the liberals welcome any dissenting view, as long as it is consistent with theirs.

Pretty soon, no one can think outside of the liberal lines,

What part of climate change theory don't you believe?
For example:
Atmospheric CO2 isn't going up.
Higher levels of CO2 don't cause warming.
Etc.

 

Respectfully:

Far be it from me to 'kibitz' - howbeit this thread is yet another of several highly politically charged discussions apparent on these fora over the last few weeks!? -- I'm bound to ask whether this site's prohibition of politically contentious topics remains in force or not? - If 'yes' -- one wonder's why enforcement tends to await frank antagonism?

Sincerely, with constructive intent
HP

 

Respectfully:

Far be it from me to 'kibitz' - howbeit this thread is yet another of several highly politically charged discussions apparent on these fora over the last few weeks!? -- I'm bound to ask whether this site's prohibition of politically contentious topics remains in force or not? - If 'yes' -- one wonder's why enforcement tends to await frank antagonism?

Sincerely, with constructive intent
HP

I thought AGW was science. Are you suggesting there is a political component?

Knock me over with a feather!

 

@HP. Personally I'm proud that these questions can be debated and disagreed on without them becoming a flame war. There may be hope for humanity yet.

 

Joe,
What am I looking for?

The 98% loss of their land since ~1955. Some due to man made and some due to sea level rise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_de_Jean_Charles,_Louisiana

 

Respectfully:

Far be it from me to 'kibitz' - howbeit this thread is yet another of several highly politically charged discussions apparent on these fora over the last few weeks!? -- I'm bound to ask whether this site's prohibition of politically contentious topics remains in force or not? - If 'yes' -- one wonder's why enforcement tends to await frank antagonism?

Sincerely, with constructive intent
HP

I don't think it's to bad. In this day and age where every thing is political.
For example I wanted to know which software was better Apple or Windows, so I ask the 2 presidential candidates which was better. One said windows because it was more transparent the other said Apple because he could take a bite of it. What's a guy to do?

 

Joe,
What am I looking for?

In 2015 the marker pin was placed on the east side of the backwater. The W in the longitude was just North of what appears to be barn structure or a house. In one pic 2006, the cartography is off. Other than that, you will see the new construction of possibly a levee, and normal tidal action over the past 20 years.

That does not correlate with the NY Times

Around the globe, governments are confronting the reality that as human-caused climate change warms the planet, rising sea levels, stronger storms, increased flooding, harsher droughts and dwindling freshwater supplies could drive the world’s most vulnerable people from their homes.

Not when Cape San Blas lost 500 feet of beachfront attributed to tropical storms. Stronger storms? When and how many ... that directly relate to this area in LA? I'm sure the mighty Mississippi River claimed some of this land.

Then I showed the Chatham Break and Chatham entrance. The break recently opened another navigational path to the Atlantic. The Officer in Charge at Chatham's motor lifeboat station sent his crew to learn and understand this break in case they needed it for a Search and rescue case. Let's say there were those that thought he put his crew at an unnecessary risk. When you look at the harbor entrance, you can see the shifting sands of the famous Chatham bar. Famous in that the Pendleton rescue a crew from Station Chatham took their 36 foot MLB (motor life boat) into the 60+ foot surf to cross the bar and rescue 32 crewmembers of the T1 Tanker Pendleton. Bear in mind they crossed the bar twice ... once with 36 people on that MLB ... it was designed to carry a max of 12. The movie "The Finest Hour" details more of that mission.

Yes, I am a skeptic. The same google earth scenarios can be seen in that little town in Alaska that was reported a year or so ago.

In 1983, I've seen the melting snow on Attu Island, destroy a culvert and land bridge over a creek near the East-West runway. I didnt physically observe the phenomenon, but I drove across it before the snow but it was impassable after the snow melted. There were only 24 inhabitants on the island at that time.

It's been reported that the NWS does not intend to adjust the data when they found out there were biases in their raw data. So, why wouldn't one be skeptical of future proclamations of theirs and anyone else who uses corrupted info. GIGO comes to mind.

 

How many people are killed each year due to living?

Maybe we should look into that.

 

How many people are killed each year due to living?

35K / year (not sure where), per today's story on the tesla auto pilot death.

I wonder if vehicles should be classified as assault cars, or assault SUVs, or assault motor cycles, or assault station wagons or assault minivans,

 

Global warming is going to bring on a new Ice Age. I read it in this article, written by a noted climate science authority.

 

Global warming is going to bring on a new Ice Age. I read it in this article, written by a noted climate science authority.

Maybe by making a new ocean channel.

 

Betty Friedan died in 2006 according to wiki.

Does anyone have a definitive date on "the foreseeable future"? The article was written in September 1958 and we are now past the authors death by a decade.

On edit:

from m-w.com
Definition of foreseeable

1: being such as may be reasonably anticipated <foreseeable problems>
2: lying within the range for which forecasts are possible <in the foreseeable future>

Interesting. Since we been toying with Nostradamus' quatrains in the present day, there is NO LIMIT to the word foreseeable for some.

