PAID MLPA LIARS HERE TO PROMOTE THE GOVERNMENT LIES?

Status
Not open for further replies.

invictus

AVD
May 26, 2006
4,416
2,003
Orange County
Name
Jason
Boat
Tiara 2000 Cuddy
I'm just glad that the 93% of all climate scientists who concur on the subject of Global Warming used scientific data to extrapolate their opinions, rather than watch a movie that is funded by the Koch Brothers and produced to allow them to continue to rape the planet. When you are under water and the Earth is completely trashed, you will probably still be glued to the TV, watching O'Reilly and Hannity yell at people who use science to form their opinions and continue to promote the Koch Agenda. Good luck. I hope the science is wrong.

I didn't advocate one position or the other, I just asked you to put your info against his. The discussion is what drives the argument, not talking shit on each other or questioning where I get my news.

As far as I am concerned, they are all lying.
 
Upvote 0

peteking

Everybody take a look at the bad guy-T. Montana
Apr 21, 2013
1,311
661
Arcadia/CA/USA
Name
Pete King
Boat
Ohana
I didn't advocate one position or the other, I just asked you to put your info against his. The discussion is what drives the argument, not talking shit on each other or questioning where I get my news.

As far as I am concerned, they are all lying.


Right on, Jason. The global warming "debate" is not debated at all in the scientific community. It is fact. On this board there are a lot of people who should be advocates of saving the ocean and planet. It is "misinformation" that is promoted by big business that is delaying our response to the most serious threat that mankind has ever faced.

Simplistic view: If 93 out of 100 doctors told you that you have cancer and need treatment, would you hang-on to the opinion of the other 7% and not attend to the problem?

The choice is ours. We can take major steps to save the Earth. Again, I hope the science is wrong...
 
Upvote 0

Sgtsilbaugh

"Keep calm and.........FISH ON!!!!"
Apr 14, 2014
1,222
438
Brea
Name
Kevin
Boat
qajaq
Right on, Jason. The global warming "debate" is not debated at all in the scientific community. It is fact. On this board there are a lot of people who should be advocates of saving the ocean and planet. It is "misinformation" that is promoted by big business that is delaying our response to the most serious threat that mankind has ever faced.

Simplistic view: If 93 out of 100 doctors told you that you have cancer and need treatment, would you hang-on to the opinion of the other 7% and not attend to the problem?

The choice is ours. We can take major steps to save the Earth. Again, I hope the science is wrong...



Fyi- saving the planet is an agenda perpetuated by United Nations agenda 21, for global takeover. Don't believe, check out agenda 21 on the United Nations website for yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: graphikone
Upvote 0

Sgtsilbaugh

"Keep calm and.........FISH ON!!!!"
Apr 14, 2014
1,222
438
Brea
Name
Kevin
Boat
qajaq
^^^^
And he goes right back to videos and conspiracy theories to prove his point. Sheeeeesh.

We need some comedy to lighten up the conversation. I'm sorry that you're so negative and feel the need to crap on people with zero tangible evidence to support you're theories. Please get back to us once you've done some homework to debate on you're theories.
 
Upvote 0

plj46

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Jan 7, 2008
8,604
11,323
Socal
Name
john
Boat
24 ft grady white
We need some comedy to lighten up the conversation. I'm sorry that you're so negative and feel the need to crap on people with zero tangible evidence to support you're theories. Please get back to us once you've done some homework to debate on you're theories.
keep posting you're a funny guy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sgtsilbaugh
Upvote 0

peteking

Everybody take a look at the bad guy-T. Montana
Apr 21, 2013
1,311
661
Arcadia/CA/USA
Name
Pete King
Boat
Ohana
Here you go Sarge.

You were probably watching a video on the day of the following lesson:


Your or you're worksheets. Printables for your or you're. Words commonly confused worksheets and printables. Remember to use your when referring to a belonging, something that is yours and you're when you are referring to you are. You're is a contraction or short form for you are.

Click for Larger Image and
pd_text.jpg

Answers to your or you're
Your or you're
Your or you're
Your or you're

All worksheets are created by experienced and qualified teachers. Send your suggestions or comments.
 
Upvote 0

Sgtsilbaugh

"Keep calm and.........FISH ON!!!!"
Apr 14, 2014
1,222
438
Brea
Name
Kevin
Boat
qajaq
Here you go Sarge.

You were probably watching a video on the day of the following lesson:


Your or you're worksheets. Printables for your or you're. Words commonly confused worksheets and printables. Remember to use your when referring to a belonging, something that is yours and you're when you are referring to you are. You're is a contraction or short form for you are.

Click for Larger Image and
pd_text.jpg

Answers to your or you're
Your or you're
Your or you're
Your or you're

All worksheets are created by experienced and qualified teachers. Send your suggestions or comments.
You better do your homework young man, or you're teacher is going to fail you!!!
 
Upvote 0

BiggestT

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Sep 8, 2004
12,133
8,155
Fullerton
Name
SM
Boat
Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming
Thomas Lifson
The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."
"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."
The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:
Oreskes%20study%20re-run.png

The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.
The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."

Here's a summary of a published and peer reviewed paper also debunking the 97% consensus:

Look Inside Get Access
Find out how to access preview-only content
Science & Education
August 2013
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95 *
Rent the article at a discount
Rent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Get Access
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Page %P
spacer.gif

Close Plain text

So it would appear that some of the posters here have fully drank the KoolAid. Not a surprise given their demonstrated intellectual capacity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: graphikone
Upvote 0

JFK

I Should Upgrade My Account
Apr 3, 2008
1,639
355
Santa Cruz, Ca
Name
James
Boat
14' Livingston skiff
Enter the self appointed BD Climate Change guru with the airtight arguement supported by an obsure Canadian think tank.

Impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wils
Upvote 0

Sgtsilbaugh

"Keep calm and.........FISH ON!!!!"
Apr 14, 2014
1,222
438
Brea
Name
Kevin
Boat
qajaq
Enter the self appointed BD Climate Change guru with the airtight arguement supported by an obsure Canadian think tank.

Impressive.

Ever since so many credible people debunked global warming, they have since changed their sales pitch to "climate change". Well no f-ing shit, climate changes 4 times a year in many places!! Should we blame cavemen for the ice age? ?
 
Upvote 0

BiggestT

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Sep 8, 2004
12,133
8,155
Fullerton
Name
SM
Boat
Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
Enter the self appointed BD Climate Change guru with the airtight arguement supported by an obsure Canadian think tank.

Impressive.

You know what they say, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger (i.e. obscure Canadian think tank).

This is what happens when the unlearned simply rely on headlines and sound bites, without doing their own homework. Unfortunately (actually fortunately for me) this is what the preponderance of the population does.

I say fortunately for me because I am heavily invested in equities, always have been. They've been very good to me, but that's because I do a considerable amount of research of my own. I would never make a snap investment decision based on headlines, yet the preponderance of people in the market do exactly this. 9 times out 10 I could ask someone here what the EV/EBITDA ratio was on their purchase and they wouldn't know WTF I'm talking about. Yet that ratio is a pretty standard valuation method used for equities (it's the Enterprise Value / Cash Flow, or what you're willing to pay for the cash flow).

My point is that most simply do not do their homework and they just rely on headlines being fed to them by the media propaganda machines. As a result, they're charter members of the herd.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sgtsilbaugh

"Keep calm and.........FISH ON!!!!"
Apr 14, 2014
1,222
438
Brea
Name
Kevin
Boat
qajaq
You know what they say, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger (i.e. obscure Canadian think tank).

This is what happens when the unlearned simply rely on headlines and sound bites, without doing their own homework. Unfortunately (actually fortunately for me) this is what the preponderance of the population does.

