Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Squaller, Aug 29, 2017.
Thank-you and welcome to Texas and Louisiana.
True, they really don't deserve our time.
I, nor the article blamed global warming. All it did was point out that warmer water and air temps in the golf add extra fuel to storms like this. It is worth studying the science behind why 1/500 or 1/100 storms are happening at a rate more prevalent than what their models suggest. Research and learning is good.
I don't completely understand the effects of green house emissions, but it is worth while to find out the impacts to our environment. That's not blaming, that is understanding.
This is a duck hunting website -- if someone upstream was proposing something that may effect the watershed, wouldn't you want to know the impact of the water where you're going to be?
I have no horse in the climate change race, but I'll never understand why people just want to bury their head in the sand and dismiss. They gain nothing by doing so. It would be akin to refusing blood work or a mammogram.
The politicians on both sides are rats, no doubt, but there are some awfully talented scientist in this World that do great work and for some reason a fairly loud and vocal % of our populace wants to shout them down.
Slimmn21 way back 30 plus years ago I became friends with a research scientist now retired. Worked for NASA. He has published papers on this issue as well as many others. He started there when they wher
e looking at spreading black soils or other material on the north pole region to stem what then was the fear of a new ice age. This was the very first project he worked on in the climate field for them. It was a folly and they all knew it. Yet it was where the research dollars where flowing to. Back then they used this to do actual research on other issues but enough to justify the expenditure on the project.
I knew him and hunted with him for well over 15 years before he ever shared that he worked on such a project. Embarrassed really to be involved. His last 10 years he no longer worked on any project as a lead, refusing to do so because of the fact that so much of what was produced was done so simply for funding purposes.
Like you I have always said I want real science, he is one of the reasons. He is unsure if we have accelerated the warming or if it is just normal cycle of returning to conditions prior to the last ice age. He has stated repeatedly that we don't have near the quality of data needed that is not corrupt. One area of study for him was researching storm impacts prior to modern day records. He talked a great deal about storm surge sites inland on the coast that could only have occurred from a super hurricane. This would have had to occur at a time when AGW enthusiasts say such a storm could not have formed. I don't know if he is right or not, but if true as he pointed out would set the modeling of hurricanes on its ear. So it really has been buried and written off officially as something else. Lots and lots of this type of stuff gets covered up, over looked, or falsely reported for one reason, continual funding flow.
Now he said a lot of very good and useful things are found and used, and doesn't want to give the impression that all data is bad. Far from it. He just was upset that science is so influenced by the politics that in the areas of Global warming much of what we see and hear is in his words JUNK WORTHLESS drivel!
He points to the sat temp data. NASA needs the best and most up to date info they can get. Launching of rockets with satellites and when the shuttle was flying where important factors. He says this is why the data between NOAA and NASA on this issue is different.
He talked in length about ice core samples taken from Greenland. Which where dated and declared to be from a period of time hundreds of years prior to when in his view they actually where from. Samples taken from around a lost plane from WWII that was uncovered matched most of the samples taken. He said that certain elements which would appear where in his words left out of reporting to intentionally promote AGW. Researchers out side of the AGW cult, who want to study those samples have been refused on the premise that not enough samples are available for wide spread studies!
Two things that he has shared is that we are on tract for major changes that naturally occur almost like the planet healing itself from itself. Shifts in ocean currents and such are in his view what caused the past ice ages to occur. We in his view are headed there again but we will warm a lot more prior to it and carbon will not be the driver. Increased carbon will continue to occur because when the currents shift and the flows change the carbon released will rise as a result of the oceans not absorbing them until they return to a pattern which we have had for the past 12,000 years. Nothing man will do or not do will change any of that in his view.
Another factor would be a slight shift in poles could trigger this quickly because of the changes due in part to gravitation pull.
I am giving you layman's explanations of what he has discussed. He is why I am most times labeled a denier because of questioning of the so called best science. I simply don't trust much of what they produce based on his experience and relating to it. He has stated repeatedly as have I we simply don't have the data and modeling based on the created data is more like picking the winning numbers in the lottery. Odds of the models being correct in his view are the same as picking the winning number. 1 in 292 million!