Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (983775)

11/24/2016 8:56:53 PM

From: Sdgla

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
POKERSAM

Respond to of 1583410

Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years

Not only has Antarctic sea ice not changed, but land based ice is expanding according to NASA study.

NASA Study: ‘Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise’ – ‘Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses’

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotNovember 24, 2016 11:04 AM with 152 comments

Via: us4.campaign-archive2.com

11-24-16

Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change. But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming. –Sarah Knapton, The Daily Telegraph, 24 November 2016

1) Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years, Scott And Shackleton Logbooks Prove
The Daily Telegraph, 24 November 2016 2) Trump To Scrap NASA Climate Research In Crackdown On ‘Politicized Science’
The Guardian, 23 November 2016

3) GWPF Climate Briefing: A Brief History Of Arctic Angst
GWPF Climate Briefing, November 2016

4) Reality Check: Donald Trump On Climategate & The Paris Agreement
GWPF, 23 November 2016

5) Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s Climate Plan Might Not Be So Bad After All
The Washington Post, 21 November 2016

In 2009, Al Gore announced ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.’ The dates by which climate scientists and politicians said the ice would disappear have come and gone, while the ice has remained. Undaunted, fresh predictions have been made in every subsequent year. One problem that persists is that there is still only a relatively short series of direct measurements on which to base our understanding of the Arctic. Satellite monitoring of the Arctic only began in 1978, giving us less than forty years of reliable data. This may not be enough to establish what is normal – or abnormal – for the region. Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us. — GWPF Climate Briefing, November 2016

Donald Trump plans to put NASA’s focus back on space exploration and cut away programs that study climate change. Bob Walker, an adviser to Trump, told The Guardian that the incoming president wants to keep NASA away from ‘politicized science.’ Other government agencies can take on climate research, he said. ‘We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research,’ Walker told the publication. ‘Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.’ –Francesca Chambers, Daily Mail, 23 November 2016

The international news media is reporting that Donald Trump has changed his mind on climate change and the Paris climate agreement. Yet the transcript of his New York Times interview shows it is far too early to know what the next US President will do about climate and energy policy. — GWPF, 23 November 2016

The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress have terrified environmentalists and climate campaigners, who have declared that the next four years will be a “disaster.” Fear is understandable. We have much to learn about the new administration’s plans. But what little we know offers some cause for hope. Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end. –Bjorn Lomborg, The Washington Post, 21 November 2016

To: koan who wrote (983775)	11/24/2016 9:46:18 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1583410

atmospheric chemistry professors, well well. AGW is not about atmopheric chemistry. agw is about physics. I don't listen to anyone because they have some degree. I listen and evaluate all to see if they have simple explanations that make sense. But the science ignoramus, who knows what their evaluation criterion is. I suppose you have no data on what top universities espouse the science pornography of AGW. And Yale has basically shut down it's climate change institute. Climate change institute shut down - Yale Daily News yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/03/01/climate-change-institute-shut-down/ Climate change institute shut down. After a University decision to cut all its funding, Yale's Climate & Energy Institute will close by the end of June. Yale is about lawyers, do they see some liability ???? hmmmmm

To: koan who wrote (983775)	11/24/2016 10:59:24 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583410

Donald Trump’s Cabinet Is On Track To Be The Least Experienced In Modern HistoryThe president-elect may believe that’s a good thing. But governance experts are alarmed.

To: koan who wrote (983775)	11/24/2016 11:00:42 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1583410

Wolf Blitzer has perfectly summed up the problem with Donald Trump’s seemingly selective outrage. The CNN host noted Wednesday the stark difference between the president-elect’s responses to white nationalists celebrating his win and his comments on vice president-elect Mike Pence getting singled out during a performance of “Hamilton.” In a segment on the “The Situation Room,” Blitzer asked guest Sean Spicer, a Republican National Committee spokesman, to explain why Trump wasn’t delivering a specific speech denouncing the white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers who’ve celebrated his win. Spicer said “it seems a bit silly” to continually ask Trump to more formally denounce those supporters. Blitzer pointed out that Trump had no problem going out of his way to criticize the cast of “Hamilton,” after Pence attended the show and one of its members singled out the vice president-elect, who was also booed by the audience. “He [condemns white nationalists] in response to questions, you’re right, and he is very tough in the response to questions, but he doesn’t do it necessarily on his own initiative,” Blitzer said. “For example, you know he hits the news media when he thinks there’s a story that’s unfair, he tweets when he is outraged about something in the media, ‘Hamilton,’ what happened in the Broadway musical, ‘Hamilton,’ but he doesn’t seem to go out of the way to express his outrage over people hailing him with Nazi salutes. “Why doesn’t he do that more dramatically, if you will, and make it clear that he wants no part of the people?”

To: koan who wrote (983775)	11/25/2016 2:58:14 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By d[-_-]b Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583410

Not t if you realize the people who matter, so called climate scientists, all stand to gain from positive findings. They are not independent. How often does a priest suddenly decide he doesn't believe? Probably about the same frequency as Warmists suddenly choosing to pursue the truth? Seldom. People cannot be objective when their survival depends on being committed to a finding.