It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: nixie_nox
That's just an author's opinion on the use of the term "rape" in regard to mating habits of animal species. Also your anecdotal evidence of a friend who works with dolphins does not equal research in regard to whether dolphins have violent sexual behaviors.
Also, if a dolphin forces his mating habits on me, I am calling it rape because that is what it is to me.
The second article is not junk and if you want to read up more on the professor who co authored the research his name is Richard Connor and is a professor at the UMass Dartmouth.
We put out a paper that said “dolphin male alliances are not as simple as other species”, but it has stirred up quite a lot of interest, because somewhere in it, the paper mentioned “bisexual philopatry”, which when translated out of jargon means “males stay near where they were born, AND females stay near where they were born” – nothing more or less than that.
‘Quite a lot of interest’ is one way to put it. ‘Idiots crawling out of the woodwork’ is another. Here’s the headlines of four stories that were written about this paper:
Dolphins ‘resort to rape’: Dolphins appear to have a darker side, according to scientists who suggest they can resort to ‘rape’ to assert authority. [The Telegraph]
Male dolphins are bisexual, US scientists claim. [news.com.au]. (Note that this is an Australian website, and Bill is Australian).
Male bottlenose dolphins engage in extensive bisexuality. [zeenews.com]
Since you have zero research skills and just call stuff "junk" without providing any reasons WHY that is...here is a link for your viewing pleasure.
All the publications to fulfill anyone's desire to understand dolphin aggression. It requires reading though...so....
This will be my last response to you.
I know YOU WILL NEVER provide proof of any kind. Just totally off the wall responses that are so dramatic and sensationalist that only the most absurd will actually believe it.
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Not confused at all the government funds scientist, and has proposed a huge tax plan to fight Global Warming/Climate Change.
Definitely confused. Not all scientists are funded by governMENTS, plural emphasis.
We make up a small fraction of the world population but are the ones asked to make the sacrifices, based on government funded climate change. Would there still be research if the government didn't fund it?
This lie keeps being propagated, I wonder why this is? It seems you're a bit centered on the US, but in reality, the developed countries around the world have various policies and groups working within the context of the climate catastrophe which is unfolding. Definitely not about the US, although seeing as we disproportionately use more energy than any other country, and like to be thought of as exceptional leaders, we should perhaps do just that on this one.
You're using disinformation my friend, china uses more than the US. Source from our governments own site. I don't know if you saw a post of mine with a the link but China's smog is so thick you can't see through it. Stop with the disinformation.
And yet you ignore the tax implications of carbon taxes.
Not a single government prediction, not a single scientist prediction, not a single loud mouth leftie prediction has come true. Scientist can't agree, and the all mighty Al Gore the biggest hypocrite on the planet is the spokesman. Na not confused at all.
Well, that's certainly false, but you can keep to your irrational absolutes. Not as if I'm going to change your mind. No leftie here, I'm just a guy. Sheesh! What does you sex have to do with it?
Then I ask to be proved wrong, and I will be stand up enough to admit I am wrong, but you have to admit the list of predictions is very long and very false, and at this point comical. Whatya want to bet my list is far greater than yours of never happened than what was predicted and happened. My list goes back to the 80's.
BBC journalists are being schooled in how to cover science.
A progress report from an independent body, the BBC Trust, says Britain’s public broadcasting service shouldn’t be giving equal air time to climate change deniers and others on the scientific fringe.
The report found the BBC remains prone to “over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality” that resulted in the news service giving “undue attention to marginal opinion.” The author of the report, Steve Jones, emeritus professor of Genetics at University College London, cited the existence of manmade climate change as an example.
The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.
America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.
It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.
It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen.
The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.
In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing.
The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’
It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?
UN computer predictions subject of ridicule: not got it right for 18 years
Across the globe, there are about 1m sq km more sea ice than 35 years ago
Authorities are now guessing global temperatures based on nearby weather stations
For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles.
Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science.
Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.
But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: MarlinGrace
What scientists are being funded by what agencies?
"Its da man comin to get us" is a lazy skeptical response.
If you don't have the projects, the scientists, or the agencies you are accusing, than no, you don't know what you are talking about.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: neo96
Two years and I have yet to see you provide proof of anything yet. Just smoke screens to show that you enjoy being dramatic without any of the teeth.
Unless otherwise noted, all budget authority and estimates of revenue losses attributable to
tax preferences have been converted to 2009 dollars using the gross domestic product
chain-weighted producer price index.
Unless otherwise noted, all years are federal fiscal years, which run from October 1 to
Numbers in the text and tables might not add up to totals because of rounding.
On the cover: wind turbines, Tehachapi Pass, California, Department of Energy photo;
window caulking, JupiterImages; photovoltaic panels near Alamosa, Colorado, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory photo by Steve Wilcox.
Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from
FY2008 through FY2013. The large majority—more than 75%—has funded technology
development and deployment, primarily through the Department of Energy (DOE). More than
one-third of the identified funding was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal
expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science, 68% for energy technology
development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate
change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also reports that energy tax provisions
that may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would reduce tax revenues by $9.8 billion.
This report summarizes direct federal funding identified as climate change-related from FY2008
enacted funding through FY2013 and the FY2014 request (as well as a less consistent series
beginning with FY2001). It reports the Administration’s estimates of tax revenues not received
due to energy tax provisions that may reduce GHG emissions. The report briefly identifies the
programs and funding levels, as well as some qualifications and observations on reporting of
federal funding. It further offers some issues that Members may wish to consider in deliberating
on U.S. climate change strategies.