Scientologists and Global Warmers. I can't tell the difference.

No, dumb ass, it was you 'Conservatives' that nearly did in the raptors with your insistence that DDT had nothing to do with the mortality of those birds.

And the bullshit continues....Rachel Carson was a fraud and a liar and has the deaths of literally hundreds of millions on her head...but she was a socialist so people like you jumped right on her bandwagon and you share in those deaths...

Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 — 25 years before widespread use of DDT. [Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937. [Bent, AC. 1937. Raptorial Birds of America. US National Museum Bull 167:321-349]

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs. [Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues.
Data from Krantz, WC. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring Journal4(3):136-140.
State Thickness (mm) DDE residue (ppm)
Florida 0.50 About 10
Maine 0.53 About 22
Wisconsin 0.55 About 4

U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity (51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970). [U.S. Forest Service (Milwaukee, WI). 1970. Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs.” [Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

Wildlife authorities attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat”, but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles.” [Anon.. 1978. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Tech Bull 3:8-9]

Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues. [Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists linked high intake of mercury from contaminated fish with eagle reproductive problems. [Spann, JW, RG Heath, JF Kreitzer, LN Locke. 1972. (Lethal and reproductive effects of mercury on birds) Science 175:328- 331]

The decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years. [Hickey JJ. 1942. (Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940) Auk 59:176; Hickey JJ. 1971 Testimony at DDT hearings before EPA hearing examiner. (350 pre-DDT peregrines claimed in eastern U.S., with 28 of the females sterile); and Beebe FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages]

Peregrine falcons were deemed undesirable in the early 20th century. Dr. William Hornaday of the New York Zoological Society referred to them as birds that “deserve death, but are so rare that we need not take them into account.” [Hornaday, WT. 1913. Our Vanishing Wild Life. New York Zoological Society, p. 226]

Oologists amassed great collections of falcon eggs. [Peterson, RT. 1948. Birds Over American, Dodd Mead & Co., NY, pp 135-151; Rice, JN. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 155-164; Berger, DD. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 165-173]

The decline in falcons along the Hudson River was attributed to falconers, egg collectors, pigeon fanciers and disturbance by construction workers and others. [Herbert, RA and KG Herbert. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 133- 154. (Also in Auk 82: 62-94)]

The 1950’s and 1960’s saw continuing harassment trapping brooding birds in their nests, removing fat samples for analysis and operating time-lapse cameras beside the nests for extended periods of time), predation and habitat destruction. [Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Statement before Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, March 16, 1972; Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada). Condor 70:149-153; Enderson, JH.. 1972. (Time lapse photography inperegrine nests) Living Bird 11: 113- 128; Risebrough, RW. 1970. (Organochlorines in peregrines and merlins migrating through Wisconsin). Canadian Field-Naturalist 84:247-253]


Falconers were blamed for decimating western populations. [Herman, S. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations, University of Wisconsin Press]

During the 1960’s, peregrines in northern Canada were “reproducing normally,” even though they contained 30 times more DDT, DDD, and DDE than the midwestern peregrines that were allegedly extirpated by those chemicals. [Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada) Condor 70:170-178]

There was no decline in peregrine falcon pairs in Canada and Alaska between 1950 and 1967 despite the presence of DDT and DDE. [Fyfe, RW. 1959. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 101-114; and Fyfe, RW. 1968. Auk 85: 383-384]

The peregrine with the very highest DDT residue (2,435 parts per million) was found feeding three healthy young. [Enderson, JH. 1968. (Pesticide residues in Alaska and Yukon Territory) Auk 85: 683]

Shooting, egg collecting, falconry and disruption of nesting birds along the Yukon River and Colville River were reported to be the cause of the decline in peregrine falcon population.[Beebe, FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages; and Beebe, FL. 1975. Brit Columbia Provincial Museum Occas. Paper No. 17, pages 126-144]

The decline in British peregrine falcons ended by 1966, though DDT was as abundant as ever. The Federal Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded “There is no close correlation between the declines in populations of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.” [Wilson report. 1969. Review of Organochlorine pesticides in Britain. Report by the Advisory Committee on toxic chemicals. Department of Education and Science]

During 1940-1945, the British Air Ministry shot about 600 peregrines (half the pre-1939 level) to protect carrier pigeons.

Peregrine falcon and sparrow hawk egg shells thinned in Britain prior to the use of DDT. [Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210; Redcliff, DH. 1970 J Applied Biology 7:67; and Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210]
Very good. Except you listed not one live link with all your list of papers.

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Eggshell Changes in Raptorial and Fish-Eating Birds | Science

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Eggshell Changes in Raptorial and Fish-Eating Birds

Abstract
Catastrophic declines of three raptorial species in the United States have been accompanied by decreases in eggshell thickness that began in 1947, have amounted to 19 percent or more, and were identical to phenomena reported in Britain. In 1967, shell thickness in herring gull eggs from five states decreased with increases in chlorinated hydrocarbon residues.


Dieldrin and DDT: Effects on Sparrow Hawk Eggshells and Reproduction | Science

  • 0
REPORTS
Dieldrin and DDT: Effects on Sparrow Hawk Eggshells and Reproduction
  1. Richard D. Porter1,
  2. Stanley N. Wiemeyer1

+ Author Affiliations

Science 11 Jul 1969:
Vol. 165, Issue 3889, pp. 199-200
DOI: 10.1126/science.165.3889.199

Abstract
Patterns of reproductive failure in declining populations of several European and North American raptorial species were duplicated experimentally with captive American sparrow hawks Falco sparvcrius that were given a diet containing two commonly used organochlorine insecticides. Major effects on reproduction were increased egg disappearance, increased egg destruction by parent birds, and reduced eggshell thickness.

DDE Residues and Eggshell Changes in Alaskan Falcons and Hawks | Science

DDE Residues and Eggshell Changes in Alaskan Falcons and Hawks
  1. Tom J. Cade1,
  2. Jeffrey L. Lincer1,
  3. Clayton M. White1,
  4. David G. Roseneau2,
  5. L. G. Swartz2
+ Author Affiliations

Science 28 May 1971:
Vol. 172, Issue 3986, pp. 955-957
DOI: 10.1126/science.172.3986.955

Abstract
Eggshell thickness after exposure to DDT was reduced by 21.7 percent in Alaskan tundra peregrines, by 16.8 percent in taiga peregrines, by 7.5 percent in Aleutian peregrines, by 3.3 percent in rough-legged hawks, and not at all in gyrfalcons. Tundra peregrine eggs contain an average of 889 parts of DDE per million (lipid basis); taiga peregrine eggs contain 673 parts per million; Aleutian peregrine eggs contain 167 parts per million; rough-legged hawk eggs contain 22.5 parts per million; and gyrfalcon eggs contain 3.88 parts per million. These changes in eggshell thickness and the pesticide residues reflect different degrees of exposure to contamination. There is a highly significant negative correlation between shell thickness and DDE content in peregrine eggs. Tundra and taiga peregrines have fledged progressively fewer young each year since 1966.

Now all I did was put "eggshell thickness, DDT" on google scholar. Many, many wonderful articles on the effects of DDT on eggshell thickness. Many, many. LOL

you aren't bright enough to look them up?...sorry...I have done it before. You are going to believe rachel and her followers regardless of any evidence you are given...such is the nature of blind idiot liberalism.
 
Do you believe the world is not getting warmer?


Of course it "has" been getting warmer...since the climb from the little ice age...whether or not it is still getting warmer is questionable...satellites show no statistically significant warming since 1998...the surface record is so hopelessly altered that it is really of no use in determining anything....

The satellite record DOES show significant warming and you have absolutely NO evidence that the surface record has been unjustifiably altered. None.

1920px-Satellite_Temperatures.png

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

800px-RSS_troposphere_stratosphere_trend.png

Microwave sounding unit lower troposphere and lower stratosphere 1979-2013 temperature trend (°C/decade) and 12 months running mean global temperature time series with respect to 1979-1998. Data source:http://www.remss.com/data/msu/data; Data description:http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

And here is the cooling in the lower stratosphere that can only be caused by greenhouse warming.

I would worry far more about the warm spell coming to an end and a long term cooling trend beginning than further warming...by the way....what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?

Tell you what, why don't we bet our net worths on the cooling spell you think is coming.

The ideal temperature for life on planet Earth is one that doesn't change as quickly as it has been for the last 150 years.
 
The satellite record DOES show significant warming and you have absolutely NO evidence that the surface record has been unjustifiably altered. None.

