Environmental Stuff & Fluff

[skookerasbil]

Reality check: Legates published in a peer reviewed journal and his work is 100% dogshit. The work your link (a James Taylor article in Forbes) examines is a vague discussion by Lefsrud and Myers - both well known oil industry hacks - of surveys restricting themselves to people working in the oil business. Neither Lefsrud not the surveyed group are climate scientists and all have a professional cause to oppose the work of the IPCC.

For a more objective examination, try these:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia

Any club may feel it has a monopoly on virtue. Happens all the time. What really matter.........."reality" if you will, is how does the club effect perception in the bigger picture?

Paul Krugman of the New York Times is the head of the world Keynesian Club.......says his economic theories dominate in terms of effectiveness. So they dominate ONLY amongst those in the club.........but, there are many other clubs that disagree!! So what is Krugmans clubs impact in the bigger picture? It is marginal at best.

The "scientific opinion" often referred to by the AGW crowd is having little or no effect outside the club.........its like a guy saying "model railroading is the single best hobby!!". Well it may be..................but only to members of the club.

The LGBT community likely thinks it is 100% correct about 4,000 genders........but the fact is, a huge majority thinks these multiple genders are only embraced by k00ks........very little impact in the real world.

When one can think on the margin, this stuff is easy to understand. But there are many who are not able to think on the margin, no matter the intelligence level.

Nobody s caring about the "scientific opinion" on this stuff..........and not one member of this whole message board can display a single link displaying otherwise.

 

[Crick]

So, as usual, you haven't got shite.

 

[skookerasbil]

So, as usual, you haven't got shite.

Hate so say it s0n but you're not bright enough to get it..........clever you aren't!!

The climate change industry thinks its got all the shiite........they think its not even debatable.

Then why in the past 10 years has Congress been completely disinterested in the science? Its because you knuckleheads have yet to even come close to making the case to the public.

In the real world..........its the only thing that matters ( unless of course, you are a science hobbyist )

 

[Crick]

You can debate AGW if you like. No one is going to stop you. But mainstream science isn't doing much of it anymore because its simply a waste of time. The validity of AGW has been demonstrated beyond question. If you have something NEW to bring to the table, I'm sure you can raise some interest. But we haven't seen anything new in a long time. Not from your side anyway.

 

[skookerasbil]

You can debate AGW if you like. No one is going to stop you. But mainstream science isn't doing much of it anymore because its simply a waste of time. The validity of AGW has been demonstrated beyond question. If you have something NEW to bring to the table, I'm sure you can raise some interest. But we haven't seen anything new in a long time. Not from your side anyway.

Ahhhh s0n......but you're not getting it.........still!!

You say, "the validity has been demonstrated beyond question".

But to who? That's the only important question.

Im not the guy who needs to bring new stuff..........its you AGW people who have still yet to make the case to the people of the world. In fact, the people of the world have increasingly ignored AGW theory, particularly in the last several years........I prove this almost daily in here. In 2017, alarmist science is looked at as junk science by the public, thus, my sides wins handily.

My side doesn't need to lift a finger to raise interest..........but your side sure does. If you cant see that, you are not a rational actor.

 

[skookerasbil]

Pew: Most Americans Don’t Believe in ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Climate Change
By Lauretta Brown | October 4, 2016 | 1:34 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – Nearly three-quarters of Americans don’t trust that there is a large “scientific consensus” amongst climate scientists on human behavior being the cause of climate change, according to an in-depth survey on “the politics of climate” released Tuesday by Pew Research Center.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/






Who's.................not...............winning?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sadly, Global warming isn't very popular with about half of this country. You're partly right Skooks...Doesn't charge the reality that it is occurring.

 

[Crick]

From the Pew survey you referenced

Looks to me as if 77% of all Americans believe climate change is fairly to very likely to harm wildlife, make storms more intense, cause droughts and water shortages and raise the level of the world's oceans.

Your constant theme, that the public is not as sold on this as are the scientists, doesn't mean squat as to the science. It never has. The American public is sufficiently ignorant that any TV comedian can count on it for a good five minutes of comedy by sending someone out on the street to ask us basic questions. Look at you and SID and Frank. Not exactly sparkling science intellects there.