I say fortunately for me because I am heavily invested in equities, always have been. They've been very good to me, but that's because I do a considerable amount of research of my own. I would never make a snap investment decision based on headlines, yet the preponderance of people in the market do exactly this. 9 times out 10 I could ask someone here what the EV/EBITDA ratio was on their purchase and they wouldn't know WTF I'm talking about. Yet that ratio is a pretty standard valuation method used for equities (it's the Enterprise Value / Cash Flow, or what you're willing to pay for the cash flow).

My point is that most simply do not do their homework and they just rely on headlines being fed to them by the media propaganda machines. As a result, they're charter members of the herd.


Exactly!!! You hit the nail on the head my friend!!
 
Upvote 0

BiggestT

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Sep 8, 2004
12,133
8,155
Fullerton
Name
SM
Boat
Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
And this was just published. "Chicken vs Egg" scenario for Climate Change and Carbon Cycling. Imagine that.....

Ice Age Reboot: Ocean Current Shutdown Viewed as Culprit

By By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer 1 hour ago
0 shares
Content preferences
Done

.
View photo
The thermohaline circulation is a global ocean current that redistributes warm surface water and cold, …
A dramatic slowdown in deep ocean currents matches a major reset in Earth's ice ages about 1 million years ago, new evidence from the South Atlantic seafloor suggests.
The discovery doesn't mean the ocean current stall-out is the only culprit behind the change in Earth's incessant ice ages, the study authors said. However, the findings provide new evidence that Earth's oceans can significantly alter its climate.
"We cannot tell for sure what broke the cycle," said lead study author Leopoldo Pena of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York. "Our evidence shows the oceans played a major role." [Infographic: Tallest Mountain to Deepest Ocean Trench]
For unknown reasons, about 950,000 years ago, Earth's ice age cycles suddenly lengthened, from 41,000 years to 100,000 years. The planet's thermostat was tweaked at the same time, with ice ages growing colder than before.
"This is the largest climatic change that has happened on our planet in the last 2 million years," Pena said. "For many decades, scientists have been trying to understand what happened."
The big switch took place without the usual suspects, such as a drop in energy from the sun due to orbital wobbles. So scientists turned to climate change for a possible cause. Pena and his co-authors have now discovered that a huge ocean "conveyor belt" stalled at the same time as the ice age switch. Their findings were published today (June 26) in the journal Science Express.
The conveyor belt is a global current system scientists call the thermohaline circulation (THC). The circulation pattern moves warm surface water from the Southern Hemisphere toward the northern latitudes, where it grows cold and salty and sinks. The denser water then flows back toward the south along the deep seafloor. The Gulf Stream is part of this giant conveyor belt. Paleoclimate records show the THC currents have operated for millions of years. [Video:
Animation Reveals Ocean Currents
]
Tracing ancient currents
To track the strength of the ancient THC currents, Pena analyzed levels of neodymium in minerals crusted onto tiny shells of dead plankton. The minerals were encrusted after the plankton died, as the shells dropped to the seafloor. The neodymium indicates where the deep seawater came from, Pena said. For example, waters from the North Atlantic have a distinct neodymium "flavor" versus waters from the North Pacific.
By measuring the neodymium in shells in seafloor mud deposited during the past million years, Pena can estimate whether North Atlantic waters were flowing south, or if the current shut down.
When the ice age cycle was every 41,000 years, the THC currents were normal strength even during glacial periods, the researchers found. But 950,000 years ago, something shut down the conveyor belt during a glacial period. The crisis lasted 100,000 years, Pena said, and then the current recovered. However, after the transition, when Earth was in its 100,000-year ice age cycle, the ocean current grew weaker or stalled every time there was an ice age.
The researchers suspect the colder ice ages after the big flip meant large ice sheets in the North Atlantic shut down the ocean conveyor belt.
But for now, Pena says scientists aren't sure which came first — bigger ice sheets or a broken ocean conveyor belt. There was also a huge drop in carbon dioxide 950,000 years ago, which also played a role in cooling the planet. The sluggish conveyor belt could have contributed to this drop by hoarding the greenhouse gas in the deep ocean, Pena said.
"It's a chicken-and-egg question," Pena said.
Christopher Charles, a climate scientist who was not involved in the study, agrees that it's unlikely a single cause will emerge. The deep ocean could be one of many triggers for the ice age change.
"It's extremely likely that the switch in ice age cycling was at least strongly influenced by, if not controlled by, carbon cycling," said Charles, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. "It would not be at all surprising to me if ocean mixing somehow played a role in governing the storage of carbon in the deep ocean."
 
