nittany ram wrote:

And maybe at least one “Gee, nittany, you’re right. How insightful. I never thought about it like that before.” response per day. I mean, he knows I’m right, so why shouldn’t he acknowledge it?

You need a Magic 8 ball.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by bnw.

I dunno.

JackPMiller wrote:

PressureD41 wrote:

I really like Ballard from KC. He has the make up I think we really need. Ya know dude has edge. Knows what he likes and doesn’t shy away from voicing it. Good track record.
Get us Sean Peyton & Chris Ballard and we will start to collect a hole lot of wins JMHO

But if the Rams want to win, they need to hire JackPMiller. Just saying.

Why not? What have the experts ever brought to the table but failed picks, failed trades and losing seasons? I suggest this slogan on all jerseys, Making The Rams Great Again.

It is only the same in that it is money given to the unemployed. It is different in that there are no strings attached while receiving the money. What is odd is that it is Finland yet the Swedish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is quoted.

I’d say when a moderator cheap shots a poster by calling them a “board warrior” then deletes any reply while threatening to ban that poster, that moderator is unfit to moderate.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

I’m not funded. However I am a geologist and geology and its related disciplines are specifically excluded from the “multi-field consensus”. I’ll answer your question but would you care to respond as to why geology is excluded from the “multi-field consensus”?

Geology hasn’t been excluded. And geologists not connected to the petroleum industry are part of the consensus on climate change.

Link: https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html

“Similarly, in response to the consensus on global warming, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists “respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data”. You’d call that type of endorsement damning with faint praise.

However, the broader community of geologists seems convinced by the evidence that humans are causing global warming. The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation. The Geological Society of America concurs that “greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s”. The Geological Society of London states that “evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater”.

Geologists most certainly have been excluded from the IPCC. The GSA is comprised of mostly academics and government geologists always on the make for government funding. Same goes for Environmental Geologists and Hydrogeologists who have a direct stake in government funding or activity mandated by law as do most geology departments not receiving funding from the mineral industry. They are susceptible to the fraud of man made global warming in the hope of getting government funding. However the data is clear and it predates human activity and shows there is no correlation between elevated CO2 and rising temperature. The AAPG is absolutely correct. That other geological organizations here and elsewhere ignored the science in the hope to secure government funding isn’t news either. What they can’t say is that there is proof in the geologic past because there isn’t. (When there is mention of the geologic past in trying to support man made global warming the misuse of the terms “sudden” or “abrupt” convey to the layman an incorrect perception of time. For these studies and the data therein are referring to geologic time which is very different. 100,000 years is an instant in geologic time and is referred to as sudden or abrupt. It makes no sense in the context of claiming over a 200 year period that is used in reference to man made global warming.) Therefore they are excluded from the panels since they can’t contribute anything to further the cause of man made global warming via increasing levels of CO2. When the hope of government funding fades so will the supposed support of man made global warming from the earth sciences in particular and other disciplines as well.

Good article for the layman giving the IPCC claim and the NIPCC response at

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#18456b775097

You claim GSA geologists are always on the make for govt funding which is why they say climate change is real yet petroleum geologists have a stake in climate change not being real. The bias goes both ways.

Not true. The mineral industry has to reconstruct past environments in order to locate exploration. The data generated for past climates is derived almost exclusively (I’d guess at least 95%.) from oil and coal exploration which mostly predates the human species. Environmental geology, hydrogeology etc. have no need to study past environments thus they lack the very data and expertise to form a valid opinion based upon the data. In fact practically all technical innovation in the science whether its drilling or computer modeling is developed by the mineral industry. To claim that the data developed by exploration/petroleum geology is biased against man made global warming is ridiculous. The data stands alone. The data also is generated by the needs of exploration which resides solely within the mineral industry.

InvaderRam wrote:

bnw wrote:

The electricity for the electric car comes from fossil fuels. The energy to produce the electric car comes from fossil fuels. Same for the energy to produce photovoltaic cells. That spare engine in your hybrid that doubles or triples the effective range of your vehicle runs on fossil fuel.

true. but that doesn’t mean it will always be the case.

But the constraints would argue against it. Rising population with ever increasing individual use of electricity is likely the future. Another thing in this case is that most electric vehicls will have to be charged in the less demand hours of over night when the cost of electricity is cheaper. You’re not going to get that electricity from solar. It will remain generated via fossil fuel for many decades to come.

I agree it would be great to have the infrastructure to be able to remove fossil fuels from power generation and transportation. Fossil fuels can be used for other things from the mundane to the most high tech materials and pharmaceuticals. It will be a great advancement to look back at use of fossil fuels for power generation and transportation with incredulity. Much like kids do now when you explain what a juke box was while they hold their MP3 player in their hand.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

I’m not funded. However I am a geologist and geology and its related disciplines are specifically excluded from the “multi-field consensus”. I’ll answer your question but would you care to respond as to why geology is excluded from the “multi-field consensus”?

Geology hasn’t been excluded. And geologists not connected to the petroleum industry are part of the consensus on climate change.

Link: https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html

“Similarly, in response to the consensus on global warming, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists “respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data”. You’d call that type of endorsement damning with faint praise.

However, the broader community of geologists seems convinced by the evidence that humans are causing global warming. The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation. The Geological Society of America concurs that “greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s”. The Geological Society of London states that “evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater”.

Geologists most certainly have been excluded from the IPCC. The GSA is comprised of mostly academics and government geologists always on the make for government funding. Same goes for Environmental Geologists and Hydrogeologists who have a direct stake in government funding or activity mandated by law as do most geology departments not receiving funding from the mineral industry. They are susceptible to the fraud of man made global warming in the hope of getting government funding. However the data is clear and it predates human activity and shows there is no correlation between elevated CO2 and rising temperature. The AAPG is absolutely correct. That other geological organizations here and elsewhere ignored the science in the hope to secure government funding isn’t news either. What they can’t say is that there is proof in the geologic past because there isn’t. (When there is mention of the geologic past in trying to support man made global warming the misuse of the terms “sudden” or “abrupt” convey to the layman an incorrect perception of time. For these studies and the data therein are referring to geologic time which is very different. 100,000 years is an instant in geologic time and is referred to as sudden or abrupt. It makes no sense in the context of claiming over a 200 year period that is used in reference to man made global warming.) Therefore they are excluded from the panels since they can’t contribute anything to further the cause of man made global warming via increasing levels of CO2. When the hope of government funding fades so will the supposed support of man made global warming from the earth sciences in particular and other disciplines as well.

Good article for the layman giving the IPCC claim and the NIPCC response at

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#18456b775097

Interesting idea and it appears Finland from a debt standpoint is in a position to try it.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland/government-debt-to-gdp

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

Watch the issue whither away in direct proportion to federal funding withheld.

It;s international.

American federal funding is just simply not the only thing supporting research which has led to robust, continuing international and multi-field consensus on the issue.

But if you are sincerely interested in the effects of funding, that is if you are more than simply partisan on this issue, what effect did energy giants funding the deniers have?

When the facts are on your side funding isn’t necessary. That will become evident with the withholding of federal funding. BTW theres nothing partisan about the geologic facts disputing man made global warming.

BTW your post was personal in that you called me “simply partisan”. That is against the rules.

There is no cognitive dissonance regarding those who see the man made global warming for the fraud it is. Watch the issue whither away in direct proportion to federal funding withheld.

Gotta love liberals and their proven to not be worth a shit polls. Shouldn’t liberals be examining their failed polls or the lies er “Fake News” fed to them by the MSM about the inevitability of her winning? Hildabeast stole the nomination from Bernie and wanted a war with Russia. Why would any Sanders supporters vote for her? She has her Wall Street big donor self and her pander monkey self to the unwashed masses. She stood for the third term of the failed Obama presidency. Liberals of conscience shouldn’t vote democrat.

There has never been any proof to the “Russia” story. Assange said the leaks were from the DNC murdered staffer and we know about Guccifer. Could be another player involved but if so it is more likely it is from inside the US intelligence community who know Hildabeast doesn’t give a shit about their welfare as her disregard for security proved by the email scandal. The Russia Story is sour grapes thrown at a boogey man that Hildabeast was chomping at the bit to go to war with as president. I hope Trump’s DOJ prosecutes her to the fullest extent of the law. Watching the democrats trying to make her a martyr will be hilarious.

Thanks for sharing. Experimental Cheesecakeology is a noble and wide open field. If you want a second opinion on a new creation I’m available. Even better if 5 or 6 new creations.

Poverty is subjective by nation so true comparisons do not exist. This list http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=69 has Taiwan listed at only 1.5% living in poverty.