Check out topic: The debate
What happened to all the concern about the National debt?
Nov 27, 2017 20:31:15 #
Homestead wrote:
Your the one that maintains:
"you may understand that while the nation has job growth, a sector of the economy may be declining which would create local unemployment"
The charts are from national averages an government statistics, they are not local numbers.
Trying to blow off charts you don't like by claiming they are reflective of local numbers and not national numbers doesn't cut it.
"you may understand that while the nation has job growth, a sector of the economy may be declining which would create local unemployment"
The charts are from national averages an government statistics, they are not local numbers.
Trying to blow off charts you don't like by claiming they are reflective of local numbers and not national numbers doesn't cut it.
do you maintain that the unemployment rate is the same in every part of the country???
Nov 27, 2017 20:45:27 #
permafrost wrote:
Most of what you posted is misinformation.. Of lie... (show quote)
" President Bush, widely viewed as a Texas oil man, presided over eight straight years of declining U.S. crude oil production. In the year 2000, just before President Bush took office, U.S. crude oil production averaged 5.8 million barrels per day (bpd) according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). During President Bush's last year in office, 2008, U.S. crude oil production averaged 5.0 million bpd.
The irony is that President Obama - who is not viewed as a friend of the oil and gas industry - has presided over rising oil production in each of the seven years he has been in office. (On a separate note, expect that streak to be broken in 2016). From that low point in 2008, U.S. oil production has grown each year to reach 9.4 million bpd in 2015 -- a gain of 88% during Obama's presidency. This is in fact the largest domestic oil production increase during any presidency in U.S. history. "
I am sorry, but this is a case where facts lie. Your facts may be correct. I don't know but they sound okay. My problem is with your implication. You are implying that George Bush is at fault for the US's falling oil production, while you also imply that Barak Obama should get the credit for increasing US oil production.
That is your implication, is it not ?
Nov 27, 2017 20:56:25 #
son of witless wrote:
" President Bush, widely viewed as a Texas ... (show quote)
i am saying,not Obama nor Bush was responsible for any falling oil production..
Look at the figures.. The reason the OPIC nations started a price war was because of the high production from the US..
Production grew to the extent that it surpassed demand and tankers of oil sat unsold at refineries.. the attemt was to drive the shale oil companies out of business. It was a free market war if you like.
Nov 27, 2017 21:23:12 #
permafrost wrote:
i am saying,not Obama nor Bush was responsible for any falling oil production..
Look at the figures.. The reason the OPIC nations started a price war was because of the high production from the US..
Production grew to the extent that it surpassed demand and tankers of oil sat unsold at refineries.. the attemt was to drive the shale oil companies out of business. It was a free market war if you like.
Look at the figures.. The reason the OPIC nations started a price war was because of the high production from the US..
Production grew to the extent that it surpassed demand and tankers of oil sat unsold at refineries.. the attemt was to drive the shale oil companies out of business. It was a free market war if you like.
I am sorry I am not biting. Bush promoted US oil production and Obama did everything he could to diminish it. That Shale production was not perfected yet under Bush and blossomed under Obama had zero to do with them.
Nov 28, 2017 12:19:42 #
permafrost wrote:
Most of what you posted is misinformation.. Of lie... (show quote)
How would a pathological liar ever be able to recognize a lie when he sees one?
[b]"The gulf moratorium was only 6 months long....But it only lasted from June 2010 to Oct 2010.."[/b]
Day 9: Obama repeatedly defied federal court with Gulf oil policies
Sep 26, 2013
On April 30, 2010, Obama ordered a temporary ban on all new oil and gas leases in the region and asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report with further recommendations.
On May 28, 2010, Salazar produced the report, and in it he recommended a new six-month ban on offshore drilling in the Gulf, a recommendation Salazar immediately put in force. That recommendation was purportedly based on nothing but the best peer-reviewed sound science.
But it turned out Salazar’s report was a lie. According to a later report from the Interior Department Inspector General, White House energy czar Carol Browner unilaterally changed the language in the report to suggest that a seven-member panel of outside scientific experts all endorsed the moratorium.
That claim was false. The Obama administration was caught making up the “science” it wanted to fit the policy outcome it desired.
So oil companies again took Obama to federal court, this time seeking an order holding the chief executive in contempt of court and asking that the government pay all of their legal fees.