Upvote 0

plj46

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Jan 7, 2008
8,604
11,323
Socal
Name
john
Boat
24 ft grady white
This whole topic has become comical,why do guys even care so much ? you will be dead and decomposed before any of your theories or beliefs even matter.What a bunch of non-sense.An MLPA debate turned global warming blah blah blah.Again giant conspiracy started by our founding fathers to control us in the futureLOL
 
Upvote 0

BiggestT

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Sep 8, 2004
12,133
8,155
Fullerton
Name
SM
Boat
Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
This whole topic has become comical,why do guys even care so much ? you will be dead and decomposed before any of your theories or beliefs even matter.What a bunch of non-sense.An MLPA debate turned global warming blah blah blah.Again giant conspiracy started by our founding fathers to control us in the futureLOL

I'll give you a reason why it matters: Your electricity rates will go up. They already have been and they will go higher as a result of policies and laws being implemented to address this hoax. Increased electricity rates takes money out of your pocket that you could otherwise spend on fishing. So this Climate Change agenda is already affecting your way of life, yet you don't even care or even realize it. The enviros behind this agenda are manipulating you like a puppet on strings, or as any BD member would understand: you're their little bitch.
 
Upvote 0

Omarkayak

I've posted enough I should know better...
Jul 26, 2007
1,193
550
Northridge, CA
Name
Donald W. Clarke III
Boat
11+ ft, Ocean Kayak Scrambler, P 'N' Queue Pod
All's I can say is when Newport is awash in sea water I'm gonna go on record as a climate change skeptic. 'Cause that's the kinda guy I am. Elevation 5 feet and counting. Backward.

Like the one poster suggested we should be so lucky to live that long. Don't know what the kids will think about it.

Good fishin'!
BDC OK
 
Upvote 0

ConSeaMate

Legend in my own mind
Sep 6, 2005
2,686
286
65
Escondido
Name
Buster Brown
Boat
28' Silverton "ConSeaMate"
Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims
Comment Now
Follow Comments
300px-Antarctica_glacial_hg.svg_1.png

Modelled maximum extent of the Antarctic ice sheet 21,000 years before present (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have asked my very good friend Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.

Fred, it’s obvious that the IPCC has got lots of ‘splainin’ to do about how their previous global warming doomsday predictions based upon hypothetical computer models they claimed to have confidence in got it so wrong . That won’t be easy. Political operatives at their upcoming damage-control meeting in Stockholm this week will have to figure out how to spin evidence of a 17 year “pause” in global temperature rise and the expanding Arctic ice mass despite what they love to describe as “record high” atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Few would care about any of these climate crisis capers at all, were it not for the epic climate science budget bonanza rising ocean scare. The simplified, dumbed-down story packaged and distributed for the public goes like this:

  • Evil carbon dioxide from human fossil burning is heating the climate to unprecedented levels.
  • This is causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise at an accelerating and disastrous rate.
  • The salvation of our planet depends upon an immediate transition to wind and solar energy, electric cars and bicycles, and less consumption-oriented lifestyles.
Is everything really that simple?

Larry, no, reality is a good deal more complex than that. First of all, the accelerated warming that was forecast to produce catastrophic sea level rise flooding Bangladesh and Pacific islands causing hundreds of millions of refugees to flee coastal regions hasn’t occurred. This isn’t to say either that the planet hasn’t been warming, or that sea levels haven’t risen. Of course they have, although these are hardly new developments. I can also make an argument that rising sea levels and warming periods may be somewhat disconnected matters.

