The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Finally! Something I Can Support This President On (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111303)

Rohirrim 06-25-2013 12:21 PM

Finally! Something I Can Support This President On
 
He later added, addressing those who deny climate change science: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.”
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...te-change?lite

What this should mean, regarding Keystone, is that it never sees the light of day. There is no way Keystone will ever meet the criteria Obama has set forth , “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest." It can't meet that test, either environmentally or economically.

Certainly, this is not enough, (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...ent-obama.html) but if we wait for Congress to do something, nothing will ever happen, and I do mean nothing. As the old man once said, "They're useless as teats on a boar."

This is a good opening salvo, IMO.

06-25-2013 12:29 PM

The science of reality has flipped the question of who the real flat-earthers are.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...climate-change

As should always have been expected, these measures are far more about government control than any realistic impact on the planet.

Oh, and that oil's still going to market. Just in much less carbon-friendly vehicles than a pipeline. Perverse. But unfortunately in politics, you're not going anywhere if you don't DO SOMETHING for the cameras.

Rohirrim 06-25-2013 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3868262)
The science of reality has flipped the question of who the real flat-earthers are.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...climate-change

As should always have been expected, these measures are far more about government control than any realistic impact on the planet.

Oh, and that oil's still going to market. Just in much less carbon-friendly vehicles than a pipeline. Perverse. But unfortunately in politics, you're not going anywhere if you don't DO SOMETHING for the cameras.

The melting of ice all over the world has not plateaued at all. Neither have rising sea levels. Also, keep in mind that we don't know what it means when warming plateaus in various regions. In some regions it's getting hotter. Does it mean climate change is going to reverse? Of course not. We probably don't know yet what it means. This is the problem with political writers addressing the science. They pluck out the one statistic they like and build their case on it. Scientists don't do that. They look at the whole.

I've heard this argument before. Nobody can prove that it causes cancer, so just wait until they do. Meanwhile, keep smoking, man.

06-25-2013 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim (Post 3868272)
The melting of ice all over the world has not plateaued at all. Neither have rising sea levels. Also, keep in mind that we don't know what it means when warming plateaus in various regions. In some regions it's getting hotter. Does it mean climate change is going to reverse? Of course not. We probably don't know yet what it means. This is the problem with political writers addressing the science. They pluck out the one statistic they like and build their case on it. Scientists don't do that. They look at the whole.

I've heard this argument before. Nobody can prove that is causes cancer, so just wait until they do. Meanwhile, keep smoking, man.

If having political writers addressing it is a problem, imagine how bad it is when Politicians get in on it. :)

peacepipe 06-25-2013 01:41 PM

The flat-earth society does have some powerful politicians in its corner.

W*GS 06-25-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3868262)
The science of reality has flipped the question of who the real flat-earthers are.

You take a blog reporting on a political magazine column as the source?

Why not the science?

06-25-2013 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3868366)
You take a blog reporting on a political magazine column as the source?

Why not the science?

Would it help if I went the Wagsian Cheesy Science Blog route? :)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-yr-means1.png

cutthemdown 06-25-2013 03:27 PM

Obama has nothing he can do but destory the economy some more to satisfy the hard leaning left that right now is pissed at him. The Canadian oil will get fracked either way its just now we won't get anything from it.

W*GS 06-25-2013 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3868380)
Would it help if I went the Wagsian Cheesy Science Blog route?

Oh yeah - the cheesy Spencer with his faulty satellite data and his spaghetti plots.

I wonder why his UAH product is so different than the RSS product. They both use satellites - why don't they match identically?

06-25-2013 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3868388)
Oh yeah - the cheesy Spencer with his faulty satellite data and his spaghetti plots.

I wonder why his UAH product is so different than the RSS product. They both use satellites - why don't they match identically?

Dude give it up. Even the true believers are admitting they can't explain the 15 year hiatus. Bring back some of your vaunted scientific skepticism and maintain some form of credibility.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/11...e-plateau.html

W*GS 06-25-2013 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3868396)
Dude give it up. Even the true believers are admitting they can't explain the 15 year hiatus. Bring back some of your vaunted scientific skepticism and maintain some form of credibility.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/11...e-plateau.html

Quote:

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.
You deniers just love to cherry-pick and ignore the science.

