Page: 1 2 3 Next »

Jack Burton

Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 18, 2014, 11:44 PM
Number of posts: 14,194

Journal Archives

This is the sort of lunacy you get when Democrats are in charge.
Stating that we have an obligation to protect Muslims from global warming seems like something out of the Twilight Zone series, only he’s not writing for T.V. He expects you to jump on the Muslim train…

300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data
Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

Smith launched an investigation into NOAA’s study last summer over concerns it was pushed out to bolster President Barack Obama’s political agenda. Democrats and the media have largely opposed the probe into NOAA scientists and political appointees, but Smith is determined to continue investigating. NOAA officials surrendered emails to congressional investigators in December.

“It is this Committee’s oversight role to ensure that federal science agencies are transparent and accountable to the taxpayers who fund their research,” Smith told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Americans are tired of research conducted behind closed doors where they only see cherry-picked conclusions, not the facts. This letter shows that hundreds of respected scientists and experts agree that NOAA’s efforts to alter historical temperature data deserve serious scrutiny.”

Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts. NOAA scientists upwardly adjusted temperature readings taken from the engine intakes of ships to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

But the debate is settled.....

The point of no return has arrived

The clock has run out. We are officially doomed now. Oh noes.
IBD Calls Out Al Gore As His 10-Year 'Planetary Emergency' Deadline Looms
On January 26, 2006, former Vice President, current climate alarmist and centimillionaire Al Gore told the Associated Press's David Germain that "unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return."
Another Environmentalist Doomsday Clock Expires, When Can We Laugh?
I thought of this story as I watched Rush Limbaugh’s Al Gore “armageddon” clock expire. In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.

Gore’s prediction fits right in with the rest of his comrades in the wild-eyed environmentalist movement. There’s a veritable online cottage industry cataloguing hysterical, failed predictions of environmentalist catastrophe. Over at the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Perry keeps his list of “18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions” made around the original Earth Day in 1970. Robert Tracinski at The Federalist has a nice list of “Seven big failed environmentalist predictions.” The Daily Caller’s “25 years of predicting the global warming ‘tipping point’” makes for amusing reading, including one declaration that we had mere “hours to act” to “avert a slow-motion tsunami.”

How to have body like an A-list celeb.

Who would be the most coveted endorsement in today's Democratic electoral climate?

Choose one big time endorsement only.

Make you little soldier stand up and salute.
Your penis pics are bush league
Sending pictures of your private parts might seem like a creepy hobby, but this girl found a way to turn it into art. The NYC photographer has built a successful career by dressing up these potentially unsightly male appendages.

2 minute video at link. (explicit images blurred relatively safe for work)

Leonardo DiCaprio wants the world to say goodbye to fossil fuels.

Hey Leo. Let's see you run your Gulfstream G650 or your 250ft yacht with a windmill or solar power.
"Last month in Paris, world leaders reached an historic agreement that provides a concrete framework to reduce carbon emissions," he said. "This was an important first step, but we are a long way off from claiming victory in this fight for our future – for the survival of our planet."

DiCaprio pointed to the elimination of fossil fuels as the next big step to be taken, urging business leaders to leave behind "corporate greed" in the oil industry and instead focus on the betterment of the planet.

He continued: "Our planet cannot be saved unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground where they belong. Twenty years ago, we described this problem as an addiction. Today, we possess the means to end this reliance.

Using soft science to understand junk science.

I've noticed a new trend among the self anointed doomer elite. Doomers are now moving to focus on various psychological and emotional reasons and reactions to the global warming hoax. This new 'research' ranges from examining why doomers now have a big sad and how to cope with people not listening to them, to finding psychological deficiencies with those who don't swallow global warming dogma.

Poor poor little doomers just can't understand why the whole world isn't in a tissy over the impending end of the world. What really frustrates them is that almost nobody is listening or gives a shit about the global warming hoax. They just can't understand why most people rate the seriousness of the global warming problem somewhere below having a hangnail.

Witness the latest article on this new trend...which of course will have more peer reviewed career enhancing articles and require government grant money to study.
Why Psychology Should Be A Part Of The Fight Against Climate Change
An increasing number of psychologists are arguing that in order to tackle the growing threat to our environment, we need to understand people's emotional and cognitive responses to this new reality, which can run the gamut from denial to indifference to outrage to anger to grief. Scientists in the burgeoning field of environmental psychology are working hard to bring psychological insights into discussions about climate change.

In 2009, the American Psychological Association created a task force to examine the role of psychology in understanding and addressing global climate change. And last September, President Barack Obama called for the use of behavioral sciences to inform policy, communication and engagement around pressing issues, including climate change. Lertzman's research seeks to explain why we fail to act on climate change, even when we're aware of the magnitude of the threat that lies before us. It's not just because people don't care, she argues. Rather, our emotional response to the issue, which for many people is a deep but unprocessed sense of anxiety and loss, can leave us feeling powerless and paralyzed. This arrested state of unprocessed grief over the destruction of the natural world, which she refers to as "environmental melancholia," blocks us from taking action.

“Information is not enough, largely because people are capable of huge levels of denial," Clayton said. "Thinking about effective means of communicating information is something that psychologists have a lot of experience with." Going into the 2016 presidential election, we need all the insight we can get on effectively dealing with climate change and communicating about the realities we're facing. "I would like to see Democratic presidential candidates practice a method of authentic, compassionate communication that's not afraid to go where people are feeling most vulnerable," Lertzman said. "That's a model of real leadership."

How can leaders do this? By integrating the two "parallel narratives" of climate change: "doom and gloom," on the one hand, and seemingly pie-in-the-sky solutions, on the other. Research has shown that each narrative, by itself, fails to empower people and prevents them from being able to locate themselves and their own actions in the story about climate change.

I especially like how the doomer psychologist wrinkles her little brow ignores the most obvious reason why most people are not doomers. "Lertzman's research seeks to explain why we fail to act on climate change, even when we're aware of the magnitude of the threat that lies before us. It's not just because people don't care" Um yes. It IS because most people don't care. They recognize the doomer hoax for what it is. People see how the doomer evangelists aren't changing their lifestyle on bit due to worry about global warming. There! I just saved you years of research and study and untold millions of wasted taxpayer money.

Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate
In HOT TALK, COLD SCIENCE: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, astrophysicist S. Fred Singer probes the literature on climate change and lays out the scientific case against the likelihood of an imminent, catastrophic global warming. Theoretical computer models to the contrary, man-made global warming has not been documented. But even if it were to occur, the evidence suggests that it would largely be benign and may even improve human well-being, Singer argues.

But prematurely mandating severe reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would make us—and developing countries, especially—poorer and less able to cope with any future problems.

recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring disaster (Science, May 16, 1997). Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. While the body of the IPCC’s 800-page, 1996 report, The Science of Climate Change, mentioned some doubts (albeit cryptically), the report’s much-publicized, politically approved Summary for Policymakers did not. This gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the report alsosupported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC report even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report—whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative.

While it is true that global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degree Celsius in the last century, most of this warming occurred before 1940, while most of the human-caused CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. Further, we simply do not know whether climate variability depends on carbon dioxide concentrations. Scientists are only now beginning to study the role of other potential factors in global climate change, such as the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans, variations in solar radiation, and the cooling effects of volcanic emissions and sulfate aerosols.

The gap between the satellite observations and existing theory is large enough to cast serious doubt on all computer-model predictions of future warming. Whatever the cause of the gap, we cannot rely on GCM forecasts of future warming. (GCMs are not even consistent with each other; their temperature forecasts vary by some 300 percent.) Until GCMs become validated by actual climate observations, they should not be used as the basis for policy.

Climate Crock of the Week

The doomers are now claiming the satellite data are wrong to support their denial about no further warming in the last 20 years.
Climate Alarmists Invent New Excuse: The Satellites Are Lying
The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years. Turns out the satellite data is lying. And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)

More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”

Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets which do show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.

In other words it’s yet another case of the increasingly desperate climate alarmists playing their usual game: If the facts don’t suit your discredited theory, change the facts.

Link to Climate Crock Video put together by cartoonist, political science professor, and climate 'expert' Peter Sinclair.

However if you really want climate truth watch this:
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »