Why is climate science political?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look, T-tard, page 20 has cites on it, not estimates, you lying shitter. This publication is neither scholarly nor useful, as reference. It has nothing, about CO2-neutral biomass or re-greening, just shit about the how the bad, old Clean Air Act will mess up the crime-pays economy, which pays wingpunk-pubs and their blow-buddy Democrats, for daisy-chaining and circle-jerking, in their usual way.

Here's the junior wingpunks who wrote all this shit, who aren't anything but pubs, with tiny brains, scamming a pub-infested committee, with Tea Party propaganda, while the jerks circle, and jerk some more:

Contact:
Matt Dempsey [email protected] (202) 224-9797
David Lungren [email protected] (202) 224-5642

"Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 C by 2100"

How many trillions of dollars do you think we should spend to achieve that massive reduction in future temperature?

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

 

[westwall]

Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.

Here's the whole report. Knock yourself out.

For someone trying to set facts straight, why do you conflate a UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, pipe-dream white-paper proposal with something you claimed was a finding of the IPCC?

The UN and specifically the IPCC are driving the bus as regards environmental legislation. Are you implying that the UN has NO interest or power in implementing this pipe dream?

This is a basic proposal. They have laid out what they wish to accomplish. Now they have to implement it. For you to assert that this is nothing is quite simply ludicrous and indicative of your profound intellectual dishonesty.

 

[bobgnote]

I want to echo that its not science. There should be a provable hypothesis that leads to some type of predictable model. The results should mirror the observable climate. The Earth has generated periods of climate change before man was even here. No smoking gun with man as the trigger.

We have debunked about every thought brought here by the Faithers.

T-tard didn't reference the page, and his text is complete shit, from somewhere, maybe on some page, at his shitty paper. Where is your quote from T-tard? What page? Does it reference EPA or U-B-Gay? Asshole.

Saveshit, you didn't debunk anything. The hottest year on instrument record was 2010, and all ten hottest years were 1998 or since. Acceleration of warming means successive years are likely to succeed 2010, as hottest on record. This is predictable:

The Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a transparent medium and are absorbed, but the longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from the heated objects are unable to pass through that medium. The trapping of the long wavelength radiation leads to more heating and a higher resultant temperature. Besides the heating of an automobile by sunlight through the windshield and the namesake example of heating the greenhouse by sunlight passing through sealed, transparent windows, the greenhouse effect has been widely used to describe the trapping of excess heat by the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space.

A major part of the efficiency of the heating of an actual greenhouse is the trapping of the air so that the energy is not lost by convection. Keeping the hot air from escaping out the top is part of the practical "greenhouse effect", but it is common usage to refer to the infrared trapping as the "greenhouse effect" in atmospheric applications where the air trapping is not applicable.

Trakar's latest Hansen-thread links provide access, to a method, for estimating greenhouse effect. I'm glad to hear you are a pub, Trakar, since it has been many years, since I encountered even one, who I could get along with.

Molecules with more than two atoms have the most pronounced GHG tendencies.

The fact remains, pub excesses with their Democratic daisy-chain compadres have led to media, like T-tard's committee rant, so I have to stay out of either party. The two majors are actually enjoying their controversies, so nobody smart has a chance, to advance.

You are quite likely to suffer, under that trend, as a registered Republican. Note what pubs are doing in Virginia state legislature is more typical, of pub behavior.

More on basic warming, from links, at the first link:

Blackbody Radiation

HyperPhysics Concepts

 

[westwall]

. . . because that is Pig Shitz, trying to baffle a doc, with bullshit, about a doc.

Pig Shitz is a leading fecophile, among many, which post at USMB. No good links yet, from:
1. Pig Shitz
2. Wallyfucktard
3. Suckassbil the tweaker
4. T-Tard
5. CodePunk

. . . and one good graph came from Wienerbitch, with one from Fatass, in all pages, of all threads, at USMB.

LOL....but the fecophiles are winning!!!


And please with the "where are the links?" crap. Well over 6 months ago, I challenged every k00k on here to come up with a single link displaying where the green radicals are winning!!!! Still waiting..............


And lets not forget the recent Pew Poll conducted in February regarding voters highest priorities. Global warming? #22 out of...........22!!!!!

Skook, don't even compliment him with the attention. Little boy booboo is a waste of bandwidth. Let him wither on the vine.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 C by 2100"

How many trillions of dollars do you think we should spend to achieve that massive reduction in future temperature?

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

When challenged, tuck tail, and run. A reasonable position for someone with nothing to fight with.

 

[westwall]

Had some of the people on this board lived at that time, they, indeed, would be huddled in the dark for lack of whale oil today. You ought to hear their groaning, pissing, and moaning about small flourescents and LED lights.