Explain this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/grap...C_Data_med.jpg
Global warming is sometimes thought of as just an increase in the air temperature, and it is a recurring myth that global warming has magically stopped whenever there is a pause in the long-term trend of increasing air temperature. However, heat is exchanged between all parts of the Earth System, and the oceans can hold vastly more heat than the air. Global warming is actually the total accumulated heat in the whole Earth System that results from the imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing heat and reflected energy. This figure from Nuccitelli et al. (2012) [PDF] shows the change in the total heat content of the Earth System since 1960 in terms of its major components: the total land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red) from Church et al. (2011), and the ocean heating for the 0-700 meter layer (light blue) and the 700-2,000 meter layer (dark blue) from Levitus et al. (2012).

Rohirrim 06-25-2013 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3868382)
Obama has nothing he can do but destory the economy some more to satisfy the hard leaning left that right now is pissed at him. The Canadian oil will get fracked either way its just now we won't get anything from it.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7hzob4ILh1r666ru.gif

houghtam 06-25-2013 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3868382)
Obama has nothing he can do but destory the economy some more to satisfy the hard leaning left that right now is pissed at him. The Canadian oil will get fracked either way its just now we won't get anything from it.

Have you been following the news? Have you been seeing the stories upon stories of oil spills in recent months? Like the 5 million liters spilled in Alberta alone this year, one of which was from 5 year old pipes? Canada's problem? The same company is doing the manufacturing in the US, and they're notorious for cheaping out...they outright denied to fit state of the art analysis equipment recommended by the US government because it would cost too much.

Did you also know no one knows how to effectively clean up tar sands oil bitumen? Go try fishing the Kalamazoo River near Marshall. I wouldn't even recommend canoeing it.

cutthemdown 06-25-2013 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houghtam (Post 3868439)
Have you been following the news? Have you been seeing the stories upon stories of oil spills in recent months? Like the 5 million liters spilled in Alberta alone this year, one of which was from 5 year old pipes? Canada's problem? The same company is doing the manufacturing in the US, and they're notorious for cheaping out...they outright denied to fit state of the art analysis equipment recommended by the US government because it would cost too much.

Did you also know no one knows how to effectively clean up tar sands oil bitumen? Go try fishing the Kalamazoo River near Marshall. I wouldn't even recommend canoeing it.

So you are saying the pipeline will break? How many pipelines out of all USA pipelines do you think have had a spill?

houghtam 06-25-2013 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3868458)
So you are saying the pipeline will break? How many pipelines out of all USA pipelines do you think have had a spill?

I'm saying it will break.

I'm also saying that company (Enbridge) is already responsible for the largest pipeline oil spill in US history.

I'm also saying you can't clean it up once it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge_oil_spill

And as far as how many? See for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

06-25-2013 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3868415)
You deniers just love to cherry-pick and ignore the science.

Explain this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/grap...C_Data_med.jpg
Global warming is sometimes thought of as just an increase in the air temperature, and it is a recurring myth that global warming has magically stopped whenever there is a pause in the long-term trend of increasing air temperature. However, heat is exchanged between all parts of the Earth System, and the oceans can hold vastly more heat than the air. Global warming is actually the total accumulated heat in the whole Earth System that results from the imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing heat and reflected energy. This figure from Nuccitelli et al. (2012) [PDF] shows the change in the total heat content of the Earth System since 1960 in terms of its major components: the total land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red) from Church et al. (2011), and the ocean heating for the 0-700 meter layer (light blue) and the 700-2,000 meter layer (dark blue) from Levitus et al. (2012).

Typical. "Hey Wagsy, how come the models you bank so much on are completely falling apart in such a short period of time?"

Wags: "Look! Ocean Changyness!"

Funny thing is you ridicule 15-year windows as insignificant and then follow up with a graph of a statistic that couldn't even be realistically tracked 50 years ago.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-906721.html

Quote:

SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.

Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.

...

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
Hans says something doesn't add up. Maybe we need to take another look.

Wags says "Bull****! The Sky Is Still Falling exactly as I always said it would!"

