Reply With Quote
You're calling me a face, 21? Do it again.
alarmism isn't in the literature. exactly.
and yet "skeptics" or whatever the you want to call them routinely try to refute or marginalize the very findings in the literature. or you just have faces like trump and thread who think the entire field of study is a liberal plot
i agree that video is over the top. which researchers put that video together?
You're calling me a face, 21? Do it again.
On this issue? Absolutely.
Then do it again.
On the climate change issue, you are a face. Right next to Donald.
No, 21, seriously do it again, and in the mean time have you watched your children, or, mother masturbate lately?
"It's all a liberal hoax."
Signed,
face
It is a loaded crock of horse . Introduced to redistra...............you know what, forget it, 21. You win.
If you can explain what's flawed with the science, I'm all ears. Otherwise you're just playing the santa card, and only pussies and assholes play the santa card.
Once-cautious climate economist warns against the cost of Trump era inaction
William Nordhaus says social cost of CO2 much higher than he thought, while team Trump says it is zero.
https://thinkprogress.org/once-cauti...964#.n5mlmi1a0
It's a crock of pure concocted to separate man from his money. A redistribution of wealth by gov't.
Why are you taking anything Bozo writes at face value?
He knows he is full of . He just tries different tactics to push your buttons.
He's laughing like a clown at your irritated response.
nah, he's irritated. out of principle, he hasn't responded to me since i called him a face on the matter. so when he sees me respond to him, he's tempted to answer, but knows he can't
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...climate-action
Spotted in Washington: conservatives supporting climate action
The event just as easily could have been canceled. It was planned back in October, when the organizers weren’t expecting a Trump election victory. Yet here they were last week, five economists and an attorney, talking about the idea of a nationwide tax on carbon emissions.
Lots of people showed up. And they were conservatives, not liberal environmentalists. This panel discussion filled a large room at the conservative American Enterprise Ins ute in Washington, even though the Trump administration so far shows no interest in carbon taxes.
Participants poked a bit of fun at themselves – referring to their discussion as a "faculty club" chat.
Yet the event showcased an important reality: Even as climate change is essentially absent from the priority list of President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, a meaningful number of conservatives in America support the idea of reducing heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere.
“You’re not going to convince 100 percent of the world,” Aparna Mathur, an American Enterprise Ins ute economist who was part of the panel, said after the event. But she sees a shrinking number of conservatives who oppose a carbon policy.
By some measures, she may be right. In March 2016, a Gallup survey found 40 percent of Republicans saying they worry a “great deal” or “fair amount” about the issue. That was up from 31 percent in a poll the previous year.
Even so, of course, support for climate action is hardly an influential viewpoint in GOP politics.
For all the inroads some libertarians and moderate Republicans thought they’d made with their carbon tax crusade, Trump’s ascendency in last year’s election campaign suggests how little climate change matters to the bulk of conservative voters. He dismissed the issue, championed fossil fuels, and ran into no primary-election barriers.
It looks like a long road ahead to remake the GOP into something more environmentally friendly.
But Ms. Mathur and some other conservative climate advocates see some wind at their backs.
Many cities and states are moving on climate, even if Washington isn’t. Businesses, which compete in a global economy, are doing it as well. And Millennials, who believe in climate change more than older generations do, are a rising influence in both major parties. And they point to polls finding Republican support for clean energy and at least some government climate action.
A conservative think tank hosting a debate on a carbon tax underscores the interest the idea has already generated on the political right. Taxing carbon is potentially both effective and bipartisan – a conservative approach in the sense that it leans on marketplace incentives to reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
In fact, some conservatives even hold out hope a carbon tax could be implemented under Trump, wiggling its way into a broad overhaul of the federal tax code. Economists like Mathur, along with Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina Republican congressman who now pushes for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, have proposed using the revenues to cut the corporate income tax rate. A portion of revenues could be used to offset energy price increases for low-income households most affected by a carbon tax.
“I believe there are a lot of Republicans who actually might be in support of this policy, they are just hesitant to come out and talk about it because at the end of the day we’re talking about a new tax,” Mathur says.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html
Another Jew scam to separate shekels from Goyim
Lol... Still pushing the pause claim that always conveniently cherry picks a 1998 starting point, which was an extraordinarily strong el nino year. A 10 year running average is always preferred to cherry picked start and end dates for obvious reasons
Outed yourself quickly as having not read the article
I read the article. I wasn't directly addressing it. I'm at work, don't have time to go through it point by point. Making a comment about the "from 1998 through..." chatter that is generally heard
Plus that author is known to be a hack that cherry picks quotes and sources
... metoffice and NOAA use different baseline temperatures, so of course their results would vary this wildly when you plug the raw data. what happens when you use the same baseline?
of course though... why wouldn't Dr. Bates just author a refutation of the findings, pointing out flaws in their methodology and data... instead of just giving an interview with the dailymail?
the entire article is full of partial quotes... most of them just small sentence fragments. the only extended quotes from Bates I found in the article...didn't really expand on that‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
and
‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’
and that's fine, but if you think there are errors... author a scientific refutation instead of whining to a journalist like david rose. and for all the hoopla about adjustments, here's a representation of the adjustments from the original paper itself. not exactly paradigm altering
Last edited by spurraider21; 02-06-2017 at 10:02 PM.
http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic...14-00%EF%BB%BFBates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, do ented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
Yes, but his claim that they didn't follow their own rules of scientific integrity are still true.
peer reviewed paper confirming the results of the Karl paper... that the buoy results are more accurate than results collected by boat, but that adjustments must be made because the buoy results have a cooling bias relative to the boat results (because the measurements were taken near the ship engines)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5216687/
There are concerns there that should be looked into, but the headline making rounds around the blogosphere (and the previous page on this thread) was...
"Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data"
but of course the data wasn't "manipulated" and nobody was "duped into investing" because of it
Does it matter?
We have a huge percentage of people who stupid. Just look at who we put in as our elected officials. The climate sciences are no different. The news will be as slanted as any, because sensationalism is what sells.
What would the story be and sales, if the headlines read that global warming would bring prosperity?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
