3rdnlng Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Then what the !@#$ are we arguing about? Hey, you were the one playing devil's advocate. Of course the link I posted does not disprove MMGW, but it does allow for other reasons for GW than created by man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 but it does allow for other reasons for GW than created by man. Blasphemy!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Cap and trade in action http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-epa-cars-report-20140426,0,3104340.story#axzz300CwequZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Cap and trade in action http://www.latimes.c...y#axzz300CwequZ Do you even bother reading the links you post? From your link: Dan Becker, director of Safe Climate Campaign, a Washington advocacy group, noted that many of the reported reductions are only on paper. All but one company — Honda Motor Co. — would have failed to comply with EPA's new greenhouse gas standards without the credits, said Becker, a former environmental advisor to President Clinton. The EPA itself notes in the report that without the credits, the fleetwide average carbon dioxide emissions for 2012 vehicles was 296 grams per mile, one gram above the standard. Still, even without the credits, 2012 vehicles emitted, on average, less carbon dioxide than 2011 vehicles. Automakers get credits for building flex-fuel vehicles, especially within their truck and SUV fleets, that can run on conventional gasoline and a corn-based ethanol fuel called E85. They also get credits for improving their vehicle air conditioning systems to use less mechanical energy provided by gasoline and to reduce leakage of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, which are potent greenhouse gases. Manufacturers whose vehicles pollute more can buy credits to offset their carbon dioxide emissions. The credit system gives the industry flexibility to improve fuel economy and greenhouse gas reductions, the EPA report said, "allowing EPA to set a standard that is more stringent than could be achieved." Becker contended that the credits were a give-away to the auto industry. The vast majority of flex-fuel vehicles, which get relatively low gas mileage, still burn gasoline. Less than 2% of the country's 160,000 gas stations sell E85. The improvements to air conditioning systems have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but automakers were on track to make those changes anyway, Becker said. "Flexibility means you can cheat and it's OK," he said. Detroit's Big Three automakers and Toyota Motor Corp. benefited considerably from the application of the credits against the actual emissions of their 2012 fleets. For instance, General Motors Co.'s truck fleet had to meet a standard of 369 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. Without the credits, its trucks averaged 397 grams. With them, GM's truck fleet averaged 366 grams. Altogether, the credits offset 38 million tons of carbon dioxide that 2012 vehicles pumped into the atmosphere because they lacked the technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-epa-cars-report-20140426,0,3104340.story#ixzz300CVyyaS Edited April 26, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Do you even bother reading the links you post [ What was my comment on the article? Did you see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 What was my comment on the article? Did you see that? So, are you against cap and trade or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 What was my comment on the article? Did you see that? What, you made a comment and posted a completely unrelated article? Shut the !@#$ up already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 What, you made a comment and posted a completely unrelated article? Shut the !@#$ up already. No, DBag, no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Have the unions met their match? On Keystone Pipeline, Democratic stalwart Laborers Union finds itself outbid by one enviro-billionaire Washington Examiner, by Byron York Original Article Former NASA Scientist:Global Warming is Nonsense by Nick Hallett Original Article Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation. Obviously just another crackpot, who won't bow to the almighty computer models Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Go unions. Let's all pay ten times more to heat our home and drive our cars. Yup that's what I want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 They better not tell Al Gore; http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/alaskan-polar-bears-threatened-too-much-spring-ice-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 They better not tell Al Gore; http://www.cnsnews.c...ch-spring-ice-0 God help the environtologists. A soon-to-be-character-assassinated, empirical scientist is on the loose, being about as dry and non-controversial, as we would expect someone who has exclusively studied polar bears for 35 years to be. (And what a life that must have been. ) But Wait! There's More! Let's pretend we're ex-ALGORE employees looking for a job/grant money! Ready...Go...Environtologist...Nuts: "Hey! She studies bears! Not Climate! That's it. She studies bears....so what does she know about Climate!?!???? Hmmm...not "clicky" enough. I know! She studies bears for the Oil Companies! She studies bears for Big Oil, because....she's trying to cover up the effects oil production, which we know is terrible for bears, because....oil prodution has been correlated to polar bear and seal population. We have the