- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Remember the walrus epidemic that was reported as evidence of Global Warming?
Posted on 12/27/14 at 9:53 am
Posted on 12/27/14 at 9:53 am
As it was reported, there was a massive number of walruses found on a thin segment of land off the Alaskan coast that was widely reported by the media and scientific alarmists as an unqualified symptom of global warming. Well, as it happens, Canadian zoologist, level-headed climate scientist, and "Polar Bear Science" blog author, Susan Crockford, who specializes in studying cold-weather large mammalian species, recently completed her research into the matter.
While the global warming scare monopolized science headlines for some time this year, it turns out if the alarmists had only looked back in history, they'd have found that (a) this is a cyclically normal occurrence and (b) the number of walruses seen this time paled in comparison to the number found back in the 1970s.
This is incredible research, and Dr. Crockford should be praised for her work and the credibility she's trying to restore for the scientific community.
Read her paper here:
LINK
And see her video for the Global Warming Policy Foundation here:
LINK
In other news, scientists were recently accused of intentionally omitting data which didn't fit with their "ocean acidification" theory. When called out by a grad student, said student was told in true "climategate" fashion, "you better stop asking questions if you expect to have any kind of career:"
LINK /
Meanwhile, cheap coal and (to the eventual hope of environmentalists) natural gas will be regulated out of existence in favor of non-reliable (for baseload capacity) and heavily subsidized renewable resources, even as one of the major early experimenters in renewable generation (Germany) is now returning to coal generation for reliability issues. Is there any tax more regressive than charging poor people more for power because you think (yet have severe difficulty proving in a transparent and honest way) that the earth may have warmed a fraction of a degree or so over the past few hundred or more years?
I'm all for renewable energy as it becomes economically viable, but to base our policies around science that is increasingly being shown for the fraud it is is an injustice of the gravest degree.
/rant
While the global warming scare monopolized science headlines for some time this year, it turns out if the alarmists had only looked back in history, they'd have found that (a) this is a cyclically normal occurrence and (b) the number of walruses seen this time paled in comparison to the number found back in the 1970s.
This is incredible research, and Dr. Crockford should be praised for her work and the credibility she's trying to restore for the scientific community.
Read her paper here:
LINK
And see her video for the Global Warming Policy Foundation here:
LINK
In other news, scientists were recently accused of intentionally omitting data which didn't fit with their "ocean acidification" theory. When called out by a grad student, said student was told in true "climategate" fashion, "you better stop asking questions if you expect to have any kind of career:"
LINK /
Meanwhile, cheap coal and (to the eventual hope of environmentalists) natural gas will be regulated out of existence in favor of non-reliable (for baseload capacity) and heavily subsidized renewable resources, even as one of the major early experimenters in renewable generation (Germany) is now returning to coal generation for reliability issues. Is there any tax more regressive than charging poor people more for power because you think (yet have severe difficulty proving in a transparent and honest way) that the earth may have warmed a fraction of a degree or so over the past few hundred or more years?
I'm all for renewable energy as it becomes economically viable, but to base our policies around science that is increasingly being shown for the fraud it is is an injustice of the gravest degree.
/rant
4
Posted on 12/27/14 at 9:54 am to RedStickBR
But dat picture doe!
Posted on 12/27/14 at 9:56 am to RedStickBR
quote:
number of walruses
Oh and I petition from here on out we call the multitudes of them walri.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:30 am to RedStickBR
Is this where I say "No shite"?
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:30 am to RedStickBR
you science deniers keep recycling the same garbage from the same handful of people who are associated, IOW paid, by the Heartland Institute, Deniers funded by oil interests. Susan has been on the Denier dole for years. Bought and paid for. It's literally the exact same thing "Christians" do with the small group of Creationists on this board. Just look at the thread revelator started. Quoting unfounded assertions dressed up with scientic sounding names doesn't make the assertions more credible.
If you slap lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
This post was edited on 12/27/14 at 10:32 am
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:33 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
If you slap lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
I don't think this is an appropriate place to discuss you sex life.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:35 am to Vegas Bengal
Why are you denying facts?
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:36 am to Vegas Bengal
Since you're being hysterical, not addressing the issue, and saying very little of anything at all, I'm forced to think you were hoodwinked into believing these "walri" were just the latest victims of global warming.