Again, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled against Obama, finding him in contempt of court for “a flagrant and continuous disregard of the Court’s Order.”
Finally, on Feb. 28, 2011, almost a month after he had been found in contempt, Obama granted the first oil lease in the Gulf of Mexico.
But while the Interior Department has since stepped up the pace of issuing leasing permits, Gulf oil production is still far below pre-Deepwater Horizon levels
Today they are pumping just 1.07 million barrels a day, a 33 percent drop in production.
All told, according to a 2012 American Petroleum Institute study, Obama’s Gulf oil drilling moratorium cost the United States more than $24 billion in lost energy investments and about 90,000 jobs.
Those losses make the $440,596.68 in legal fees the Eastern District forced Obama to pay the oil companies for defying its court order seem like a drop in the bucket.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/day-9-obama-repeatedly-defied-federal-court-with-gulf-oil-policies/article/2536401
[b]The OPEC move to attack US oil was in 2014...[/b]
No shit Dick Tracy!
It was Obama's attempt to shut down America's fossil fuel energy production, in order to usher in his wind and solar energy production that raised the cost of oil, justifying the expense of slat oil drilling for shale oil.
It was Obama's anti production policies that drove the need for more drilling on private and state properties.
It was that production that scare OPEC that caused them to keep increasing their oil production in the hopes of bankrupting the Horizontal drilling.
They did reduce the shale oil production, but, only until they force the price of oil back up, to a point where horizontal drilling will be profitable again.
[b]"US shale oil production got going around 2009 or so.."[/b]
In other words a year after Obama got swore into office and got his cabinet together, he forced his will on the country.
Really?
No kidding.
BREAKING NOW: President Trump DESTROYS Obama Coal Killing Legislation
Feb 16, 2017
The legislation ends the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule, a regulation to protect waterways from coal mining waste that officials finalized in December.
According to The Hill,
The legislation is the second Trump has signed into law ending an Obama-era environmental regulation. On Tuesday, he signed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution undoing a financial disclosure requirement for energy companies.
Both the mining and financial disclosure bills are the tip of a GOP push to undo a slate of regulations instituted in the closing days of the Obama administration. The House has passed several CRA resolutions, and the Senate has so far sent three of them to President Trump for his signature.
Regulators finalized the stream protection rule in December, but they spent most of Obama’s tenure writing it.
The rule represented what Obama and other green energy frauds hoped would kill the industry. It is among the most controversial environment regulations the former administration put together, as the coal mining industry said it would be costly to implement and lead to job losses across the sector. Given that the coal industry was already in triage from other Obama policies, this would have been the death nail.
http://theblacksphere.net/2017/02/president-trump-rolls-back-obama-coal-killing-legislation/
Nov 28, 2017 16:16:06 #
[quote=Homestead]How would a pathological liar ever be able to recognize a lie when he sees one?
[b]"The gulf moratorium was only 6 months long....But it only lasted from June 2010 to Oct 2010.."[/b]
Day 9: Obama repeatedly defied federal court with Gulf oil policies
Sep 26, 2013
On April 30, 2010, Obama ordered a temporary ban on all new oil and gas leases in the region and asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report with further recommendations.
On May 28, 2010, Salazar produced the report, and in it he recommended a new six-month ban on offshore drilling in the Gulf, a recommendation Salazar immediately put in force. That recommendation was purportedly based on nothing but the best peer-reviewed sound science.
But it turned out Salazar’s report was a lie. According to a later report from the Interior Department Inspector General, White House energy czar Carol Browner unilaterally changed the language in the report to suggest that a seven-member panel of outside scientific experts all endorsed the moratorium.
That claim was false. The Obama administration was caught making up the “science” it wanted to fit the policy outcome it desired.
So oil companies again took Obama to federal court, this time seeking an order holding the chief executive in contempt of court and asking that the government pay all of their legal fees.
Again, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled against Obama, finding him in contempt of court for “a flagrant and continuous disregard of the Court’s Order.”
Finally, on Feb. 28, 2011, almost a month after he had been found in contempt, Obama granted the first oil lease in the Gulf of Mexico.
But while the Interior Department has since stepped up the pace of issuing leasing permits, Gulf oil production is still far below pre-Deepwater Horizon levels
Today they are pumping just 1.07 million barrels a day, a 33 percent drop in production.
