White House committee to reassess climate science conclusions: report

[Harpy Eagle]

And this highlights the problem of getting your science from the media. Do you turn to the media for medical advise?

i don't know what the **** crawls up your ass at times, but let me know when you're done.

What gets up my ass is people that base their science on what they hear on TV news or read in news magazines or from politicians.

Do you really think those are reliable sources of information?

It makes no more sense to base your view of global warming on those sources than to base your medical decisions based on those sources.

now if that's what i did, great. except all i said was the media has been all over the map on global warming / climate change / freezing. i never said i based my views on that YOU DID.

and then you tear into me for what YOU said i said, totally bypassing what i have said several times now.

have fun, i'm out.

If people were not getting their science form these sources, it would not matter what they published. So, while you may not be, far too many people are.

I was not tearing into you....quit being such a snowflake.

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

 

[Lesh]

With regard to National Policy, there is only one relevant inquiry, and Leftists are unwilling to address it:

What can feasibly be done in the United States that will have any measurable effect on the future climate, given what we know is happening in the rest of the world?

The honest answer: Nothing.

Even if we do EVERYTHING that any rational human could countenance, the impact on global temperatures a hundred years out - based on our puny efforts - will be nothing more than a rounding error.

And if we merely take reasonable steps to optimize our usage of CO2-generating fuels, and continue to explore methods of capturing or otherwise reducing greenhouse gases (without inflicting undue pain on ourselves) that will be good enough.

Any other conclusion by this group (assuming it really happens) will be bogus.

So the "answer" to a problem you admit is real...according to Republicans...is to do NOTHING.

Well you're consistent.

That's your answer to every problem.

Healthcare for just one example

 

[bripat9643]

You don't believe the President of the United States has control over which generals are promoted in the military?

Talk about ******* stupid.

Nope, I do not. And since only one of us actually served, only one of us would have any idea how promotions work in the military.

In the Marines, the first 2 promotions are automatic if you do not get into trouble....how does the POTUS control that?

The next two promotions are based upon a cutting score that is determined by your PFT score, TIS, TIG, rifle range score....how does the POTUS control that?

The rest of the promotions are based upon a randomly chosen board of your peers that meet once a year and looks over the paperwork for all qualified Marines of that grade and chose the best ones as they can determine...how does the POTUS control that?

Explain how the POTUS controls that process for each individual Marine.

Promotions for generals are chosen by the President and then approved by Congress, moron.

And generals make up .069% of the military...and you said it was the whole military.

Oh, and the POTUS only nominates those that are already Brigadier Generals for their next rank, so that cuts it down even more who the POTUS has control over.

The generals make the decisions about everyone else, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

i don't know what the **** crawls up your ass at times, but let me know when you're done.

What gets up my ass is people that base their science on what they hear on TV news or read in news magazines or from politicians.

Do you really think those are reliable sources of information?

It makes no more sense to base your view of global warming on those sources than to base your medical decisions based on those sources.

now if that's what i did, great. except all i said was the media has been all over the map on global warming / climate change / freezing. i never said i based my views on that YOU DID.

and then you tear into me for what YOU said i said, totally bypassing what i have said several times now.

have fun, i'm out.

If people were not getting their science form these sources, it would not matter what they published. So, while you may not be, far too many people are.

I was not tearing into you....quit being such a snowflake.

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

Total horseshit. moron. Skeptics are the kind or people least likely to get their understanding of AGW from the media.

 

[iceberg]

i don't know what the **** crawls up your ass at times, but let me know when you're done.

What gets up my ass is people that base their science on what they hear on TV news or read in news magazines or from politicians.

Do you really think those are reliable sources of information?

It makes no more sense to base your view of global warming on those sources than to base your medical decisions based on those sources.

now if that's what i did, great. except all i said was the media has been all over the map on global warming / climate change / freezing. i never said i based my views on that YOU DID.

and then you tear into me for what YOU said i said, totally bypassing what i have said several times now.

have fun, i'm out.

If people were not getting their science form these sources, it would not matter what they published. So, while you may not be, far too many people are.

I was not tearing into you....quit being such a snowflake.

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

maybe. except a few minutes ago so was i. even though i wasn't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What gets up my ass is people that base their science on what they hear on TV news or read in news magazines or from politicians.

Do you really think those are reliable sources of information?

It makes no more sense to base your view of global warming on those sources than to base your medical decisions based on those sources.

now if that's what i did, great. except all i said was the media has been all over the map on global warming / climate change / freezing. i never said i based my views on that YOU DID.

and then you tear into me for what YOU said i said, totally bypassing what i have said several times now.

have fun, i'm out.

If people were not getting their science form these sources, it would not matter what they published. So, while you may not be, far too many people are.

I was not tearing into you....quit being such a snowflake.

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

Total horseshit. moron. Skeptics are the kind or people least likely to get their understanding of AGW from the media.

You are living proof that is not true.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What gets up my ass is people that base their science on what they hear on TV news or read in news magazines or from politicians.

Do you really think those are reliable sources of information?

It makes no more sense to base your view of global warming on those sources than to base your medical decisions based on those sources.

now if that's what i did, great. except all i said was the media has been all over the map on global warming / climate change / freezing. i never said i based my views on that YOU DID.

and then you tear into me for what YOU said i said, totally bypassing what i have said several times now.

have fun, i'm out.

If people were not getting their science form these sources, it would not matter what they published. So, while you may not be, far too many people are.

I was not tearing into you....quit being such a snowflake.

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

maybe. except a few minutes ago so was i. even though i wasn't.

still being butt hurt I see...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You don't believe the President of the United States has control over which generals are promoted in the military?

Talk about ******* stupid.

Nope, I do not. And since only one of us actually served, only one of us would have any idea how promotions work in the military.

In the Marines, the first 2 promotions are automatic if you do not get into trouble....how does the POTUS control that?

The next two promotions are based upon a cutting score that is determined by your PFT score, TIS, TIG, rifle range score....how does the POTUS control that?

The rest of the promotions are based upon a randomly chosen board of your peers that meet once a year and looks over the paperwork for all qualified Marines of that grade and chose the best ones as they can determine...how does the POTUS control that?

Explain how the POTUS controls that process for each individual Marine.

Promotions for generals are chosen by the President and then approved by Congress, moron.

And generals make up .069% of the military...and you said it was the whole military.

Oh, and the POTUS only nominates those that are already Brigadier Generals for their next rank, so that cuts it down even more who the POTUS has control over.

The generals make the decisions about everyone else, moron.

No they do not you dumb ****.

Why do people that have never served think they know a damn thing about how the military works?

 

[iceberg]

now if that's what i did, great. except all i said was the media has been all over the map on global warming / climate change / freezing. i never said i based my views on that YOU DID.

and then you tear into me for what YOU said i said, totally bypassing what i have said several times now.

have fun, i'm out.

If people were not getting their science form these sources, it would not matter what they published. So, while you may not be, far too many people are.

I was not tearing into you....quit being such a snowflake.

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

maybe. except a few minutes ago so was i. even though i wasn't.

still being butt hurt I see...

not at all. you were wrong with me so you could well be wrong here with him.

still being wrong or are you actually reading what someone is saying vs. hearing key words and taking your standard approach?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If people were not getting their science form these sources, it would not matter what they published. So, while you may not be, far too many people are.

I was not tearing into you....quit being such a snowflake.

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

maybe. except a few minutes ago so was i. even though i wasn't.

still being butt hurt I see...

not at all. you were wrong with me so you could well be wrong here with him.

still being wrong or are you actually reading what someone is saying vs. hearing key words and taking your standard approach?

I was not wrong about you, I was speaking in general terms when talking to you, but you choose to be a snowflake and take it all personally.

 

[Lesh]

Total horseshit. moron. Skeptics are the kind or people least likely to get their understanding of AGW from the media.

They absolutely DO get their "understanding" from the media. Unfortunately it's from the right wing FRINGE media.

Where they don't get it from is actual science

 

[iceberg]

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

maybe. except a few minutes ago so was i. even though i wasn't.

still being butt hurt I see...

not at all. you were wrong with me so you could well be wrong here with him.

still being wrong or are you actually reading what someone is saying vs. hearing key words and taking your standard approach?

I was not wrong about you, I was speaking in general terms when talking to you, but you choose to be a snowflake and take it all personally.

i quote:

No they were not. That is just a partisan talking point. You should know better.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
----------
"you should know better".

that is not general terms. you were wrong. when i am i admit it. i guess you can't do the same but instead revert to the liberal side and just insult people instead.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Considering, that a very large majority do believe in climate change,

A very large majority believed the world was flat.

Good thing we didn't listen to them.

But, Kiwi....you have rotting dick disease. If you don't immediately chop off your dick, RIGHT NOW, you will die.

Quickly....CHOP IT OFF!!! THERE'S NO TIME TO LOSE!!! The majority of the people believe it.

.

 

[rightwinger]

And this highlights the problem of getting your science from the media. Do you turn to the media for medical advise?

i don't know what the **** crawls up your ass at times, but let me know when you're done.

What gets up my ass is people that base their science on what they hear on TV news or read in news magazines or from politicians.

Do you really think those are reliable sources of information?

