Scientific Reports Confirm Catastrophic Climate Change

There are new reports confirming not only climate change but escalating losses of arctic ice. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s annual Arctic report card has found that this is the hottest year on record in the Arctic and it is now twice as fast as any other place on Earth. Another international study found that the rapid loss of glaciers is caused by climate change to a certainty of 99 percent.


NOAA found a “massive decline in sea ice and snow” in the Arctic region with temperatures near the North Pole reaching an unprecedented 20°C (36°F) warmer than average in November.

The data from 61 scientists in 11 countries showed that air temperatures over the Arctic from October 2015 to September 2016 were “by far the highest in the observational record beginning in 1900”.

In the meantime, warmer ocean water has reached the largest glacier which is shrinking at a record rate.

The impact could well be catastrophic for the planet. The permafrost holds a huge amount of carbon which is released with the melting — releasing more CO2 and methane into atmosphere. That will further speed up climate change . . . which will result in more ice melting in an accelerating downward spiral.

191 thoughts on “Scientific Reports Confirm Catastrophic Climate Change

  1. Maybe,we are,bored,with the,original point? This,might have been,mentioned above, but themelting Arctic ice might not be unalloyed evil. Many men and much treasure were expended on a Northwest Passage in the Age of Exploration. Now we might have one. Shipping might be more economical through the Arctic than Panama, or Tierra del Fuego. Of course, Putin gets his coveted warm weather port as well.

  2. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trumps_energy_nostalgia_and_the_path_to_hell_20161219Indeed, stop thinking of Trump’s energy policy as primarily aimed at helping the fossil fuel companies (although some will surely benefit). Think of it instead as a nostalgic compulsion aimed at restoring a long-vanished America in which coal plants, steel mills, and gas-guzzling automobiles were the designated indicators of progress, while concern over pollution—let alone climate change—was yet to be an issue.

    If you want confirmation that such a devastating version of nostalgia makes up the heart and soul of Trump’s energy agenda, don’t focus on his specific proposals or any particular combination of them. Look instead at his choice of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state and former Governor Rick Perry from oil-soaked Texas as his secretary of energy, not to mention the carbon-embracing fervor that ran through his campaign statements and positions. According to his election campaign website, his top priority will be to “unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.” In doing so, it affirmed, Trump would “open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands, eliminate [the] moratorium on coal leasing, and open shale energy deposits.” In the process, any rule or regulation that stands in the way of exploiting these reserves will be obliterated.

    If all of Trump’s proposals are enacted, U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will soar, wiping out the declines of recent years and significantly increasing the pace of global warming. Given that other major GHG emitters, especially India and China, will feel less obliged to abide by their Paris commitments if the U.S. heads down that path, it’s almost certain that atmospheric warming will soar beyond the 2 degree Celsius rise over pre-industrial levels that scientists consider the maximum the planet can absorb without suffering catastrophic repercussions. And if, as promised, Trump also repeals a whole raft of environmental regulations and essentially dismantles the Environmental Protection Agency, much of the progress made over recent years in improving our air and water quality will simply be wiped away, and the skies over our cities and suburbs will once again turn gray with smog and toxic pollutants of all sorts.

    • Another great example of subjectivism and the application of a philosophy that says ‘saying’ is the same as ‘doing.’

      Any chance of something worth discussing in the near future?

      Ahh yes. the inadequate writing skills of reporters in constructing a believable sentence were strained to day when one said the Republicans would get to appoint ‘several’ Supreme court Justices. Several is four to seven. Two or three are ‘a few.’ They might make it but four seems a stretch barring eight for Trump and eight for Pence. Do you suppose that was the point all along. Who knows it was Fox not CNN.

      • Michael — Where did you get your definition of several? My unabridged Webster Dictionary defines it as more than two but not many. No mention of from 4 to 7. I have never heard the word used to mean specifically 4 to 7. I’ve always thought it certainly less than 6 or 7. Even five seems a stretch to me for this word. Four I can buy.

    • A great photo of a once bustling with energy dock area not hosting four or five of my fellow sailboaters. But the hundreds that used to work there have disappeared having used up their six months of unemployment. and are no longer counted as among the living.

