B-Man Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Well........that science was only settled for 48 hrs. Claim that jet stream crossing equator is ‘climate emergency’ is utter nonsense https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/30/claim-that-jet-stream-crossing-equator-is-climate-emergency-is-utter-nonsense/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Well........that science was only settled for 48 hrs. Claim that jet stream crossing equator is ‘climate emergency’ is utter nonsense https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/30/claim-that-jet-stream-crossing-equator-is-climate-emergency-is-utter-nonsense/ Thanks for posting that. I feel much, much safer now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Well........that science was only settled for 48 hrs. Claim that jet stream crossing equator is ‘climate emergency’ is utter nonsense https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/30/claim-that-jet-stream-crossing-equator-is-climate-emergency-is-utter-nonsense/ Deniers! Burn the heretics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Well........that science was only settled for 48 hrs. Claim that jet stream crossing equator is ‘climate emergency’ is utter nonsense https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/30/claim-that-jet-stream-crossing-equator-is-climate-emergency-is-utter-nonsense/ Oh, boy. Now Loretta Lynch has to jump a plane to arrest the author of this article as well as his references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 We'll see............ Obama’s Ambitious Clean-Energy Goal Will Depend on Nuclear—and the Next President. Its always wise to question these "group" declarations...................(see the 90% B.S.) but this IS rather damning.... 41 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine say Greenpeace’s anti-scientific activism kills children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 41 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine say Greenpeace’s anti-scientific activism kills children. Not to worry. The French know how to handle this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Not to worry. The French know how to handle this. By surrendering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 By surrendering? Well...yeah, but only after they sink one of Greenpeace's boats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Well...yeah, but only after they sink one of Greenpeace's boats. The only "green" those a-holes care about is the monetary support they get from their disciples. Even the French are badass by comparison. Edited July 1, 2016 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 GUESS I MIGHT AS WELL BUY THAT LINCOLN NAVIGATOR AFTER ALL, THEN: We’ve missed our chance to seriously stop climate change, study finds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 GUESS I MIGHT AS WELL BUY THAT LINCOLN NAVIGATOR AFTER ALL, THEN: We’ve missed our chance to seriously stop climate change, study finds. So let me get this right: the world got together and agreed to a plan last December to stop global warming cooling climate change, and six months later, it's too late already? Why...it's almost like these people are making this up as they go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 So let me get this right: the world got together and agreed to a plan last December to stop global warming cooling climate change, and six months later, it's too late already? Why...it's almost like these people are making this up as they go along. It's been "too late" for about 10 years now. The politicians have just been ignoring the "settled science." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 It's been "too late" for about 10 years now. The politicians have just been ignoring the "settled science." Back in post #2265 (about six weeks ago) I linked an article posted on the PBS/NOVA site back in 1997 which opens with the following: "During the past billion years, the Earth's climate has fluctuated between warm periods—sometimes even completely ice-free—and cold periods, when glaciers scour the continents. In this article, climate scientist Kirk Maasch offers perspective on these historic changes, including the likely causes of the last great ice age—which contrary to common knowledge, we are still in the midst of." As someone with a background in science, I'd be interested in your opinion on the validity of the above, and if it is valid, why do opponents of AGW not put this argument forth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 THE DEATH CULT OF ENVIRONMENTALISM. GOP Lawmaker Pushes Bill BANNING EPA Officials From Airline Travel: The amendment is likely an effort to get EPA officials to practice what they preach. Republicans have criticized top EPA officials for logging thousands of air travel miles while issuing regulations on how much carbon dioxide can be emitted by power plants, cars and other sources. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and the head of EPA’s clean air office Janet McCabe both said they travel home from Washington, D.C. on weekends to visit their families. McCarthy regularly goes to Boston, Massachusetts, and McCabe heads out to Indianapolis, Indiana on weekends. McCabe has also spent a lot of time travelling around the country promoting the agency’s so-called Clean Power Plan — a set of rules aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith has sent two letters to EPA in the last few months, asking about McCabe’s travel. “In light of President Obama’s 2015 Executive Order, as well as McCabe’s role as the EPA’s chief proponent of the Clean Power Plan, McCabe’s routine travel raises significant questions as to her commitment toward furthering the reduction of carbon emissions that she promotes in her official capacity on the taxpayer’s dime,” Smith wrote. In 2014, the EPA released a photo album titled “A Day In The Life of the EPA Administrator” that shows what McCarthy does on a typical day, including the fact that she flies home nearly every weekend to spend time with her family. As Obama and Hillary’s mentor would say, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules…You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 From B-Man's linked article: The "A Day in the Life of the EPA Administrator" gallery. Here's a "Typical Day" for her looks like. 7:24 am - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy arrives for work in the morning with her trusty backpack – full of briefing materials, policy papers and speeches – in tow. (1/12) Shown emerging from her chauffeured Tahoe. 5:58 pm - Although she keeps a small apartment near EPA headquarters, almost every weekend McCarthy travels back to Boston, to her home and her husband. (12/12) Shown in the airport going back to her beloved Boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 From B-Man's linked article: The "A Day in the Life of the EPA Administrator" gallery. Here's a "Typical Day" for her looks like. 7:24 am - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy arrives for work in the morning with her trusty backpack – full of briefing materials, policy papers and speeches – in tow. (1/12) Shown emerging from her chauffeured Tahoe. 5:58 pm - Although she keeps a small apartment near EPA headquarters, almost every weekend McCarthy travels back to Boston, to her home and her husband. (12/12) Shown in the airport going back to her beloved Boston. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/travel/boeing-biofuel/ only in the strange conservative mind is the effort to reduce CO2 emissions synonymous with returning to a primitive subsistence level of existence In little over a week, Boeing has announced three new developments in its quest to produce sustainable aviation biofuel. Last week, the company identified "green diesel" as a new biofuel that would emit at least 50% less carbon dioxide than fossil fuel over its lifecycle. On Saturday, a new initiative to build a biofuel supply chain in the United Arab Emirates was unveiled using another type of fuel. It was celebrated with a 45-minute demonstration flight by an Etihad Airways 777 plane powered by U.A.E.-produced biofuel. On Wednesday, also out of Abu Dhabi, Boeing and partners said they had made breakthroughs in researching a shrub-like plant called halophytes, which feeds off seawater in desert terrain. The research on the shrub-like plant was spearheaded by the Sustainable Bioenergy Research Consortium (SBRC), which is funded by Boeing, Etihad Airways and Honeywell UOP and hosted by the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in Abu Dhabi. Desert plant halophyte (pictured) fed by seawater has been found to produce biofuel more efficiently than other well-known feedstocks, says Boeing. According to the findings, the desert plant can be made into biofuel more effectively than many other feedstocks. "Halophytes show even more promise than we expected as a source of renewable fuel for jets and other vehicles," said SBRC director Dr. Alejandro Rios in a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/travel/boeing-biofuel/ only in the strange conservative mind is the effort to reduce CO2 emissions synonymous with returning to a primitive subsistence level of existence How long before the same environmentalists will call for a stop to the research because it might be a GMO? Who do we follow? The Environmentalists calling for more windmills or the the Environmentalists trying to save birds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/travel/boeing-biofuel/ only in the strange conservative mind is the effort to reduce CO2 emissions synonymous with returning to a primitive subsistence level of existence Because that's what alarmists preach while usually living the high life. Looking at YOU al gore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 How long before the same environmentalists will call for a stop to the research because it might be a GMO? Who do we follow? The Environmentalists calling for more windmills or the the Environmentalists trying to save birds? For North-America: Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc. "We estimate that on an annual basis, less than 0.1% ... of songbird and other small passerine species populations in North America perish from collisions with turbines," says lead author Wallace Erickson of Wyoming-based West. For those who don't have an envelope nearby to do the math, that's about 10,000x more deaths from just house cats than from wind turbines. http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/north-america-wind-turbines-kill-around-300000-birds-annually-house-cats-around-3000000000.html of course that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize bird deaths http://grist.org/climate-energy/for-the-birds-and-the-bats-8-ways-wind-power-companies-are-trying-to-prevent-deadly-collisions/ and of course other methods of power generation also kills birds http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/travel/boeing-biofuel/ only in the strange conservative mind is the effort to reduce CO2 emissions synonymous with returning to a primitive subsistence level of existence :lol: BIOFUEL :lol: Nope. No CO2 will come from THAT! :lol: That sure sounds "progressive" to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts