The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Money that could pay for textbooks and technology must be redirected to pay for green beans and whole-grain hot dog buns.

It simply wasn't economically feasible anymore, said Kirchner. "The program is heading in the wrong direction," he said.

So his school board opted out. It will still offer lunch – a healthful lunch, he said – at the same prices.

Children who get free or reduced-price lunches – about 17 percent of the student body – will still get them at that price.

Only now, the school district will absorb the cost – more than $260,000 a year – rather than use federal funding to cover it.

Schools throughout the nation are grappling with the same decision.

Nationwide, 1 million fewer students are choosing a school lunch each day, according to the National School Nutrition Association.

My children love the lunch at their schools. They seem to be getting quality and nutritious meals for little money.

Here is the menu for middle school. The lunch costs $2.65.
http://www.tulsaschools.org/1_Administration/03_STAFF_MEMBERS/_DEPARTMENTS/child_nutrition/_documents/pdf/menus/MS_Lunch.pdf

Here is the menu for high school. It costs the same amount.
http://www.tulsaschools.org/1_Administration/03_STAFF_MEMBERS/_DEPARTMENTS/child_nutrition/_documents/pdf/menus/HS_Lunch.pdf

High schoolers and their civil disobedience.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725462/Thanks-Michelle-Disgusted-teens-country-pose-alongside-healthy-food-vending-machines-protest-absence-tasty-snacks.html

The 2,800-student district joins a small but growing number of school districts across the country – mostly wealthy districts who can afford to forfeit the money – who have dropped out of the federal program in the wake of stricter nutritional standards.

Schools said students don't like the unsalted potatoes, low-fat cheese or the mandatory fruits and vegetables. They throw food away or decide not to eat at all.

Michelle Obama is into telling others what to eat while she herself scarfs down burgers and fires and Obama smokes. With the Obamas it's do as I say & not as I do. Michelle Obama eats greasy foods while she tells everyone else to eat spinach & broccoli. Michelle should at least practice what she preachs, if she did she would not be gaining all that weight.

Michelle Obama is into telling others what to eat while she herself scarfs down burgers and fires and Obama smokes. With the Obamas it's do as I say & not as I do. Michelle Obama eats greasy foods while she tells everyone else to eat spinach & broccoli. Michelle should at least practice what she preachs, if she did she would not be gaining all that weight.

Yeah, she's a real fatty

Pictures can't always be believed today they can be changed and altered or photoshopped. It won't take much to shed  a few pound off of Michelle's Obamas picture. From what I seen Michelle Obama is a bit on the heavy side and that's Not from a diet of greens & veggies, more like a diet of fries, burgers and fat foods.

You are a nonsensical pig. Post a picture of yourself so we can criticize you. If not, shut up.

Here is a picture of her dunking a basketball. She looks fine to me.

http://twitpic.com/dsy47x

I'm not a pretty sight on a picture-- but then I don't go around telling other people what to eat either. Michelle needs to stop being the nations food police patrol. It's fine for her to tell others what to eat but she does not follow her own guidelines. "Do as I say & not as I do" is her moto. Obama still smokes too.

She isn't telling you what to eat. 

Come on, it's her agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michelle-obamas-school-lunch-agenda-faces-backlash-from-some-school-nutrition-officials/2014/05/29/6a8e4af6-e744-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html

Might just as well change your nickname to 'guidods911'.  Probably more accurate.

Come on, it's her agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michelle-obamas-school-lunch-agenda-faces-backlash-from-some-school-nutrition-officials/2014/05/29/6a8e4af6-e744-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html

Might as well. Because that's so darned funny.  ::)

That is not the job of the first lady anyhow.

Please explain what the job of the first lady is.

I wonder what you would have said about Nancy Reagan and her pet cause, "Just say No to drugs"

Her husband decided to spend tax dollars on her pet cause and the result was an extra $1.7 billion being spent on her cause. The results were stunning. Arrests for drug use went up 126% in the two year afterward and sentences for rock cocaine became 100 times as long as those for powder cocaine (no racism there).

Of course, drug use completely went away thanks to the First Lady (sarcasm).

So maybe the problem is that Michelle Obama just hasn't got her husband to spend a billion or so dollars. Maybe she just hasn't found a way to make her cause get millions of people imprisoned.

Michelle Obama is just speaking about healthy eating. It doesn't change your life.

Eat a french fry and shut the hell up.

The last comment about British food was meant to be funny. Of course, you have no clue and just go ahead and post to attack everybody who disagrees with you.

Really, guido911. You sure seem dense sometimes. I think your want to be mean to me, Hoss, and others shows a real bad side of you.

"Drug use in America is half of what it was 30 years ago, cocaine production in Colombia has dropped by almost two-thirds, and we’re successfully diverting thousands of nonviolent offenders into treatment instead of jail by supporting alternatives to incarceration," said Rafael Lemaitre, communications director of the White House drug policy office.

Come on, it's her agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michelle-obamas-school-lunch-agenda-faces-backlash-from-some-school-nutrition-officials/2014/05/29/6a8e4af6-e744-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html

And are you seriously comparing the war on drugs to school lunch/nutrition restrictions? Really? And I suppose obese kids will vanish as a result of Moochelle's pet project, and this batter over the "dreaded pink cookie in Ohio":

No guido911. I don't suspect that childhood obesity will go away because the first lady has made it a cause that she works on.

But would you not agree that it is a problem that someone needs to address? Being first lady gives you a platform.

I became involved in the environmental movement that was in part started by Lady Bird Johnson and her highway beautification and anti-litter work. Betty Ford pushed hard for treatment facilities to battle alcoholism. Hillary Clinton made historic preservation a mission after failing to make changes to the health care system. Barbara Bush and Laura Bush made literacy a cause.

Do we still have litter, alcoholism, tear down history and have children who can't read? Unfortunately, yes.

Do you have any problems with any of these causes? Or are just opposed to helping overweight people or just that a black woman wants to make a difference?

You and sauer seem to be trying to do just that - elevate a little jaw-boning about eating a salad to being somehow being worse than setting up another one of those RWRE situations we all love so much in this country.  Her and Raygun's continuation of the "war on drugs" costs us tens of billions a year in wasted effort just to perform the interdiction part of the plan.  That doesn't the costs of confinement for extended prison terms for trivial offenses (pot possession).

But yeah...it's a travesty what she is doing to the country and our kids health....



I think maybe you have been eating way too many Reuben's lately....the pickled veggies are starting to affect your mind....

It ain't me. These kids are not eating it. They apparently would rather do without, or just throw it away. Who wins?

Let them do without....they get hungry enough, they can catch the next meal....

Biggest problem, as with all things school related is getting parental 'buy in'.

Do we still have litter, alcoholism, tear down history and have children who can't read? Unfortunately, yes.

It will be interesting to see what Bill Clinton finds as a cause when he wife becomes President in 2017.

I am guessing it will involve interns.

It will be interesting to see what Bill Clinton finds as a cause when he wife becomes President in 2017.

I am guessing it will involve interns.

Damn, described my whole life in one sentence.

He's  too old for interns, my guess it'll be something like Al Gore's cause, global warming or pollution and the need for more regulations and/or CO2  restrictions or something about the environment. He may even join up with Al Gore and fight our overheating planet, never mind that the 2014 Farmers Almanic says this winter will be colder and worse than last years winter, it's still global warming. The global warming agenda must go on!

Sooo,....what...does this mean you admit that you ARE George W Bush??

Damn it! My cover has been blown.

No.  And now you are right back where you normally are....it's YOU that says "global warming"....people that know anything call it what it is - "climate change".

He's  too old for interns, my guess it'll be something like Al Gore's cause, global warming or pollution and the need for more regulations and/or CO2  restrictions or something about the environment. He may even join up with Al Gore and fight our overheating planet, never mind that the 2014 Farmers Almanic says this winter will be colder and worse than last years winter, it's still global warming. The global warming agenda must go on!

It is now Global Climate Disruption - according to White House science adviser John Holdren.

Please try and keep up.

What about the volcano in Iceland? Will that affect global/man made whatever its called?

It is now Global Climate Disruption - according to White House science adviser John Holdren.

Please try and keep up.

What about the volcano in Iceland? Will that affect global/man made whatever its called?

What about the volcano in Iceland? Will that affect global/man made whatever its called?

Actually the volcano action is also man-made.  Too many people moving around on the Tectonic Plates causes them to move and make heat due to the friction among the plates.
 
