More undercover global warming pictures.

BTW don't eat carrots. Everyone that has eaten them in the past has died or will die at some point in time. (don't see a doctor for the same reason):wow:
 
That logic that says GW will cause rapes and murders makes sense to me. About as much sense as the statement that "When the trees shake it makes the wind blow."

If you don't believe it, step outside some time when you see the trees really shaking hard. You can feel how hard they make the wind blow.

There probably some truth to that article that says GW causes increases in crime. Think of the crime rate in the inner cities' high crime areas. In the middle of winter it's too dayam cold to be hanging wid da homies on the corner poppin' caps at cho rival gang bangers. Rapists also aren't as active in the winter. Cold weather causes some severe shrinkage problems and da dayam equipment don' work so good for rapin' dem ho's.
 
Last edited:
MonacoMike;\ ” Global warming makes it go numb! MM[/QUOTE said:
Yeah well, so does menopause. GW must be the same as hot flashes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Two headlines here:

What can you kid study to get a good job out of college???

AND

How Climate Change Conquered the American Campus.

"Here is a college quiz. While many parts of the U.S. economy struggle to recover from the Great Recession of 2008-09, one domestic industry is experiencing a technology-driven expansion in which American innovations have led to countless new company startups, a surge in hiring and some of the highest-paying entry-level jobs for graduating college seniors.

How are the nation's universities responding so students might prepare for a promising career in this growing and intellectually challenging field? By largely ignoring it. Why? Because the industry is oil and gas.

This fact may surprise the casual campus observer, since almost every U.S. college these days seems to have an energy research institute. Most of these energy think-tanks, however, are run by academic advocates of theories about global warming and man-made climate change, most of whom view energy through green-colored lenses. The research focus is more on promoting the clean, sustainable, renewable, non-CO2-emitting energy of the future, as opposed to studying and analyzing the hydrocarbon resources of the here and now.

For some of these programs, the agenda is obvious and stated in bold print over the door. Names such as the Yale Climate & Energy Institute and the Princeton Center for Energy and the Environment make clear that the study of energy needs to be chaperoned and monitored. The labeling is less obvious for others, but the result is the same. Visit the websites of the neutrally named Cornell Energy Institute, MIT Energy Initiative and Penn Center for Energy Innovation, and you would think you were looking at algore.com.

My alma mater, Columbia University, recently launched its own Center on Global Energy Policy, with the mission to "improve the quality of energy policy and energy dialogue through objective, balanced and understandable analysis." The center is headed by Jason Bordoff, former senior director for energy and climate change on the staff of the National Security Council in the Obama administration, who is on record calling for carbon caps and immediate government action to drive down greenhouse-gas emissions. So much for balance.

With all of these research institutes, the messaging is consistent: Fossil-fuel energy is a problem to be solved, a challenge to be overcome, a sector that needs to be transformed and the relic of an industrial state from which to evolve. The policy prescriptions issued by these think-tanks are often presented as moral imperatives, which helps to cut down on the debate.

More troubling is how this ideological bias filters into the college curriculum, both through the content of introductory natural science courses required of all students and the choice of majors and specialty electives offered by technical undergraduate schools.

Based on survey data compiled by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, the top-paying undergraduate major in 2013 was petroleum engineering, with an average starting salary of $97,000. How many of the country's top engineering schools offer such a major? Outside of Texas, Colorado and Oklahoma, not many. Often the closest approximation is a bachelor of science degree in Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences or the equivalent, with a handful of classes on petrology and geophysics safely outnumbered by myriad courses on environmental science, climatology, global-warming theory and alternate-energy sources.

The oil and gas industry has been historically volatile and marked by boom-and-bust cycles caused by fluctuating commodity prices, with company prospects often tied to hit-or-miss exploratory drilling. Not surprisingly, the industry has struggled with periodic brain drain since the 1980s as students looking for steady employment and career growth have been turned off by such uncertainty.

Technological advances such as seismic imaging, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—all developed by private companies—have removed much of this volatility and changed the nature of the industry to more of a manufacturing operation. But now another source of even greater uncertainty has been injected into the mix: political and regulatory risk. This is one energy lesson that undergraduates are hearing loud and clear from their professors.

How many college students have been discouraged from considering a field in petroleum engineering or traditional energy finance because of the rational concern that the current Environmental Protection Agency-led attack on coal will move next to target oil and gas? Conversely, how many recent undergraduates have been led down the green garden path toward a career in renewable energy, only to receive a hard-knock, real-life economics lesson in the commercial failures of solar, wind, ethanol, battery and fuel-cell technologies?

Obviously, having proponents of man-made-climate-change theory running energy-research institutes at the college level is an example of inmates taking over the asylum, but there is method to this madness. Over the past 25 years, the environmental movement has been very successful using a two-pronged approach to push its anti-fossil-fuel agenda.

The first prong involves leveraging the U.S. courts and executive agencies to directly control the oil and gas industry through government regulation and taxation. The second involves indirect control through thought leadership and opinion-shaping. Culturally and generationally, man-made climate change is becoming accepted wisdom due to the steady indoctrination taking place in our universities."

Mr. Tice works in investment management and is a former Wall Street energy-research analyst


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304441304579481200046204022#printMode
 
Yes but that doesn't look as good on the front page as a sad polar bear.
 
Here's another story, current, that is right up this alley. Rancher in Nevada raising cattle with his family on this land for over 120 years. Long story short, the Gov closed off the land, took his cattle and claimed it for a desert tortoise. Now these cows, sheep, bison, and turtles have lived happily ever after for hundreds or even thousands of years and managed to survive in the middle of the desert. Now, after the BLM has reduced the number of cattle ranchers from 52 to 1, says he's threatening the turtle. Same thing, different resource. California has the farmers against the minnow issue, which isn't even indigenous to the lakes. This is bigger than oil and gas. This is about resources. all of them. Heck the EPA even outlawed wood burning stoves.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...e-generational-rancher-faces-feds/#more-79943
 
"HOLLYWOOD HATES HUMANS

I have noticed a consistent plot in the fantasy/science fiction genre over the last several years. Surely, you have noticed it too. In film after film, the human race is depicted as villainous for supposedly destroying the earth.

The just-released Noah is the latest example. In the Genesis account, God determines to destroy “all flesh” because humans are willfully unrighteous. But the holy destruction also heralds a new beginning: God preserves humanity through righteous Noah, directing him after leaving the ark to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”

That’s not the plot of the movie. In the film version, after being kicked out of Eden, man became industrial. In his greed, he strip-mined minerals, exhausted the soil, clear-cut the forests, and generally despoiled the environment—no trees, ubiquitous toxic waste—a dying planet.

“The Creator” wants us extinct. He assigns Noah the onerous task of saving “the innocents” (animals)—as distinguished from “the foul” (man)—after which he and his family are to be unfruitful and not multiply. Noah believes that man’s demise will be earth’s salvation: “Creation will be left alone, safe and beautiful.”

I was immediately struck by the similarity between Noah and the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. In the 1951 original, a space alien named Klaatu sets out to save humans from self-destruction. In contrast, the 2008 remake seethes with misanthropic antipathy. Klaatu is not here to save us, but to commit total genocide to in order to, yes, save the earth. As Klaatu tells the woman who befriends him: “If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives.”

Such explicit anti-humanism is now standard in big-time Hollywood productions. Take M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening (2008), where the earth’s flora mount a rebellion against the environmental deprivations of man by releasing “suicide pheromones” that compel all in the vicinity to kill themselves by any means handy.

Shyamalan tells his apocalyptic story from the perspective of star Mark Wahlberg’s family and friends. Realizing that plants attack whenever a critical mass of human beings is present, Wahlberg and company flee at the approach of a larger group of refugees. As they begin to kill themselves en masse, Wahlberg’s band runs past a huge advertising sign for a suburban housing development that carries the film’s unsubtle message: “Because you deserve it.”

Even children’s movies often teach that humans are villains. For example, in the Pixar-animated, Academy Award-winning mega-hit Wall-E (2008),we have so despoiled the earth that the entire population was evacuated to space ships while robots, known as Wall-Es, attempt to clean up our mess.

But the earth proved uninhabitable, and the robots are abandoned. One surviving Wall-E becomes sentient and falls in love with a female robot. Eventually, through a series of adventures, they induce the humans—who all have become morbidly obese and so lazy they don’t even walk—to return to devastated earth and plant a tree. The planet is saved! Humankind has learned its lesson: From then on, we will live simple and green.

These days, it seems, we are only allowed to root for the human race when space aliens invade. Even then, alien invaders may not necessarily be bad guys. Rather, they are often evil because they plan to engage in the “ecocide” environmentalists ubiquitously accuse humans of committing.

Thus in the rollicking Independence Day (1996) the aliens are a “galactic swarm of locusts devouring each world’s natural resources before moving on to the next one.” Similarly, in The Battle of Los Angeles (2011)—one of the few recent films in which soldiers are depicted as unequivocally heroic—the invading aliens plan to suck all the water off the planet.

Movies these days rarely depict us as responsibly consuming earth’s bounty. Indeed, in Genesis, God instructs Noah to “subdue the earth.” In Noah, that credo is espoused by the film’s chief villain, the king of the humans, a murderous meat-eating descendent of Cain.

Anti-human movies get made because many of Hollywood’s movers and shakers—like Noah’s director, Darren Aronofsky—fervently embrace a radical environmentalism. But the industry values one thing even above ideology: making money. We will see an end to anti-humanism at the movies when the audience stops paying to see films depicting them and their children as cancer on the earth.

Author Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. His latest ebook is The War on Humans."


http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/04/hollywood-hates-humans

Might be an interesting book to read.

MM
 
And now they are after our cows due to their farts! They think the world will be a better place without cow farts? They havent been with some of my friends after bean chili and beer!!! And thats all vegetarian. LOL

MM
 
After this past winter I think global warming is over and the next ice age is coming...I'm going to start burning wood again...my particulate emissions will be helping to slow the cooling trend.
 
I bet you work for the Koch brothers.
 
Turtlesboat said:
I bet you work for the Koch brothers.
Click to expand...

Nope, just an aerospace engineer that does not believe in all the b.s., spin and scare tactics put on the weather by special interests.
It's just unfortunate that a majority of America can be easily sold on ideas without question. :smt009
 
More propaganda from Hollywood...


"Showtime’s New Climate Documentary Barely Looks at Science

Masquerading as a scientific documentary, Showtime’s new climate change series is actually just more alarmist propaganda.

The first episode of “Years of Living Dangerously,” actually gave precious little time to discussing scientific data of climate. Ninety-five percent of the show wasn’t about actual climate science (a mere 3 minutes 5 seconds of the 57 minute 10 second program discussed climate data). Although the word science got bandied about frequently.

(video after break)

Assumptions that climate change is man-made and worsening were made throughout Showtime’s one-sided conversation of the subject. It also dismissed skeptics, which is exactly what you’d expect from a team that included James Cameron as one of the executive producers. He once said he wanted to “shoot it out” with “bonehead” climate skeptics. People on the show argued that skeptics simply don’t believe in man-made climate change because of their religious or political beliefs.

The program included alarmist scientists who promoted taking action on climate change as well as actors and a columnist. Actor Don Cheadle went to Plainview, Texas to find out whether people blame climate change for their drought. When they didn’t, he wondered why “faith and science always seem so far apart?”

“Years of Living Dangerously” which premieres on Sunday, April 13, featured famous celebrities discussing climate change and its alleged impacts on the planet. The first episode, which can already be viewed online, featured Harrison Ford, Cheadle and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. It focused on Indonesian deforestation, as well as droughts in Syria and Texas.

The minimal discussion about scientific data was hypocritical given how heavily Showtime pushed the scientific aspects of the documentary on its website. In fact, Showtime lists a host of “science advisors” including prominent alarmists like James Hansen, Michael Mann and Michael Oppenheimer. Chief Science Advisor Joseph Romm even described the series as “science-based messaging” in an April 9 conference call with the Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Joseph Romm, a physicist with the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, and Heidi Cullen, Chief Climatologist with the alarmist Climate Central, were “Chief Science Advisors” for the program. Romm has lashed out at skeptics and accused them of being anti-science and less accurate than psychics.

The episode reflected Cameron and Romm’s disdain for those who disagree on man-made climate change.

In 2010, James Cameron, famous for many of his films including“Avatar,” called climate skeptics “boneheads” while saying he wanted to “shoot it out” with “deniers.” That same year, Cameron attempted to organize a debate on global warming but, after demanding numerous changes and eliminating press coverage, eventually canceled the event.

Romm has repeatedly expressed disdain for climate skeptics. In March 2014, Romm compared “climate science deniers” and “psychics,” saying the only difference is “psychics sometimes guess the right answer.” In February 2014, he wrote that “we don’t need people ‘to believe in climate change,’ we just need them to accept science.”

Romm is a senior fellow at the left-wing Center for American Progress which is funded by billionaire liberal George Soros. He has also tried to intimidate the media to keep climate skeptics off the air. In 2012, he attacked PBS for simply including a climate skeptic alongside an alarmist in what he called a “completely unbalanced, extended interview.”

Showtime’s latest effort certainly reflected Romm’s sense of proper balance on the issue.

“Years of Living Dangerously” tried to explain why so many people doubt man-made climate change by blaming politics and religion. The show reinforced that impression by completely excluding skeptical scientists.

While discussing his attempts to convince people on the issue, actor Don Cheadle said “It’s often difficult to sow these seeds in the hard-baked political terrain of Texas.” He also claimed that many people think “if I believe in climate change, then I have to vote for Obama.”

A major theme of the episode was focused on attempts by Texas Tech climatologist Katharine Hayhoe, Cheadle and others who blame climate change on man’s actions to convince Christian Texans that they are right. Hayhoe calls herself a Christian and has made it her “mission” to convince others. In an article for The Huffington Post, Hayhoe pushed for the use of Christian rhetoric, such as compassion for the poor, to promote climate change legislation, despite economic arguments that those policies would hurt the poor."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,163
Messages
1,427,599
Members
61,072
Latest member
BoatUtah12
Back
Top