  3. Several years ago Al Gore was preaching to us that sea levels would rise. About the same time he purchased an ocean front home in California for $9.5 million. You just have to forgive me if I have questions about mr. Gores religion. I do believe that climate change has happened and probably is happening now. What I worry about is how some of these environmentalist are going to have us pay for their religion.

    • We can agree that certain individuals and Al Gore is one of them, have a lot to improve upon in their personal choices. What a jerk!

      But that proves nothing one way or the other about global warming. Al Gore has zero to do with the science of climate change. Nor is he the solution or any part of it other than to make some people aware of the problem in an admittedly ironic way given his personal choices.

      What I worry about is how some of these environmentalist are going to have us pay for their religion.

      Your question is rhetorical. By defining response to climate change as a religion, you obviate response but also logic. Arguments of affordability are absurd when applied to events such as global warming. It’s like saying the Dutch couldn’t afford dykes to prevented the ocean from coming in and drowning many and claiming life critical agricultural land. They couldn’t not afford it.

      And as far as the effects of climate change go, very likely neither can we.

    • Bob –
      If you concede the possibility that climate change might be real, and that it might have serious consequences, why are you only worried about the “paying for” part?

    • They will always find enough to fund their secular 700 club. Mother gumpitis is not curable. However to answer the question in a practical way any real estate agent in Klamath Falls, Oregon can sell future ocean front property in advance of everytning east of the Cascades falling into the Atlantic Ocean.

  4. Once again, interesting how war’s impact on the environment is not discussed. It’s also interesting that democrat’s wars are conveniently excluded from the discussion. 116 years is not a very good base to pull data from to make a large-scale projection, and even I know that. But what we do know is that we are currently poisoning the planet and feeling results at this very moment in time, but the argument is solely about the future. Still reeks a little of bait and switch to me. If you really care, change the way you live. You’ll all want to cry about what someone else is doing, but you’ll turn off the argument if it affects your thin skins.

    • Why would an environmentalist be for war. Oil grabbers and polluters are more inclined to be for war. Let’s make ending wars and dependence on fossil fuels our goals. Be a good steward of the earth in all ways………

          • Government may appear to be Caesars in your mind but that is due to a lack of stewardship.

            Anyway, your logic does not flow. Government exists because we exist, not the other way around. Government is therefore subordinate to the people. And the people are subordinate to God.

            • You may feel subordinate to God, but I am not. So I reject any effort by anyone to force me to accept that I am subordinate to the mythological entity to whom you choose to be subordinate. Subordinate yourself to your heart’s content. But take no action, make no decisions that require that I behave in a subordinate way to your fiction.

              • “But take no action, make no decisions that require that I behave in a subordinate way to your fiction.”

                Create no agency, pass no law, place no man or woman above the rule of law. You keep your fiction/fantasy away from our government and you should not need to be concerned with mine.

                • Just what fiction/fantasy are you claiming that I have? I have no issue with creating no agency, passing no law, nor placing no man or woman above the rule of law. I am all for the rule of law. But not a rule of law that is derived from any theology or religious text, whether it be the Christian bible, Islam and its Koran, Hinduism and the Veda, Judaism and its Tanach, etc.

                  • So from what is the rule of law derived? This question is not aimed at what seems to be physic laws (imperical measurements) but moral or ethical law.

                    There is no reason to expend huge sums of money to keep “defective” children alive or to prevent death from illness or accident. Why expend funds to keep the elderly non-productive alive? Why spend fortunes to feed those caught in regions of famine? Why be sad about slavery, use of the less powerful…or even Manifest Destiny…the people killed held that which the other wanted? Why be aghast at cannibalism…why starve to death when a perfectly good source of protein and other products is right at hand? Why not continue to leave defective babies in the snow to die…it’s relatively quick and only briefly painful. All of the above which counters contribute to over use of resources. The plagues and wars routinely reset population density.

                    From whence does the counter originate? The whole of the rest of the animal kingdom certainly does not act kindly…watch the backyard to see the nature at work. The pecking order in ours is squirrels, stellar jays, a chipmunk, and then little birds until the coyote wanders through. Even the squirrels and jays have clan pecking order and will battle any incursion. None care that another dies of any cause and won’t keep them alive…watch the wolf pack when one is deathly sick…it is of no use to the rest and no longer carries its weight.

                    We are merely packets of quantum energy composed within a universe that would otherwise destroy us and ultimately will. Our overarching moral and ethical standards (rule of law) are certainly running against the very nature of the universe, so then the question…from whence do they come and then why?

                    • I’m not a fan of the Plato line but I will agree that the US Government IS carrying out an intentional attack on the elderly with their inflaton, devaluation, debt repudiation cycle that destroyed at least 30% of the retirement fund buying power of those least able to go back to work and make up for this sick policy. Since the destruction of the value of the dollar was caused by the present government why wasn’t it included in COLA for each year? Why wasn’t it? Because that’s how they are, in effect paying off the sick economy on the backs of the elderly. And one of the main reasons I worked hard and voted against that sicker than sick Socialst Regressive Candidate Comrade Clinton.

            • You may feel subordinate to God, but I am not. So I reject any effort by anyone to force me to accept that I am subordinate to the mythological entity to whom you choose to be subordinate. Subordinate yourself to your heart’s content. But take no action, make no decisions that require that I behave in a subordinate way to your fiction.

              • Create no agency, pass no law, place no man or woman above the rule of law. You keep your fiction/fantasy away from our government and you should not need to be concerned with mine.

          • The heirarchy system of posts is a little confusing. I’ll make direct reference to quotes going forward.

            “Be a good steward of government first and foremost; learn how to do that and you WILL become a better steward of the earth.”

            Exactly, isn’t that what we’re talking about here? “Fall in line, and DO NOT ask questions. We’ll tell you what you need to know.”

            Apologies for my laziness.

      • Been plenty of warrin’ going on the past eight years Joe. Clinton had more lined up. Think, dare yourself, make yourself uncomfortable. Who supported regime change around the world. Who made money backing fracking? It’s all about pay to play.

        • Seems to be an attempt to divert the attention from the policies of our newly elected climate change denying president who has surrounded himself with oilmen and a variety of plutocrats and hedge fund guys back to unsuccessful one, Clinton. Expect to see a lot of that. As far as I am concerned the campaign is over. The protestors in ND will not be protesting Clinton.

        • I hear ya, but it’s also true that Joe is hardly proselytizing the Clinton machinery here. He is making legitimate claims about the people Trump is surrounding himself with. Those on the right, including those on this site, would do exactly the same thing – and with reason – were it a Democrat instead of a Republican.

          The more important question for non technical people who tend to get into arguments of a tribal spear shaking nature rather than one based on technical expertise is, can we afford to ignore climate change even in the short term? Actually, that’s two questions both important.

          Failing a major initiative for non carbon based solutions now may seal our fate later. It’s conceivable but highly unlikely the science is wrong, or not sufficiently mature, but the risk is real and the stakes are virtually existential if those scientists are correct or even close to correct so it should be understandable that Professor Turley and others continue to try and alert people to the problem as information becomes available.

          Another closely related issue is global population explosion which along with technology expansion drives energy consumption and therefore human contribution to global warming.

          Partly because we have such a dysfunctional socio-economic and political system that has fostered so many lies and so much misinformation (propaganda everywhere) penetrating right down to the smallest aspects of our social exchange with each other, we are apparently helpless to avoid playing this amazing game of Russian Roulette.

  5. Trees absorb CO2 and synthesize oxygen! If you cut down trees and eliminate the rain forests, of course, CO2 levels will rise.

    The question is: Has CO2 risen more from loss of trees or more from fossel fuel burning?

    Put another way: If you restore all the deforestation that has been lost since Lewis & Clark braved the Missouri River, would climate change even be an issue, in spite of two-centuries of fossil fuel burning?

    Conversely, mammals absorb oxygen and synthesize CO2! If you cut down trees and eliminate the rain forests, of course, oxygen levels will fall. Excessive mammalian activity, either by way of deforestation or fossil fuel burning, reduces atmospheric oxygen, which reduction, by extension, translates to a reduction of mammalian populations — and eventual reduction of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

    All this occurs at the same time as plants, thriving now from increased CO2, take back the lost glory that mammals had hijacked.

    Conclusion: Nature balances the animal and plant kingdoms using the oxygen-CO2 servo mechanism. Thus, no matter what man does, he will always be pissing into this servo mechanism, never able to upset nature’s balance, which is always there to bite him in the ass again.

    This servo system also protects the earth when major events, such as a bumper crop of forest fires, upend the CO2-oxygen balence.