 :D

No.  And now you are right back where you normally are....it's YOU that says "global warming"....people that know anything call it what it is - "climate change".

Actually the volcano action is also man-made.  Too many people moving around on the Tectonic Plates causes them to move and make heat due to the friction among the plates.
 
 :D

That is totally crazy-- The Earths climate is always changing and it will keep changing with cold peroids and warm peroids. What exactly is "climate change" and what is the current climate changing into?  The current climate must be changing from what it is now into something else or they would not be using the word "changing".  I got a good question- what exactly is Earths normal temp supposed to be anyhow? The planet is 4.5 Billion years old what temp is normal for that time frame? 1,000 years ago the Vikings lived on Greenland when it was warmer then it is today  then it  got cold and the Vikings had to flee Greenland as ice moved in. The Earths climate is always changing. The new word is becoming "Climate Disruption" caused by man but of course. In 2005 they said  hurricanes like Katrina are caused by global warming- for the past 10 years we had no  big hurricanes what happened? Computer models goof up? Garbage in & garbage out.

It's not "Climate Change"  it's "Climate Hoax"...  As for global warming the planet has not warmed at all for the past 17+ years according to NOAA- in fact the global temp has dropped- yet the global warming train keeps going, the hoax has to be kept alive and they call that science. Global warming is not really about science anyhow it's a political movement. The winter of 2014 was so severe that the great  lakes totally froze solid- it takes a very cold winter to do that. Where is that warming? In the early 1990's they said by the year 2000 NY would be under water from the melting polar ice. Never happened, no follow ups, they know people would forget about that prediction by the time 2000 rolled around. Get ready people Obama plans some drastic climate change  executive orders meaning  higher electric bills and oil prices all in the name of a hoax. >:(

It's not "Climate Change"  it's "Climate Hoax"...  As for global warming the planet has not warmed at all for the past 17+ years according to NOAA- in fact the global temp has dropped-

It's not "Climate Change"  it's "Climate Hoax"...  As for global warming the planet has not warmed at all for the past 17+ years according to NOAA- in fact the global temp has dropped- yet the global warming train keeps going, the hoax has to be kept alive and they call that science. Global warming is not really about science anyhow it's a political movement. The winter of 2014 was so severe that the great  lakes totally froze solid- it takes a very cold winter to do that. Where is that warming? In the early 1990's they said by the year 2000 NY would be under water from the melting polar ice. Never happened, no follow ups, they know people would forget about that prediction by the time 2000 rolled around. Get ready people Obama plans some drastic climate change  executive orders meaning  higher electric bills and oil prices all in the name of a hoax. >:(

What about the volcano in Iceland? Will that affect global/man made whatever its called?

Yes. Volcanos are now caused by fracking in North Dakota.

You are mistaken. Fracking in North Dakota caused the Ebola virus outbreak in Africa. Come on.

And now sauer #1 is back....  Stay on your meds!!

Hang on gang, Obama is going to by-pass Congress and push his global warming agenda thru via the United Nations.

Hang on gang, Obama is going to by-pass Congress and push his global warming agenda thru via the United Nations. hang on to your wallet as our electric bills double & tripple and gasoline spikes at $10.00 a gallon. All in the name of a Climate  hoax. Kill the jobs, kill the economy, and bring the USA down to it's knees and this  will be one thing that is  all man made-- the  economic distruction of our nation. Since Obama took power  the  national average of gasoline  never fell below $3.00 a gallon. When Bush left office gasoline was $1.70 a gallon cheap by todays standards. Obama's war on oil & coal has not really even started yet remember Obama has two more years and nothing to lose by going all out radical left... Anyhow back to Michelle Obama and her self appointed job as Food Police. The result has been a huge increase of wasted food. Kids eat with their taste buds and always will, it's hard to force kids to eat something they don't wanna eat. The schools have been throwing away alot of good food.

Man, FOX news really has you guys F'd up.

You weren't paying attention.  It was on Public Radio. (KWGS)

If you say so....

Eh, he gives it a shot

What is incorrect about my post? Did not Al Gore say in the early 1990's that  by the year 2000 NY would be under water because of global warming? I remember it.