Let’s understand that the world’s mean temperatures have been rising at a pretty constant rate of about one degree Ferenheight (0.6oC) over the past 100 years, and is likely to continue , although with both warmer and cooler fluctuations, for many hundreds of years into the future. Over each of the past several centuries, including the last one, sea levels rose by about 7 inches (18 cm).

Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution… nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can’t even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD… a period which was considerably colder than now.

Incidentally, do you remember when presidential candidate Obama declared during his June 8, 2008 victory speech as Democratic Party nominee that his presidency will be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”? Well although some tidal gauge data does show deceleration, since it started in 1960, the year he was conceived, he probably can’t take full credit for that.

There are proxy records, including organic and ocean sediment data, that provide a picture of past temperatures. But how can we really know the history of sea level changes dating back hundreds of years, or even during recent times?

Larry, tidal station gauges have been in existence for a century now, and as I mentioned earlier, the measured rate of sea level rise has been quite constant, about 18 cm per century. We can also get some picture of temperature and sea level changes over past millennia by looking at melting shrinkage rates of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This can be determined by noting how much its “grounding line”, the points where it makes contact with the underlying land mass, has receded. Unlike floating sea ice which doesn’t influence sea level when it melts, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is part of the land mass. When it melts, it adds to sea level just as melting glaciers do.

The end of the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago caused the sea level to rise by a huge amount…about 400 feet. This change happened rapidly at first, caused primarily by the melting of huge ice sheets covering North America and Eurasian land masses which disappeared about 8000-5000 years ago.

The West Antarctic Ice sheet began to melt at that time also, but at a much slower rate, and that melting continues today. We might expect this melting to continue until it is gone in another 7,000 years or so… or until the next Ice Age, whichever comes first. Other smaller ice sheets that once existed in the Antarctic are already gone. The oceans will continue to rise, despite anything President Obama may attempt in order to stop them.

Fred, you said earlier that we can’t necessarily correlate warmer temperatures with sea level rise…yet you did just attribute continued melting since the last Ice Age to dramatic ocean rise. Isn’t this inconsistent?

Larry, it would be if it was all really that simple. However much depends upon other influences and the time scales involved. It’s one thing if warmer temperatures persist for millennia. In that case, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melting rate will increase, and so will the sea level increase rate. On the other hand, short term warming fluctuations lasting decades or less are a different matter.

This is where some other influences come into play. One big one involves changes in Antarctic ice accumulation which actually comes about due to warming and other causes that lower sea level by transferring water from the ocean to land mass. Another is thermal expansion of oceans due to warming. Still another involves changes in coastal and subsea land surface elevations that influence and complicate reliable sea level measurements.

Then on top of all that, there are erratic and unpredictable glacier changes that are influenced by a host of different natural factors. A study reported in the May 2012 issue of Science examined 200 of them across the Greenland continent between 2000-2010 using radar data collected from synthetic aperture satellites. It found that their individual flow rates varied both in location and time.

Glaciers with growth rates that were accelerating during a few years, decelerated in others. Some accelerating glaciers were in proximity to others that were decelerating. Their individual behaviors were thought to be influenced by a variety of factors, including: fjord, glacier, and bed geometry; local climate; and small-scale ocean water flow and terminus sea ice conditions. Overall, melting speed-ups were much lower than IPCC models projected.

Again, regarding temperature influences upon sea levels, consider, for example, what happened when the global climate sharply warmed between 1920 and 1940. Data shows that the sea level actually rose during that period, and then accelerated after temperatures cooled. How can this happen? One important clue is that a warming ocean evaporates more water, and a lot of it rains out in polar regions, transferring that water to the ice caps. This produces a net sea level lowering influence, counteracting the rising influences of glacier melts and ocean thermal expansion.

The Antarctic continent has been gaining ice accumulation. This might well suggest that between 1920 and 1940, ocean water thermal expansion and mountain glacier melting were less important to sea level than ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent. Unfortunately, the science is not advanced enough to be certain, and reliable data on ice accumulation over the whole Antarctic continent have not been available.

Fred, what about sea level data? How accurate is that?

There are some considerable problems and uncertainties regarding the ways we collect that data. To do this we use two different methods, tidal gauges and satellite measurements. Much of my particular expertise involves the latter.

There are about two dozen tidal gauge stations in the world, with data going back to the early 1900s which have been used by international tidal gauge network in Liverpool, England. These stations measure relative sea level with respect to coastal land surface. A big problem is that ever since the melting of glacial ice cover from northern continents over several millennia, the land surface has rebounded in some places…a process called “isostatic adjustment”. This is like what a mattress does when you get out of bed, only a whole lot slower. At the same time, many tidal stations have been sinking due to coastal subsidence caused by depletion of groundwater…yes, by humans… that has led to compaction of sediments.

Sea level satellite observations date back only to 1993, which is a very short time to draw trend conclusions. Whereas tidal stations measure the sea level relative to coastal land surface, satellites measure “absolute” sea level independent of vertical coastal surface changes. In this regard, satellites have an inherent advantage over tidal stations, but the figures don’t match up.

So then, how does IPCC arrive at its alarmist conclusions?

When in doubt, and they always are, they just make them up based upon hypothetical models that have yet to comply with observed conditions. And as for those models, it’s important to realize that no overall sea level change theory encompassing thermal expansion of oceans, melting of mountain glaciers, and changes, both positive and negative, of Greenland and Antarctic sheets even exists.

A leading researcher, Bruce Douglas, termed all of this a “puzzle”, while famed Scripps Institute oceanographer Walter Munk calls it an “enigma”. Perhaps it’s like Churchill’s description of Soviet Russia, “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”.

In any case, let’s review what IPCC has projected in their Summary for Policymakers reports crafted for prime time media audiences:

  • The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100. That’s some range!
  • The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100.
  • The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100.
  • The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draft…then changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version.
The good news here, if there really is any, is that each of the successive summary report maximum estimates decreased, all being much smaller than the 600 cm sea level rise trumpeted by former NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science activist James Hansen and climate multi-millionaire Gore.

A draft of the IPCC’s 5th report that was leaked to the press now projects a sea level rise by 2100 of 45-110 cm (16-40 inches) …about double of what they showed six years ago. What is particularly remarkable about this is that the report shows zero sea rise values before 1880, while the coral data and coastal sediments do.

Tidal gauge data show no acceleration during strong warming between 1920-40 (a period when CO2 concentrations were lower)…with levels continuing to rise during slight cooling of 1940-75, and also during a recent 17-year warming “pause”. Yet IPCC-2013 shows increasing values (acceleration) throughout the entire period. It appears that this record may have been falsified.

How did IPCC arrive at their projections?

They compiled the 1996 data from three sources:

  • Thermal expansion of warming oceans was assumed to contribute about 4 cm.
  • Melting of continental glaciers was credited for about 3.5 cm.
  • Polar region ice accumulations (a net lowering from water transfer from oceans) was also estimated.
Altogether, these three contributions would only account for about 20 percent of the observed 18 cm rise since 1900…so what is missing? If it is surmised from the absence of observed acceleration during 1920-40, then ice accumulation roughly balances thermal expansion and contributions from melting glaciers. On that basis, why is the sea level rising at all?

So Fred, what is the answer? If global warming actually lowers the sea level that some are so worried about, and we can help that along by burning more coal and other fossils, should we start doing so right away to save Venice residents and tourists from drowning?

No Larry. That’s really not my point here. I only wish to offer a modest appeal for the public and politicians to take note that better, more honest and objective science is needed, to be wary about motives and claims of U.N. climate treaty negotiators, and to understand that draconian regulatory limits upon energy use will not quell rising tides.

Having said this, there are many serious issues that do warrant a great deal more study. Included are regional and local effects and adaptations associated with isostatic changes, land subsidence, ocean currents, wind patterns and other factors. More efforts are also needed to harmonize conflicting data from tidal gauges and direct measurements of ocean surface by satellites.

