The problem I have with this Pete, is that Spencer takes great pains to show 73 model predictions, yet shows only two averages of just 6 datasets of real world observations. I have no doubt those observations are bona fide, but the reality is that there are many scores of real world observation datasets, the vast majority of which show warming. I strongly suspect that if one plotted the average of ALL real world datasets, the line would not be a perfect match with the model predictions, but would be much more in agreement than Spencer alludes.
More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
...and it appears you're right.
Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World
...and:
"New evidence finds the world’s surface temperatures have remained flat over the past 15 years even as more than 1 billion tons of carbons entered the atmosphere. (underline 'mine)
This is important because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that rising greenhouse gas emissions would lead to rising temps, which would lead to environmental disasters."
Has global warming stopped? Temps steady for a decade - Washington DC Immigration | Examiner.com
...of course, the 1st 'greenie' who sees the above will pooh-pooh all of it.
Last edited:
+1
..as is a LOT of EPA horse pucky. The "Rainwater Runoff Act" here in Wash State says "...for purposes of this act, GRAVEL(!) shall be considered a NON PORUS surface(!)"
Given the fact one is CHARGED a fee/tax based on the percentage of NON PORUS surface found on ones property, what would one suppose IS THE REAL "PURPOSE" of the act? You guessed it: collecting $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
..as is a LOT of EPA horse pucky. The "Rainwater Runoff Act" here in Wash State says "...for purposes of this act, GRAVEL(!) shall be considered a NON PORUS surface(!)"
Given the fact one is CHARGED a fee/tax based on the percentage of NON PORUS surface found on ones property, what would one suppose IS THE REAL "PURPOSE" of the act? You guessed it: collecting $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
rockonsmile
What is the process for over-turning such an act or any particular part of an act such as that? Gravel, porous? WTF
SCAM
By what process? By throwing the yo-yos who passed it (state & federal) out of office and repealing the darned act. But good luck with that.
We're becoming trapped in the "death by a thousand cuts" that our brothers in the EU have been feeling for quite some time. The mindset is changing for the worse I fear (really know). Want a good read, look up the EU enviromental laws for a start!
Welcome - T.M.C. Asser Instituut is a good start. Directives, regulations and standards that force member nations into compliance.
Welcome - T.M.C. Asser Instituut is a good start. Directives, regulations and standards that force member nations into compliance.
Simply bring a legal case against the Law or part thereof, claiming the law itself is unlawful. Never mind waiting for the next lot of morons to get elected, by which time they are 'comfortable' with the income generated by such nonsense and the great unwashed have forgotten about it and the whole thing becomes lore.
'Tried that with Obamacare, Mark...how well did that work out?
'Totally agree with your "comfortable" observation BTW, but, what other path do we have - short of another revolution. And even if that were done, how long would it be B4 the new crop placed in D.C. would get "comfortable? About a month or so?
Last edited:
Sad, but true Larry. Sad but true.
However, wasn't the failed challenge that Obamacare was unconstitutional? Is that different to challenging if something is Unlawful? Seriously guys, please explain, I don't know. We don't have a constitution over here, only Law.
We evidently don't have a constitution over HERE either.
But, to answer your question: The 'Supremes" (U.S. Supreme Court) have made many decisions that have flown in the face of the text, spirit, INTENT and meaning of the constitution on a number cases that have been before it. In the end, it's N-O-T what the constitution SAYS that matters - it's how the 'all-knowing' in the black robes choose to 'interpret' what it says. Bigggggggggggggg difference, Mark.
E.g.: The Supremes have let stand an e-n-d-l-e-s-s number gun laws that c-l-e-a-r-l-y infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A FOUR-YEAR-OLD child can easily see that.
ergo my confusion Larry. The Constituion and the LAW, are not the same, which is why I suspect it looks as though one flounces the other at times. I am asking if the constitution can be parked to one side for a moment, whilst the Legal aspect of a Law- that states that something (in this case, Gravel) is NON-porous, when clearly and factually, it IS porous- is questioned/challenged. Unless I am mistaken (it does happen), the Law and Constitution are seperate and often therfore, have to be 'interpretted' by Judges (Supreme Court) and as you say, something often has to give.
I am not suggesting that stating Gravel to be non porous, is a Constitutional issual at all is it? A law that claims it is non-porous, simply to raise revenue is not a constitutional issue, simply a Legal one. Whos' rights have been effected? None.
Where does the Constitution state that the Government has the right to alter Chemistry or physics for the purposes of raising taxes?