The real problem is the fact that ALL the plants we depend on for everything must be pollinated in some fashion. Additionally, ALL of them don't do that at high temperatures.  Like above 90 degrees F or so.  Some a little lower, some a little higher.  So even with an average global temperature somewhere in the 60 range, pollination could easily be interrupted with a modest rise in average, because it is the high temps and their timing that make the difference.  If it gets to much more than 90 in June over a wider area, then less pollination, less fruit/vegetable/grain, less plant production.  It's a sliding scale that will vary based on location and weather patterns.  Probably not going to be growing Okra on the Arctic Circle anytime soon, but also not likely to grow worldwide supply of fruit/vegetable/grains there either.  Leading to fewer people.  Bigger desserts.

That is well said.

The deserts will grow.

Because, "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."

To me, trying to say that air temperature from cold winters is proof that global warming is a hoax is simply using poor data. 97% of scientists believe global warming is real and the ones that don't are studying air temperatures like meteorologists. Unfortunately, that is like thinking the turkey in the oven is ready because the oven temperature. It is the bird temperature that matters.

I believe this is a serious problem and anyone who doesn't believe in the science is a fool. You can argue whether or not this problem is man-made, but ignoring the facts of hotter temperatures is simply foolish.
  

You can argue whether or not this problem is man-made, but ignoring the facts of hotter temperatures is simply foolish.

The oceans might be a temporary answer to storing the rising temperature. Here is a fascinating article saying that deeper and deeper depths are warming (absorbing) these higher temperatures. 

If it is not man-made, what do you intend to do about it?

There is a lot that could be done now. We could implement water conservation measures, use dry tolerant plant species to slow down growth of deserts, invest in de-salination technology, etc.

There is a lot that could be done now. We could implement water conservation measures, use dry tolerant plant species to slow down growth of deserts, invest in de-salination technology, etc.

My friends that used to live in northeast Albuquerque had a relatively small spot of "lawn".  The rest of the yard was rocks and stuff that were very drought tolerant. That seemed to be the lawn trend in that area.  They moved many years ago but this is their old neighborhood.

http://goo.gl/maps/wC3CI
http://goo.gl/maps/WbhCG

No he's not.  He's going to go to fundraisers and talk about global warming, then he's going to survey the effects of the global warming on fescue and bent grass. . . and report the results at future fundraisers.

No.  He did not.  He has made predictions about ocean levels rising over the next century - and they are probably too high, because it will take longer for Antarctica to melt - and that is where all the water is.  Greenland is impressive, but not the big water source.

Tarawa is pretty much all gone now.  So are the glaciers in Glacier National Park - probably gonna have to rename the place.  

CO2 is almost double.  And it is also known that volcanic activity - dust in the air - is what has caused the slowdown in temperature increases.

The biggest problem is not that the ice is gonna melt and flood New York - that is trivial compared to the real problem.  The real problem is the fact that ALL the plants we depend on for everything must be pollinated in some fashion.  Additionally, ALL of them don't do that at high temperatures.  Like above 90 degrees F or so.  Some a little lower, some a little higher.  So even with an average global temperature somewhere in the 60 range, pollination could easily be interrupted with a modest rise in average, because it is the high temps and their timing that make the difference.  If it gets to much more than 90 in June over a wider area, then less pollination, less fruit/vegetable/grain, less plant production.  It's a sliding scale that will vary based on location and weather patterns.  Probably not going to be growing Okra on the Arctic Circle anytime soon, but also not likely to grow worldwide supply of fruit/vegetable/grains there either.  Leading to fewer people.  Bigger desserts.

On the other hand, if we did go to ice age, same problem - other direction.  Miles of ice sitting on top of Kansas City are going to be problematic.  Plants won't be able to pollinate and mature due to being too cold.  Still not likely to be able to grow worldwide supply of food at today's population levels.  

And yeah, I know about fiddlehead ferns - the type of plant from 100 million years ago and much hotter climate.  Can't grow enough, fast enough for the world.

I know that guido911 and sauerkraut are experts on global temperatures and don't need to read any more evidence that contradicts with their views. But for those who wants facts...

To me, trying to say that air temperature from cold winters is proof that global warming is a hoax is simply using poor data. 97% of scientists believe global warming is real and the ones that don't are studying air temperatures like meteorologists. Unfortunately, that is like thinking the turkey in the oven is ready because the oven temperature. It is the bird temperature that matters.

Our planet is about 75% water so the ocean temperature matters way more than air temperature. And their has been quite a bit of research lately showing rising water temperatures. Here is a page from the Union of Concerned Scientists...

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/ocean-temperature.html

The oceans might be a temporary answer to storing the rising temperature. Here is a fascinating article saying that deeper and deeper depths are warming (absorbing) these higher temperatures.  

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science

Of course hotter water temperatures might buy some time for other parts of the planet to heal, but then again might lead to other problems.

I believe this is a serious problem and anyone who doesn't believe in the science is a fool. You can argue whether or not this problem is man-made, but ignoring the facts of hotter temperatures is simply foolish.
  

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project.

They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.

Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University and University Coillege, London, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.

‘It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’...

...Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’

Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.

‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said.

However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’

Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.

Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.

Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.

Satellite imagery shows the polar ice cap has expanded the last two years.  A shrinking polar ice cap was supposed to be proof of global warming.  

The problem is politicians making political hay of climatological cycles and spouting complete untruths they pull from their arses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

Whew!  You think two years data makes a trend, while 100 years data does not....  Got it...!


So now we have competing measurements!!  Sept 2012, the arctic ice was it's smallest size ever.  And Aug 2013, it averaged bigger than 2012, but still 1.3 million km2 smaller than the 1981 - 2010 average (6 million km2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_cap


Some improvement for 2014 - only 7th worst in recorded history...  I guess ya gotta get consolation where ya can!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Whew!  You think two years data makes a trend, while 100 years data does not....  Got it...!


So now we have competing measurements!!  Sept 2012, the arctic ice was it's smallest size ever.  And Aug 2013, it averaged bigger than 2012, but still 1.3 million km2 smaller than the 1981 - 2010 average (6 million km2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_cap


Some improvement for 2014 - only 7th worst in recorded history...  I guess ya gotta get consolation where ya can!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Hi, you do understand climatological cycles, yes?  Earth warms.  Earth cools.  Been doing it for millions of years.

It’s only the last 30-40 years politicians figured out a way to harness that to rape and plunder.

I have been talking about the Vostok ice cores for about 15 years or so (they came out in '98-'99 time frame).  They show beyond any doubt that the changing temperature always precedes changing CO2.  Which pretty much means that temperature is the determining factor - NOT CO2.  I guess no on here has even looked at one of those charts.

So, yeah, I do understand at least that part of the climatological cycles.  Actually, been doing it for billions of years....

I don’t claim to be a climatologist.  I’m also skeptical of people who have their salaries paid for by government grants which encourage them to prove a pre-determined hypothesis. 

Don’t even start with: “That’s not how science works.”  Follow the money, Heir.

100 years? Hell, remember the looming ice age from the 70s?

I do.  Did you even read that last post??  I mean, really READ it...??   Come on...I know you can do it!!  Overcome your high school education!!  Now is the time!

Or look at the Vostok ice core data?? 

Want a hint?

Hint: global warming is NOT caused by increasing CO2.  Increasing CO2 always occurs after the fact of rising temperatures.  Think about that statement for a while.

Company line has been that CO2 is the cause of global warming.  You have to forgive me, they keep shifting so fast it’s hard to keep up with the current narrative.  As for you, don’t you find it repugnant all the misinformation in the name of politics and power?

Ahem.

What's the spoon for?

What's the spoon for?

Tell me again how the ice is melting and how hot the planet is becoming.

Global Warming. Here were are still in Summer, it's  Sept. 12th late summer  and they expect a overnight low temp  in Tulsa of 49 degrees. South Dakota had snow already  and so did Colorado Springs, a summer snowstorm. Tell me again how the ice is melting and how hot the planet is becoming.

Seriously we are having to break this chart out again? I'm leaving it huge for emphasis.


(http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/files/2014/01/Jan12014piechart.png)

Tell me again how the ice is melting and how hot the planet is becoming.

One outlier like the Dr. that said ulcers were caused by bacteria.

Main difference is politicians never figured out a way to gain power and money over ulcers.  Am I right?

Keep busting out the graphs. I'll keep opening up my window.

Main difference is politicians never figured out a way to gain power and money over ulcers.  Am I right?

When it comes down to it, you just really aren't very bright, are you?