Thanks Fred. In other words, let’s keep our heads above the water line and not get too feverish about what we hear from IPCC. After all, even Al Gore seems to have changed his mind about the threat. In his An Inconvenient Truth film, didn’t he feature an animation depicting a sudden global-warming-induced break-up of the Antarctic Peninsula’s Larson-B ice shelf in 2002, suggesting that the entire Greenland Ice Sheet might suffer the same fate during this century?

But if he was still really worried, why would he risk making an underwater investment in a big $9 million ocean-view villa in Montecito, California?
 
Upvote 0

IBAFT

Almost A Member
Oct 6, 2008
177
34
Long Beach
Name
Albert
Boat
Currently Without Vessel
I see the secret society dirtbags are out calling everyone who sees the truth as "nuts". How typical. The great thing about it all? Justice finds us all one day and your little Masonic Lodge membership, ACORN privilege card, Council on Foreign Relations access card, SOLYNDRA name badge (or whatever) will not count too much when you stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty, quivering in fear for your betrayal to the truth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BiggestT

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Sep 8, 2004
12,133
8,155
Fullerton
Name
SM
Boat
Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
Enter the self appointed BD Climate Change guru with the airtight arguement supported by an obsure Canadian think tank.

Impressive.

I'm sure the fact that you live in Santa Cruz has nothing to do with your views.LOL
 
Upvote 0

Sgtsilbaugh

"Keep calm and.........FISH ON!!!!"
Apr 14, 2014
1,222
438
Brea
Name
Kevin
Boat
qajaq
I'm surprised that the AL Gore's of this world haven't tried to use the El Nino this year to argue their global warming scam!!

I just hope to catch a tuna, Dorado, billfish, or some other warm water pelagic from my kayak unassisted ( no mother ship) this year!!!
 
Upvote 0

Rick Lee

Newbie
Aug 24, 2015
67
18
Temecula
Name
Ricky Lee
Boat
Looking for a 19 foot center console skiff
Many times on this board and others, numerous people tried to warn their fellow countrymen, and specifically their fellow fishermen, that not only is the MLPA a complete scam and resource grab by the criminals in government and those that own them in higher circles, but that those posters on these message boards so strongly defending the MLPA were very likely paid shills sent here to spread misinformation and try to shape public opinion in favor of this lie.

Well, to no surprise for some, the truth has finally surfaced (in the Wall Street Journal) that governments and special interest groups routinely send out liars and shills onto Internet chat and message boards to try and shape public opinions with their chaos, deceit and manipulation. In the case of some message boards, the shill can even be the administrator of the particular chat room, or even the entire website, who then have the power to either remove posts and the person speaking truth from the room, or terminate the topic of discussion entirely.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/09/busted-governments-hire-web-trolls-to-sway-public-opinion-2771096.html?utm_medium=verticalresponse&utm_campaign=&utm_content=beforeit39snews-verticalresponse&utm_source=direct-b4in.info&utm_term=http://b4in.info/cHAJ

The lesson for the day? ALWAYS question human authority, never quit learning, and think for yourself, with the emphasis on always!
Nicely said James, You don't have to look even with the WSJ, it's been here in Calif. since The signing of 1999, Gov. Gray Davis Bill "MLPA". The Bill had no funding from Tax Payer's, so who did The Corrupt Ca. Politicians go to was The Private Sector. No, Not The Pro-Fisherman Groups , but, The Enviro's, who spent 28 million to stop us from fishing in the 16.50 % of The California Coast. Did they win , hell yes !
I will be limited in what I say here, but I feel what your saying, Our voice is not heard here. My Cry, has been for 12 year's to inform private Angler's from The Overthrow of our Oceans to The Enviro's.
If one thing I would like for you and other BD member's to remember, is that Under our Constitution, we are not beholden to The NON-Govermnet Org's., We are beholden to The "PEOPLE"....US. ....This is what American escaped from In 1776 "Tyranny and Dictatorship, as we have now, from Non-Gov. Enviro's dictating what we can fish and where we can fish !!!!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.