There is at least one Lawyer on these forums, what say you chaps???
I am not suggesting that stating Gravel to be non porous, is a Constitutional issual at all is it? A law that claims it is non-porous, simply to raise revenue is not a constitutional issue, simply a Legal one. Whos' rights have been effected? None.
Where does the Constitution state that the Government has the right to alter Chemistry or physics for the purposes of raising taxes?
There is at least one Lawyer on these forums, what say you chaps???
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Of course Larry thinks that the 2nd Amendment means felons and the mentally ill can own bazookas. So I'd look elsewhere for constitutional analysis.
The Constitution is the governing document that is the supreme law of the land. It governs the relationships between the states, and between the three branches of our government (Executive - the President, Legislative -- Congress, Judicial -- the Supreme Court).
It also sets out some of the basic rights we have as citizens in the first Ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights).
The Constitution trumps all law, whether statutory or common law (which we got from you guys). But the Constitution is a short document and only covers certain areas. So where the Constitution applies, it governs but beyond that Congress can make laws within the areas of authority delegated to it by the Constituion, and the President/Executive can issue regulations or Executive Orders where Congress has asked the Executive to implement a statute, or where the Constitution gives the Executive the authority to do so.
Complicating matters even more is the fact that most states have a similar system, and the law Larry is whining about sounds like it is either a regulation implementing a statute in Washington, or a statute itself.
So, to answer your question, yes, a citizen in the US can challenge a regulation/law on a number of grounds if they have standing (meaning they are directly affected by the law) to do so. These include:
1. If it is a statute, Congress/the state legislature didn't have the authority under the Constitution to pass it.
2. If it is a statute or regulation, it constitutes an impermissible infringement on a Constitutional right.
3. If it is a regulation, it is an unauthorized or arbitrary and capricious implementation of a statute.
For this "gravel" question -- and not to say the government is always right, but I'm sure they had material scientists look at this and conclude at some level of depth gravel may not be porous, or some such -- the most likely challenge would be that it is an arbitrary and capricious implementation of a statute since it seems to fly in the face of common sense.
The Constitution is the governing document that is the supreme law of the land. It governs the relationships between the states, and between the three branches of our government (Executive - the President, Legislative -- Congress, Judicial -- the Supreme Court).
It also sets out some of the basic rights we have as citizens in the first Ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights).
The Constitution trumps all law, whether statutory or common law (which we got from you guys). But the Constitution is a short document and only covers certain areas. So where the Constitution applies, it governs but beyond that Congress can make laws within the areas of authority delegated to it by the Constituion, and the President/Executive can issue regulations or Executive Orders where Congress has asked the Executive to implement a statute, or where the Constitution gives the Executive the authority to do so.
Complicating matters even more is the fact that most states have a similar system, and the law Larry is whining about sounds like it is either a regulation implementing a statute in Washington, or a statute itself.
So, to answer your question, yes, a citizen in the US can challenge a regulation/law on a number of grounds if they have standing (meaning they are directly affected by the law) to do so. These include:
1. If it is a statute, Congress/the state legislature didn't have the authority under the Constitution to pass it.
2. If it is a statute or regulation, it constitutes an impermissible infringement on a Constitutional right.
3. If it is a regulation, it is an unauthorized or arbitrary and capricious implementation of a statute.
For this "gravel" question -- and not to say the government is always right, but I'm sure they had material scientists look at this and conclude at some level of depth gravel may not be porous, or some such -- the most likely challenge would be that it is an arbitrary and capricious implementation of a statute since it seems to fly in the face of common sense.
Thanks Jeff an excellent explanation. In fairness to Larry, to suggest he is 'whinning' about it, seems a little harsh and dare I say, uneccessary.
So Larry, it looks to me as though you have a perfect opportunity to challenge this under point 3 as per Jeff's post above.
Take the fight to them Larry!
After-all, that is the very essence of why living in a Democracy is such a valuable thing to defend.
So Larry, it looks to me as though you have a perfect opportunity to challenge this under point 3 as per Jeff's post above.
Take the fight to them Larry!
After-all, that is the very essence of why living in a Democracy is such a valuable thing to defend.To do what you suggest I do would literally take years that, at this point, I simply don't have available, Mark...and, in the end, there'd be no guarantee that the constitution would triumph over whatever ideological agenda the majority of Supremes themselves were 'pushing' at the time.
One case in point: For well over 200 years here in the U.S., "Emanate Domain" has been used by government to take someone's private property (with 'fair compensation', of course! Uh huh. Really.) for a specific public need/benefit...to build a road, build a sewage plant, that sort of thing. But, as of just a few years ago, the Supremes decided that government can also take someone's land simply to turn around and sell it to, say, a private developer who wants to build a shopping center on said land so that government can receive more tax revenue from that land! The logic? Tax revenue trumps private property ownership since, SUPPOSEDLY, tax revenue 'benefits society as a whole'...or some such fairy dust. The court totally ignored both 200+ years of tradition AND a citizen's right to own private property. IOW, the court said government's need for money trumps a citizen's right to own property.
(BTW, Mark, just one nitpicky point; the U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a republic. But, your point [in theory anyway!] is spot on.)
One case in point: For well over 200 years here in the U.S., "Emanate Domain" has been used by government to take someone's private property (with 'fair compensation', of course! Uh huh. Really.) for a specific public need/benefit...to build a road, build a sewage plant, that sort of thing. But, as of just a few years ago, the Supremes decided that government can also take someone's land simply to turn around and sell it to, say, a private developer who wants to build a shopping center on said land so that government can receive more tax revenue from that land! The logic? Tax revenue trumps private property ownership since, SUPPOSEDLY, tax revenue 'benefits society as a whole'...or some such fairy dust. The court totally ignored both 200+ years of tradition AND a citizen's right to own private property. IOW, the court said government's need for money trumps a citizen's right to own property.
(BTW, Mark, just one nitpicky point; the U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a republic. But, your point [in theory anyway!] is spot on.)
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Getting back to the subject.
We are told, incessantly, that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming – it is not.
The primary source of surface heat is radiant energy from the sun. Minor heat comes from geothermal energy from volcanoes and hot rocks. Trivial quantities of local heat are brought to Earth’s surface by humans using stoves, cars, boilers, engines and factories powered by mined fuels such as coal, oil, gas and uranium. Even using “green” energy such as ethanol, wind or wood has a tiny temperature effect by transferring solar energy from farms and forests, to be released eventually as waste heat in cities.
Solar energy is more concentrated in equatorial areas and is moved pole-wards by the circulation of air (99.9% nitrogen, oxygen and argon), and by water and water vapour via evaporation, condensation and ocean currents. These processes are all driven by conduction, convection, latent heat and Earth’s rotation, not carbon dioxide. They are the major forces creating weather. Variations in solar cycles and cloud cover control longer term climate change.
Carbon dioxide plays almost no part in any of these dominant weather processes. Moreover, it does not burn, nor is it radioactive – it cannot produce heat.
The so called greenhouse gases (mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide) have the ability to absorb radiant energy and transmit it to their surroundings. These gases tend to retain some surface heat but also assist the Earth to shed heat from the upper troposphere by radiating energy to space. Without this ability to shed heat to space, the upper atmosphere would be considerably hotter.
However, carbon dioxide occurs in tiny trace amounts in the atmosphere, and any surface heating it could do is already being done by water vapour, which is more abundant and affects far more energy wavelengths. Also, the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is almost exhausted after the first hundred parts per million – adding more has very little effect on Earth’s surface temperature.
The net atmospheric effect of additional carbon dioxide is thus very minor and difficult to quantify. It probably makes the nights slightly warmer, especially in higher latitudes during winter; and it probably has little effect on daytime temperatures.
But additional carbon dioxide in the biosphere gives a major boost to all plants which feed all animals. It is not a pollutant, anywhere.
Carbon dioxide is not the gas of global warming – it is the bread and butter of life
We are told, incessantly, that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming – it is not.
The primary source of surface heat is radiant energy from the sun. Minor heat comes from geothermal energy from volcanoes and hot rocks. Trivial quantities of local heat are brought to Earth’s surface by humans using stoves, cars, boilers, engines and factories powered by mined fuels such as coal, oil, gas and uranium. Even using “green” energy such as ethanol, wind or wood has a tiny temperature effect by transferring solar energy from farms and forests, to be released eventually as waste heat in cities.
Solar energy is more concentrated in equatorial areas and is moved pole-wards by the circulation of air (99.9% nitrogen, oxygen and argon), and by water and water vapour via evaporation, condensation and ocean currents. These processes are all driven by conduction, convection, latent heat and Earth’s rotation, not carbon dioxide. They are the major forces creating weather. Variations in solar cycles and cloud cover control longer term climate change.
Carbon dioxide plays almost no part in any of these dominant weather processes. Moreover, it does not burn, nor is it radioactive – it cannot produce heat.
The so called greenhouse gases (mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide) have the ability to absorb radiant energy and transmit it to their surroundings. These gases tend to retain some surface heat but also assist the Earth to shed heat from the upper troposphere by radiating energy to space. Without this ability to shed heat to space, the upper atmosphere would be considerably hotter.
However, carbon dioxide occurs in tiny trace amounts in the atmosphere, and any surface heating it could do is already being done by water vapour, which is more abundant and affects far more energy wavelengths. Also, the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is almost exhausted after the first hundred parts per million – adding more has very little effect on Earth’s surface temperature.
The net atmospheric effect of additional carbon dioxide is thus very minor and difficult to quantify. It probably makes the nights slightly warmer, especially in higher latitudes during winter; and it probably has little effect on daytime temperatures.
But additional carbon dioxide in the biosphere gives a major boost to all plants which feed all animals. It is not a pollutant, anywhere.
Carbon dioxide is not the gas of global warming – it is the bread and butter of life
I saw a fantastic program on TV the other night to do with the life of stars and I learned a lot from it.
It can now be accurately forecast that the Sun, after becoming a Red Giant when the Helium runs out, will certainly swallow our entire solar system.
And that date is one half billion years hence give or take a week or so.
I totally agree that we should waste & pollute less, and that we should protect the "lungs" of the world, but to suggest that mans' puny efforts to postpone this event by switching to electric cars windmills and turf roofing seems mildly optimistic to say the least.
If we can proceed with a consensus rather than enforced legislation and punitive taxation then it will be far more effective in getting the message across for the benefit of future generations.
Perhaps the only global law passed should be: no individual or corporation shall PROFIT from Green Practice.
Failing all that then perhaps we should just shoot people who transgress.
This message is almost carbon neutral, and only a few hectares of trees have been disturbed. (Not so much disturbed, but distinctly concerned)
.
It can now be accurately forecast that the Sun, after becoming a Red Giant when the Helium runs out, will certainly swallow our entire solar system.
And that date is one half billion years hence give or take a week or so.
I totally agree that we should waste & pollute less, and that we should protect the "lungs" of the world, but to suggest that mans' puny efforts to postpone this event by switching to electric cars windmills and turf roofing seems mildly optimistic to say the least.
If we can proceed with a consensus rather than enforced legislation and punitive taxation then it will be far more effective in getting the message across for the benefit of future generations.
Perhaps the only global law passed should be: no individual or corporation shall PROFIT from Green Practice.
Failing all that then perhaps we should just shoot people who transgress.
This message is almost carbon neutral, and only a few hectares of trees have been disturbed. (Not so much disturbed, but distinctly concerned)
.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Billions of dollars have been wasted in the war on carbon in the vain hope of reducing natural global warming. This has disrupted the electricity market, caused numerous business closures and created a costly and oppressive climate bureaucracy.
However, Earth’s climate history shows that it is cold, not warmth, that destroys life. Ice ages have caused massive extinctions and converted verdant life-filled landscapes into barren, frozen, hungry wastelands. Life flourishes in Earth’s warm moist places, but struggles to exist in the icy deserts.
People who live close to nature, such as farmers and village dwellers, always celebrate the coming of spring – the first robins, the cherry blossoms and the new calves. Today, people flock towards the equator as winter comes, and a lack of food forces migrating animals to leave the tundras.
Life can adapt to a bit more warmth but ice is a killer.
This fortunate generation lives in a warm inter-glacial era. When the cycles change, and the ice returns, we will yearn for some global warming and curse those fools who destroyed our capacity to extract and use our abundant carbon fuels to produce food and warmth for our people.
Viv Forbes.
However, Earth’s climate history shows that it is cold, not warmth, that destroys life. Ice ages have caused massive extinctions and converted verdant life-filled landscapes into barren, frozen, hungry wastelands. Life flourishes in Earth’s warm moist places, but struggles to exist in the icy deserts.
People who live close to nature, such as farmers and village dwellers, always celebrate the coming of spring – the first robins, the cherry blossoms and the new calves. Today, people flock towards the equator as winter comes, and a lack of food forces migrating animals to leave the tundras.
Life can adapt to a bit more warmth but ice is a killer.
This fortunate generation lives in a warm inter-glacial era. When the cycles change, and the ice returns, we will yearn for some global warming and curse those fools who destroyed our capacity to extract and use our abundant carbon fuels to produce food and warmth for our people.
Viv Forbes.