It makes no more sense to base your view of global warming on those sources than to base your medical decisions based on those sources.

now if that's what i did, great. except all i said was the media has been all over the map on global warming / climate change / freezing. i never said i based my views on that YOU DID.

and then you tear into me for what YOU said i said, totally bypassing what i have said several times now.

have fun, i'm out.

If people were not getting their science form these sources, it would not matter what they published. So, while you may not be, far too many people are.

I was not tearing into you....quit being such a snowflake.

The kind of people most likely to get their "science" from the media are the ones who believe the AGW hocus-pocus.

Vs those who get their science from college drop out Rush Limbaugh

 

[Lesh]

But you are a person who get their science from the media and you do not believe, so that shoots your comment out of the water.

maybe. except a few minutes ago so was i. even though i wasn't.

still being butt hurt I see...

not at all. you were wrong with me so you could well be wrong here with him.

still being wrong or are you actually reading what someone is saying vs. hearing key words and taking your standard approach?

I was not wrong about you, I was speaking in general terms when talking to you, but you choose to be a snowflake and take it all personally.

i quote:

No they were not. That is just a partisan talking point. You should know better.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
----------
"you should know better".

that is not general terms. you were wrong. when i am i admit it. i guess you can't do the same but instead revert to the liberal side and just insult people instead.

Good link. Thanks

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests

 

[iceberg]

maybe. except a few minutes ago so was i. even though i wasn't.

still being butt hurt I see...

not at all. you were wrong with me so you could well be wrong here with him.

still being wrong or are you actually reading what someone is saying vs. hearing key words and taking your standard approach?

I was not wrong about you, I was speaking in general terms when talking to you, but you choose to be a snowflake and take it all personally.

i quote:

No they were not. That is just a partisan talking point. You should know better.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
----------
"you should know better".

that is not general terms. you were wrong. when i am i admit it. i guess you can't do the same but instead revert to the liberal side and just insult people instead.

Good link. Thanks

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests

shit.

someone left the idiot door open.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

still being butt hurt I see...

not at all. you were wrong with me so you could well be wrong here with him.

still being wrong or are you actually reading what someone is saying vs. hearing key words and taking your standard approach?

I was not wrong about you, I was speaking in general terms when talking to you, but you choose to be a snowflake and take it all personally.

i quote:

No they were not. That is just a partisan talking point. You should know better.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
----------
"you should know better".

that is not general terms. you were wrong. when i am i admit it. i guess you can't do the same but instead revert to the liberal side and just insult people instead.

Good link. Thanks

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests

shit.

someone left the idiot door open.

It is your door buddy!

 

[iceberg]

not at all. you were wrong with me so you could well be wrong here with him.

still being wrong or are you actually reading what someone is saying vs. hearing key words and taking your standard approach?

I was not wrong about you, I was speaking in general terms when talking to you, but you choose to be a snowflake and take it all personally.

i quote:

No they were not. That is just a partisan talking point. You should know better.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
----------
"you should know better".

that is not general terms. you were wrong. when i am i admit it. i guess you can't do the same but instead revert to the liberal side and just insult people instead.

Good link. Thanks

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests

shit.

someone left the idiot door open.

It is your door buddy!

yep. thought it was locked. he snuck in.

this one is on me.

 

[skookerasbil]

Total horseshit. moron. Skeptics are the kind or people least likely to get their understanding of AGW from the media.

They absolutely DO get their "understanding" from the media. Unfortunately it's from the right wing FRINGE media.

Where they don't get it from is actual science

But where is there ANY evidence that anybody outside of the climate science community is caring? The "science" isnt transcending shit! It's nothing more than an internet hobby! The "science" certainly has not impressed energy policy makers....not at all. Congress has had its thumb up its ass for many, many years now! Which means.....at the end of the day, Americans have very little concern about climate change action. They have waaaaaaaay more pressing problems!

Liberals have a billboard to take bows in front of.

Ghey

 

[Coyote]

More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change - CNNPolitics
About 8 in 10 Americans believe the climate is changing, causing extreme weather. Two thirds of Republicans believe the same thing. A majority of Americans (54%) consider it a "very serious" problem, according to a Monmouth University pollreleased Thursday

It's ranked 11th in this list of important issues from a 2018 Gallup poll:

1. Healthcare 80
2. The economy 78
3. Immigration 78
4. Way women are treated in U.S. society 74
5. Gun policy 72
6. Taxes 70
7. Foreign affairs 68
8. Way income and wealth are distributed in the U.S. 68
9. The recent confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court 64
10. U.S. trade and tariff policies 61
11. Climate change 53

And that changes what Iposted...how? Most Americans do not consider clinate change to be a hoax.