Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warning is Over - Trump Picks ACC Skeptic to Lead EPA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Global Warning is Over - Trump Picks ACC Skeptic to Lead EPA

    Myron Ebell must be The Doctor's hero:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...pa-transition/
    Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

    Prayers.

    BoRG

    http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

  • #2
    Can't come too soon.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Salinator View Post
      Myron Ebell must be The Doctor's hero:

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...pa-transition/
      He is probably mine too. reining in the rampant EPA is a must and in my opinion man made climate change is a hoax and just another cash producing industry.
      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Salinator View Post
        Myron Ebell must be The Doctor's hero:

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...pa-transition/
        My climate science "heroes" are Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Pat Michaels, Fred Singer, Judith Curry, Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, John Christie and the rest of the "front line." Myron Ebell is a political science guy who will take a chainsaw to the EPA...
        Last edited by The Doctor; 11 Nov 16, 10:17.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          And so it begins...
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
            He is probably mine too. reining in the rampant EPA is a must and in my opinion man made climate change is a hoax and just another cash producing industry.
            My feelings exactly.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Global Warming: The Convenient Truth

              http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-truth/305749/

              I don't think there is little doubt that anthropogenic co2 is causing warming. It also seems clear that the amount of warming we can expect has been exaggerated for political reasons. Ideally the climate would be stable enough that we could plan our infrastructure and agriculture investments with a high degree of confidence. We know however that the climate has fluctuated sufficiently within recorded history to have significant negative impacts on various civilizations.

              These facts make large investments in climate research prudent. The problem is that nobody is talking about what the ideal temperature of the planet to foster human welfare is. The environmentalist position that the best temperature is the natural one is patently unscientific. It maybe true that even a small increase in global temperatures will have major negative effects but as opposed to what?

              I slight warming may be catastrophic or it may just offset the cooling from an unrestricted major volcanic event. That is the true scientific assessment when politics are removed from the equation.

              I was watching Sam Harris today lament the election of an anti science president. Harris is no fool and he is certainly better able to assess the veracity of scientific studies than the average citizen. He is also correct in assuming that Trump supporters are more likely to be anti science fundamentalist. What he and other scientists do not understand is that in the big picture science has contributed more to the quality of human life than the quantity. The only science necessary for human population levels to become unsustainable is agriculture.

              The liberal predisposition to blame institutions instead of human nature for our difficulties is a deep and unscientific bias. It also part of the terrible philosophy of the degenerate Marx. The bias for excessive reliance on authoritarian solutions comes naturally to people accustomed to being treated as authorities. The danger comes when authorities on one topic start believing that people that disagree with them on other topics can be dismissed as intellectually inferior.

              The historical reality is that for thousands of years mankind did fairly well without science. It is arrogant to suggest that fate of our civilization rest more on science than political corruption. Other civilizations have survived terrible natural disasters and plagues without science.

              What makes a civilization viable in the final analysis is it's cohesiveness. Unlike Harris I voted for Trump because I believe that identity politics is a greater threat than climate change. I may be wrong but I have absorbed the cultural ethic of humility that made the scientific revolution possible. Consensus science is bad science and worse politics.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                When all the Gorebal Warming doomsayers have had decades to get their modelling right, make their science work, and at least occasionally prove their big picture theories have some justification in reality, but haven't got anything right to date it tells me they're full of $h!+. I'll start paying attention to their results when they have some that match reality.

                It's this same group of knuckleheads that said the hole in the ozone at the South Pole would close if we got rid of CFC's. Well billions of dollars wasted on more expensive alternatives, and decades later the hole is still there. Their response "Well, maybe it will take longer than we thought..."

                Maybe it's time we point out the hole in these dumb fks heads and stop listening to them until they can get something right.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think that we have at least a small effect on the climate. The problem is that we want to solve it by shooting ourselves while the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians continue to pollute like crazy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                    I think that we have at least a small effect on the climate. The problem is that we want to solve it by shooting ourselves while the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians continue to pollute like crazy.
                    We might have a big effect on the climate... Unless we plan on leaving the planet, that effect won't go away.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                      I think that we have at least a small effect on the climate. The problem is that we want to solve it by shooting ourselves while the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians continue to pollute like crazy.
                      Agreed, example Freon, we can no longer use it here but still manufacture it and sell it to third world countries.
                      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In the meantime, the EPA is working overtime to issue as many new regulations as they can before President Trump shuts them down...
                        EPA rushing through regulations after Trump election

                        By JOHN SICILIANO 11/10/16

                        The head of the Environmental Protection Agency is telling staff to quickly finish up the last round of regulations before President-elect Donald Trump enters the Oval Office next year.

                        "As I've mentioned to you before, we're running not walking through the finish line of President Obama's presidency," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a staff memo obtained by the Washington Examiner after Trump was declared the winner of Tuesday's election.

