Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 2:28:58 GMT -5
Greg Gartner To the P.R. Department of Tim Hortons, Inc.: I was quite interested to hear of your recent actions today in pulling the Enbridge Pipeline ads from your stores, in response to online petitions circulated by various anti-oil groups. I have attached a photo of my TimCard. This morning it had a balance of $524.65. In the morning I plan on donating this to the local homeless shelter and never darken a Tim Horton door or drive through again. I have also instructed my broker to dispose of my shareholdings in QSR. I have just been keeping them more for nostalgia’s sake anyway. Today’s events have shown me that you don’t have any idea about your customer base,, and I may as well get out while they still have some value. Your operating performance has been dismal as well as of late, so it seemed like an opportune time. Read more: forum.rocktumblinghobby.com/thread/70442/califronia-drought?page=19#ixzz3cMJPiElXYou did not stay bowed to us so we are going to run you out of business even though the local franchisee is a good guy. Makes perfect sense to me. Jim
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 7, 2015 6:28:28 GMT -5
LOL: 5000 years ago ? 10,000 maybe. Artist's rendition of ice age Florida. Don't look to familiar to me. They have found enough bones from these animals to fill train cars down there. Maybe their gas created global warming, not seeing to many cars or coal plants.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 7, 2015 6:53:27 GMT -5
1850, advent of coal plants and automobiles ?? Scientifically derived information from a yard stick stuck in the sand. Let's call it the the 'Yard Stick' study. No ten page articles necessary parfive. Even I can read a yard stick Rich. Numbers don't tell fibs. I guess the industrial revolution did start about that time on an infinitesimal scale. About 1970 emissions should have been at an all time high.(Ralph N.) Would figure there should be a sharp upturn in the graph some where in that time frame, looks linear to me. .3 meters in 160 years, sounds about par for the course.
|
|
spiritstone
Cave Dweller
Member since August 2014
Posts: 2,061
|
Post by spiritstone on Jun 7, 2015 8:20:04 GMT -5
Getting a little confused on all this info posted, but i am really enjoying this topic and all the different ideas that might have caused this upward trend in co2. Not blaming industry or natural causes, because i dont know what is correct. Can you tell me if I understand this somewhat or not. This is what I get from pulling up info from Wikipedia looking for some answers.
Our current co2 is sitting at 403 ppm in the atmosphere, our highest ever recorded samples from ice cores were 4000 ppm, millions of years ago. The last time we were at the 400 - 600 level mankind still wasnt around enough to make any effect, and according to that number it was in the Eocene and the Oligocene time period 85000? years ago. During that time period co2 spiked to 600 from 180 or 200ppm due to a unknown or argumentative causes. From what I read, some say a large meteor strike or volcanoes- tectonic plate movement. From what the charts and scientist do agree on, that ending era of time co2 dropped from 600 to 180-200 ppm for years and remained at this level up until the start of the Industrial revolution, when this count started to rise again.
On the climb to 600, we dried up first before entering the iceage at 600ppm,according to ice core records So what i get from this, first we heat up before something at the 500 to 600 mark triggers the iceage. Does this make any sense? Still not sure if I understand this correct. Thanks
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 7, 2015 10:19:59 GMT -5
Greg Gartner You did not stay bowed to us so we are going to run you out of business even though the local franchisee is a good guy. Makes perfect sense to me. Jim Soooooooooooooooooo its ok for Forest ethics to make Tim"s bow down to them? Its OK for a billionaire who made his billions in the coal markets to stop pipelines and tanker transport in Canada. But says shit about the same tankers coming down the same coast from Alaska with US oil? Its ok for a billionaire to fight the KXL, but in the same breath transports the same oil with his trains? Makes perfect sense to me. The Canadian oil workers have had it with the the do as I say crowd.