All told, according to a 2012 American Petroleum Institute study, Obama’s Gulf oil drilling moratorium cost the United States more than $24 billion in lost energy investments and about 90,000 jobs.
Those losses make the $440,596.68 in legal fees the Eastern District forced Obama to pay the oil companies for defying its court order seem like a drop in the bucket.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/day-9-obama-repeatedly-defied-federal-court-with-gulf-oil-policies/article/2536401
[b]The OPEC move to attack US oil was in 2014...[/b]
No shit Dick Tracy!
It was Obama's attempt to shut down America's fossil fuel energy production, in order to usher in his wind and solar energy production that raised the cost of oil, justifying the expense of slat oil drilling for shale oil.
It was Obama's anti production policies that drove the need for more drilling on private and state properties.
It was that production that scare OPEC that caused them to keep increasing their oil production in the hopes of bankrupting the Horizontal drilling.
They did reduce the shale oil production, but, only until they force the price of oil back up, to a point where horizontal drilling will be profitable again.
[b]"US shale oil production got going around 2009 or so.."[/b]
In other words a year after Obama got swore into office and got his cabinet together, he forced his will on the country.
Really?
No kidding.
BREAKING NOW: President Trump DESTROYS Obama Coal Killing Legislation
Feb 16, 2017
The legislation ends the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule, a regulation to protect waterways from coal mining waste that officials finalized in December.
According to The Hill,
The legislation is the second Trump has signed into law ending an Obama-era environmental regulation. On Tuesday, he signed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution undoing a financial disclosure requirement for energy companies.
Both the mining and financial disclosure bills are the tip of a GOP push to undo a slate of regulations instituted in the closing days of the Obama administration. The House has passed several CRA resolutions, and the Senate has so far sent three of them to President Trump for his signature.
Regulators finalized the stream protection rule in December, but they spent most of Obama’s tenure writing it.
The rule represented what Obama and other green energy frauds hoped would kill the industry. It is among the most controversial environment regulations the former administration put together, as the coal mining industry said it would be costly to implement and lead to job losses across the sector. Given that the coal industry was already in triage from other Obama policies, this would have been the death nail.
http://theblacksphere.net/2017/02/president-trump-rolls-back-obama-coal-killing-legislation/[/quote]
>>>>>>>>>>
So for you, the destruction of the Gulf and the death of workers is no reason to put a halt on deep water drilling???
The contempt of court by that southern judge was on the dept of Interior.. not Obama.. you make it sound as if he was personally involved.
Also, we have this....
WASHINGTON, Dec 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Interior Department will not be held in contempt over its actions in the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill after the U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review an appeals court ruling in the government's favor.
The nine justices refused to hear an appeal filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, a drilling company subsidiary of Hornbeck Offshore Services Inc, and other businesses affected by a moratorium on deep sea drilling that the federal government imposed in May 2010. The federal appeals court ruling that overturned a federal district judge's contempt finding remains intact.
In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon rig, owned by Transocean Ltd and leased by BP PLC , exploded, causing 11 deaths and a massive oil spill.
The Interior Department's temporary drilling moratorium was immediately challenged by the drilling industry, prompting U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana to rule in June 2010 that the government could not enforce it.
Despite the court order, the moratorium remained in effect in a modified fashion until October 2010.
The following year, Feldman held the government in contempt for violating his order and said it must pay almost $530,000 in legal fees to the companies that challenged the moratorium.
In an April 2013 ruling, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Feldman's ruling. It said that although the government had violated the spirit of his order, its actions did not technically violate it. The companies then sought high court review.
The case is Hornbeck v. Jewell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-56.
Opec held a meeting concerning the fall in prices and the world wide oil glut. the consensus was for all to cut production.
The Saudis took the chance to drive all the American shale oil companies out of Business. As you know, that did not succeed..
How do you connect less production out of the Gulf with excess production world wide?
The coal industry signed their won death in 1991 when they made the decision not to invest in clean coal...
do you see all attempts to save the environment as an attack on industry???
[b]"The gulf moratorium was only 6 months long....But it only lasted from June 2010 to Oct 2010.."[/b]
Day 9: Obama repeatedly defied federal court with Gulf oil policies
Sep 26, 2013
On April 30, 2010, Obama ordered a temporary ban on all new oil and gas leases in the region and asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report with further recommendations.
On May 28, 2010, Salazar produced the report, and in it he recommended a new six-month ban on offshore drilling in the Gulf, a recommendation Salazar immediately put in force. That recommendation was purportedly based on nothing but the best peer-reviewed sound science.
But it turned out Salazar’s report was a lie. According to a later report from the Interior Department Inspector General, White House energy czar Carol Browner unilaterally changed the language in the report to suggest that a seven-member panel of outside scientific experts all endorsed the moratorium.
That claim was false. The Obama administration was caught making up the “science” it wanted to fit the policy outcome it desired.
So oil companies again took Obama to federal court, this time seeking an order holding the chief executive in contempt of court and asking that the government pay all of their legal fees.
Again, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled against Obama, finding him in contempt of court for “a flagrant and continuous disregard of the Court’s Order.”
Finally, on Feb. 28, 2011, almost a month after he had been found in contempt, Obama granted the first oil lease in the Gulf of Mexico.
But while the Interior Department has since stepped up the pace of issuing leasing permits, Gulf oil production is still far below pre-Deepwater Horizon levels
Today they are pumping just 1.07 million barrels a day, a 33 percent drop in production.
All told, according to a 2012 American Petroleum Institute study, Obama’s Gulf oil drilling moratorium cost the United States more than $24 billion in lost energy investments and about 90,000 jobs.
Those losses make the $440,596.68 in legal fees the Eastern District forced Obama to pay the oil companies for defying its court order seem like a drop in the bucket.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/day-9-obama-repeatedly-defied-federal-court-with-gulf-oil-policies/article/2536401
[b]The OPEC move to attack US oil was in 2014...[/b]
No shit Dick Tracy!
It was Obama's attempt to shut down America's fossil fuel energy production, in order to usher in his wind and solar energy production that raised the cost of oil, justifying the expense of slat oil drilling for shale oil.
It was Obama's anti production policies that drove the need for more drilling on private and state properties.
It was that production that scare OPEC that caused them to keep increasing their oil production in the hopes of bankrupting the Horizontal drilling.
They did reduce the shale oil production, but, only until they force the price of oil back up, to a point where horizontal drilling will be profitable again.
[b]"US shale oil production got going around 2009 or so.."[/b]
In other words a year after Obama got swore into office and got his cabinet together, he forced his will on the country.
Really?
No kidding.
BREAKING NOW: President Trump DESTROYS Obama Coal Killing Legislation
Feb 16, 2017
The legislation ends the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule, a regulation to protect waterways from coal mining waste that officials finalized in December.
According to The Hill,
The legislation is the second Trump has signed into law ending an Obama-era environmental regulation. On Tuesday, he signed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution undoing a financial disclosure requirement for energy companies.
Both the mining and financial disclosure bills are the tip of a GOP push to undo a slate of regulations instituted in the closing days of the Obama administration. The House has passed several CRA resolutions, and the Senate has so far sent three of them to President Trump for his signature.
Regulators finalized the stream protection rule in December, but they spent most of Obama’s tenure writing it.
The rule represented what Obama and other green energy frauds hoped would kill the industry. It is among the most controversial environment regulations the former administration put together, as the coal mining industry said it would be costly to implement and lead to job losses across the sector. Given that the coal industry was already in triage from other Obama policies, this would have been the death nail.
http://theblacksphere.net/2017/02/president-trump-rolls-back-obama-coal-killing-legislation/[/quote]
>>>>>>>>>>
So for you, the destruction of the Gulf and the death of workers is no reason to put a halt on deep water drilling???
The contempt of court by that southern judge was on the dept of Interior.. not Obama.. you make it sound as if he was personally involved.
Also, we have this....
WASHINGTON, Dec 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Interior Department will not be held in contempt over its actions in the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill after the U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review an appeals court ruling in the government's favor.
The nine justices refused to hear an appeal filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, a drilling company subsidiary of Hornbeck Offshore Services Inc, and other businesses affected by a moratorium on deep sea drilling that the federal government imposed in May 2010. The federal appeals court ruling that overturned a federal district judge's contempt finding remains intact.
In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon rig, owned by Transocean Ltd and leased by BP PLC , exploded, causing 11 deaths and a massive oil spill.
The Interior Department's temporary drilling moratorium was immediately challenged by the drilling industry, prompting U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana to rule in June 2010 that the government could not enforce it.
Despite the court order, the moratorium remained in effect in a modified fashion until October 2010.
The following year, Feldman held the government in contempt for violating his order and said it must pay almost $530,000 in legal fees to the companies that challenged the moratorium.
In an April 2013 ruling, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Feldman's ruling. It said that although the government had violated the spirit of his order, its actions did not technically violate it. The companies then sought high court review.
The case is Hornbeck v. Jewell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-56.
Opec held a meeting concerning the fall in prices and the world wide oil glut. the consensus was for all to cut production.
The Saudis took the chance to drive all the American shale oil companies out of Business. As you know, that did not succeed..
How do you connect less production out of the Gulf with excess production world wide?
The coal industry signed their won death in 1991 when they made the decision not to invest in clean coal...
do you see all attempts to save the environment as an attack on industry???
Nov 28, 2017 17:41:28 #
son of witless wrote:
I am sorry I am not biting. Bush promoted US oil production and Obama did everything he could to diminish it. That Shale production was not perfected yet under Bush and blossomed under Obama had zero to do with them.
permafrost,
If you are going to give Obama credit for something he had nothing to do with, then by the same set of standards, I will credit him with the biggest oil spill in American history.
Nov 28, 2017 18:50:48 #
son of witless wrote:
permafrost,
If you are going to give Obama credit for something he had nothing to do with, then by the same set of standards, I will credit him with the biggest oil spill in American history.
If you are going to give Obama credit for something he had nothing to do with, then by the same set of standards, I will credit him with the biggest oil spill in American history.
Fine,
Obama was too remarkable a man to be bothered by the untruths the right posts about him...
Nov 28, 2017 19:26:00 #
permafrost wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> br br b... (show quote)
Saving the environment is the excuse used to to attack industry in order to gain power and control over America.
How the Global Warming Scare Began
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k
BREAKING: NASA Drops Global Warming Truth Bomb, People Are Stunned
Many might recall a video from famed meteorologist John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, where he spoke at length on the topic of how man-made global warming does not exist, and that the “climate-change” complex is a scam. Although controversial at the time, his sentiments are slowly beginning to become accepted as truth by some of the American public.
A new NASA study has found that a geothermal heat source underneath the ice caps, consisting of heated rock and volcanic activity, is the real reason why the ice caps are melting — not global warming.
Scientists have long speculated that a geothermal heat source, called a mantle plume, lies directly underneath a significant portion of Antarctica. This recent study, however, has explained how the ice sheet collapsed so rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change and why the ice mass is so unstable today.
http://www.teaparty.org/breaking-nasa-drops-global-warming-truth-bomb-people-stunned-276558/
Major Researchers Caught Lying to Boost Obama Climate Rules; Liars Want to Use Fed’s RICO to Criminalize Truth
http://joemiller.us/2015/06/major-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules-liars-want-to-use-feds-rico-to-criminalize-truth/?utm_source=JoeMiller.US+List&utm_campaign=6221c504f4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-6221c504f4-230980933
Antarctic Expeditions Confirm No Global Warming
December 2, 2016 7:49 pm
http://www.teaparty.org/antarctic-expeditions-confirm-no-global-warming-204165/
Al Gore Humiliation: NASA Study Confirms Sea Levels Are FALLING
http://www.teaparty.org/al-gore-humiliation-nasa-study-confirms-sea-levels-falling-254701/
Global Warming Blown out… Record Low Temps Recorded
There have been plenty of nails in the coffin of this sort of alarmism, but a new record in Greenland seems to be the latest piece of evidence the media is desperately trying to ignore. As climatologist Tony Heller points out at his blog, the Danish island territory just set its coldest July temperature on record.
In fact, it was the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere for the month of July: -33C (-27.4F).
And that’s not all. “Much of Greenland has been colder-than-normal for the year so far and has had record or near record levels of accumulated snow and ice since the fall of last year,” Vencore noted.
“The first week of this month was especially brutal in Greenland resulting in the record low July temperature and it also contributed to an uptick in snow and ice extent — despite the fact that it is now well into their summer season.”
http://conservativetribune.com/nail-global-warming-coffin/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=C50ConservativeBrief&utm_content=2017-07-10
Study blows 'greenhouse theory out of the water'
All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/#Hw8ZSO8HHq5bO1G0.99
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Full Movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version) (excellent coverage)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-
Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming
a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-40661-35.html#1426042
Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it' Jan 3, 2014
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Greenland Enters 2017 Adding Extraordinary Amounts Of Ice And Snow
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/02/greenland-enters-2017-adding-extraordinary-amounts-of-ice-and-snow/
Nov 29, 2017 12:56:11 #
Homestead wrote:
Saving the environment is the excuse used to to at... (show quote)
home,
If you want to raise all these fake issues we can, but do it one at a time.. I will not spend the day, short as daylight is up here, googling to find the fact that you have seen before, several times and refuse to accept..
global warming is making the ME even worst.. Via the information from several years.. Look it up yourself..
All of your links are fake news..
Nov 29, 2017 19:41:10 #
permafrost wrote:
Fine,
Obama was too remarkable a man to be bothered by the untruths the right posts about him...
Obama was too remarkable a man to be bothered by the untruths the right posts about him...
He never let the truth bother him much either.
Check out topic: The moderators have been chosen!
Nov 29, 2017 20:08:43 #
permafrost wrote:
home,
If you want to raise all these fake issues we can, but do it one at a time.. I will not spend the day, short as daylight is up here, googling to find the fact that you have seen before, several times and refuse to accept..
global warming is making the ME even worst.. Via the information from several years.. Look it up yourself..
All of your links are fake news..
If you want to raise all these fake issues we can, but do it one at a time.. I will not spend the day, short as daylight is up here, googling to find the fact that you have seen before, several times and refuse to accept..
global warming is making the ME even worst.. Via the information from several years.. Look it up yourself..
All of your links are fake news..
Just the opposite, you revel in fake news, it makes up your safe space.
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-
Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming
a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-40661-35.html#1426042
Nov 29, 2017 20:31:22 #
Homestead wrote:
Just the opposite, you revel in fake news, it make... (show quote)
I will not bother beyond the first one, they are all of the same foolish and lies that are always used and debunked over and over.
THE BLOG 08/22/2009 05:12 am ET Updated May 25, 2011
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
By Kevin Grandia
130
To say that the oft-touted “30,000 Global Warming Petition“ project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on “unverifiable mess” below].
This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.
When I think I’m having chest pains I don’t go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.
In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn’t surprising given its questionable beginnings.
2009-07-22-oregoninstituteheadquarters.jpg
The Petition’s Sordid Beginnings
The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.
Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”
An Unverifiable Mess
Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
For example,
“Munawwar M. Akhtar” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Fred A. Allehoff” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Ernest J. Andberg” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Joseph J. Arx” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Adolph L. Amundson” - a paper by Amundson on the “London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage.” [PDF]
“Henry W. Apfelbach” - an Orthopedic Surgeon
“Joe R. Arechavaleta” - runs an Architect and Engineering company.
And this is only names I picked in the “A’s.” I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn’t stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.
Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that “global warming is a hoax” completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.
Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.
Nov 29, 2017 23:18:58 #
permafrost wrote:
I will not bother beyond the first one, they are a... (show quote)
OK.................so now show me the 97% of the scientists that conclude the 'consensus' on global warming.
In order to know 97% of the scientists conclude that there is man made global warming, then you must know how many scientists there are in the world and what their expertise is.
So who are they?
go ahead.................list them.
or show me the report that names them.
Just how many scientist are in the world?
Nov 30, 2017 10:45:19 #
Homestead wrote:
OK.................so now show me the 97% of the scientists that conclude the 'consensus' on global warming.
In order to know 97% of the scientists conclude that there is man made global warming, then you must know how many scientists there are in the world and what their expertise is.
So who are they?
go ahead.................list them.
or show me the report that names them.
Just how many scientist are in the world?
In order to know 97% of the scientists conclude that there is man made global warming, then you must know how many scientists there are in the world and what their expertise is.
So who are they?
go ahead.................list them.
or show me the report that names them.
Just how many scientist are in the world?
Home,
OK, this is a quick paragraph with link.. The paragraph has more direction to studies done, both for and against..
Read it and look...
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out topic: The debate