3rdnlng Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 :lol: Don't laugh. I said "seriously". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 This is good, covers a lot of what's been discussed around here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/05/12/john-oliver-on-climate-change-skeptics-you-dont-need-peoples-opinions-on-a-fact/ John Oliver just gets it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Today’s Climate Embarrassment—Not The Usual Today’s New York Times carries an article from Justin Gillis wringing has hands about what do about climate change—especially methane emissions. But take in the second sentence of his lede very slowly and carefully: Climate scientists long ago settled among themselves the question of whether human emissions of greenhouse gases are a problem, concluding that we are running some grave risks. But the field still features vigorous debate about how bad global warming will get, how quickly, and how to combat it. [Emphasis added.] Whoa, what!? ”Vigorous debate”?? I thought there was no debate! Everything is “settled,” don’t you know, at the 97 percent confidence level! Consensus! So shut up and fall in line! More seriously, the second sentence here accurately summarizes the main point of the core group of so-called “lukewarmers” or “climate realists” (as I like to call them), especially the last part: the climatistas insist on a policy of immediate carbon suppression only, and will not discuss any other approach, such as what has been called “technology first,” let alone geoengineering (which I probably oppose), and adaptation/resiliency/no regrets. The New York Times today essentially validated our position with this statement. Which raises the question: how the hell did this slip by the editors? This is an embarrassment—for the climatistas. . http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/todays-climate-embarrassment-not-the-usual.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Don't laugh. I said "seriously". And Koko's response was seriously hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 And Koko's response was seriously hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Today’s Climate Embarrassment—Not The Usual Today’s New York Times carries an article from Justin Gillis wringing has hands about what do about climate change—especially methane emissions. But take in the second sentence of his lede very slowly and carefully: Climate scientists long ago settled among themselves the question of whether human emissions of greenhouse gases are a problem, concluding that we are running some grave risks. But the field still features vigorous debate about how bad global warming will get, how quickly, and how to combat it. [Emphasis added.] Whoa, what!? ”Vigorous debate”?? I thought there was no debate! Everything is “settled,” don’t you know, at the 97 percent confidence level! Consensus! So shut up and fall in line! More seriously, the second sentence here accurately summarizes the main point of the core group of so-called “lukewarmers” or “climate realists” (as I like to call them), especially the last part: the climatistas insist on a policy of immediate carbon suppression only, and will not discuss any other approach, such as what has been called “technology first,” let alone geoengineering (which I probably oppose), and adaptation/resiliency/no regrets. The New York Times today essentially validated our position with this statement. Which raises the question: how the hell did this slip by the editors? This is an embarrassment—for the climatistas. . http://www.powerline...t-the-usual.php Stupid. Where do you find this idiotic stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Stupid. Where do you find this idiotic stuff? It's easy when a person doesn't have his head up his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thought this was amusing, and I'd share: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thought this was amusing, and I'd share: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html good lord. amusing is an understatement. the man is a walking face-palm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 Thought this was amusing, and I'd share: http://www.huffingto..._n_5568058.html Yes, and now you know how I feel, every time someone says "the science is settled". Bemused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Thought this was amusing, and I'd share: http://www.huffingto..._n_5568058.html ok but not as informative as John Boehner telling us that CO2 is not a carcinogen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 ok but not as informative as John Boehner telling us that CO2 is not a carcinogen Or Hank Johnson fearing Guam will tip over because the US has too many troops there. Or Hillary telling everyone that the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision meant women would never get contraceptives from their employers again. We can do this all day, and still have plenty of Bill Nye quotes to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Or Hank Johnson fearing Guam will tip over because the US has too many troops there. Or Hillary telling everyone that the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision meant women would never get contraceptives from their employers again. We can do this all day, and still have plenty of Bill Nye quotes to share. links or it never happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 links or it never happened Really? We're back to "links or it never happened?" Lazy . . . Johnson: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/guamtip.asp Clinton: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/03/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-hobby-lobby-salesclerk-not-go/ "a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception … is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception. Just because the NYT and NPR aren't telling you something doesn't mean it didn't happen . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Really? We're back to "links or it never happened?" Lazy . . . Johnson: http://www.snopes.co...tes/guamtip.asp Clinton: http://www.politifac...esclerk-not-go/ "a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception … is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception. Just because the NYT and NPR aren't telling you something doesn't mean it didn't happen . . . congratulations you're dumber than LABillzfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 good lord. amusing is an understatement. the man is a walking face-palm. From the article, it seems like the entire Kentucky state legislature is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 From the article, it seems like the entire Kentucky state legislature is. true, but every cause needs a poster boy, and Smith fits the bill nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Proposed EPA Regs Would Affect Climate by Eighteen-Thousandths of a Degree by 2100 — and Cost U.S. Economy $51 Billion Annually By Jillian K. Melchior The Environmental Protection Agency’s new proposed rules, which seek to limit carbon emissions from power plants, would cost the American economy $51 billion, as well as 224,000 jobs, every year through 2030, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates. With that significant of an economic impact, one would hope the EPA had a pretty good justification, right? As the Cato Institute recently noted, the agency forgot to include one very important calculation in the information they released about the proposed rules: whether or not they will actually affect climate change. “There’s really no reason to go after carbon emissions unless you think they cause climate change,” Chip Knappenberger, assistant director for Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, tells me. The impact on climate change is key. But the EPA hasn’t publicized any finding on that supposed link. Knappenberger and his colleague Patrick J. Michaels crunched the numbers using an EPA-developed climate-model emulator. They found that the regulations would somewhat affect the climate — by eighteen-thousandths of a degree Celsius by 2100. “We’re not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms, because, basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable,” Knappenberg and Michaels wrote when they released their findings. “Which, no doubt, is why it’s not included in the EPA Fact Sheets. It is not too small, however, that it shouldn’t play a huge role in every and all discussions of the new regulations.” That’s not the only time the EPA has used some suspect math. A new report from the Government Accountability Office found that the EPA was calculating how its regulations would affect employment using a study outdated by 20 years that had, even when current, looked at only four industrial sectors. You can read about even more about the agency’s number-fudging here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 They found that the regulations would somewhat affect the climate — by eighteen-thousandths of a degree Celsius by 2100 The estimate for warming by 2100 is between one and six degrees Celsius, roughly. The theory's best estimate covers a five-degree range. .018 degrees difference is completely artificial precision. It's not even measurable, since it's WELL within the bounds of experimental error. If the EPA's own climate model is generating that, their model is complete bull ****. And if climate science were that precise, there really wouldn't be any argument over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 The estimate for warming by 2100 is between one and six degrees Celsius, roughly. The theory's best estimate covers a five-degree range. .018 degrees difference is completely artificial precision. It's not even measurable, since it's WELL within the bounds of experimental error. If the EPA's own climate model is generating that, their model is complete bull ****. And if climate science were that precise, there really wouldn't be any argument over it. Speaking of being precise! That's not the EPA model, its the two dork's from the right wing institute "crunching numbers" supposidly from EPA numbers. I know you are an expert in science--snerk--but learn to read what you are commenting about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts