Not ALL Repubs are EPA-hating, denier cultists

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. How does the AGWCult admit they have absolutely zero real evidence to support their claims?

A. Denier!!

 

[Crick]

AR5

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AR5. Not evidence, not a Lab Experiment. Just more US Taxpayer funded economic suicide

 

[Crick]

Crusader Frank: Not debating, not conversant, not participating, not involved,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crusader Frank: Not debating, not conversant, not participating, not involved,

^ Still not a lab experiment

 

[FJO]

EPA stands for "Employment Prevention Agency".

Just ask farmers whose water was cut off.
Just ask workers whose factory was shut down.
Just ask regular people who were persecuted because they had the nerve to live on their own land.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ Real Science

^ Fake Science

See the difference?

 

[Crick]

I thought folks might like to see where that lower picture came from. It's not quite as laughable as Frank would have you believe. Now I'm not accusing Frank of any dishonesty. I'm sure he honestly believes it's as silly as he thinks it to be. It's just a matter of Frank's limitation. The explanation is a little complicated and goes on beyond a single paragraph.

The wheels (there are two of them) show the probable temperature increases by the year 2100. One wheel covers our likely future with no policy (the route advocated by FCT, Ian, SSDD, Westwall, Skookerasbil, Crusader Frank, Kosh, Youch and others). The other wheel covers our likely future WITH a climate change policy (the route advocated by Rolling Thunder, Orogenicman, Mamooth, yours truly and others). The likelihood of any given temperature increase is represented by its angular width on the wheel and thus its odds of coming up with a spin. Each time you spin the wheels, a graphic below tallies the results to illustrate what futures are most likely with and without climate change policy.

If you go to this site:
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

you can actually see the wheels and give them a spin. Its VERY exciting.

The Greenhouse Gamble™ wheels were developed by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change to better convey uncertainty in climate change prediction. The roulette-style spinning wheels depict the estimated probability, or likelihood, of potential temperature change (global average surface temperature) over the next 100 years. The face of each wheel is divided into colored slices, with the size of each slice representing the estimated probability of the temperature change in the year 2100 falling within that range.

The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the left is the "no policy" or reference case, in which it is assumed no action is taken to try to curb the global emissions of greenhouse gases. The median value of the "no policy" wheel, or the temperature at which there is a 50% chance of falling above or below that level (even odds) is 5.2 °C.

The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the right is the "with policy" case, which assumes that policies are enacted to limit cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century to 4.2 trillion metric tons, measured in CO2-equivalent. The median warming level (even odds) is 2.3 °C.

The resulting change in probabilities when switching from a "no policy" scenario to a "with policy" scenario is shown by the altered size of the representative temperature slices. If policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are enacted, the likelihood of constraining global temperature change in 2100 to below 3 °C warming increases to 90% (9 in 10 odds) from the "no policy" scenario. As global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase, the "no policy" roulette wheel continues to spin. By reducing emissions, we can limit the risks from global climate change impacts.

 

[Dot Com]

The denier @CrusaderFrank belittling MIT scholars? Quelle surprise!!! Frank57 needs to put down the Mercator Center

 

[westwall]

What does that have to do with the OP?

It's another example of "I don't want this in my backyard so I will go to a superior power to prevent it", mentality. It's NIMBY on steroids.

 

[Dot Com]

nice to know that some conservatives will stop & think before soiling their own nest. Now all we need them to do is stop soiling the nests of others who aren't well-connected

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought folks might like to see where that lower picture came from. It's not quite as laughable as Frank would have you believe. Now I'm not accusing Frank of any dishonesty. I'm sure he honestly believes it's as silly as he thinks it to be. It's just a matter of Frank's limitation. The explanation is a little complicated and goes on beyond a single paragraph.

The wheels (there are two of them) show the probable temperature increases by the year 2100. One wheel covers our likely future with no policy (the route advocated by FCT, Ian, SSDD, Westwall, Skookerasbil, Crusader Frank, Kosh, Youch and others). The other wheel covers our likely future WITH a climate change policy (the route advocated by Rolling Thunder, Orogenicman, Mamooth, yours truly and others). The likelihood of any given temperature increase is represented by its angular width on the wheel and thus its odds of coming up with a spin. Each time you spin the wheels, a graphic below tallies the results to illustrate what futures are most likely with and without climate change policy.

