political myths
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This bullshit has been debunked repeatedly by peer reviewed science. I'm not impressed by your newspaper articles by the way, please link peer reviewed research. Here I'll describe the jist of the retorts from the scientists regarding the "warming hiatus". It's true that atmospheric temperature averages, while concealing extreme variation, have pointed to a trend that doesn't match prediction regarding the period referred to colloquially as the "warming hiatus". However, during that time, ocean temperatures have gone up at unprecedented rates, leading to acidification and continuing the feedback loop. Multiyear ice in the arctic has shrunk drastically in this time.That you progs are unaware of the warming hiatus, and the discrepancy between the predicted corrolation between increased CO2 and global warming that has not panned out does not reflect poorly upon me.
The internet has been awash in this info for years. You are all free to practice your religion, however, this is America.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130925-global-warming-pause-climate-change-science-ipcc/
Although climate models have been predicting increasing average global temperatures over the next century or so, the past decade has not shown as much warming as most scientists had expected. The year 2012 was no warmer than 2002. The IPCC draft report acknowledges a "global warming hiatus," according to media reports.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still uses the iconic word “unequivocal” to describe warming of the climate system over the past century, a new word has slipped into its lexicon: the “hiatus.” They have begun referring, with a bit of hesitant throat-clearing, to “the warming hiatus since 1998.”
Both satellites and surface records show that sometime around 2000, temperature data ceased its upward path and leveled off. Over the past 100 years there is a statistically significant upward trend in the data amounting to about 0.7 oC per century. If one looks only at the past 15 years though, there is no trend.
It will by 2017 be impossible to reconcile climate models with reality
A leveling-off period is not, on its own, the least bit remarkable. What makes it remarkable is that it coincides with 20 years of rapidly rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen 13%, from 354 parts per million (ppm) to just under 400 ppm. According to the IPCC, estimated “radiative forcing” of greenhouse gases (the term it uses to describe the expected heating effect) increased by 43% after 2005. Climate models all predicted that this should have led to warming of the lower troposphere and surface. Instead, temperatures flatlined and even started declining. This is the important point about the pause in warming. Indeed, the word that ought to have entered the IPCC lexicon is not “hiatus” but “discrepancy.”
In conclusion, the "warming hiatus" idea is flawed because it cherry picks data. It completely ignores the evidence of warming in the ocean in order to attack previous predictions by measuring only atmospheric temperature averages.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/abstract
Wiley 2009
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389
Nuccitelli 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract
Cowtan 2014
This last study I linked is particularly damning to the talking points you're spouting.
overgrowem
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
desert dude
Well-Known Member
My offer to be banned along with Unclebuck stands. Ban both of us at the same time. I will honor that ban and never return. Getting rid of UB will make RIU more civilized and losing me will be but a small detriment.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
We won't go after medical grows.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Corporations are people
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
That's just not true. Arctic ice was huge last winter. Greenland has a thick healthy ice cap.
is it smaller than it was 100 years ago a century after an ice age, yes....
The ice age ended.
Don't buy the hype. I started to fall for it then I realized how much money they wanted us to spend.
It's just a scheme for some people to get richer.
is it smaller than it was 100 years ago a century after an ice age, yes....
The ice age ended.
Don't buy the hype. I started to fall for it then I realized how much money they wanted us to spend.
It's just a scheme for some people to get richer.
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Legally that one is true...
rather legally it has been held that people who voluntarily associate don't lose freedom of speech.
What is a corporation other than an association of people engaged in profit seeking. Why should they lose rights?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not what was said.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Then why did Tracy Schmaler lie and say the Ogden Memo said "sick patients," when it actually only mentions patients? The word sick is nowhere in the memo.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How do you lose a right you never had?
Corporations are not people because they are corporations
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Obama said "I would not have the Justice Department prosecute individuals for medical marijuana, it's not a good use of our resources."
Obama's justice department has raided more legal medical marijuana dispensaries than the Bush and Clinton administration combined
Dude blatantly lied about what he would do during his campaign, then did the complete opposite while president
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if dispensaries are individuals, then people are corporations.
he said he would not go after state compliant operations, and hasn't.
he also said he would not give carte blanche for a marijuana industry, but that's basically what has happened here in colorado and up in washington, with more states to soon follow.
if there have been more raids under obama's watch, it has been because there are infinitely more dispensaries. in your own state, you can look at some of the local republican DAs and AGs directly disobeying the directives given to them by the obama administration for those raids, specifically in san diego.
obama barely touched the issue of MMJ, that kind of thing is beneath the president nowadays and is not a political winner for anyone at any political level. but what he did say hinted at leniency, and his actions have exceeded that.
if you doubt the progress for cannabis that has happened under obama, then go smack yourself. it may introduce some sense into you on this one.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that would hold in a court of law... Dispensaries are not individuals, the individuals in the dispensary are being prosecuted, not the dispensary itself
"State compliant" means not superseding the federal government, which subverts CA initiative Prop. 215
So, in reality, even if a state votes rec. legal, like WA & CO, the Fed says it's illegal. So technically, yes, you're right, but it's a slimy politician tactic used to ensure votes, and I know you're smart enough to know that. "Technically yes, but actually no" is still no when he said 'yes' during his campaign.
Do you have a specific quote you could cite?
Do you have any evidence for this claim?
To be clear, what you're saying is that DA's and AG's are going above executive demands?
His actions don't matter when he appoints DEA directors who refuse to answer what is more dangerous, meth/heroin or marijuana. Similar to how he can campaign to the end of the earth about how he disagrees with fast lanes while simultaneously appointing a goddamn Comcast slut as FEC commissioner, his actions speak much louder than his bullshit words. Watch his actions, ignore his words. He's a piece of political shit bought and sold to the highest bidder, just like every president we've had for 7 goddamn decades. You of all people on this forum should recognize and acknowledge that.
I don't doubt the progress that has taken place under Obama, but I absolutely don't attribute it to him, either. He's an obstacle in the way of full legality.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Multi-year ice starts with single year ice. We know it is hard to be wrong and even harder to admit it... You have time, things are not going to get better for the global warming crowd.
Also, by saying 'the artic is in trouble' you are assuming the current state of the arctic is the standard which would be assuming alot eh?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
idiot
there is new single year ice every year, not new multiyear ice every year. The multiyear ice is vanishing.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Could there be new multi year ice every year??
Yes, ice that was created over multiple years melts. Then over multiple years it forms again. This happens as the globe warms and cools. The globe does so daily, seasonally and on other annual cycles.
Do you know how crazy you sound sometimes?
Yes, ice that was created over multiple years melts. Then over multiple years it forms again. This happens as the globe warms and cools. The globe does so daily, seasonally and on other annual cycles.
Do you know how crazy you sound sometimes?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm trying to resist the urge to call you names and insult you.
We are losing multiyear arctic ice, known as pack ice. The ice that melts and comes back every year is becoming a bigger part of the arctic every year. It is just a meter thick surface layer. Loss of multiyear ice is loss of ice cap volume. Try to keep up.
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
They are made up of people.
How can individuals have a right to do something, and in a country with freedom of association, lose that right if they exercise it collectively.
No one is saying corporations are people, they're saying corporations are made up of people who have rights.