data from 2006! Skinny Bears! There was more oil production in 2006 than in 2005! Wham! Science! The DATA is in. The tech has been standardized! Bam! In review: She's not a real scientist, she doesn't know anything about Climate, she's a climate denier who studies bears for Big Oil, and her entire claim is based on covering up the skinny bears of 2006 that were a direct, scientifically settled result of oil production AND Climate Change. And....that's settled. Actually thank Ron it is settled, all that empirical evidence had me worried for a second. But, now I'm like, "what the hell were you thinking? This lady is just trying to suppress the truth. But too late, we have the truth. Sorry lady!". Now, nobody can say anything else, because this debate is over. I'm already so tired of these people and their petty arguments trying to deny or disprove this is so obviously settled matter. This lady is a schill for Big Oil, and only the unserious people dispute that. Now...what else ya got for us to settle?" You know that the above flys right over "plausible" and lands in "likely". All that's missing from the above to make it a full blown Scientologist Internet "discussion"? The question: "What are your crimes?" Literally that is the only thing I didn't paraphrase from the latest Scientologist screed I took from another board and used here as the basis for the above. Thus, me calling these people "environtologists"....that's settled too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Let’s Call It ‘Climate Disruption,’ White House Science Adviser Suggests (Again). Like liberalism, socialism, progressivism, this things keeps changing names when people catch on. Also, and for the record “climate disruption” was something all my New Agey friends talked about back in the nineties. If Al Gore starts chanting Age of Aquarius, I’m going to really freak out. Sad.... Reid: Koch Brothers ‘One of the Main Causes’ of Climate Change Manufacturing Scientific Consensus—In Four Easy Steps! FTA: First, pretend that public funding represents the neutral, impartial gold standard in scientific research and then use that gold standard to pour money into a closed, self-reinforcing system of scientists who — surprisingly enough — reach remarkably similar conclusions about even the most complex systems. Second, if scientists seek funding from outside approved channels — such as from industry groups — ignore or minimize the resulting science in favor of attacking the funding. Claim that dissenting science is tainted by that external funding in a way that science conducted using government funding is not. For example, research funded by oil companies can’t be trusted because oil companies have agendas, while the government’s only agenda is truth. (Okay, stop laughing before your proceed to point three.) Third, to reinforce the isolation of dissenting scientists, rally to your side other members of your department or discipline to lend their credentials to your case even if they haven’t read the research in question. This aspect is particularly interesting. In depositions it’s not uncommon to see academics disagree with dissenting conclusions at the same time that they confess they’ve never even read the dissent. Fourth, if you can’t actually silence a dissenting scientist, then destroy their reputation. Fire them, even. After all, even the bravest dissenters have mortgage payments, and there’s nothing like a good public termination pour encourager les autres. So, next time you hear about “consensus” — especially surrounding hot-button topics such as climate change or public health — remember that it’s quite likely that consensus is the result of scientists’ choking off dissent, narrowing sources of funding to friendly outlets, and enforcing groupthink rather than reading and considering disagreement. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2014 Author Share Posted May 10, 2014 Let’s Call It ‘Climate Disruption,’ White House Science Adviser Suggests (Again). Like liberalism, socialism, progressivism, this things keeps changing names when people catch on. Also, and for the record “climate disruption” was something all my New Agey friends talked about back in the nineties. If Al Gore starts chanting Age of Aquarius, I’m going to really freak out. Sad.... Reid: Koch Brothers ‘One of the Main Causes’ of Climate Change Manufacturing Scientific Consensus—In Four Easy Steps! FTA: First, pretend that public funding represents the neutral, impartial gold standard in scientific research and then use that gold standard to pour money into a closed, self-reinforcing system of scientists who — surprisingly enough — reach remarkably similar conclusions about even the most complex systems. Second, if scientists seek funding from outside approved channels — such as from industry groups — ignore or minimize the resulting science in favor of attacking the funding. Claim that dissenting science is tainted by that external funding in a way that science conducted using government funding is not. For example, research funded by oil companies can’t be trusted because oil companies have agendas, while the government’s only agenda is truth. (Okay, stop laughing before your proceed to point three.) Third, to reinforce the isolation of dissenting scientists, rally to your side other members of your department or discipline to lend their credentials to your case even if they haven’t read the research in question. This aspect is particularly interesting. In depositions it’s not uncommon to see academics disagree with dissenting conclusions at the same time that they confess