If you go to this site:
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

you can actually see the wheels and give them a spin. Its VERY exciting.

The Greenhouse Gamble™ wheels were developed by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change to better convey uncertainty in climate change prediction. The roulette-style spinning wheels depict the estimated probability, or likelihood, of potential temperature change (global average surface temperature) over the next 100 years. The face of each wheel is divided into colored slices, with the size of each slice representing the estimated probability of the temperature change in the year 2100 falling within that range.

The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the left is the "no policy" or reference case, in which it is assumed no action is taken to try to curb the global emissions of greenhouse gases. The median value of the "no policy" wheel, or the temperature at which there is a 50% chance of falling above or below that level (even odds) is 5.2 °C.

The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the right is the "with policy" case, which assumes that policies are enacted to limit cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century to 4.2 trillion metric tons, measured in CO2-equivalent. The median warming level (even odds) is 2.3 °C.

The resulting change in probabilities when switching from a "no policy" scenario to a "with policy" scenario is shown by the altered size of the representative temperature slices. If policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are enacted, the likelihood of constraining global temperature change in 2100 to below 3 °C warming increases to 90% (9 in 10 odds) from the "no policy" scenario. As global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase, the "no policy" roulette wheel continues to spin. By reducing emissions, we can limit the risks from global climate change impacts.

The point is that the Wheel of Climate Change is a fucking Joke by Climate "Scientists" It's another test to see how Gullible and stupid and malleable the AGWCult truly is. Will they think this wheel is real science? And, of course, you signed on the dotted line.

The contrast between the CERN Accelerator on top, which can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang and the Wheel of Climate Change is a clear and unmistakable way of highlighting just how phony is climate "Science"

Those ass clowns with the Wheel are the Climate "Scientist" at MIT and for the life of me I still can't believe that the people who do real science at MIT haven't booted these fucking disgraces off campus

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The denier @CrusaderFrank belittling MIT scholars? Quelle surprise!!! Frank57 needs to put down the Mercator Center

They're a joke and a disgrace to MIT

 

[Stephanie]

what's scary is how easy people can be brainwashed by these politicians and the BILLIONAIRES who are behind this. Al Gore and is ilk..... they are drooling over the control and BILLIONS they will be getting on pushing this doomsday fearmongering

 

[skookerasbil]

I thought folks might like to see where that lower picture came from. It's not quite as laughable as Frank would have you believe. Now I'm not accusing Frank of any dishonesty. I'm sure he honestly believes it's as silly as he thinks it to be. It's just a matter of Frank's limitation. The explanation is a little complicated and goes on beyond a single paragraph.

The wheels (there are two of them) show the probable temperature increases by the year 2100. One wheel covers our likely future with no policy (the route advocated by FCT, Ian, SSDD, Westwall, Skookerasbil, Crusader Frank, Kosh, Youch and others). The other wheel covers our likely future WITH a climate change policy (the route advocated by Rolling Thunder, Orogenicman, Mamooth, yours truly and others). The likelihood of any given temperature increase is represented by its angular width on the wheel and thus its odds of coming up with a spin. Each time you spin the wheels, a graphic below tallies the results to illustrate what futures are most likely with and without climate change policy.

If you go to this site:
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

you can actually see the wheels and give them a spin. Its VERY exciting.

The Greenhouse Gamble™ wheels were developed by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change to better convey uncertainty in climate change prediction. The roulette-style spinning wheels depict the estimated probability, or likelihood, of potential temperature change (global average surface temperature) over the next 100 years. The face of each wheel is divided into colored slices, with the size of each slice representing the estimated probability of the temperature change in the year 2100 falling within that range.

The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the left is the "no policy" or reference case, in which it is assumed no action is taken to try to curb the global emissions of greenhouse gases. The median value of the "no policy" wheel, or the temperature at which there is a 50% chance of falling above or below that level (even odds) is 5.2 °C.

The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the right is the "with policy" case, which assumes that policies are enacted to limit cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century to 4.2 trillion metric tons, measured in CO2-equivalent. The median warming level (even odds) is 2.3 °C.

The resulting change in probabilities when switching from a "no policy" scenario to a "with policy" scenario is shown by the altered size of the representative temperature slices. If policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are enacted, the likelihood of constraining global temperature change in 2100 to below 3 °C warming increases to 90% (9 in 10 odds) from the "no policy" scenario. As global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase, the "no policy" roulette wheel continues to spin. By reducing emissions, we can limit the risks from global climate change impacts.

Disney


I just posted up a link.....a Judith Curry interview......THE most respected climate scientist on the planet ( frequently referenced by Old Rocks ). Even she laughs at the notion of doing anything about carbon levels any time in the near future. ( really....go check it out ).


"Man-made" global warming is a total ruse.......always has been. It is a cornerstone however of the mainifesto's of the hyper-socialists like Saul Alinsky......use of the environmental movement to devastate the American middle class. The EPA is doing quite a swell job of destroying middle class jobs for two decades now.

 

[Dot Com]

You MIT alum Frank57?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you have to be an MIT Graduate to see that the Wheel of Climate Change is a fake????

 

[Dot Com]

So would you shutter the EPA & gut the Clean Air Act Frank57?

 

[Crick]

I thought folks might like to see where that lower picture came from. It's not quite as laughable as Frank would have you believe. Now I'm not accusing Frank of any dishonesty. I'm sure he honestly believes it's as silly as he thinks it to be. It's just a matter of Frank's limitation. The explanation is a little complicated and goes on beyond a single paragraph.

The wheels (there are two of them) show the probable temperature increases by the year 2100. One wheel covers our likely future with no policy (the route advocated by FCT, Ian, SSDD, Westwall, Skookerasbil, Crusader Frank, Kosh, Youch and others). The other wheel covers our likely future WITH a climate change policy (the route advocated by Rolling Thunder, Orogenicman, Mamooth, yours truly and others). The likelihood of any given temperature increase is represented by its angular width on the wheel and thus its odds of coming up with a spin. Each time you spin the wheels, a graphic below tallies the results to illustrate what futures are most likely with and without climate change policy.

If you go to this site:
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

you can actually see the wheels and give them a spin. Its VERY exciting.

The Greenhouse Gamble™ wheels were developed by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change to better convey uncertainty in climate change prediction. The roulette-style spinning wheels depict the estimated probability, or likelihood, of potential temperature change (global average surface temperature) over the next 100 years. The face of each wheel is divided into colored slices, with the size of each slice representing the estimated probability of the temperature change in the year 2100 falling within that range.

The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the left is the "no policy" or reference case, in which it is assumed no action is taken to try to curb the global emissions of greenhouse gases. The median value of the "no policy" wheel, or the temperature at which there is a 50% chance of falling above or below that level (even odds) is 5.2 °C.

The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the right is the "with policy" case, which assumes that policies are enacted to limit cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century to 4.2 trillion metric tons, measured in CO2-equivalent. The median warming level (even odds) is 2.3 °C.

The resulting change in probabilities when switching from a "no policy" scenario to a "with policy" scenario is shown by the altered size of the representative temperature slices. If policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are enacted, the likelihood of constraining global temperature change in 2100 to below 3 °C warming increases to 90% (9 in 10 odds) from the "no policy" scenario. As global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase, the "no policy" roulette wheel continues to spin. By reducing emissions, we can limit the risks from global climate change impacts.

Disney


I just posted up a link.....a Judith Curry interview......THE most respected climate scientist on the planet ( frequently referenced by Old Rocks ). Even she laughs at the notion of doing anything about carbon levels any time in the near future. ( really....go check it out ).


"Man-made" global warming is a total ruse.......always has been. It is a cornerstone however of the mainifesto's of the hyper-socialists like Saul Alinsky......use of the environmental movement to devastate the American middle class. The EPA is doing quite a swell job of destroying middle class jobs for two decades now.

If man made global warming is a ruse, why does Ms Curry think we can do nothing about it? Those are conflicting viewpoints Frank. This sort of thing happens to you a great deal for two reasons. You are ignorant on the topic of discussion here and what opinions you do have are completely incorrect.

 

[whitehall]

Who is the real hater when ignorant left wingers refer to people who disagree with them as "hating denier cultists"?