tRump W.H. to create climate denier group.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, wasting trillions on windmills...….moronic.

Only caring about windmills when discussing global climate change.... simple.

Of course libs have never been able to do a decent cost/benefit analysis.

Oh, of course! And saying so makes the speaker sound very smart, indeed.

Only caring about windmills

Yeah, you guys have lots of additional moronic ideas you're pushing.
Love the high-speed train "solution".

And saying so makes the speaker sound very smart, indeed.

What's the cost of the New Green Deal again? DURR

 

[Oddball]

What is the problem?

#1) Creating a group with a predetermined outcome in mind.

lmfao

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, you guys have lots of additional moronic ideas you're pushing.

So do you denier fools. Like, denying accepted scientific theories.

 

[Dale Smith]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

WTF is a FOA??

A typo. Should be FOI.

Everyone else seem to have figured that out on their own you know....

FOIA requests, dumb ass.....sheesh.

 

[Crepitus]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

WTF is a FOA??

A typo. Should be FOI.

Everyone else seem to have figured that out on their own you know....

FOIA requests, dumb ass.

Fuck off dickweed. When you've made an actual contribution you can fee free to criticize my typos and such, until then you can suck the peanuts outta my shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, you guys have lots of additional moronic ideas you're pushing.

So do you denier fools. Like, denying accepted scientific theories.

Yes, 75/77 is very serious.

 

[skookerasbil]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

That's right s0n....ain't it funny as shit? New optics needed after full on AGW devotee's on these panels have failed to impress the folks who legislate public policy! This is a big plus if one is a climate crusader.....the whole CO2 being the only driver of climate concept has been rejected by the public. Perhaps a less k00k theory might get the public interested. To date, they have displayed a high degree of apathy!

 

[skookerasbil]

@www.whosnotwinning.com

How can the President do this?

Because he can....the politics dictate it s0ns! The DUMS had 8 years to do something on the climate. Didnt do dick!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, you guys have lots of additional moronic ideas you're pushing.

So do you denier fools. Like, denying accepted scientific theories.

Yes, 75/77 is very serious.

And is only one of many studies. As a rational, learned man like you obviously knows and would never be stupid enough to imply otherwise, it's smarter to look at them all. Especially all the more comprehensive ones.

It's about 97%, and about 100% that do not contradict the accepted theories. But, as always, a denier like you is free to mount a challenge and publish some science to move that needle.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, you guys have lots of additional moronic ideas you're pushing.

So do you denier fools. Like, denying accepted scientific theories.

Yes, 75/77 is very serious.

And is only one of many studies. As a rational, learned man like you obviously knows and would never be stupid enough to imply otherwise, it's smarter to look at them all. Especially all the more comprehensive ones.

It's about 97%, and about 100% that do not contradict the accepted theories. But, as always, a denier like you is free to mount a challenge and publish some science to move that needle.

It's about 97%

I know, 75/77. Wow!

If that's not enough to require trillions in green spending, I don't know what is.

 

[Dale Smith]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

WTF is a FOA??

A typo. Should be FOI.

Everyone else seem to have figured that out on their own you know....

FOIA requests, dumb ass.

Fuck off dickweed. When you've made an actual contribution you can fee free to criticize my typos and such, until then you can suck the peanuts outta my shit.

I kick the shit out of your lame musings all the time, dipshit. It's not MY fault that you are such an intellectual lightweight.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know, 75/77.

Then you know jack shit. Why so proud of you it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, 75/77.

Then you know jack shit. Why so proud of you it?

I'm proudly against moronic liberals who want to waste trillions and damage our economy with their
green idiocy. If you idiots were seriously against CO2 and wanted a strong US economy, you'd support
more nuclear reactors, not stupid windmills and bullet trains.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm proudly against moronic liberals who want to waste trillions and damage our economy with their
green idiocy.

Hmm, no, you're just another dime-a-dozen denier who does so because of his own superstition, neuroses, and fetishes. All this other blathering by you is ad hoc nonsense, made up after the fact.
And, I admit, I think I have fallen to the darkside and think we should build a lot of nuke plants.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Well if AOC can be a climate authority ….anyone can. Careful dont let those tipping points zooming by run ya over

 

[skookerasbil]

It is so satisfying to see the left turning themselves inside-out on this! So splendid.....20 years of knocking themselves out on pushing the AGW narrative has netted the left zErO.


Skeptics on a climate change panel.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm proudly against moronic liberals who want to waste trillions and damage our economy with their
green idiocy.

Hmm, no, you're just another dime-a-dozen denier who does so because of his own superstition, neuroses, and fetishes. All this other blathering by you is ad hoc nonsense, made up after the fact.
And, I admit, I think I have fallen to the darkside and think we should build a lot of nuke plants.

Yes, I'm superstitious. It causes me to resist moronic green causes.

I think I have fallen to the darkside and think we should build a lot of nuke plants.

Be careful. If your fellow greens hear you say that, they'll burn you at the stake.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It causes me to resist moronic green causes.

And, apparently robust scientific theories as well. Good for you.

If your fellow greens hear you say that, they'll burn you at the stake.

nah, they will likely just try to engage me in pseudo-intellectual debate. If I can stand you, I can stand them.

 

[fncceo]

How can you argue with science?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It causes me to resist moronic green causes.

And, apparently robust scientific theories as well. Good for you.

If your fellow greens hear you say that, they'll burn you at the stake.

nah, they will likely just try to engage me in pseudo-intellectual debate. If I can stand you, I can stand them.

How many trillions of dollars does the "robust theory" say we must waste on unreliable windmill power?