they’ve never even read the dissent. Fourth, if you can’t actually silence a dissenting scientist, then destroy their reputation. Fire them, even. After all, even the bravest dissenters have mortgage payments, and there’s nothing like a good public termination pour encourager les autres. So, next time you hear about “consensus” — especially surrounding hot-button topics such as climate change or public health — remember that it’s quite likely that consensus is the result of scientists’ choking off dissent, narrowing sources of funding to friendly outlets, and enforcing groupthink rather than reading and considering disagreement. . The funniest part of all of this? We KNOW this is what they are doing. However, they think they are still fooling us. They think this entire scam is still working. Who is the moron is this equation? The only people they are fooling are themselves, as they sit, in the bunker, moving the pieces, of non-existant public support they have deluded themselves into believing are real adoring masses of people, around on the map. The support? 1 guy with $100 million. It's the ultimate special interest. The guy is a VC who is in the business of green tech. And the Koch brothers are the ones "making money" on this? And again, Harry Reid actually believes he is fooling people with this. It's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 11, 2014 Author Share Posted May 11, 2014 I wonder...how does this thread compare, in terms of total # of person/time spent thinking about this issue, nationally? I mean, with so few people in the country spending any time on this, we have to be up there, don't we? I bet we are just above CNN's time spent, because we have more people, and just below Harry Reid's staff meetings, because we have less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 'Climate' a Huge Threat - to Democrats in Washington by Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Tribune - Review Delvis Dutton shuts the door of his white-and-blue utility truck and walks up to the camera. “The other guys are running for Congress,” he says. “Well, me, I am running against Congress. If you want more of the same, I am not your guy. But if you want to send a message, I am your man.” Smiling, dressed in a blue short-sleeved shirt, one arm leaning on his truck, he ends his ad: “I am Delvis Dutton and I am running against Congress.” Rarely have 15 seconds so captured the sentiment of most of America beyond Washington. It doesn't matter what team jacket you wear: This guy says what everyone else is thinking, that Washington is broken. Most campaign ads tell no story; most can compel even the calmest viewer to contemplate hurling the television into the yard of the candidate in the ad — and that's what we want to do to the ones we like. Sometimes, though, political ads define the moment. Dutton is a young man with a wife and two kids; he grew up on the family farm, attended Georgia Southern University and, at age 22, started a small water-well drilling business, General Pump and Well. In 2010 he decided that the way to make more of a difference in his community was to run for state representative in Georgia. No one knows yet if Dutton will win his bid for Congress; he is just one candidate in a five-person Republican primary in Georgia's 12th Congressional District, fighting to face U.S. Rep. John Barrow, an Augusta Democrat. One thing Dutton already has won is the sentiment of a country dumbfounded that President Barack Obama last week defined climate change as the most pressing issue facing the country. Obama did so as part of a huge public relations campaign — yes, campaign — that included asking people to pressure Washington to act on the issue. Not jobs. Not the economy. Not rebuilding our aging infrastructure. Not gang violence, or education. Climate change. And he and his party ridiculed anyone who disagrees. A couple of things about all of this smack the sensibilities of regular folks. First, most people know Earth's climate always has changed; everyone knows about this little thing called the Ice Age. What most people don't care for is the issue being used politically to slice and dice the country, the same way the minimum wage, gender, race, immigration and religion have been used by this administration. This is why folks do not look toward Washington, D.C., to solve problems anymore. This is why young people — the Millennials — are so turned off by the brands of both political parties, a one-time advantage that Democrats have completely squandered. More at the link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 More at the link: What link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 What link? LOL...............not enough coffee http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/11/climate_a_huge_threat_-_to_democrats_in_washington_122600.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 i guess the insurance industry is overreacting: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/08/lloyds-insurer-account-climate-change-extreme-weather-losses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 i guess the insurance industry is overreacting: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/08/lloyds-insurer-account-climate-change-extreme-weather-losses You view a single insurer using GW talking points as means to leverage higher premiums, granting themselves cover from the political affiliations that usually attack, and demonize them, in order to extract higher profits as a good thing? And proof of GW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts