DJL

Members
  • Content

    8,869
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by DJL

  1. Those are two huge leaps. I had to look it up, it's "stomatal density", the rate at which plants grow pores by which they respire. In the last 150 years it's been found that this density has decreased by 34%. Brent, why isn't this stopping forest fires? Again, you're talking about something that's happened during the entire course of rising CO2 and global temperatures and it HAS NOT STOPPED THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE. Do you understand that?
  2. It is the one thing that higher levels of CO2 does. What it doesn’t do is cause more floods, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes. There's an important thing to remember and I'm willing to spend time on it if you're going to honestly apply your reasoning to it. What you're describing, the increase in photosynthesis because of elevated CO2 is true. But you also have to remember it's been true for all of history and for entire period in which CO2 levels and global temperatures have been rising and it HAS NOT STOPPED THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE. Do you understand that?
  3. For fucks sake man, you and this greening thing. It's a pretty lame last straw to cling to.
  4. That's what they're developing for use in airplanes. It's in one of the articles above.
  5. DJL

    Q

    That's 15 more levels above "Double-Secret".
  6. Now, if you'd like to talk about scientists getting fired because they didn't say what the bosses wanted them to say: The EPA fired these air pollution scientists. They’re meeting anyway. https://grist.org/article/the-epa-fired-these-air-pollution-scientists-theyre-meeting-anyway/
  7. Your example is someone who owns almost all assets involved in the making of that production. What's Gore going to do, fire himself?
  8. Certainly, people who are publishing wrong, misleading and false articles concerning AGW will very quickly find their jobs at risk. The list you posted (and also the article you posted which began this topic) are prime examples of that. One of them was even an anti-vaxer.
  9. DJL

    Q

    Please. Do not let the last years of your life be punctuated by being fooled by this bullshit.
  10. Are those people who found the truth that they could prove and reproduce or are they peddling bullshit. I already knew the name Susan Crockford, she's an author of very poorly written polar bear attack books. She peddles bullshit. https://www.google.com/search?q=susan+crockford&oq=susan+crockford&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.2892j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Edit: I haven't looked at the rest of these but are they climate scientists, I see "reporter" in many of the stories. We're asking about people who conduct research. We'll talk about reporters and such too because I won't deny that some news groups simply don't want to be the source of what they think is disinformation and they don't by themselves have a research body to prove or disprove anything. Edited as I read: Mish Micheals: "On January 31, 2017, Michaels announced via Twitter her employment with WGBH as a science reporter.[4] As of February 8, 2017, it has been made public that she has been fired from this position as she "...has been outspoken in her controversial belief that vaccines cause autism..."[5] as well as a disbelief in man made climate change. Michaels later disputed these claims on her personal website.[6][7]" Patrick Moore: Your link doesn't appear to reference the findings up climate change just that he doesn't like the Green New Deal and says google deleted him. I'm not sure that google holds the record keeping duty for various organizations but links to his name show that he joined Greenpeace a year after it was formed. Phillipe Verdier: Reporter. Got fired for trying to promote his denier book which from a link in your own link about him says was full of errors and conspiracy theories. This is a private organization not wanting to support someone who appears unable to make a valid point. This is from the link YOU provided and does a pretty good job covering the same things we're talking about here regarding how scientists are paid and what model vs results have shown : https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/10/12/climat-les-mises-en-cause-erronees-de-philippe-verdier_4787865_4355770.html
  11. Yes, they get paid to conduct research. Their pay does not change because of the results of their research. Understand that? The subject of this conversation is a woman who LITERALLY GETS PAID for articles that deny manmade global warming and the effect of CO2. And sorry, didn't see which denier I was responding to. This article is what Brent posted. https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/01/it-has-been-hotter-fires-have-burnt-larger-areas/ The woman makes a claim that temperatures in Australia in 1939 were hotter. In fact what she's doing is showing a graph and data for the three summer months in Victoria, a very small part of Australia. Do we follow? Do we catch the fact that she used the three hottest months of the year in her claim that 1939 was hotter than the year-long average (averaged with winter months) of 2019? Do we understand this to be misleading?
  12. No, if you went back 20 years it would begin at the year 2000 and show a mean rise. If you went back 23 years it would show the high 1998 temps you're probably trying to use to make a point and then you have a mean rise with other higher peaks. So, if you're trying to just use that 1998 peak temp and say "that's it" then you're still wrong because there have also been higher peaks since then. So, any way you cut it either with an evaluation of the averages or the peaks there is nothing that shows cooling.
  13. They get money to conduct research. The woman you linked gets money to say that their research is wrong. If she doesn't say it's wrong she doesn't get paid for the article you posted. Understand the difference? Also, would you like to acknowledge how incredibly misleading your article is?
  14. Weird, it's as if he was just saying shit on the campaign trail without any regard for reality.
  15. Wait. Let's talk about woodworking and chess first!
  16. It's means you're my girlfriend and I'm going to go ahead with an appetizer while you think about it for another 5 fucking hours.
  17. DJL

    Q

    This woman created a self-fulfilling prophesy. Amazing.
  18. Yup. She does something with her husband to predict rainfall and "climate lab" is a climate change denial group they run.
  19. But she IS also wrong. As I just showed. I wanted to let you all know she's a fishnet wearing street walker for an associating who publishes misleading information (like she just published) to confuse people regarding climate change.
  20. Your source uses temperatures from a single area (Victoria) over a three month period (not the whole year) to say that overall average temps were "probably" higher in 1939 for all of Australia. Australia is almost the size of the US so that's like using temps in New England to prove a country-wide average. That wedge shaped section hanging in the Gulf of Mexico is Victoria, about half the size of New England. The author of the piece is on the payroll of a climate denial foundation. Her job is literally to deny climate change. This links to the same source she used showing the yearlong averages in Australia for the last 100 years. The countrywide average for 1939 was not the hottest on record. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&%3Btracker=timeseries&%3BtQ=&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=10&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D0 Edit: Ah yes, the rest of the article is gobbly gook about thermometers for which she provides no conclusion.
  21. I agree there's no perfect argument to make but the FACT is that the conditions are dryer and warmer than they've ever been. This also means that fires catch more easily and burn longer because there's more dried out materials BUT with guys running around setting fires it's a pointless conversation to have unless someone can come out with some sort of proof about exactly what set what.
  22. So are you trying to show that previous fires also had arsonists involved and there has always been arson or are did someone say the 1939 fires were a result of global warming and you're trying to prove them wrong?
  23. From his press conference it sounds like he was aware of it. Also, he looked like he could barely keep it together enough to make it through the press conference. I don't think he's in good shape.
  24. They know what's good for them and Soleimani wasn't exactly popular with everyone in Iran. That guy had a lot of control and was gaining more, he was well on his way to increasing his control of a regional military that wasn't even part of the Iranian State. He was going to be the next Saddam Hussein.