|
|
|
Post by captbob on Jun 7, 2015 10:45:39 GMT -5
Stealing hypocrisy meter! Leaving BS meter as a trade.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 7, 2015 10:45:48 GMT -5
POSTED ON APRIL 20, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN CRONY CAPITALISM, DEMOCRATS, ENERGY POLICY THE EPIC HYPOCRISY OF TOM STEYER Billionaire hedge fund operator and “green” energy magnate Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million in the 2014 election cycle to help Democratic candidates who oppose the Keystone pipeline and who favor “green” energy over fossil fuels. Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline. Go here, here, here, here, here and here for more information about how Steyer uses his political donations and consequent connections to enhance his already vast fortune. But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 7, 2015 10:55:35 GMT -5
I will hit Richard with this before he he makes any claims about the dirty tarballs. FACT: Crude oil from Alaska's North Slope, which makes up about 12 per cent of California's total crude slate, is actually "dirtier" than the Canadian dilbit known as "Access Western Blend." FACT: There are 13 oil fields in California plus crude oil blends originating in at least six other countries that generate a higher level of upstream GHG emissions than Canadian dilbit blends. FACT: We produce a great product; the dirtiest oil on our continent comes from just outside Los Angeles, where the Placerita oil field generates about twice the level of upstream emissions as Canadian oilsands production. And the title of "world's dirtiest oil" goes to Brass crude blend from Nigeria, where upstream GHG emissions are over four times higher than Canadian dilbit. FACT: Canada is 1.58 per cent of world's GHG emissions and our much maligned oilsands amount to 0.15 per cent of that. According to the IEA Chief Economist, "the oilsands GHG emissions is not peanuts, it's fractions of peanuts." On the other hand, this is no small matter for Canadians and for this country's customers (today predominately the US but at some point Asia too). Canada's oilsands generate economic benefits on a scale greater than the entire value of Obama's green jobs initiative of 2012 -- and we're doing it with the best environmental technology available. During that same 2012 time-span, Canada's oilsands contributed an estimated C$91 billion and 478,000 jobs to the Canadian economy. We take this very seriously. www.huffingtonpost.ca/cody-battershill/naomi-klein-new-book_b_5837486.html
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 7, 2015 11:41:05 GMT -5
Getting a little confused on all this info posted, but i am really enjoying this topic and all the different ideas that might have caused this upward trend in co2. Not blaming industry or natural causes, because i dont know what is correct. Can you tell me if I understand this somewhat or not. This is what I get from pulling up info from Wikipedia looking for some answers. Our current co2 is sitting at 403 ppm in the atmosphere, our highest ever recorded samples from ice cores were 4000 ppm, millions of years ago. The last time we were at the 400 - 600 level mankind still wasnt around enough to make any effect, and according to that number it was in the Eocene and the Oligocene time period 85000? years ago. During that time period co2 spiked to 600 from 180 or 200ppm due to a unknown or argumentative causes. From what I read, some say a large meteor strike or volcanoes- tectonic plate movement. From what the charts and scientist do agree on, that ending era of time co2 dropped from 600 to 180-200 ppm for years and remained at this level up until the start of the Industrial revolution, when this count started to rise again. On the climb to 600, we dried up first before entering the iceage at 600ppm,according to ice core records So what i get from this, first we heat up before something at the 500 to 600 mark triggers the iceage. Does this make any sense? Still not sure if I understand this correct. Thanks Cool stuff spirit. Reading about present day volcanos producing CO2 less than human production. Seems to be popular opinion that man out produces the volcanoes. Due to deep ocean vents information may be sketchy and difficult to measure though. Pretty sure volcanic releases are not as pronounced at affecting temp as dust in the air from eruptions and meteor strikes over the ages. 400 vs 4000, holy cow. The giant Onaping impact had to have altered the atmosphere for instance. 80% of the earth's supply of nickel comes from that location. If the meteorite created it in one short moment the atmosphere must have been messed up. Accurate measurements of anything from events that long ago may be questioned. Florida is interesting because of it's low altitude and some what stable geologic conditions in the past 10.000 years. The Suwannee River was a mere creek most likely 5000-10000 years ago. Native American camps found in the river bottom. High percentage of spear heads concentrated in the bottom of the river, rare clovis and dalton points associated with paleo age/mastodon age. Interesting that men were around hanging with ice age era mammals. Hunted arrowheads for a bunch of years in the SE US and never came close to finding so many paleo points as in the Suwannee River. To bad those guys did not have CO2 meters. Earth tilt and position changes may have impacts too. Seems like no one has a good correlation to global heating and cooling. They just know that it has been cycling for a long time.
|
|
spiritstone
Cave Dweller
Member since August 2014
Posts: 2,061
|
Post by spiritstone on Jun 7, 2015 12:03:19 GMT -5
Getting a little confused on all this info posted, but i am really enjoying this topic and all the different ideas that might have caused this upward trend in co2. Not blaming industry or natural causes, because i dont know what is correct. Can you tell me if I understand this somewhat or not. This is what I get from pulling up info from Wikipedia looking for some answers. Our current co2 is sitting at 403 ppm in the atmosphere, our highest ever recorded samples from ice cores were 4000 ppm, millions of years ago. The last time we were at the 400 - 600 level mankind still wasnt around enough to make any effect, and according to that number it was in the Eocene and the Oligocene time period 85000? years ago. During that time period co2 spiked to 600 from 180 or 200ppm due to a unknown or argumentative causes. From what I read, some say a large meteor strike or volcanoes- tectonic plate movement. From what the charts and scientist do agree on, that ending era of time co2 dropped from 600 to 180-200 ppm for years and remained at this level up until the start of the Industrial revolution, when this count started to rise again. On the climb to 600, we dried up first before entering the iceage at 600ppm,according to ice core records So what i get from this, first we heat up before something at the 500 to 600 mark triggers the iceage. Does this make any sense? Still not sure if I understand this correct. Thanks Cool stuff spirit. Reading about present day volcanos producing CO2 less than human production. Seems to be popular opinion that man out produces the volcanoes. Due to deep ocean vents information may be sketchy and difficult to measure though. Pretty sure volcanic releases are not as pronounced at affecting temp as dust in the air from eruptions and meteor strikes over the ages. 400 vs 4000, holy cow. The giant Onaping impact had to have altered the atmosphere for instance. 80% of the earth's supply of nickel comes from that location. If the meteorite created it in one short moment the atmosphere must have been messed up. Accurate measurements of anything from events that long ago may be questioned. Florida is interesting because of it's low altitude and some what stable geologic conditions in the past 10.000 years. The Suwannee River was a mere creek most likely 5000-10000 years ago. Native American camps found in the river bottom. High percentage of spear heads concentrated in the bottom of the river, rare clovis and dalton points associated with paleo age/mastodon age. Interesting that men were around hanging with ice age era mammals. Hunted arrowheads for a bunch of years in the SE US and never came close to finding so many paleo points as in the Suwannee River. To bad those guys did not have CO2 meters. Earth tilt and position changes may have impacts too. Seems like no one has a good correlation to global heating and cooling. They just know that it has been cycling for a long time. See there ya go. Your on the same track as me. lol Did you read of the Great oxygenation event? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 13:24:49 GMT -5
I should have posted the info but didn't, NASA is saying that the hole on the ozone is getting smaller. Go figure. Jim
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 7, 2015 13:29:22 GMT -5
There’s nothing in that cartoon, James, that differed to any degree from IPCC’s reports. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report described studies that estimated sea level rise for the 20th century between 0.5 and 3.0 mm a year. The most likely range, according to the IPCC, was between 1.0 and 2.0 mm a year. 1970 emissions levels are irrelevant, by the way, unless you’re interested in mitigation by particle pollution. : ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 7, 2015 14:09:27 GMT -5
There’s nothing in that cartoon, James, that differed to any degree from IPCC’s reports. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report described studies that estimated sea level rise for the 20th century between 0.5 and 3.0 mm a year. The most likely range, according to the IPCC, was between 1.0 and 2.0 mm a year. 1970 emissions levels are irrelevant, by the way, unless you’re interested in mitigation by particle pollution. : ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg Study Predicts Decades Of Global Cooling AheadA new study out of the United Kingdom predicts the Earth is about to go through a major climatic shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures and fewer hurricanes hitting the United States. Scientists at the University of Southampton predict that a cooling of the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius and may offer a “brief respite from the persistent rise of global temperatures,” according to their study. This cooling phase in the Atlantic will influence “temperature, rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions of the world,” says Dr. Gerard McCarthy. The study’s authors based their results on ocean sensor arrays and 100 years of sea-level data. “Sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic vary between warm and cold over time-scales of many decades,” said McCarthy, the study’s lead author. “This decadal variability, called the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), is a notable feature of the Atlantic Ocean and the climate of the regions it influences.” “The observations of [AMO] from [sensor arrays], over the past ten years, show that it is declining,” Dr. David Smeed, a co-author, said in a statement. “As a result, we expect the AMO is moving to a negative phase, which will result in cooler surface waters. This is consistent with observations of temperature in the North Atlantic.” Researchers argue that a negative AMO will bring “drier summers in Britain and Ireland, accelerated sea-level rise along the northeast coast of the United States, and drought in the developing countries of the Sahel region,” according to the study’s press release. Interestingly enough, the study also predicts fewer hurricanes hitting the U.S.– a result of a cooler Atlantic. Atlantic cooling can impact the climate for decades, according to researchers, on timescales from 20 to 30 years. This means cooler global temperatures and changing weather patterns could unfold over the next two to three decades, possibly extending the so-called “pause” in global warming. For years, scientists have been debating why satellite temperature data shows there have been about 18 years with no warming trend. Surface temperature data shows a similar pause in warming for the last 10 to 15 years. So far, the dominant explanation seems to be that oceans have absorbed a lot of the heat that would have otherwise gone into the atmosphere. And most scientists argue the world will continue warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Some scientists, however, have been arguing the world is indeed headed for a cooling phase based on solar cycles. Scientists from Germany to India have argued that weakening solar activity could bring about another “Little Ice Age.”dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/study-predicts-decades-of-global-cooling-ahead/
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Jun 7, 2015 14:38:14 GMT -5
I find it amazing that we are so willing to accept the fact that rocks were moved all over this continent by glaciers. That we can find sea fossils in the desert. That we can find large mammal fossils in wet areas. That you can look at the Grand Canyon and see that there were dry times and wet times. That there were meteor strikes that changed the planet. That there were volcanic eruptions that changed massive areas. That there were storms that changed coast lines. That there were earthquakes that changed landscape and rivers. That there were landslides that changed huge areas and caused tsunamis that devastated large areas. That there were huge fires caused by lighting that burned massive areas. That there were floods that changed rivers and landscape. That plants, animals, and many other types of creatures and such have been here and are now gone. Etc.
But everything that happens to this planet now is Man made! WTF am I missing!...................................................MrP What you are missing is the obvious; it's been repeated over and over and you're not listening. Everything is not man made ... but the scale and rate of global warming is
|
|
|
Post by MrP on Jun 7, 2015 15:44:15 GMT -5
I find it amazing that we are so willing to accept the fact that rocks were moved all over this continent by glaciers. That we can find sea fossils in the desert. That we can find large mammal fossils in wet areas. That you can look at the Grand Canyon and see that there were dry times and wet times. That there were meteor strikes that changed the planet. That there were volcanic eruptions that changed massive areas. That there were storms that changed coast lines. That there were earthquakes that changed landscape and rivers. That there were landslides that changed huge areas and caused tsunamis that devastated large areas. That there were huge fires caused by lighting that burned massive areas. That there were floods that changed rivers and landscape. That plants, animals, and many other types of creatures and such have been here and are now gone. Etc.