    • DDT will use the Presidency, somehow, to sell his Florida properties at a profit. The seas will rise after DDT makes a killing. The lies won’t matter. There are an endless supply of lies with DDT. The Art of the Deal is to sell the illusion. Looks like a lot of dupes have been deluded.

  6. It is as simple as this: you have 90% of the world’s scientists noting global weather and weather related phenomenon, you have 90% of the world’s scientists noting that humans are significantly contributing to an obvious global warming, you have rising ocean levels, most importantly you have the approach of a tipping point where change is irreversible and rapid, example permafrost thaws, carbon is released which augments warming which adds another phenomenon which augments warming, etc…., you have an enormous industry with untold wealth in combatting this phenomenon waiting to be prospected and developed, already the US is importing ten million dollar heavy wind turbines from more intelligent nations instead of manufacturing them here, you have nothing to lose in replacing the use of fossil fuels with renewable energy, etc, etc, etc…

    It is as simple as this: you have 10% of the world’s scientists lead by the brilliant Jim Infhofe the Republican’s point man stating that most of the people they have polled don’t really believe in what the 90% of the world’s scientists say, you have the status quo of the fossil fuel industries knowing that as fossil fuel use goes down so does their bank account, you have the inbred contrarian who simply refutes any thing to present his or her self as smarter than the norm, you have ignorance, you have stupidity, you have mindless mobs of followers of the outsider who will straighten out all of society’s wrinkles.

    In the words of the notorious candidate for the Presidency of the US when he, using lies, exaggerations, fabricated statistics, and racist arrogance when he presented himself to the Black community suggesting they vote for him, “What have you got to lose?”

    • Yes, Trump said “what have you got to lose” and I think he means it. He’s a developer, he’s entrepreneurial, he’s been meeting with leaders and innovators in the black community, and he wants results…..so I see urban renewal being a big focus for Trump. They say it can’t be done without gentrification, but let’s watch what Trump does…..in both urban and rural areas…

      • We environmentalists are watching So far the the appointments of the plutocratic oilmen don’t look very promising and neither does his rhetoric on climate change

      • Lee

        If DDT was an entrepreneur and not an idiot he would be importing technology from Denmark-40% of the world’s heavy turbine exports, Germany-leading export of solar and wind technology and have already made most of the mistakes, etc. etc. No, watching DDT’s appointments it is unfortunately safe to say that DDT is a complete idiot who was born into wealth and privilege and has negotiated himself into the White House. This says more about the idiots that voted for him than DDT. DDT is merely an animal feasting on the chickens who elected him to administer the chicken house.

        • Obama is a total fraud, the Clintons are sociopathic criminals, Trump will be a breath of fresh air by comparison. So I’m an idiot then…in your view….or is it a chicken? Thanks for sharing. Seriously.

            • Deluded? Because I think Trump will actually deliver on his promise to help urban areas? The guy’s a real estate developer and businessman, so I still maintain that will be a big focus area under the Trump admin. Urban renewal without gentrification is the tricky piece. Some of my friends thought I was delusional last spring when I predicted that Trump would win. So who knows.

              • lee — Yes, deluded, about Trump in general and about him delivering on this promise in particular. Just because you predicted he would win does not mean that you are a soothsayer. So you predicted his victory. I doubt it was because you had some sixth-sense insight. It was probably more a factor of luck than any particular powers of divination you might think you have.

    • Another way to look at it….the ‘blue wall’ of the Rust Belt turned toward Trump this time which took Hillary by surprise b/c she took their votes for granted and never even set foot in Wisconsin. If Trump delivers on his promise, “what have you got to lose?” with his efforts at urban renewal, then the urban ‘blue wall’ the Dems have taken for granted will begin crumbling just like the Rust Belt ‘blue wall’…..and Trump loves a challenge…..so it looks to me like there is more to gain with Trump’s focus on urban renewal….the only one’s who don’t want him to succeed in this regard would be Democrats b/c they will lose another stronghold of voters…

      • Wrong, Paul. Even in classical Greek times the philosophers not only knew that it was spherical but actually measured the radius.

        • Paul — My most advanced degree is a Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering Science.

          Other scientists have their Doctor of Philosophy in other specialties. Science used to be called Natural Philosophy.

          Got it now?

        • Paul — Don’t be so dense. In classic Greek times philosophers were the scientists.

          Try reading “The Rise of the Greeks”.

          • David B Benson – I taught Intro to Philosophy. I am well aware of what that some of the Greek philosophers were scientists. And the Greeks developed a great body of medical science from all the warfare they were involved in. The Romans did the same.

            BTW I am a Stoic/Aristotelian, what are you?

            • It was common back in those days to refer to philosophers as scientists. They used examination of the nature of things in what became both disciplines. You may recall in the O’Brien series on the British Navy in the Napoleonic years Jack Aubreys particular friend was both a doctor of medicine, a surgeon, a naturalist and a scientist.

              The better of the disciplines which lead to todays objectivism as a direct descendent required both in it’s three steps. 1.Self Awareness of Conscious Ability to think and reason. 2. Examination of the Nature of things, people or occurences and testing of same to determine potential for usefulness. 3. After applying all of that to one’s own self and developing a personal sense of morals, values, ethics, standards The question becomes If the item is or isn’t useful is it moral? To answer that one must understand it’s nature. Tomato very useful but the plant is also an arsenic producer.

              As a result objectivism becomes a very good yardstick or measuring device in a number of directions. One of which is ‘control’ systems AKA politics but includes all forms religious, secular, business in education etc.

              One simply asks one’s self, for example, is Darwinism as useful as Materialism or some such gotcha question to find out they are much the same thing.

              Another system that arose from the same roots is subjectivism which claims to both make reality out of thouight without doing anything but also denies most humans can understand why.

              The recent elections were a fine example of the superiority of objectivism over subjectivism especially at the end where the latter leaves it’s adherents struggling with their through the looking glass world while the objectivist is able both create an idea and see it through to actual application.

              So having redone a good many of 101 102 courses especially the Greek Philosopher/Scientists I return to watching the 9th wonder of the world – half the country denying what the other half sees as the truth of the nature of an occurance. While the other half struggles to keep a straight face and asks is it moral to laugh?

              The nature of the problem is the inability to open a dictionary, do a google search, to think or to reason. Why? Who knows? Lazy? It si after all neither rocket science nor applied Philosophy 202.

              • As for the original article it went around and around and around but said nothing, gave no evidence nor any sources of evidence claimed. Obviously the writer was not literate but was also had no ability to properly present his/her case in an acceptable manner – therefore the standards requrired to answer the question. “Is it useful” is No.

                ‘A study showed that’ is just a throwaway phrase it has no substance. In politics it’s called BS.
                .

                • Exactly. One philosopher went one route with guesswork and easy outs for a preselected thinking class, now a ruling class and another said. Let’s see some facts. One said oh there is no such thing how do you know anything you sense is real. The other said BS I’ll stick with the observation that carrots taste good and a rock in the head hurts. One went with whatever feels good at the moment one said No I wouldl rather feel good for hours or days or years. One voted for Obama and Clilnton and the other voted against them.

                  Now Obama is ‘warning’ Trump about using too much executive decisions. Is he joking or lying to us and worse himself? Neither one nor is Clinton nor was Al Bore.

                  They do not use the standards of morals,m values, and ethics as do, what we think of, as ‘decent’ people.’

                  They subscribe to a Marxist Leninest notion that anything said or done that supports the party is the truth but only valid for the moment.

                  We have two or three exactly like that on his forum who only breathe to support the party but in their minds they are being honest. For us it’s self delusion and warped sense of values if any at all.,

                  So the thing to do is just laugh at them and walk away. Notice when they get hit in the head with a rock they refuse to believe it hurts or that it even happened.

                  Like good little clones they do what they are told upon command We might pity them but we don’t beyond that. There is too much to do in the practical world to deal with those whose whole life is playing stupid and they Kant understand nor learn. That’s what makes them dangerous.So? Don’t go to South Central on a payday night nor walk in the desert nor go to a university campus or look for news of value in the NYT. Objectively speaking.

                  Now on to practical matters …. that have real meaning….