Is that why you are belligerent so often, trying to mask your lack of understanding of even basic issues?

Yes, there's very big money to be had for denying the science behind global warming. Hundreds of millions of dollars from secretive right wing groups and the energy industry.

Yes, there's very big money to be had for denying the science behind global warming. Hundreds of millions of dollars from secretive right wing groups and the energy industry.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Your ideas on global warming have been paid for, generously so, by Koch and Exxon.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
Comment Now Follow Comments

The global warming icon for the ubx.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”


Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.


One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

I believe the graph Swake posted only looked at the papers written and peer reviewed by climate scientists. I'm not sure why anyone would place high value on the opinions of geoscientists and engineers concerning climate change.

I believe the graph Swake posted only looked at the papers written and peer reviewed by climate scientists. I'm not sure why anyone would place high value on the opinions of geoscientists and engineers concerning climate change.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

I don't necessarily dismiss the opinions of the meteorologists, however the study of weather and climate are separate. A climate scientist likely can't predict tomorrow's weather, nor can a meteorologist predict the next century's climate.

Pretty lame even by your standards.  Your ideals on climatology have been paid for by Soros, Gore, and Co.  All people who have set themselves up to profit from exaggerating the impact and sources of climatological cycles.  Nice meme you keep posting but it’s not even close to accurate.  

It’s a study about how their opinions on climate science vary so strongly from the settled science and why.

The continued claims of "settled science" will work well among those unwilling to think for themselves.

but I place much more faith in the studies, opinions and models of scientists who devote their time to studying the climate than those who are "geoscientists and engineers."

Rush L just mentioned on his radio show today (09-15-14) in his first hour that  reports released say the ice build up at both the North & South pole are at record levels. Huge ice sheets are growing.

I had convinced myself that you were just trolling on this forum.  But if you are seriously referencing Rush, or even listening to him for  that matter,  it may explain a lot.

I had convinced myself that you were just trolling on this forum.  But if you are seriously referencing Rush, or even listening to him for  that matter,  it may explain a lot.

Not so fast- Rush was reading a article about the growing ice on his radio show. This was not his opinion, that is what the article said written by real scientists. It is true Rush does not believe in global warming and neither do I. IMO it's a hoax.

Global Highlights
The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.
The global land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the second highest on record for August, behind 1998.
For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.
The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 20th century average, the fifth highest on record for this period. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for June–August. This beats the previous record set in 2009 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for January–August (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.3°F), the third highest for this eight-month period on record.

Not so fast- Rush was reading a article about the growing ice on his radio show. This was not his opinion, that is what the article said written by real scientists. It is true Rush does not believe in global warming and neither do I. IMO it's a hoax.

Not so fast- Rush was reading a article about the growing ice on his radio show. This was not his opinion, that is what the article said written by real scientists. It is true Rush does not believe in global warming and neither do I. IMO it's a hoax.

Republicans believe it's all hooey 'cause Rush said so.

I cannot believe anyone would think was a good idea.

https://vine.co/v/OqJKZVQami9

They had some nice global warming weather on the east coast, record cold- and 12" of snow and winter is still 2 months away. Daytona Beach was around 39 degrees.

See Guido, this is who you agree with.

School lunches

From many years ago;

Love the pizza!!
Love the chili!!

Back in my day. We had to eat tree bark and grass. And wash it down with a cup of muddy pond water and like it!  :D

Bean chowder and cinnamon rolls.  Best TPS lunch EVER.

So basically the same a turnips?

Turnip For What?

Seriously though,  in the name of my good Czech grandmother,  don't mock the turnip. 

Bean chowder and cinnamon rolls.  Best TPS lunch EVER.

See Guido, this is who you agree with.

Bean chowder and cinnamon rolls.  Best TPS lunch EVER.

Anyone hear the comment Michelle Obama made, if you vote democratic your permitted to eat some fried chicken. Thank you food police.

Where on earth did you hear that?

Or was that on intergallactic radio?

Where on earth did you hear that?

Or was that on intergallactic radio?

Around the :40 sec mark.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaAUbceI9cM[/youtube]

Around the :40 sec mark.

But it's not racist if she say's it.  ::)

Anyone could be discussing soul food.  It's allowed.

Anyone could be discussing soul food.  It's allowed.

Really?