But everything that happens to this planet now is Man made! WTF am I missing!...................................................MrP What you are missing is the obvious; it's been repeated over and over and you're not listening. Everything is not man made ... but the scale and rate of global warming ischassroc I guess that is what I am not understanding. All of these things have happened before but now, this time, it is Man Made. It is so nice to find out that we have so much power over what is happening with planet Earth. I will bet if we would give the %$#%%#%^$$ Climate Changers enough $$$$$$$$ they could change things over night!
I do think people are not listening. It is the MONEY STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!! ..........................MrP
|
|
|
Post by captbob on Jun 7, 2015 16:14:47 GMT -5
What you are missing is the obvious; it's been repeated over and over and you're not listening. Everything is not man made ... but the scale and rate of global warming is WHAT "global warming" ? All (unaltered to fit the progressive agenda) data shows there has been NO temperature rise in over 15 years. The New York Times' Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 ...www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/10/terrifying-flat-global-temperature-crisis-threatens-to-disrupt-u-n-climate-conference-agenda/"... even IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - UN nutjobs) chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years." Global Warming 'Pause' Extends to 17 Years 11 Months ...www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/" The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over." Oh, but those that need the "global warming" hysteria have founds ways to change the data to fit their agenda! 'Hide the Hiatus!' How the Climate Alarmists Eliminated the Inconvenient 'Pause' in Global Warmingwww.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/05/hide-the-hiatus-how-the-climate-alarmists-eliminated-the-inconvenient-pause-in-the-global-warming/" What’s the most embarrassing and inconvenient truth for the cause of climate alarmism?" " Probably the fact that there has now been no “global warming” for 18 years and six months. Not only does this contradict all the doomladen climate models cited in the IPCC’s various reports – none of them predicted the so-called “Pause” – but it also means that not one of the kids in school being fed climate propaganda by their on-message teachers has ever personally lived during a time of global warming." ------- All those bought and paid for scientists can change their tune in a heartbeat if it means the end to their funding! The global warming 'hiatus' never actually happened, study ...www.theverge.com/2015/6/4/8727459/global-warming-hiatus-never-happened-study"Global warming hasn't slowed down — we were just measuring it wrong ..." How freakin' convenient is that!! If the data doesn't support your aims, change the data. NOAA Study Takes World ‘by Storm': No Global Warming Pause!Golly. straight forom NOAA!! woohoo? Wonder where their funding comes from? From NASA: 'Hiatus' in rise of Earth's surface air temperature likely temporary Figure they get their funding same place as NOAA? These the same douchebags that credited muslims with achievements in math and science so they could "feel good" about themselves? Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'
The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.htmlYeah, that sounds like a job for NASA! Sure... I trust NOAA, NASA and ALL those scientists in any way funded by the whims of that traitorous POS - Really!
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Jun 7, 2015 16:41:06 GMT -5
Bob
It is so simple to check the facts.
Obama has never said that.
It is impossible to deal with people who quote lies and claim it as truth.
When you do it so obviously anything you say loses merit.
Charlie
|
|
|
Post by captbob on Jun 7, 2015 17:19:16 GMT -5
You are correct Charlie. I had seen that several times and figured it was an accurate quote. Didn't think that something so easily checked would be reworded thusly. My bad. Not like I would ever buy or read a book "written" by that piece of sh*t - so my assumption was incorrect.
Regardless, he still needs to be impeached, the ice caps aren't melting and Florida isn't underwater to date.
next...
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 7, 2015 19:06:26 GMT -5
There’s nothing in that cartoon, James, that differed to any degree from IPCC’s reports. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report described studies that estimated sea level rise for the 20th century between 0.5 and 3.0 mm a year. The most likely range, according to the IPCC, was between 1.0 and 2.0 mm a year. 1970 emissions levels are irrelevant, by the way, unless you’re interested in mitigation by particle pollution. : ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg1958 to present. It would have some meaning if it was 1900 to present. Maybe that trend has been occurring for a long time. Or cyclic..
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 8, 2015 1:05:47 GMT -5
|
|