Who to believe...who to believe. Tough choice. LOL

W*GS 06-26-2013 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3868571)
Typical.

Yes, typical of you.

Most all the retained energy is going into the oceans. That's the best place to look. And what has been found validates the theory.

Too bad for you.

Rohirrim 06-26-2013 06:58 AM

Man. "The Flat Earth Society" is right. You think the ocean's aren't warming? Read this, dumbasses: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...ain-boris-worm

Man, this pisses me off. We are about to wipe out the world's coral reefs and we're more worried about how much money an energy executive has in his Aruban bank account. What would you rather have, a sea full of tuna or a sea full of jelly fish? Your call, dumbasses.

This is what a coral reef looks like:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...r-Fiji-007.jpg

This is what it looks like after the water gets too warm:
http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonza..._7250/539w.jpg

This is what sequoia trees look like:
http://www.visitsequoia.com/img/3_1_...ant_Forest.jpg

What are they going to look like when the seas warm too much to create the cool coastal fogs these trees rely on for life?

What you are fighting for are the short term commercial self-interests of a handful of billionaires over (if you believe in that sort of thing) the rightful care-taking of God's green Earth.

Nothing so stupid as a Right Wing mouth-breather; Preach God on one hand, destroy His Earth with the other.

And if you don't believe in God, where would you like to move to once the forests are scorching deserts and the seas are filled with jelly fish?

You know why the Koch Brothers and Exxon Mobil spend billions to attack the science of global warming? Because they only give a **** about themselves and their own lives. Greed. When you sign on with them, you become the puppets of their greed.

Fedaykin 06-26-2013 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3868458)
So you are saying the pipeline will break? How many pipelines out of all USA pipelines do you think have had a spill?

Oil pipelines leak like sieves -- everything from small leaks to catastrophic ruptures. It's impossible to build a thousands of miles long pipe that doesn't.


Take a look for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...#United_States

That list doesn't even include the "trivial" incidents that happen on a daily basis.

06-26-2013 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedaykin (Post 3868680)
Oil pipelines leak like sieves -- everything from small leaks to catastrophic ruptures. It's impossible to build a thousands of miles long pipe that doesn't.


Take a look for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...#United_States

That list doesn't even include the "trivial" incidents that happen on a daily basis.

Like this one?

http://www.wbaltv.com/image/view/-/2...lly-Tipton.jpg

06-26-2013 07:27 AM

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...minnesota?lite

Ahhhh progress.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.p...T-OILSPILL.JPG

houghtam 06-26-2013 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3868693)

Wow, 30,000 gallons.

Meanwhile, upwards of 1 million gallons of bitumen were spilled near Kalamazoo.

Progress, indeed.

Fedaykin 06-26-2013 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3868693)

Hilarious!Hilarious!

Trying to make that comparison just shows that you have no clue what the issues are with pipeline transport.

Hint: When a train derails or blows up, we know about it immediately and it's something that has to be resolved to continue operating. Oh, and as pointed out by houghtam, the damage is constrained to relatively small amounts.

Rohirrim 06-26-2013 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3868693)

And look! There's snow on the ground! That means there is no such thing as global warming! :yayaya:

Rohirrim 06-26-2013 07:47 AM

More fun facts to share with the mouth-breathers:

Global warming has long been blamed for the huge rise in the world's jellyfish population. But new research suggests that they, in turn, may be worsening the problem by producing more carbon than the oceans can cope with.

Research led by Rob Condon of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in the US focuses on the effect that the increasing numbers of jellyfish are having on marine bateria, which play an important role by recycling nutrients created by decaying organisms back into the food web. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that while bacteria are capable of absorbing the constituent carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other chemicals given off by most fish when they die, they cannot do the same with jellyfish. The invertebrates, populating the seas in ever-increasing numbers, break down into biomass with especially high levels of carbon, which the bacteria cannot absorb well. Instead of using it to grow, the bacteria breathe it out as carbon dioxide. This means more of the gas is released into the atmosphere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ton-ocean-acid

"Gee, Mister Scientist. You mean there are not just effects that you can read on a thermometer, but also side-effects that you might not imagine until they happen? Who woulda thunk it?"


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.