records only industrial and modern world.

                            Satellite measurements of the WHOLE world didn't start till the 1980's.

                            Logic says that we only have 33 years of accurate world records yet there are many, primarily on the left screaming like chicken little and wanting laws changed now.
                            Which is why scientists always consider the margin of error when analyzing the data. Scientists are aware that satellite data is more accurate when discussing global temperature, but they can compare the satellite data to ground readings and determine just how accurate the temperature record is going back to 1850. This data can then be compared to ice core data to determine how accurate that data is. Logic says that if the changes are substantially larger than the margin of error, we can be reasonably confident that they are happening.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                              Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                              Where did you get the articles from? I am particularly offended by Electric power plants are the largest single source of global warming pollution in the country, A connection between global warming and pollution is implied that does not exist since there has been global warming many times without man-made pollution. Conversely, it is possible there is pollution that is not connected to global warming.

                              Just another example of the media advancing an obvious agenda. The Left is more obviously misanthropic. Waste is a necessary requirement to life. Reading their writings one would think waste is at odds with life.
                              Why are you so offended by the greenhouse effect? Because the idea that atmospheric CO2 leads to increased surface temperature has been known for over a century.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                                Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

                                Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

                                Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.

                                Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.

                                The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

                                The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand's Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.

                                Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.

                                The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.

                                The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

                                The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

                                Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

                                The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, "The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750." Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

                                At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA's Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,
                                "Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion."
                                That is even more significant because NASA's climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

                                But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,
                                "Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless."
                                That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, "Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn't bring about considerable climate change - only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater - up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years." In other words, another Little Ice Age.

                                The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,
                                "German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years - and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a "Mini Ice Age." Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an 'unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.'"
                                Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

                                "Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record - according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That - shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century."

                                A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, "March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to - 25° Celsius in central parts of the country and - 45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century....Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia." The news report summarized,
                                "Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years."
                                Booker adds, "Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations."

                                Britain's Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, "In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high - and... none were colder than [resulted]," as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

                                Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn't be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.

                                Yet, just last week, there was Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson telling us, by way of attempting to tutor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, "For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no 'great amount of uncertainty' about whether the planet is warming and why." If you can read, and you have gotten this far in my column, you know why Robinson's ignorance is just another Washington Post abuse of the First Amendment. Mr. Robinson, let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming "science," such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!

                                Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, "Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?"

                                But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.
                                http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...oling-is-here/

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X