                        The agency is currently working on regulations for the oil and gas sector, and is finalizing new annual regulations for the nation's ethanol mandate and renewable fuel blending requirements. The agency is also moving rules related to implementation of its landmark Clean Power Plan for cutting carbon pollution from the nation's coal utilities to combat global warming.

                        The Clean Power Plan itself is currently under court review after being temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court on Feb. 9 until all judicial review has concluded. Over half the nation is opposing the climate rules along with major industry groups and the coal industry. Trump has made repealing the EPA climate plan a key part of his first 100 days in office.

                        [...]

                        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ep...rticle/2607124

                        Trump better bring a lot of erasers.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          Global Warming: The Convenient Truth

                          http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-truth/305749/

                          I don't think there is little doubt that anthropogenic co2 is causing warming. It also seems clear that the amount of warming we can expect has been exaggerated for political reasons. Ideally the climate would be stable enough that we could plan our infrastructure and agriculture investments with a high degree of confidence. We know however that the climate has fluctuated sufficiently within recorded history to have significant negative impacts on various civilizations.

                          These facts make large investments in climate research prudent. The problem is that nobody is talking about what the ideal temperature of the planet to foster human welfare is. The environmentalist position that the best temperature is the natural one is patently unscientific. It maybe true that even a small increase in global temperatures will have major negative effects but as opposed to what?

                          I slight warming may be catastrophic or it may just offset the cooling from an unrestricted major volcanic event. That is the true scientific assessment when politics are removed from the equation.

                          I was watching Sam Harris today lament the election of an anti science president. Harris is no fool and he is certainly better able to assess the veracity of scientific studies than the average citizen. He is also correct in assuming that Trump supporters are more likely to be anti science fundamentalist. What he and other scientists do not understand is that in the big picture science has contributed more to the quality of human life than the quantity. The only science necessary for human population levels to become unsustainable is agriculture.

                          The liberal predisposition to blame institutions instead of human nature for our difficulties is a deep and unscientific bias. It also part of the terrible philosophy of the degenerate Marx. The bias for excessive reliance on authoritarian solutions comes naturally to people accustomed to being treated as authorities. The danger comes when authorities on one topic start believing that people that disagree with them on other topics can be dismissed as intellectually inferior.

                          The historical reality is that for thousands of years mankind did fairly well without science. It is arrogant to suggest that fate of our civilization rest more on science than political corruption. Other civilizations have survived terrible natural disasters and plagues without science.

                          What makes a civilization viable in the final analysis is it's cohesiveness. Unlike Harris I voted for Trump because I believe that identity politics is a greater threat than climate change. I may be wrong but I have absorbed the cultural ethic of humility that made the scientific revolution possible. Consensus science is bad science and worse politics.
                          You sorta get it here and then you don't. The basics are;

                          Earth's geological records show that climate is always in flux. It is not a stagnant item that can be set to optimal level and kept there like the thermostat in your home cooling/heating system.

                          The planet's climate is either cooling towards an ice age (glaciation) or warming away from one. Which trend would you rather be living in right now?

                          We should not rush into any tinkering with climate systems, especially since we know and understand so little of same. See above.

                          CO2 "may" add to global warming, but the amount/percentage is not of major consequence. Consider that of the current 400 parts per million (PPM), dry (which excludes water vapor that is scores of times more effect) about 99.5% biomass of the planet, flora, the near majority of all life, requires about 300ppm for bare optimal growth and health. Think we >1% fauna could last long if the green plants aren't healthy?

                          This puts the issue down to the 100ppm over bare minimum to sustain 99.5% of life on this planet as the alleged culprit. This is a ratio of one to 10,000 of total atmosphere, or about .01% Common sense and basic math would claim that it's near impossible for the slight heat retained by .01 to significantly warm the 100. Consensus science isn't real science and many Trump voters grasped this.

                          What we can hope to see now is real science entering the equation and the political drives out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            GDB where we disagree is over how little change it takes to disrupt ecosystems. It isn't about survival of the species it has more to do with how little environmental disruption it takes to cause food shortages and political unrest. Even if higher co2 levels are optimal the transition will not necessarily be painless.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              GDB where we disagree is over how little change it takes to disrupt ecosystems. It isn't about survival of the species it has more to do with how little environmental disruption it takes to cause food shortages and political unrest. Even if higher co2 levels are optimal the transition will not necessarily be painless.
                              I think it's more on the type of change rather than scale. Greenhouse operations often go up to 600-800ppm CO2 and get greatly enhanced plant growth and food production. 400ppm CO2 is not a major enough change to disrupt the ecosystem, far from it.

                              And even if it were, the more efficient and cost effective solution would be to increase flora biomass (biological carbon sequestration units), not wreak economies and civilizations by unrealistic efforts at emissions reductions.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X