      • Paul — What is the basis for your claim that 90% of scientists used to think the Earth was flat? The word scientist was itself not coined until 1834 when the Cambridge historian and philosopher William Whewell came up with the term to describe those who engage in a systematic, methodological study of nature. By this time I seriously doubt there were more than a handful of scholars who would qualify as scientists who believed in a flat earth. The term science has a longer pedigree, coming from the Greek word scientia. The term science, however, did not come into any kind of widespread use until after the late 1500s/early 1600s and the development of what we today call science by the likes of Galileo, Descarte, Francis Bacon, etc. Throughout most of the history of civilization it was natural philosophy that was studied by scholars, with much greater emphasis on philosophy than anything that would resemble scientific methodology. So I think your claim that 90% of the scientists once thought Earth to be flat is at best highly dubious. It certainly would be accurate to say that there was a time in the past when 90% of the christian scholars believed this, or that even 90% or more of the uneducated masses thought Earth to be flat. But 90% of the scientists? I very much doubt this.

        • dogfightwithdogma – regardless of what they called themselves at the time, they were that eras version of a scientist. An alchemist is without a doubt a scientist.

        • Issac, I am standing with my fellow man in the celebration of Christmas love and unity for all of mankind, and for all times. Please make this choice with me.

      • The pertinent question Paul is what happened the night you were conceived. How much brain did simply not get across. Judging from your posts there is no way you have an IQ above 70. There is a valid contrarian position but you fall well short of even the mindless knee jerk contrarian. Read a book.

        • issac – kill the messenger is not an appropriate response. BTW, I am reading three books. I usually read three or more books at a time switching between them, a chapter at a time. It keeps my mind nimble. I belong to two reading groups, one fiction, one non-fiction.

          You are just lashing out at people now. You really need to get some professional help.

        • Issac you have truly mastered the subjectivist trick of having No Answer only look in the mirror describe what you see and change the name. I am not able to waste my time with minds that have not recognized they have the power to think and reason and observe. My observation of the nature of Issac is to lazy to open a dictionary. thus – not useful.

      • Paul — “90% of the scientists used to think the Earth was flat.”

        Have your logic circuits malfunctioned? Do you actually think that this statement serves in any way as an argument against anthropogenic climate change, or that this statement does or should serve as any kind of credible evidence that climate change proponents are wrong? If you do then whatever logic you learned during all your years of learning has completely failed you on at least this subject.

        • dogfightwithdogma – one of things I have learned in my extensive education over the years is that science is often wrong and changes all the time. Malaria was thought to be caused by ‘bad air’ for instance and it took a long time to discover that it was mosquitoes, a particular breed of mosquitoes, that were doing the damage. The plague was thought to be caused by either cats or dogs, but it actually was being caused by fleas on rats moving to humans. And it was thought there was only one type of plague, but now we know there are two. We know that one of them still occurs regularly in the Southwest.

          • I am fully aware of the history of science, having spent a considerable amount of time both learning it and teaching it. So I know that as our scientific knowledge and understanding has accumulated, many things once thought to be true were later shown by additional scientific understanding to be wrong. But I repeat, these past changes in science do not serve as evidence that something currently accepted as correct is false. Any claim in science must be demonstrated to be incorrect by examination in light of current evidence and new evidence as it accumulates. No claim or theory in science is subject to refutation by simply pointing to the instances in the past where the science about this or that was later shown to be wrong. Furthermore, you are engaging in cherry-picking. There are many instances of scientific claims, conclusions and theories developed in science’s past that are still with us. For example, science once had it wrong about the revolution and rotation of Earth and the other bodies in the solar system. So these were eventually changed as new evidence accumulated. But our present understanding of Earth’s motions has been well established and unchallenged for well over 200 years. The evidence for these motions is so overwhelming in both its quantity and quality, that it is very highly unlikely that what is accepted today about planetary motions will change in any substantial way in the future, other than some possible minor tweaking. So stop implying that the history of change in science is a credible refutation of anthropogenic climate change. The history of science is not an argument in favor of or against any current scientific theories or claims. If you want to challenge the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change then you must do so by challenging the evidence that supports the theory and offer an alternative explanation/theory that does a equally good or better job of explaining the climate change patterns that are occurring. Referring to the history of science fails completely as a challenge to any current theory in science.

            • dogfightwithdogma – if a discipline has a track record of being over turned regularly, then you have less confidence in it. I do not know how many articles I have seen that say scientists now say coffee is bad for you and then two weeks later scientists now say coffee is good for you. And, since their is so much plagiarism in scientific papers that Science magazine will not ask for a correction. You have to go to the author’s college. When scientists, and I use the term broadly, suppress articles from being published in peer-reviewed journals and then jumps at people by saying it wasn’t peer-reviewed so it isn’t a valid scientific article, then I see fraud in science,

              • I suspect the bulk of the fraud is driven by the usual reasons greed driven by the race for government grants and and jealousy. I’ve read a lot of poor mouthing of people like Edison and Einstein saying really stupid things like ‘they didn’t do anytning new electricity or mathematics was already there.’ Trouble is no one else has the spark of genius needed to put it all together into light bulbs 110 generators, alternating curren or E=MC2.

                Since neither one was in line for a government grant I’ll assume jealousy. Same goes for saying UPS took advantage of freeways which were already there. Really an Eisenhower took advantage of the idea of the German Autobahn I suppose but no one but FedEx and UPS and a President who was a genius at getting the system started as the National Defense Highway System Got It Done.

                The only review that counts is my own. Are the sources and conclusions factual and useful. Considering Global Warming started with a self confessed lust for grant money and artic temperatures are not based on anything but interpolated suppositions and normal weather cycles are never mentionedI find it neither factual nor useful.

                Now we here a minii ice age just ended? What is that? Last I heard a two hundred year one that was always projected at a one centigrade minus on average just started.

                The only thing factual is the people that make charlatans like Al Bore rich. The cry of Woof Woof Woof has become Yip Yip Yip watch me wag my lucrative tale.

                Scientific? Edison once asked some of college graduate employees to masure the content of a light bulb. Some hours later with reams of paper and figures they had it. He looked said iyour about 20% off picked up the bulb filled it with water and poured it into a graduated beaker. The answer was their but it took a genius to find it.

                The answer to this other stuff is ….caveat emptor it’s another welfare program.

                • Michael Aarethun – alternating current is Tesla. Edison is the person whose teams invented a lightbulb that was practical. He was never able to develop a projector for the motion picture, he had to buy the rights to someone elses projector and he he was very careful to advertise that it was not an Edison invention. Actually, it was in the phrasing of the ads.

                  • My mistake but the basic comment stands. Tesla was another genius.

                    But I pay my bills so here is a contrite offering for forgetting Tesla

                    Title Bring Back Clerk Maxwell

                    “Black bodies give off radiation.
                    And do it continuously.
                    Black bodies give off radiation.
                    And do it continuously.

                    Bring back. Oh Bring back.
                    Oh bring back that old continuity.
                    Bring back. Oh bring back.
                    Oh bring back Clerk Maxwell to me (Chorus)

                    Though now we have Schrodinger Functions
                    Dividing up ‘H by 2 pi.’
                    That damn differential equation
                    Still has no solution for psi or phi

                    Well Heisenberg came to the rescue,
                    Intending to make all secure.
                    What is the result of his efforts?
                    We are absolutely unsure.

                    Dirac spoke of energy levels,
                    Both and minus and plus. Oh, how droll!
                    And now, just because of his teachings.
                    We don’t know our mass from a hole.”

                    I do not know the original poet’s name. But I think the last line was for snowflake scientology.

      • Today 95% or more of that group would check with James Carvile before answering a question like that and then….parrot time.

  7. http://www.newsweek.com/rick-perry-board-energy-transfer-partners-dakota-access-pipeline-532405 “Donald Trump’s pick to run the Energy Department also happens to be the favorite politician of the company attempting to build the Dakota Access Pipeline. For the past two years, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has held a paid position on the board of directors of Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the controversial project.

    Native American rights activists and environmentalists have protested the oil pipeline over concerns that it could endanger water supplies and damage sacred grounds. The project was put on hold last week when the Army Corps of Engineers refused to issuea permit that ETP needs to complete construction. But that delay may only be temporary; even before the Perry announcement, the incoming Trump administration publicly supported the pipeline.

    Perry joined ETP in February 2015, shortly after he left the governor’s office. As Mother Jones reported last summer, he kept his spot on the company’s board even as he launched a presidential campaign. According to SEC filings, ETP paid Perry $236,820 in 2015. In the past, Perry’s business entanglements would have represented an unusual conflict of interest for a presidential candidate, but in this election cycle, they were overshadowed by Trump’s massive web of conflicts.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s