The satellite record does not....so says the person who maintains the record...

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 « Roy Spencer, PhD

And here is the cooling in the lower stratosphere that can only be caused by greenhouse warming.

As has already been pointed out to you...that stratospheric cooling trend stopped in the mid 1990's...and has begun to show a slight warming trend ever since...directly opposed to the AGW hypothesis...yet another predictive failure....

global_upper_air.png



The ideal temperature for life on planet Earth is one that doesn't change as quickly as it has been for the last 150 years.

As with practically everything else you say...you have no basis upon which to make the claim other than that it is your opinion...
 
I presented data that support my position and there are mountains more of it. You have NO explanation for ANY of the cooling of the lower stratosphere and when you say it stopped cooling, you're conveniently cherry picking a span that begins with an enormous ENSO spike. You have NO EVIDENCE that any surface data were unjustifiably altered. Your own data show the lower troposphere to be warming as does every other temperature record in existence. The world is getting warmer. Your query about the ideal temperature for life show you're not interested in the facts of the situation. Else you're really stupid.

From the National Academy of Science, Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000)
In the opinion of the panel, the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising. The recent corrections in the MSU processing algorithms (referred to above) bring the global temperature trend derived from the satellite data into slightly closer alignment with surface temperature trends, but a substantial disparity remains. The various kinds of evidence examined by the panel suggest that the troposphere actually may have warmed much less rapidly than the surface from 1979 into the late 1990s, due both to natural causes (e.g., the sequence of volcanic eruptions that occurred within this particular 20-year period) and human activities (e.g., the cooling of the upper part of the troposphere resulting from ozone depletion in the stratosphere). Regardless of whether the disparity is real, the panel cautions that temperature trends based on data for such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system.

From Wikipedia, UAV Satellite Temperatrures

The UAH TLT dataset was a source of controversy in the 1990s as, at that time, it showed little increase in global mean temperature, at odds with surface measurements. Since then a number of errors in the way the atmospheric temperatures were derived from the raw radiance data have been discovered and corrections made by Christy et al. at UAH.

The largest of these errors was demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS. In that paper they showed that the data needed to be corrected for orbital decay of the MSU satellites. As the satellites' orbits gradually decayed towards the earth the area from which they received radiances was reduced, introducing a false cooling trend.[9]

Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]

NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.[11]

Christy et al. asserted in a 2007 paper that the tropical temperature trends from radiosondes matches more closely with their v5.2 UAH-TLT dataset than with RSS v2.1.[12]

Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, has been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011. RSS and UAH TLT are now within 0.003 K/decade of one another. Significant differences remain, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends.

Version 4.0 of RSS's TLT dataset

MSU_AMSU_Channel_tlt_Trend_Map_v03_3_1979_2016.730_450.png

RSS / MSU Data Images / Monthly



 
I haven't been defending my industry. I have been attacking your hypocrisy. Go take your car for a drive and relax. The sky is not falling.

Where have I said you shouldn't drive cars? You think because I think the petroleum industry has negative issues that I'm a hypocrite for driving? Sorry, not that simple. We have emission standards. We have fines for cars with leaky exhausts or blowing smoke. As long as my car meets those standards I'm happy. The day I drive a car that is blowing smoke into the atmosphere and I don't give a fuck, and bitch to you about your industry, is the day I'm a hypocrite.
Yes. I believe you are a hypocrite.

Obviously don't know the meaning of the word. I know you can't defend the negative aspects of your industry. No harm, no foul.
What part of I am not defending my industry do you not understand?
Hell, Ding, horse wranglers were once in demand, also.
I'm sure some still are. So what? The reality is that you behave like a religious fanatic.
 
Total U.S. installed wind capacity, through end of 2015:



73,992 MW



Equivalent number of average American homes powered in a year by current installed wind capacity:



20 million

Wind energy's percentage share of power capacity additions in 2015:



41%

Total number of operating utility-scale wind turbines:

Wind Energy Facts at a Glance

The amount of electricity to power 20 million American homes is not insignificant. And more wind farms going in every day. Same with solar.

>48,800

Number of U.S. states with operating utility-scale wind energy projects:



40 plus
Puerto Rico

Old Fraud posting up lies again... well half truths...

What they fail to tell you is the rated capacity ends up being just about 24% of realized output and that power grids using this crap are unstable and unreliable..
 
Although I disagree with her philosophy of objectivism I have more respect for her than I do for you. You are a fanatic. She was a pragmatist.

Fuck you you are just an entitled swell headed self Righteous white asshole go fuck yourself you sad Bimbo and go fuck that dead idiot Ayn Rand...that bitch smoked like a chimney and died of cancer while getting Social security and Medicare that she had denounced

I got no respect none for YOU Ashmolean:ahole-1:

Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
Posted on 6 January 2017 by dana1981
Climate myths are like zombies – you shoot them through the heart, walk away thinking they’re dead, and then they pop back up behind you and try once again to eat your brain.

So it is with Stage 1 climate denial and the myth that the Earth isn’t warming. It’s so persistent that it’s related to the 5th, 9th, and 49th-most popular myths in the Skeptical Science database. Climate deniers have been peddling the myth ‘no warming since [insert date]’ for over a decade.

It’s a popular myth among those who benefit from maintaining the status quo because if the problem doesn’t exist, obviously there’s no need for action to solve it. And it’s an incredibly easy argument that can be made at any time, using the telltale technique of climate denial known as cherry picking
My goodness. That little rant sounds like the rant of a religious fanatic who has his religious dogma challenged. Thank you for proving my point.
 
I am sure he is strictly Objective in his approach ...ask Spencer about Evolution
I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world...

Roy Spencer


Spencer is an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance, formerly the Interfaith Steward Alliance (ISA), an evangelical Christian group that claims environmentalism is “one of the greatest threats to society and the church today.” He has done work with other religious groups denying climate change including the Evangelical Climate Initiative. [2], [3], [4]
 
This is the title of this thread:
Scientologists and Global Warmers. I can't tell the difference.

The premise being that those who believe in Global warming are manifesting the same as 'Scientology" which in this case stands for an Icon of quasi Religious Fanaticism...

In order to support that thesis someone pulls out the outlying Religiously tainted beliefs of One Roy Spencer an Evangelical Religious Right wing Nut who not only denies Global warming he also denies the Theory of Evolution .....:badgrin: yeah those "libruls" are sure fanatical
 
This is the title of this thread:
Scientologists and Global Warmers. I can't tell the difference.

The premise being that those who believe in Global warming are manifesting the same as 'Scientology" which in this case stands for an Icon of quasi Religious Fanaticism...

In order to support that thesis someone pulls out the outlying Religiously tainted beliefs of One Roy Spencer an Evangelical Religious Right wing Nut who not only denies Global warming he also denies the Theory of Evolution .....:badgrin: yeah those "libruls" are sure fanatical
One thing they both have in common is they attack those who attack their dogma. Just as you are doing.
 
DOGMA
1.
an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals,behavior, etc., as of a church.
Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church:the dogma of the Assumption;
the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility.
Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.
prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particulargroup:
the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4.
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:
the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.
Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

Are you saying mainstream science is now a church?
 
DOGMA
1.
an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals,behavior, etc., as of a church.
Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church:the dogma of the Assumption;
the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility.
Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.
prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particulargroup:
the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4.
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:
the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.
Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

Are you saying mainstream science is now a church?

Climate pseudoscience certainly involves a large dose of dogma....soon to be exposed...
 
How far into the Trump administration do you think it'll be before the AGW hoax will have been fully exposed? One day? One month? One year? What will be the Edward R Murrow moment? When will it all come crashing down? Al Gore questioned by James Inhofe? Michael Mann interrogated by Mark Steyn? How about Gavin Schmidt versus Lord Christopher Monckton? Please let us all know when you see the big moment coming. We wouldn't want to miss it.
 
How far into the Trump administration do you think it'll be before the AGW hoax will have been fully exposed? One day? One month? One year? What will be the Edward R Murrow moment? When will it all come crashing down? Al Gore questioned by James Inhofe? Michael Mann interrogated by Mark Steyn? How about Gavin Schmidt versus Lord Christopher Monckton? Please let us all know when you see the big moment coming. We wouldn't want to miss it.


Idiot...the hoax is already exposed...has been for a very long time...how long do I think it will take for the perpetrators to change their tune in order to keep the money flowing?...not long...
 
Have any examples yet? And how are they going to change their tune? It's not like anyone's going to un-write AR1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.

Stupid fool.
 

Forum List

Back
Top