 

[Flanders]

Seven of those nominees are a smokescreen so Democrats can hide the only nominee they are after. Scott Pruitt is the only nominee whose confirmation is in jeopardy.

There is only one thing that separates Scott Pruitt from the others. Pruitt is the only nominee that can directly take money away from environmental parasites.

I still believe that Scott Pruitt is the primary target:

Senate Democrats are poised to throw away 20 years of friendship and a bipartisan working relationship with Sen. Jeff Sessions to wreak political vengeance on him this week as they consider his nomination for attorney general.​

Jeff Sessions shunned, slandered by longtime Senate Democrat collaborators
By S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Sunday, January 8, 2017

Jeff Sessions shunned, slandered by longtime Senate Democrat collaborators​

See this thread for more details:

Scott Pruitt Is Pissing Into The Wind

 

[Old Rocks]

Heres some fluff and stuff................

.Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

James M. Taylor
Credentials

• B.A. from Dartmouth College.
• J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law where he was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice.

Source: [1]

Background
James McBee Taylor is president of the Spark of Freedom foundation, a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute and former managing editor (2001-2014) of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News. Taylor also writes a regular column for Forbes magazine. [1], [2], [3]

According to his profile at the Heartland Institute, Taylor has presented energy and environment analysis on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, PBS, CBS, ABC, and other TV and radio outlets across the country. [1]

He has been a featured speaker at events sponsored by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the State Policy Network (SPN), Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, European Institute for Climate and Energy, and many others. [1]

James Taylor previously served as a legal analyst for the now-defunct Defenders of Property Rights. He has also been a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, and a member of the Federalist Society. He previously served as managing editor of CCHIncorporated's disability law publications. [4], [5]

James Taylor

Taylor is another cocksuck swinging on big oil's pecker. And what the hell is a 'peer reviewed survey'? When you have a few Scientific Societies in the field of Geology and Meteorology that make policy statements that AGW is not real, get back to me.

 

[skookerasbil]

From the Pew survey you referenced

Looks to me as if 77% of all Americans believe climate change is fairly to very likely to harm wildlife, make storms more intense, cause droughts and water shortages and raise the level of the world's oceans.

Your constant theme, that the public is not as sold on this as are the scientists, doesn't mean squat as to the science. It never has. The American public is sufficiently ignorant that any TV comedian can count on it for a good five minutes of comedy by sending someone out on the street to ask us basic questions. Look at you and SID and Frank. Not exactly sparkling science intellects there.

See the problem with you guys is that you ALWAYS think you are smarter than anybody else. All the intellectuals do. But they keep losing elections every year when its not even in the realm of reason that they'd lose!

The science is indeed irrelevant if the public doesn't care........in other words, if it is having zero impact on public policy...........it merely stands on its own........like that class you took in college on German/American Philosophers that nobody ever cared about after they left school.

What the intellectuals don't get..........like at all..........is that a large % of human beings are going to base their attitudes on the simple behavioral dynamics of reinforcement and punishment. In other words, if their lives stay the same year after year while the temperature might creep up 0.3 degree's, they are not going to give a shit. Some might........most wont. And that dynamic isn't going to change because some nerdy social oddball scientists ( who cant make it in the real science fields btw ) release a few hail mary papers grounded in computer model predictions. Just isn't going to happen.

What will change it? 75 degrees on Lake Michigan in the middle of January for 3 weeks straight. Beach babes on Jones Beach in New York out tanning in early February for 2 weeks straight. Short of that.........nobody is caring........if you understand human behavior, like I have been living and studying for over 30 years, its simple to understand.


This article nails the concept that has resulted in the "97% consensus" having very little if no impact on policy makers.

"But the weather-related denial of global warming is a pernicious pattern that troubles climate scientists: When the weather is hot, the public believes more in climate change. When it's cold, people shrug off their concerns.

"It's striking that society has spent so much time and effort educating people about this issue, yet people's beliefs can shift so easily," said Lisa Zaval, a graduate student in psychology at Columbia University in New York"



Why Weather Affects Climate Change Belief

The intellectual climate science guys are too dumb to understand it though.........

And then there is the main reality.........a huge proportion of the public absolutely rejects the whole AGW premise = that humans are responsible for any warming weve seen. This is clearly evident when mid-term elections come and EVERY SINGLE candidate running on a climate change platform gets their clock cleaned despite over 85 million $ in support from environmental k00ks.

Show me where you guys are winning?

 

[Flanders]

Seven of those nominees are a smokescreen so Democrats can hide the only nominee they are after.

This tree-hugger is a smokescreen for a senator:

At a confirmation hearing for President-elect Donald Trump’s CIA director nominee, newly minted Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) focused on what’s really important in the world of intelligence gathering: global warming.​

Freshperson senator Kamala Harris grills CIA nominee over … wait for it … climate change
By Matthew Vadum
January 15, 2017

Freshperson senator Kamala Harris grills CIA nominee over … wait for it … climate change​

 

[Old Rocks]

The CIA is supposed to look for all threats to our nation. An abrupt climate change is a threat.

 

[Flanders]

Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) focused on what’s really important in the world of intelligence gathering: global warming.​

To Old Rocks: I wonder if California voters knew that Harris is a stooge for the United Nations?

The CIA is supposed to look for all threats to our nation. An abrupt climate change is a threat.

To Old Rocks: You and Kamala Harris must have your noses right up all of those assholes in the United Nations.

In 2010 INTERPOL pledged war on “environmental crime” whatever the hell that is. Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, a bedbug in his own right, even called for prosecuting criminal “countries” in the UN’s International Criminal Court.

In theory, INTERPOL avoids crimes that deal with military, racial, religious, and political matters. So why is Hussein calling on INTERPOL to handle what is clearly a political matter in Egypt?

Parenthetically, environmental garbage is also political. So why is INTERPOL involving itself in the UN’s environmental agenda? Answer: Now that the global warming fraud has been exposed the UN is looking for new territory. Turning to INTERPOL to “criminalize” new environmental scare tactics is the obvious choice. Interestingly, global warming freakazoids never had INTERPOL’s services:​

Interpol President Khoo Boon Hui addresses the opening of the 79th session of the Interpol General Assembly in Doha. Interpol on Monday adopted a resolution unanimously pledging support to back the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and to fight environmental crime.​

Interpol pledges war on environmental crime
Mon Nov 8, 2010 3:28 pm ET

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-interpol-pledges-war-environmental-crime.html​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/216659-double-the-penalty.html

XXXXX​

Non-existent International law

None other than Bolivia’s Socialist president, Evo Morales, called for an International climate justice tribunal to punish environmental miscreants:​

Morales asks to save Kyoto Protocol, create global climate court
Dec 9, 2010, 18:18 GMT

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...ve-Kyoto-Protocol-create-global-climate-court​

The United Nations arresting Americans in their own country is not possible without INTERPOL. Without INTERPOL a global climate court is as meaningless as is the rest of the UN’s judicial system —— The World Court, and its spinoffs, the International Criminal Court, special tribunals, and whatever else they get away with.

To make it all work INTERPOL needs the authority to investigate American industries in order to charge them with an environmental crime even if a targeted company did not violate American laws. When Hussein amended President Reagan’s EO he handed INTERPOL the necessary authority.

And who will the UN’s court actually prosecute after INTERPOL makes the arrest? Answer: Every American that global government Communists want to silence:​

Anti-Greens are ‘Criminals’, According to Interpol, Environmental crime is a serious and growing international problem
The UN and Interpol How the UN will gain power
By Barry Napier Wednesday, December 30, 2009

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18445​

Briefly, there is no better proof than Evo Morales that displaced Communists flocked to environmental causes after the Soviet Union imploded. Once the Communists got behind environmental scams the UN pulled out all stops. In October 2009, the UN General Assembly named Morales World Hero of Mother Earth. The “accolade” paid off when Morales came up with a new gimmick for getting to PC (population controls):​

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.​

UN document would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans
By Steven Edwards, Postmedia News

http://www.canada.com/news/world/do...r+Earth+same+rights+humans/4597840/story.html​

Throughout all of the years I have been watching the UN advance its population control agenda, I have to admit I never saw insect Rights coming:

Here’s how the roadmap leading to population controls is laid out:​

The earth’s Rights will become equal Rights. In order to save Mother Earth the human population will have to be reduced in order the insure the Rights of every other living thing. The justification for enforcing PC is no more complicated than that.​

The scam began to take treaty form in 1992 with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997. So UN nut jobs like Morales only built upon a foundation that was already in place.​

Involving INTERPOL adds one more step to legitimating the UN’s judicial system. Using INTERPOL, Hussein & Company can send “environmental criminals” to a UN court where a guilty verdict is assured. There is not a chance they would risk losing a case in an American court.

A little background on INTERPOL’s business

INTERPOL provides 184 member nations with information on the whereabouts of international criminals.

There are 192 UN member states. The number of countries in the world is usually put at 196. So INTERPOL is giving the same information to nearly every country in the world. Many of INTERPOL’s 184 clients are America’s enemies. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that an unfriendly Muslim government can warn every terrorist not on an actual battlefield to change locations before the “cops” get there. If you ask me Hussein invited the fox into the henhouse.

The United Nations and INTERPOL have grown close in recent years. INTERPOL is controlled by 13 UN member states.​

Recess Appointments v. EOs

 

[Crick]

None of your arguments have any bearing on the scientific validity of AGW, which the CIA, for whatever reason, has examined and found to be well founded and a real threat to our nation's future welfare.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Flanders, don't let your little tin hat get too tight. Well, yes, the nations of the world are worried. Particularly those nations that have a great of land less than three meters above sea level.

 

[skookerasbil]

I notice nobody has a response for my post at the top of the page!! Because......it is irrefutable.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK, Flanders, don't let your little tin hat get too tight. Well, yes, the nations of the world are worried. Particularly those nations that have a great of land less than three meters above sea level.

Has nothing to do with nations being worried.........absolutely nothing to do with it.

Here is a passage taken from an actual UN Training Manual on data collection on the environment >>

2. Making globalization visible Globalization is a complex concept to grasp,much less measure or monitor.Most people agree that it is a combination of specific process-like and structural shifts in economics, culture and governance at the global level. These patterns include a shift from industrial to service economies, and from national to global markets, an increasing spread of popular culture, rising consumerism and often a widening gap between the rich and poor.

Question 1: What other kinds ofeconomic and cultural patterns are indicators ofglobalization?
Question 2: What kinds ofactivities are indicative ofpolitical and cultural resistance to globalizing forces?

unep.org/ieacp/_res/site/File/iea-training-manual/module-4.pdf




Now c'mon.......in 2017, the UN has one role in the world!!

Its simply a matter of breaking through the matrix that has been established by governments......understanding the mind conditioning process better.

 

[Flanders]

There is only one thing that separates Scott Pruitt from the others. Pruitt is the only nominee that can directly take money away from environmental parasites.

Scott Pruitt will be defeated by a whole lot of zeroes:

Governments are spending big, billions at a time. And doesn’t everyone feel the increasing costs of energy and products?

But a new estimate about what it will cost the world’s citizens to reduce the world’s temperature by the end of the century by a “grand total of three tenths of one degree” is a stunner: $100 trillion.

That’s $100,000,000,000,000.00.​

Climate-change-fight cost: $100,000,000,000,000
Posted By Bob Unruh On 01/17/2017 @ 9:11 pm

Climate-change-fight cost: $100,000,000,000,000​

 

[Old Rocks]

Photographer: Akos Stiller/Bloomberg
World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind
Emerging markets are leapfrogging the developed world thanks to cheap panels.
by
Tom Randall
December 14, 2016, 10:00 PM PST December 14, 2016, 10:04 PM PST


A transformation is happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.

This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The chart below shows the average cost of new wind and solar from 58 emerging-market economies, including China, India, and Brazil. While solar was bound to fall below wind eventually, given its steeper price declines, few predicted it would happen this soon.

World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind

As the present power plants have to be replaced, wind and solar will replace them at a cheaper cost per kw delivered than the fossil fuel plants. In fact, both wind and solar are near the point where replacing existing fossil fuel plants with one or the other will be a financial plus for the cost of energy, even though those plants have years of life left in them.