Block user

Recent

otto99 vernonfelton's article
Feb 23, 2018 at 16:32
2 days
Is "Traditional" a Good Thing When It Comes to Wheels? - Pinkbike Poll
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” ― Ernst F. Schumacher
otto99 RichardCunningham's article
Feb 19, 2018 at 22:15
Feb 19, 2018
North American Handmade Bicycle Show - Judged Competition Results
was there any handmade bike that didn't get an award?
otto99 paulaston's article
Feb 2, 2018 at 15:33
Feb 2, 2018
BTR Pinner – Review
@orientdave: Sure
otto99 paulaston's article
Feb 2, 2018 at 15:08
Feb 2, 2018
BTR Pinner – Review
@orientdave: Please read the actual research papers. http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html Apparently many of you have never heard of the Vostok ice core samples. But have you heard about Al Gore's big lie sample? This research is very important. It's real data. It's not created by Al Gore. It's not created for the pope. It was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok in Antarctica to a depth of ten thousand feet. French and Russian scientists obtained deep core samples allowing them to look at, among other things, the history of temperature and carbon dioxide over the past 420,000 years. Guest what? The samples did show that increases in carbon dioxide always accopanied increases in temperature, but the increases in temperature always came first. The increases in CO2 consistently lagged behind temperature increases by about eight hundred years. That proves increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere didn't cause warming. How could it have, if it didn't happen until after the warming? This knocks over the whole house of cards. That's not all the Vostok ice core samples tell us. As Joe Martino reports, 325,000 years ago, global temps and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. I guess Barack Obama didn't get any of this when he was at Columbia learning how to become a community agitator. In fact, we are right now near the end of another warm interglacial. And those of us who are educated in science know we're actualy heading into another glacial cooling period where global temperatures will drop and ice will again form heavily at the poles. It's already happening. The Antarctic has just had the greatest growth of ice in a very long period of time. Don't take my word for it. Research it yourself. So what can we say about this group of political radicals and their fake climate change research? In short, they don't do scientific research scientifically. Their data is not representative of the Earth's climate as a whole. They don't control for other causes of temperature change. Their methodology and results are not approved by their peers, other than those bought off by the politicians. but that's not the most damning evidence against this scam.
otto99 paulaston's article
Feb 2, 2018 at 12:48
Feb 2, 2018
BTR Pinner – Review
@BenPea: @BenPea: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/antarctic-sea-ice-did-the-exact-opposite-of-what-models-predicted/ see below: Climate models can be good tools for predicting future sea ice levels — unless, of course, they are completely wrong. In the case of Antarctica, the climate models were dead wrong, according to a new study by Chinese scientists published in the journal Cryosphere. The study found that most climate models predicted Antarctic sea ice coverage would shrink as the world warmed and greenhouse gas levels increased. The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year. “For the Antarctic, the main problem of the [climate] models is their inability to reproduce the observed slight increase of sea ice extent,” researchers wrote in their study. “Both satellite-observed Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [satellite measured] Antarctic [sea ice volume] show[s] increasing trends over the period of 1979–2005, but [climate models’] Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [sea ice volume] have decreasing trends,” researchers added. “Only eight models’ [sea ice extent] and eight models’ [sea ice volume] show increasing trends.” Chinese scientists only looked at sea ice projections until 2005. Had they kept going, they would find more than a trend of “slightly increasing” sea ice levels. Last year was the first year on record that Antarctic sea ice coverage rose above 7.72 million square miles. By Sept. 22, 2014, sea ice extent reached its highest level on record — 7.76 million square miles. Antarctica is now in its melt season, but even so, sea ice levels were very high for late December and early January. The same can’t be said for Arctic sea ice coverage. The Chinese study notes that for the Arctic “both climatology and linear trend are better reproduced.” Climate models predicted Arctic sea ice extent and volume would decrease as the world warmed, which it has. In January 1979, sea ice extent averaged about 6 million square miles for the month. By 2006, sea ice extent averaged above 5.2 million square miles for January — one of the lowest sea ice levels for January on record. Since 2006, however, the Arctic has stabilized and has even increased slightly. Sea ice extent for January 2015 was 19,000 square miles above the record low extent in January 2011. The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that “Arctic sea ice extent for January was the third lowest in the satellite record. Through 2015, the linear rate of decline for January extent over the satellite record is 3.2% per decade.”
otto99 paulaston's article
Feb 2, 2018 at 10:18
Feb 2, 2018
BTR Pinner – Review
@orientdave: Let me speak to you as a scientist for a moment. That's right: I am a scientist, who has actually done scientific research scientifically. I earned a bachelor's degree in biology, two master's degrees in ethnobotany and anthropology, respectively, and a Ph.D. in nutritional ethnomedicine from the University of California, Berkely. In order to earn these degrees, I had to not only collect and analyze data, but draw scientifically valid conclusions that other scientists concurred with. When I say I did scientific research scientifically, I mean that I followed that standards commonly referred to as the scientific method. The scientific method has certain rules you have to follow or you're not doing science.You have to ensure the integrity of your data. You have to make sure your data is representative. You have to control for other possible causes of your results. Once you've completed your study and published your results, they are subject to what scientists call peer review. That means that other scientists examine your work. They try to confirm you haven't made any errors in the way you've collected data or errors of logic in your conclusions. I had to follow all of these principals to earn my Ph.D. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand them. They're common sense. But when the government takes over science, common sense goes out the window. The climate change scam is accepted only by politicians and scientists who want more government, more taxes, and more regulations. That political action group posing as a scientific community, the IPCC, says the debate is over about man-made global warming. That's how you know they're not real scientists. Real scientists never say "the debate is over" about anything. All scientific knowledge is open to challenge at all times. Thats how great advances have been made. Imagine if the debate had been over when Isaac Newton had published his theories, meaning Albert Einstein never published his. Imagine if the debate had been over when scientists concluded that man could not fly. The IPCC is a collection of politicians and bought-off scientistswho are producing junk science for political reasons. It's Lysenkoism all over again. They've broken every rule of the scientific method, just as Lysenko did. First their samples aren't representative. One of the reasons NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was able to report 2014 as "the hottest year on record" is because of the huge increases in part of South America, encompassing parts of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. Guess what? There are almost no weather stations in the region. What few stations there are certainly can't be representative of such a massive region. They also use temperature readings from thermometers located in places that are obviously hotter than the larger surrounding area, like parking lots, concrete buildings, or inside metal beams. Do you think maybe that skews temperature readings a little warmer than they otherwise would be? Meteorologist Anthony Watts saw right through it. He studied the positioning of the so-called weather stations and called out the con artists. "the question remains as to why they continue to use a polluted mix of well-sited and poorly-sited stations" In attempting to answer Watt's questions about the location of weather stations, the fake scientists say satellite data confirms the findings on the ground. Watts called them on that scam too. It's a classic case of failure to control for other possible causes. No one disputeds that temperatures are warmer in and around cities. It's not because of greenhouse gases. Cities just generate more heat. If man was causing a global warming, the temperature should be higher in the country, too. As I said, you don't have to be a scientist. It's just common sense. A larger percentage of the Earth has been urbanized over the past several decades, so satellite measurements read higher temperatures. Watts was quick to recognize this, as any real scientist would be. it didn't occur to the climate change pseudoscientists because they aren't interested in finding the truth. They are interested in promoting their political agenda. Increased urbanization isn't even the most significant reason there might be warmer temperatures. The real reason the planet is warmer today is that it's NORMAL for the Earth to go through warming and cooling periods. It's been doing so for millions of years, long before man inhabited this planet, much less started building factories. Neither temperatures nor CO2 levels are anywhere near their peak over the Earth's history. During the Cretaceous period, approximately 145 to 66 million years ago, mean atmospheric CO2 content was about 1700 ppm. That's six times what it was just before the industrial revolution. In October 2014 