tRump W.H. to create climate denier group.

[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.

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

I believe that would be zero, give or take zero. What a very odd and stupid question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Trump should just create a ministry of propaganda, fake news, and lies.

 

[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?

I believe that would be zero, give or take zero. What a very odd and stupid question.

Then we should stop building them, immediately.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then we should stop building them, immediately.

well that's just moronic. Climate theories don't address the viability of windmills. Todd, you sure are awfully proud to act like a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then we should stop building them, immediately.

well that's just moronic. Climate theories don't address the viability of windmills. Todd, you sure are awfully proud to act like a moron.

It's moronic to waste trillions on unreliable "green energy".
You should stop supporting such moronic plans.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's moronic to waste trillions on unreliable "green energy".

Agreed, we should not waste trillions on green energy and should instead spend money smartly on green energy.

You should stop thinking you have outsmarted scientists in fields you know less than nothing about.

 

[Sunsettommy]

veFrom the link:

"The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades."

That is in the words of the Washington Compost, which means this is a misleading article. There is no consensus and it is meaningless in science research anyway, since it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters. There are no indications of dire climatic consequences showing up either, it is manufactured bull crap to try to convince the people to hand over money and power to the leftists.

Since the so called "consensus" are based mostly on climate models to year 2100, it is untestable and useless. This advisory committee is a waste of time since the AGW conjecture is already dead from the scientific standpoint, as the few short term prediction/projections have already utterly failed.

The per decade RATE of warming since 1990 never reaches the IPPC minimum warming rate level, and the "hot spot" doesn't exist, not even minimally. All the warming phases since 1979 have occurred when El-Nino shows up.

I am still waiting for warmist morons to realize that all the doom and gloom crap are coming from government agencies who like all that funding (despite that the science was supposedly "settled" years ago, why still spend billions more every year?) and the leftist media who continually mislead and lie over what is going on in the world of weather and climate matters.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no consensus

Lie.

it is meaningless in science research anyway

The consensus exists because of the consensus of the research. Not the other way around, and nobody is implying that, you charlatan.

There are no indications of dire climatic consequences showing up either

Lie.

Since the so called "consensus" are based mostly on climate models to year 2100, it is untestable and useless

Lie. the models are quite testable and have been more accurate than expected.

The per decade RATE of warming since 1990 never reaches the IPPC minimum warming rate level

Stupid denier talking point plagiarized from a lying liar's blog... for one, climates scientists don't set endpoints, they deal with running means. Second, warming is accelerating, so anyone who understands this simple, mathematical concept would understand that the warming in the recent past, even in your specious endpoint scenario, would not be as rapid as expected warming in the near future.

What a steaming pile of plagiarized, denier blogger horseshit your post is.

 

[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

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!

Lol!!!!!

You just keep your head deep in that sand kid.

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.

I for one have never had a problem with nuclear energy.

 

[skookerasbil]

There is no consensus

Lie.

it is meaningless in science research anyway

The consensus exists because of the consensus of the research. Not the other way around, and nobody is implying that, you charlatan.

There are no indications of dire climatic consequences showing up either

Lie.

Since the so called "consensus" are based mostly on climate models to year 2100, it is untestable and useless

Lie. the models are quite testable and have been more accurate than expected.

The per decade RATE of warming since 1990 never reaches the IPPC minimum warming rate level

Stupid denier talking point plagiarized from a lying liar's blog... for one, climates scientists don't set endpoints, they deal with running means. Second, warming is accelerating, so anyone who understands this simple, mathematical concept would understand that the warming in the recent past, even in your specious endpoint scenario, would not be as rapid as expected warming in the near future.

What a steaming pile of plagiarized, denier blogger horseshit your post is.

But where is this consensus mattering apart from the science itself? The answer is, it's not mattering anywhere and most importantly, to people who make energy policy! To them, it's like the science doesnt exist!


Oh.....about that "head in the sand".......

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this forum!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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!

Lol!!!!!

You just keep your head deep in that sand kid.

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.

I for one have never had a problem with nuclear energy.

I, for one, have. I still do. A few of them, actually. But we are pretty smart, and I think we can come up with some good solutions to them. Waste,. accidents, etc.

I think we need to figure out how to just shoot our garbage into the Sun. That includes nuclear waste. This is what we will do, eventually.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

tRump W.H. to create climate denier group

Trump has never denied we have a climate, so that’s just a silly assertion, don’t you think?

Don't be deliberately thick.

Maybe next time use your big boy words instead of sophomoric slogans

 

[Crepitus]

tRump W.H. to create climate denier group

Trump has never denied we have a climate, so that’s just a silly assertion, don’t you think?

Don't be deliberately thick.

Maybe next time use your big boy words instead of sophomoric slogans

Go back and read your own post.

"Derp", as they say around here.

 

[Dale Smith]

tRump W.H. to create climate denier group

Trump has never denied we have a climate, so that’s just a silly assertion, don’t you think?

Don't be deliberately thick.

Maybe next time use your big boy words instead of sophomoric slogans

Go back and read your own post.

"Derp", as they say around here.

You must have been the "go to" guy on your high school debate team.........said no one ever.

(snicker)

 

[Muhammed]

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

Alternative Science

Science where you do not hide the decline or delete data and other such climategate shenanigans.

 

[cnm]

But where is this consensus mattering apart from the science itself?

In energy policies around the world.

 

[skookerasbil]

But where is this consensus mattering apart from the science itself?

In energy policies around the world.

Whatever you say s0n!

 

[Crick]

tRump W.H. to create climate denier group

Trump has never denied we have a climate, so that’s just a silly assertion, don’t you think?

Don't be deliberately thick.

Maybe next time use your big boy words instead of sophomoric slogans

I think "deliberately thick" was quite accurate

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This scam of committee will be chaired by William Happer. Happer has no formal education and no experience or published research in the fields of climatology, oceanography, meteorology, or geology. His only contribution to the topic of climate has been a small handful of roundly debunked op-ed pieces. He has less than no credibility in the scientific community on the topic of climate.

Trump's kind of guy!