Where will it strike next? I hear people have been noticing huge migrations of duck species in southern skies this time of year. Maybe you can find a way to spin that and get CNN to run with the story.
Where will it strike next? I hear people have been noticing huge migrations of duck species in southern skies this time of year. Maybe you can find a way to spin that and get CNN to run with the story.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:43 am to RedStickBR
Hysterical? one post questioning your source is hysterical? OK
You posted an article from a well known Denier who has been on the dole of the leading Denier group and used that to proclaim the conclusions of 97% of scientists in the world are wrong. Me thinks you are the hysterical one.
one post questioning your source is hysterical? OK You posted an article from a well known Denier who has been on the dole of the leading Denier group and used that to proclaim the conclusions of 97% of scientists in the world are wrong. Me thinks you are the hysterical one.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:47 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
97% of scientists in the world are wrong.
I'm denying the 97%.
Alarmists even doctor 97% consensus number
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:48 am to Vegas Bengal
97% of the world's scientists didn't study the climate, why the climate changes and man's impact on the climate so how could their "conclusions" mean anything?
This post was edited on 12/27/14 at 11:58 am
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:50 am to Vegas Bengal
Let's see. We begin with an emoticon, we immediately make a reference to recycling garbage (without so much as considering the research as far as I can tell), we make a reference to big oil paying zoologists off in that same sentence, we then make an analogy to creationists, and we end with an age-old maxim and primary indicator of intellectual superiority that clearly shows you've dissected the argument.
I apologize. You've clearly included all elements of a well- articulated argument.
I apologize. You've clearly included all elements of a well- articulated argument.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:53 am to Vegas Bengal
Stop melting down.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:53 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I'm denying the 97%.
I suspect they gathered up a bunch of paid alarmists and got 97% of them to rubber stamp their narrative.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:54 am to doubleb
I'm going to lay it out here again - there is NO persuasive evidence that human activity is "heating up the atmosphere" (I actually laugh every time I type that out - that is the conclusion they have drawn), in any appreciable or statistically significant way.
Human activity, since the industrial revolution, is FILTHY. We've polluted the oceans - possibly to an irreparable degree, and soiled our own fresh water supply to the point that those 2 factors - the salt water that provides so much food (and oxygen) and the fresh water required to sustain human life are the big risks we face going forward.
So, why is there this nonsensical focus on CO2 (not a pollutant - it is a trace element in the atmosphere REQUIRED to sustain life on this planet)? Because it is a proxy for commercially produced electricity on this planet. And if you control the supply of energy - you control the planet, period.
Human activity, since the industrial revolution, is FILTHY. We've polluted the oceans - possibly to an irreparable degree, and soiled our own fresh water supply to the point that those 2 factors - the salt water that provides so much food (and oxygen) and the fresh water required to sustain human life are the big risks we face going forward.
So, why is there this nonsensical focus on CO2 (not a pollutant - it is a trace element in the atmosphere REQUIRED to sustain life on this planet)? Because it is a proxy for commercially produced electricity on this planet. And if you control the supply of energy - you control the planet, period.
This post was edited on 12/27/14 at 10:55 am
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:54 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Idso??? Hell, Craig Idso's papers indicate that increases in CO2 are wonderful. They increase crop yields and forestall a cooling trend. And he's supposed to GW alarmist?
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:56 am to Zach
quote:
he's supposed to GW alarmist?
Yes - a paper by Idso is counted in the 97% consensus.
Thus, I reject it.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:56 am to ChineseBandit58
The 97% number was derived from an unscientific process. It shouldn't be used in any argument.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:57 am to Vegas Bengal
You do realize the 97% number has been shown to be a massive fraud, particularly when the survey question distinguishes between "warming" in general and significant anthropogenic global warming?
Everyone believe the earth can warm. Everyone also believes it can cool.
Everyone believe the earth can warm. Everyone also believes it can cool.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 11:04 am to Vegas Bengal
Here, Vegas. Since you're such a meticulous researcher constantly looking to shred your opponents with the world's next and greatest intellectually superior emoticon, here are 97 separate articles which dispute your "97% consensus" claim.
LINK /
I know if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig, but if you put facts on an idiot, is it still an idiot? I'm guessing the answer to both questions is the same, at least as long as it's you we're talking about.
LINK /
I know if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig, but if you put facts on an idiot, is it still an idiot? I'm guessing the answer to both questions is the same, at least as long as it's you we're talking about.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News