it was 395.93 ppm, still orders of magnitude lower than during the Cretaceous period. Mean surface temperature during the Cretaceous period was 18'C, 4'C higher than it is now. During this period of significantly higher atmospheric C02, and temperature levels, life was flourishing. Dinosaurs continued to dominate the land, butn ew groups of mammals, birds, and flowering plants appeared. That's no a big suprise. Contrary to what fake scientists tell your, higher CO2 levels are good for plants and warmer temperatures are good for life in general. You dont have to go back millions of years to find much warmer temperatures than anything we've seen during the industrial age. Temperatures were warmer and ice sheets smaller during the Medieval Warm Period, just one thousand years ago. Dr. Reid A. Bryson, universally recognized as the father of modern climatology, confirms that even today the ice in Greenland covers old Viking farms. Bryson's a real climate scientist, the father of the whole discipline, and he doesn't believe the climate change scam at all. He's not alone among real scientists. There are actually thirty-one thousand who signed a petition to formally register their dissent to this politcally motivated hoax. Obviously for these tens of thousands of scientists, the debate is not over. For real scientists, it never is. That means the IPCC's scientists work hasn't passed peer review at all. The IPCC simply smears and ignores any scientist who doesn't concur. As I've said, one of the things peer review helps scientists avoid is basic errors in logic. The IPCC looked at data that indicates warming periods have been accompanied by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over time. That could mean carbon dioxide causes warming. It could mean warming causes increased levels of carbon dioxide. Or, it could mean neither. Maybe something else caused both temperatures and carbon dioxide levels to rise. That's how a real scientist would think. That's how I had to think to complete my Ph.D. dissertation. But since the IPCC scientist' agenda from the beginning was political instead of scientific, they immediately assumed the higher carbon dioxide levels were causing the warming. They never considered the alternatives, because the alternatives wouldn't support the socialist politicians.
otto99 paulaston's article
Feb 2, 2018 at 9:29
Feb 2, 2018
BTR Pinner – Review
@orientdave: https://youtu.be/bLgVzI9ymhU
otto99 paulaston's article
Feb 2, 2018 at 9:24
Feb 2, 2018
BTR Pinner – Review
@orientdave: "It is erroneous to try and use it as proof that Global Warming is a hoax. Only fools, and uneducated ones at that, believe that." Man it's scary how even when presented with the facts, you refuse to integrate that information into your current knowledge amd work it out. Instead you cling to the idea of "global warming". The coginitice dissonance is strong. For every scientist who supports the idea of anthropogenic "climate change", there is an equally qualified scientist who disagrees. Remember at one point not too long ago, 99% of scientists believed the earth was flat. The first thing you learn in elementary science - is that nothing is absolute, you must remain open to take in new information, not just cherry pick what will support your argument. So for you to be 100% sure of your supposed claim, and naming all who believe otherwise uneducated fools, says more about you than anything.
otto99 paulaston's article
Feb 2, 2018 at 0:56
Feb 2, 2018
BTR Pinner – Review
@BenPea: J.-M. Barnola, D. Raynaud, C. Lorius Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Géophysique de l'Environnement, CNRS, BP96, 38402 Saint Martin d'Heres Cedex, France N.I. Barkov Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Beringa Street 38, 199397, St. Petersburg, Russia Ice core samples from Lake Vostok, Antarctica 420,000 ft. depth (2 miles down) Period of Record: 417,160 - 2,342 years BP What did the Ice Core samples teach scientists? Increases in carbon dioxide always accompanied increases in temperature, But the increases in temperature always came first. What does this mean? The increases in carbon dioxide consistently lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This proves that the increased levels of carbon dioxide did not cause warming, because it didn’t happen until AFTER the warming. They also learned that 325,000 years ago the global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were higher than they are today.
otto99 paulaston's article
Feb 2, 2018 at 0:52
Feb 2, 2018
BTR Pinner – Review
@BenPea: what's that? You haven't heard of the lake vostok ice core samples? What's that? You're clueless to actual science? Yeah... Lake Vostok ice core samples.. You should probably learn about that.
Load more...
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2018. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.039733
Mobile Version of Website