No, they would be rejoicing at the newer, CHEAPER, CLEANER energy to be derived from petroleum. Petroleum allowed the modern way of life that we enjoy today. I don't know about you, but I like the fact that we can travel in hours what would have taken months for the travellers of old to do.

You followers of Ned Lud need to get with the modern era. Amish life is waaaaay to boring for me!

 

[westwall]

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

When challenged, tuck tail, and run. A reasonable position for someone with nothing to fight with.

Describes you and yours to a "T". Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

When challenged, tuck tail, and run. A reasonable position for someone with nothing to fight with.

You're challenging me about the EPA's claim?

 

[Big Fitz]

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

When challenged, tuck tail, and run. A reasonable position for someone with nothing to fight with.

You're challenging me about the EPA's claim?

He'd challenge diamond on it's carbon content.

 

[Trakar]

"Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 C by 2100"

How many trillions of dollars do you think we should spend to achieve that massive reduction in future temperature?

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agency’s mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agency’s mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying.

The EPA is saying adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act will reduce CO2 and global temps by those amounts. How much are you willing to spend for those reductions?

 

[Trakar]

Here's the whole report. Knock yourself out.

For someone trying to set facts straight, why do you conflate a UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, pipe-dream white-paper proposal with something you claimed was a finding of the IPCC?

The UN and specifically the IPCC are driving the bus as regards environmental legislation. Are you implying that the UN has NO interest or power in implementing this pipe dream?

The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs has absolutely no connection to the IPCC, in fact the UN as an organization is designed to follow member state direction, not lead or set direction. And "Yes," the UN has no authority or power to implement anything, all they can do is accept the majority decisions of its member states and go along with security council directives.

This is a basic proposal. They have laid out what they wish to accomplish. Now they have to implement it. For you to assert that this is nothing is quite simply ludicrous and indicative of your profound intellectual dishonesty.

Not at all, it comes from having a good understanding of precisely what the UN is and how it operates. For the most part, the vast majority of all UN departments are little more than "think-tank" like clearinghouses for independent author and agenda topic studies and proposals. Here are a number of other proposistions various groups and individuals have had published by DESA over the last few years:

"Growing importance of men in families" - Growing importance of men in families - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

"Call to integrate social and economic policies" - Call to integrate social and economic policies - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

and if you don't like my assessment of these UN papers, all you have to do is read the disclaimer the UN itself adds to the beginning of such studies and working papers:

"UN/DESA Working Papers are preliminary documents circulated in a limited number of
copies and posted on the DESA website at Your Page Title to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Secretariat. The designations and terminology employed may not conform to United Nations practice and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Organization."

And in the case of your paper itself, the preface states in part:
"...Green economic thinking can unleash the government policies and business
opportunities that will power sustainable growth, reduce poverty and protect our natural
resources. By providing a wealth of information, insights and practical recommendations,
this Survey can help advance the global debate on the critical role that a transformation
in technology can play in ushering in a greener future. Its publication is especially timely
as the world prepares for next year’s Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development, and I commend it to policy-makers, non-governmental partners, business
executives and concerned individuals everywhere who can help realize this shared goal."

This isn't a policy document that anyone will try to forcibly implement, its an agenda list of goals and recommendations that the authors are attempting to propose.

 

[Trakar]

You followers of Ned Lud need to get with the modern era. Amish life is waaaaay to boring for me!

Ironic given that you are one of the ones denying science and rejecting modern understandings and technologies in order to keep to traditions and conservative behaviors rather than embracing progress.

 

[Trakar]

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agency’s mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying.

The EPA is saying adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act will reduce CO2 and global temps by those amounts. How much are you willing to spend for those reductions?

That isn't at all what the EPA study is about or saying. This EPA study was about adding CO2 to the reporting requirement to "the mobile source" rule which oversees mobile emission sources like trucks, cars, trains, planes, etc.,.

What this rule states is:

Mobile Sources
Final Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 56260)

Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) rule, all vehicle and engine manufacturers1 outside of the light-duty sector2 must report emission rates of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) from the products they supply. EPA is not requiring reporting of mobile source emissions or activity data from fleet operators or state and local governments...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/infosheets/mobilevehicle_enginemanuf.pdf

It is for rating specifications to go on sales stickers rather like MPG ratings for vehicles currently.

How many trillions do you think it will cost to add these numbers to sales invoices?

is a little ink worth a small reduction in CO2 over the next century?

 

[westwall]

You followers of Ned Lud need to get with the modern era. Amish life is waaaaay to boring for me!

Ironic given that you are one of the ones denying science and rejecting modern understandings and technologies in order to keep to traditions and conservative behaviors rather than embracing progress.

You consider windmills progress? You consider rolling brownouts progress? You consider mandating that third world countries remain third world, progress? No, I advocate for legit research that will take us off of fossil fuels and pave the way for man to get to the stars.

You advocate a "sustainable" lifestyle that will see the death of mankind when the next space rock decides it's time for another extinction event.

Progress my ass. If you guys cared about progress you would have something to show for the 100 billion you've allready spent on your "research".

What a joke.

 

[bobgnote]

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

When challenged, tuck tail, and run. A reasonable position for someone with nothing to fight with.

You're challenging me about the EPA's claim?

What you are supposed to do, ToddQueer, is put the correct page number AND some text, after your link. What you did was put up a link, to a bullshit paper, with a page number 20, leading to the appendix. Then you pasted some shit from a queer porn site, without reference, and now you are a punkass queer, ranting about the EPA, without reference, except you are a punkass queer, who doesn't intend to provide a reference because you are a punk.

You are here for some reason, maybe because you like how Pig Shitz and Wally Fucktard blow off GOP regular professor, Trakar. You neo-cons are long on queer, short on brains, and you are blowing off any proper Republicans, since you are assholes and Pig Shitz, so Trakar has no chance. I wonder when he will finally give up on the GOP, which has been queer, for years!

Not that I'd have anything to do with Democrats, all at once.

 

[bobgnote]

I don't believe you actually tracked that fraud Turdster's bogus claims down, Trakar.

He doesn't intend to offer anything of value, see also Wally and Suckass and the lot. You have awesome patience, which you must find tested, any time you actually come into physical contact, with other pubs.

Other pubs are like Turdster, Pig, Wally, Wiener, Code, the lot. I'd never get in the same room as one.

 

[bobgnote]

When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.

The best comments these days are from professor Trakar. He explains global warming phenomena, with the best posters on the internet, also including Old Rocks.

Trakar corrected me, for dissing the pub scum-bitches, who don't do science, but they post wingpunk pub-scat, here, all the time, anyway. Turns out, Trakar is GOP.

Since you are so pissy about the left, take a look at the RIGHT side, of this swell graph, from skeptic site, wattsupwiththat.org. What do YOU think caused that red line, to go WAY UP, all of a sudden, in a geologic instant?

Since that line means CO2 didn't go back down, as scheduled, to force a gradual global cool-down, who do you think cut down trees, bushes, grasses, mined fossil fuels, and burned a lot of it? Do you think humans did the deeds, to make that red line go way UP?

What do you suppose will happen? Will temperatures try to catch up, so we start having record temperatures, in the instrument age, every year? Will the acidifying seas get worse, so jellyfish take over, then algae and bacteria, until anoxic events leave H2s respirators, as dominant forms?

Will the land get hot, will the fresh water get scarce, but the storms will get helliish, even for non-partisan independents like me?

YES. If you can answer that one, hey. You got smart. If NOT, you have nothing left.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agency’s mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying.

The EPA is saying adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act will reduce CO2 and global temps by those amounts. How much are you willing to spend for those reductions?

That isn't at all what the EPA study is about or saying. This EPA study was about adding CO2 to the reporting requirement to "the mobile source" rule which oversees mobile emission sources like trucks, cars, trains, planes, etc.,.

What this rule states is:

Mobile Sources
Final Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 56260)

Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) rule, all vehicle and engine manufacturers1 outside of the light-duty sector2 must report emission rates of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) from the products they supply. EPA is not requiring reporting of mobile source emissions or activity data from fleet operators or state and local governments...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/infosheets/mobilevehicle_enginemanuf.pdf

It is for rating specifications to go on sales stickers rather like MPG ratings for vehicles currently.

How many trillions do you think it will cost to add these numbers to sales invoices?

is a little ink worth a small reduction in CO2 over the next century?

This EPA study was about adding CO2 to the reporting requirement to "the mobile source" rule which oversees mobile emission sources like trucks, cars, trains, planes, etc.,.

It's only about reporting, not reducing?

is a little ink worth a small reduction in CO2 over the next century?

Wait, it does reduce? With just a little ink?
Please explain further.

 

[flacaltenn]

All you have to know about why AGW is political is to read the paper this week.

Japan has shut down all but 4 of 24 (or so) nuclear reactors, single-handedly causing the largest massive MAN-MADE spike in CO2 in human history. Germany is threatening to do the same. (and no -- their shitty investments of over $130B in solar ain't gonna prevent a BIGGER CO2 SPIKE)

If AGW warranted a response seriously enough to save mankind and the planet, would we be so afraid of leaving the nuclear plants running? That -- ought to tell ya something about "reducing CO2 emissions" and how important Japan and Germany take it to be..

There ya go OleRocky, bobgnote, all those anti-nuke pukes.. The gun is to the planet's head right now. CO2 is spiking because the cleanest form of power we have is MORE FRIGHTENING than global warming.. Go pull the trigger for us willya? And get this circus over with.....