 

I thought all death was the result of living.
I must have mis-understood something.

 

I found this interesting. It's from the Fall 2006 Independent review.

A popular account of Ewing and Donn’s ideas appeared in a 1958 article by Betty Friedan in Harper’s Magazine, titled “The Coming Ice Age.” The article was advertised on the magazine’s cover with the words, “The Coming Ice Age: When Will the Glaciers Reach America?” Friedan wrote that “another Ice Age . . . will not come as a sudden catastrophe, but as the inevitable culmination of a process that has already begun in northern oceans” (1958, 39).

Over the next several decades, the scientific evidence that the earth stood on the brink of another ice age grew until, in the 1970s, a substantial scientific consensus had
formed.

How did 12 years equal the next several decades? Where was the editor?

 

I thought AGW was science. Are you suggesting there is a political component?

I don't think it's to bad. In this day and age where every thing is political.
For example I wanted to know which software was better Apple or Windows, so I ask the 2 presidential candidates which was better. One said windows because it was more transparent the other said Apple because he could take a bite of it. What's a guy to do?

Seriously - everybody --- Some years ago I was involved in the administration of an 'astronomy-themed' discussion site (which shall remain nameless but for its 'initials' [to wit 'HZ'] ) --- In a bid to curb the occasional minor squabbles, 'endemic' to all manner of public fora, via provision of opportunity for 'harmless' catharsis - A forum dedicated to political and otherwise contentious discussion (aptly dubbed 'The Flame Room') was instituted -- Sadly, instead of a 'safety valve', said forum became a veritable breeding ground for personal rancor, festering resentment and outright hatred - said acrimony pervading the fora at large with corollary reduction of overall tone to that of GLP! --- Do I hear someone say it can't happen here? - Perhaps not -- I certainly hope not! -- even so, it is worthy of note that, as with these fora, the active kernel of the 'HZ' was (and AFAIK remains) comprised of academics and other highly educated professionals -- Point being; Political discussion is pointless at best (i.e. nobody is going to change anybody's mind no matter how 'persuasive' an argument) and, sadly, very often destructive to social communities -- We don't need it!

The following are a list of what is not permitted in this forum:...

- No Spamming or Advertising
- No Abusing or Insulting Members
- No Adult, Vulgar, Offensive, or other Contentious Content
- No Politics
- No HHO, overunity, or Meyer

--Emphasis Added--

What part of the above am I misunderstanding? --- Nuff said...

Sincerely, best regards
HP

 

Seriously - everybody --- Some years ago I was involved in the administration of an 'astronomy-themed' discussion site (which shall rename nameless but for its 'initials' [to wit 'HZ'] ) --- In a bid to curb the occasional minor squabbles, 'endemic' to all manner of public fora, via provision of opportunity for 'harmless' catharsis - A forum dedicated to political and otherwise contentious discussion (aptly dubbed 'The Flame Room') was instituted -- Sadly, instead of a 'safety valve', said forum became a veritable breeding ground for personal rancor, festering resentment and outright hatred - said acrimony pervading the fora at large with corollary reduction of overall tone to that of GLP! --- Do I hear someone say it can't happen here? - Perhaps not -- I certainly hope not! -- even so, it is worthy of note that, as with these fora, the active kernel of the 'HZ' was (and AFAIK remains) comprised of academics and other highly educated professionals -- Point being; Political discussion is pointless at best (i.e. nobody is going to change anybody's mind no matter how 'persuasive' an argument) and, sadly, very often destructive to social communities -- We don't need it!


--Emphasis Added--

What part of the above am I misunderstanding? --- Nuff said...

Sincerely, best regards
HP

But at least you knew who to hate. Here it takes some time to figure that out.

 

But at least you knew who to hate. Here it takes some time to figure that out.

Oh! What the hey! -- Having said my piece, my conscience is now clear -- So... time to take my turn at munching popcorn um... roasting marshmallows (via a 4-meter camp fork)

Don't say I didn't warn you!
HP

 

What part of the above am I misunderstanding?

"No politics" seems pretty damn clear to me, so I doubt you're misunderstanding any part of it.

 

But at least you knew who to hate. Here it takes some time to figure that out.

Frankly, I'd prefer not to know; I'd much rather have an environment that allows us to enjoy discussing electronics in an atmosphere that isn't polluted by death-match debates over politically-charged topics like global warming.

There are plenty of places on the 'net to debate that stuff. This isn't one of them.

 

Over the next several decades, the scientific evidence that the earth stood on the brink of another ice age grew until, in the 1970s, a substantial scientific consensus had
formed.

Many of today's global warming advocates were equal avid advocates of "global cooling" then,

Back then, scientists actively discussed burning fossil fuel for the express purpose of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, to deter global cooling,

I think in the end global warming (or global cooling or climate change) will turn out to be a hoax, an expensive one as well. The proponents have trouble answering questions people have and are unable to justify their positions. So they have turned to political correctness and taken the elitists approach (= I'm smarter than you so if you disagree with me you are dumb as a rock) to silence critics.

Not any different from what any totalitarian regime would have done.