Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 128

Thread: 2016: New Year Prediction Thread

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FUCK View Post
    Hilary clinton will keep repeating that woman are not paid the same wage for equal work, despite this being a complete myth and fabrication. Additionally, even though clinton is against the 4th amendment and privacy rights, for foreign intervention, was for the iraq war, and many other things that liberals claim to be vehemently against, dumb emotional oprah voters like christie will buy into clinton hook line and sinker and elect claire underwood as president of the united states.
    Uh....wouldn't..."Hilary will get elected." do?
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    Phantasmal (12-29-2015)

  3. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Uh....wouldn't..."Hilary will get elected." do?
    i predict the how, not just the what.


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to BRUTALITOPS For This Post:

    /MSG/ (12-29-2015)

  5. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    mott will continue to be a smug cunt on jpp


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BRUTALITOPS For This Post:

    /MSG/ (12-29-2015), Minister of Truth (12-30-2015)

  7. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FUCK View Post
    pretty sure that already exists.
    You mean my first prediction came true?
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  8. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    You mean my first prediction came true?
    http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...30#post1517430


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to BRUTALITOPS For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (12-29-2015)

  10. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FUCK View Post
    mott will continue to be a smug cunt on jpp
    Prick...a smug prick. Runes a cunt.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  11. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Those aren't predictions. They're the present.
    I haven't bought any guns yet or finished my book.

    Yet.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to /MSG/ For This Post:

    Phantasmal (12-29-2015)

  13. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheogorath View Post
    I haven't bought any guns yet or finished my book.

    Yet.
    What book?
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  14. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,534
    Thanks
    65,163
    Thanked 38,094 Times in 25,664 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Sociopathic cretin grind will continue to believe the white man's myth that women are paid the same as men for identical work.

    The Big Number: 79 Percent


    Did you know that in 2014, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 79 percent of what men were paid, a gap of 21 percent? The gap has narrowed since the 1970s (Figure 1), due largely to women’s progress in education and workforce participation and to men’s wages rising at a slower rate. But progress has stalled in recent years, and the pay gap does not appear likely to go away on its own.


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  15. The Following User Groans At christiefan915 For This Awful Post:

    ChoppedLiver (01-02-2016)

  16. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rana View Post
    Tom will finally believe in climate change, global warming
    I have never doubted climate change, the climate has changed for umpteen millennia and only a fool would say otherwise. Of course you, along with all those other lazy scientifically illiterate people, can't be bothered to differentiate between anthropogenic global warming and natural variation. Again I will enlighten you with the wise words of Richard Lindzen on the subject.

    Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

    The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

    For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

    For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.

    It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2).

    The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity. Unfortuanately, Lindzen and Choi (2009) contained a number of errors; however, as shown in a paper currently under review, these errors were not relevant to the main conclusion.

    According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation, as we have already noted, by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming (viz Schwartz et al, 2010), and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).

    Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends. Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

    In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

    With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

    References:

    Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.

    Douglass,D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

    Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.

    Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.

    Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.

    Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.

    Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-1722.

    Schwartz, S.E., R.J. Charlson, R.A. Kahn, J.A. Ogren, and H. Rodhe, 2010: Why hasn’t the Earth warmed as much as expected?, J. Climate, 23, 2453-2464.

    Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.

    Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288

    Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.

    Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advidory Council
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 12-29-2015 at 07:38 PM.

  17. The Following User Groans At cancel2 2022 For This Awful Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (12-31-2015)

  18. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,852
    Thanks
    13,246
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    there will be an election in November.....tell Jarod that Obama will not win Michigan.......

  19. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Here is something from NASA in 2000, before they lost the plot and became overtly political rather than objective on the subject of climate change.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...00/ast20oct_1/

  20. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    there will be an election in November.....tell Jarod that Obama will not win Michigan.......
    I predict that you will still be using an ellipsis incorrectly!!

  21. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    What book?
    Ones about a post apocalyptic priest. The other is a Libertarian Manifesto. The latter is almost complete.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  22. The Following User Groans At /MSG/ For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-02-2016)

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to /MSG/ For This Post:

    Phantasmal (12-29-2015)

  24. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Sociopathic cretin grind will continue to believe the white man's myth that women are paid the same as men for identical work.

    The Big Number: 79 Percent


    Did you know that in 2014, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 79 percent of what men were paid, a gap of 21 percent? The gap has narrowed since the 1970s (Figure 1), due largely to women’s progress in education and workforce participation and to men’s wages rising at a slower rate. But progress has stalled in recent years, and the pay gap does not appear likely to go away on its own.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to /MSG/ For This Post:

    BRUTALITOPS (12-29-2015), Mott the Hoople (12-29-2015)

Similar Threads

  1. The Hildebeasts' horrid year may spill over to 2016
    By Big Money in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-31-2013, 07:40 PM
  2. 2016 prediction
    By The Dude in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 12-22-2013, 11:40 AM
  3. Healthcare Decision Thursday: Prediction Thread
    By Bonestorm in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 06-30-2012, 07:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •