|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 24, 2014 1:43:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 25, 2014 19:56:08 GMT
It doesn't work like that! 15 minutes will save your job! "Another agency tells Congress: File not found" "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the IRS share a problem: officials say they cannot provide the emails a congressional committee has requested because an employee’s hard drive crashed. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy confirmed to the House Oversight Committee Wednesday that her staff is unable to provide lawmakers all of the documents they have requested on the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, because of a 2010 computer crash. Read more: thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/210564-epa-says-hard-drive-crashed-emails-lost#ixzz35gNto0zvFollow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook" link
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 25, 2014 22:29:07 GMT
It doesn't work like that! 15 minutes will save your job! "Another agency tells Congress: File not found" "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the IRS share a problem: officials say they cannot provide the emails a congressional committee has requested because an employee’s hard drive crashed. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy confirmed to the House Oversight Committee Wednesday that her staff is unable to provide lawmakers all of the documents they have requested on the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, because of a 2010 computer crash. Read more: thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/210564-epa-says-hard-drive-crashed-emails-lost#ixzz35gNto0zvFollow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook" linkIt is obvious this administration isn't very good with technology. Time for them to use a typewriter and pen. They can't handle 21st Century tech.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 7, 2014 2:31:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jul 7, 2014 9:07:40 GMT
stupid is as stupid does
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 8, 2014 17:20:36 GMT
The Times reports: CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPER CENSORED BY AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY JOURNALDate: 08/07/14 Ben Webster, The Times Research that questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming was “censored” by climate scientists, it was alleged yesterday. One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.” The paper suggested that the computer models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were flawed, resulting in human influence on the climate being exaggerated and the impact of natural variability being underplayed. The findings could have profound implications. If correct, they could mean that greenhouse gases have less impact than the IPCC has predicted and that the risk of catastrophic global warming has been overstated. However, the questions raised about the models were deleted from the paper before it was published in 2010 in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. The paper had been submitted in July 2009, when many climate scientists were urging world leaders to agree a global deal on cutting emissions at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December that year. Vladimir Semenov, a climate scientist at the Geomar institute in Kiel, Germany, said the questions he and six others had posed in the original version of the paper were valid and removing them was “a kind of censorship”. He decided to speak out after seeing a former colleague, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, vilified for questioning the IPCC’s predictions on global warming. Professor Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, resigned from the advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Lord Lawson of Blaby’s climate sceptic think-tank, in May after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics. Dr Semenov said some seemed to be trying to suppress suggestions that the climate was less sensitive to rising emissions than the IPCC had claimed. “If you say there are some indications that the sensitivity is wrong, this breaks the stone on which the whole building is standing,” he said. “People may doubt the whole results.” Dr Semenov said the reviewers who objected to the questions were technically correct because they “were not explicitly based on our results”. However, he said: “We had a right to discuss it . . . If your opinion is outside the broad consensus then you have more problems with publishing your results.” A third reviewer was much more supportive of the paper, saying its “very provocative” suggestion that climate models were flawed was “so interesting that it needs to be discussed more fully”. However, almost the entire paragraph was deleted, along with the conclusion that “the average sensitivity of the IPCC models may be too high”. The journal chose to publish only the opening sentence: “We would like to emphasise that this study does not question the existence of a long-term anthropogenic warming trend during the 20th century.” A spokesman for the American Meteorological Society said: “It is a natural part of the review process for the author to be asked to make changes, edits, and rewrites . . . The changes that are made in response to the peer review ensure that the research results are as accurate as possible.” The Times, 8 July 2014 link: www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4141528.ece
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 11, 2014 15:50:05 GMT
Damn that global warming stuff; the UK's Independent reports: Gingers face extinction due to climate change, scientists warn The red hair gene could be on the way out as it is thought to be a response to cloudy weather in Scotland, something which the country could see less and less of. A gene mutation that yields red hair and pale skin which is more sensitive to light leaves DNA in skill cells more prone to sun damage and cancer, and if predictions of rising temperatures are correct evolution might cause it to regress. Dr Alistair Moffat, managing director of Galashiels-based ScotlandsDNA, said: "We think red hair in Scotland, Ireland and in the North of England is adaption to the climate. "I think the reason for light skin and red hair is that we do not get enough sun and we have to get all the Vitamin D we can. "If the climate is changing and it is to become more cloudy or less cloudy then this will affect the gene. "If it was to get less cloudy and there was more sun, then yes, there would be fewer people carrying the gene." Another scientist, who did not wish to be named due to the theoretical nature of the work, told ScotlandNow: "I think the regressive gene is slowly dying out. "Climate change could see a decline in the number of people with red hair in Scotland. "It would take many hundreds of years for this to happen. "Red hair and blue eyes are not adapted to a warm climate. "It is just a theory but the recessive gene may likely be lost. The recessive gene could be in danger." Only 1-2% of the world's population have red hair, though in Scotland 13% of the population are ginger and 40% are thought to carry the gene. Link: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gingers-face-extinction-due-to-climate-change-scientists-warn-9590054.html
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jul 13, 2014 11:43:42 GMT
If I have read the news correctly, both the BBC and the Los Angeles Times have banned anti_AGW views [or people] on their sites, together with certain other organisations.
While the LAT is entitled to do what it likes with news commentary as it is a private organisation, I am quite sad about the BBC.
As a public organisation, one would have thought some balance was required.Whether AGW is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Censorship of unpopular views is a characteristic of totalitarianism in its various forms, both socialist and right wing.
It is possible that in the next few years the BBC will be forced into an exceedingly embarrassing U turn. A good many politicians may have the same problem.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 13, 2014 17:52:22 GMT
If I have read the news correctly, both the BBC and the Los Angeles Times have banned anti_AGW views [or people] on their sites, together with certain other organisations. While the LAT is entitled to do what it likes with news commentary as it is a private organisation, I am quite sad about the BBC. As a public organisation, one would have thought some balance was required.Whether AGW is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Censorship of unpopular views is a characteristic of totalitarianism in its various forms, both socialist and right wing. It is possible that in the next few years the BBC will be forced into an exceedingly embarrassing U turn. A good many politicians may have the same problem. Man-made global warming - as we all know - does not exist. It does not matter that certain news organizations have banned anti-anthropogenic global warming views or the people who do not subscribe to AGW mantras, as the censorship of views by means of rampant ideology (and a very stupid one at that) only further isolates those 'news organizations' from gaining any more readers which they sorely need. In the near future, all those who took part in the lie of man-made global warming will be held to account for their ignorant acts and will be shut up - once and for all - by the clear fact that global cooling has set in. The ideological fools who believe that the laws of physics have somehow ceased to exist because they 'believe' in 'man-made global warming' will be forced into shock when global cooling officially sets in just three years from now. By the first years of the next decade, the horrendous cold and wet climate will put to rest the foolishness of 'pink elephants can fly,' aka, 'man-made global warming.'
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 13, 2014 22:58:13 GMT
time.com/119517/global-warming-climate-change/The two terms may seem synonymous, but one generates much more engagement than the other More The Bible Calls for Moral Action on Climate Change Climate Change Could Sink Statue of Liberty, Report Warns Climate Change Poses Growing National-Security Threat, Report Says More Finland’s Capital Plans on Making Private-Car Ownership Obsolete in 10 Years A Year After a Deadly Disaster, Fears Grow About the Danger of Crude Oil Shipped By Rail Pink Slip Puff: Why Smoking Legal Pot Can Get You Fired NBC News John Legend's 'You & I (Nobody In The World)' Video Will Make You Hug Your Mother, Wife, Daughter Huffington Post Magic at the Maracana: Germany Beats Argentina To Win World Cup NBC News A quick check of the TIME.com archives reveals that I’ve used the term “global warming” in 545 posts, videos and articles—not counting this one. And the term “climate change”? 852 times. That’s not surprising. While the two terms are largely synonymous—which is why there are 472 posts where I use both—”climate change” has become the preferred
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 14, 2014 0:13:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 16, 2014 1:44:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 17, 2014 5:45:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 23, 2014 5:33:18 GMT
Oh boy, let's see. Don't let fires burn, increase the fuel load, and when lighting strikes, and fires start, it is the result of climate change.
Awwww....no....it is the result of stupid forest management.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jul 25, 2014 0:50:43 GMT
I think that the tide may have already begun to turn. The purely liberal-progressive Guardian UK seems to have distanced itself from the AGW campaign. It seems more than coincidence. Those fair-weather, fickle activists are trying to change the subject. I have been noticing this, and looking through their editorial pages "Comment is Free" pages for the last one week, no mention of climate change (AGW was standard daily fare for the last several years). And very interesting was this piece, which seemed intentionally designed to help distance the Guardian from the losing horse, AGW: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/21/five-biggest-threats-human-existenceOnly an apologetic mention of climate change at the end, discounting the total effects. But I think that the story was designed to un-frame the climate change debate.
|
|