They’re really not even trying to hide their agenda of propaganda and State Doctrine in the schools and to the general public anymore
(Climate Progress)  In a push to improve climate education across the country, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a bill to create the Climate Change Education Program on Friday. The program would help educate the public on climate change solutions, the dangers caused by climate change, and small changes people can make in their daily lives to help combat the environmental problem.
“The focus of the content would be the basics of climate change, how it works, the impacts it has, as well as the solutions to climate change — which include clean energy,†Giselle Barry, the spokesperson for Markey’s office, told ThinkProgress.
The program would include “formal learning†in classroom curricula as well as “informal learning†opportunities. The informal learning would include public service announcements or campaigns and outreach to post-secondary schools, community centers, and community groups, according to Barry. Further, the program would include information on climate change’s impact on human health and safety, as well as on new technologies, programs, and incentives related to energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would establish the program.
The one thing that will be missing is the rock solid evidence, arrived at using the Scientific Method, that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the current warm period. But, it will surely be full of lots of dire prognostications of future doom if Other People are not force to pay more and more taxes while giving up their freedom, liberty, and modern lifestyles to bigger and bigger centralized government.
Of course, as long as the GOP controls at least one part of Congress, it won’t pass, so, it’s just another delusional attempt by Democrats to play games.
It’s like an SNL skit written by George Orwell.
from the little white puppy’s link:
But no update on what the “scandalous” documents revealed.
Teach virtually every country on the planet believes in AGW
Every major scientific association believes in it
2/3 of all Americans and 44% of Republicans believe in it
But no update on what the “scandalous†documents revealed.
JW already had documents from 2007 they obtained in 2010 showing that NASA had doctored the climate data.
But the scandal here is that NOAA refused to comply with both a Senate subpoena as well as FOIA requests.
It took a lawsuit to start the flow of data and to this date, NOAA is still slowplaying the data requests.
The “most transparent administration evah!”
John-what people “believe” has nothing to do with science. But I love another chapter in the “we have more guys on our side so we win” “argument”. How very scientific
This number will only rise because of stories like this and the fact that nearly every class room is teaching kindergarteners that Capitialism is evil and that corporations are bad.
Congratulations John. You and Jeffery remind me of the Nazi sympathizers in every country during WW2. You hope that by HELPING THE CAUSE you will somehow make the A list. Well news flash…your nothing but a tool for a vast conspiracy to destroy capitalism and most likely your own job. Good ole jeffery there will no longer be able to charge 150,000.00 per year for his cancer medicines and his company will go out of business.
YOu do not spend a decade perfecting a drug, going thru lab trials and then finally putting in place the infrastructure to market your drug for FREE…..no matter how benevolent you are.
Your familes must be mighty proud of you as you rail against corporate America which most likely feeds them, clothes them and provides health care for them. One day you will wake up and realize that America is gone and replaced with GREECE.
You know where they are rioting in the streets.
Thats why the left wants gun control, data bases and detailed information on gun owners so they can round up the guns before the insurection becomes and armed rebellion. Because there are going to be a lot of people that will fight your version of America with a CIVIL WAR.
And if they all believed the earth was flat or the earth was the center of the solar system would they be right too? Of course not, john don’t be silly.
First off john, the countries and scientific associations that believe in AGW and promote it do so because there is a great deal of money in it. Mostly American taxpayers money I might add.
Second, with schools k-12 plus all colleges, the media and the entertainment industry constantly pounding, pounding, pounding this crap into the heads full of mush it’s amazing it’s not 9/10ths rather than 2/3rds of Americans that buy this crap.
Finally, if this crap were true why would I believe a bunch of super-rich priests of doom who fly around the world spewing jet fumes, all own several 10-20,000 square feet homes with huge carbon foot prints and travel to the most expensive, luxurious and energy wasteful resorts and locations on earth while they make millions promoting a “theory” they can’t prove? They have a thousand different “models” with two thousand different outcomes.
I would ask just this: Exactly what temperature should the earth be? Why? Where? Was it ever? When? If they don’t know the ideal temperature hw do they know if it’s too warm?
“But no update on what the “scandalous†documents revealed.” When a government agency — or anyone, for that matter — refuses to release information that they are required by law to release, I don’t think it’s a wacky conspiracy theory to speculate that maybe there is something in that information that embarasses them. If this information backed up the claims that they were very publicly making, surely they would be anxious to release it. They wouldn’t have to be forced by a court order.
Suppose that an advertisement claimed that the manufacturer had conductetd a study which absolutely proved that their product cured baldness. Then when someone asked to see the details of the study, they refused to release it. I — and I think most people — would conclude, “Hmm, I’ll bet that study proved nothing of the kind.” Apparently Jeffery would say, “Hey, they SAID they had proof. And the study was done by SCIENTISTS! If you doubt it, you are obviously some kind of anti-science fanatic. As they refuse to publish the results of the study, you have absolutely no evidence that the study is biased, so you must just accept their word.”
This is where the phenomenon of teen rebellion gives me hope. As liberals continue to try to indoctrinate teenagers, I’d hope more and more teens would start saying, “Wait. If this is true, why don’t they just show us some evidence that it’s true, rather than browbeating us that we better believe it or else.”
The old definition of science: Facts learned from experimentation and observation. If you doubt it, you can perform the experiment yourself and see if you get the same results, or if that’s impractical, study the reports on the experiment. Other scientists are encouraged to repeat the experiment to validate the results.
The new definition of science: Claims made in press releases or speeches of organizations that have the word “science” in the name, and that are politically convenient to liberals. If you doubt it, you must be some kind of anti-science religious extremist, because someone who calls himself a scientist said it was true, and how dare you question the words of a scientist. You do not dare repeat the experiment, if there ever was an experiment, because we don’t have time. If the predictions of doom are extreme and dire enough, then we don’t have time to get actual proof: we have to act now.
And as Jay intimates, it’s not a matter of “science” with these folks, it’s a matter of political propaganda. If they would separate real science from political motivations and taxpayer grants it would be less specious. How can we fully believe a scientist when his livelihood depends upon giving the results his funding demands?
Jay puts more faith in “the phenomenon of teen rebellion” as he terms it than I. Frankly, the way these kids are completely immersed in leftist propaganda from pre-school (which right there is bull, pre-school is called “baby sitting”) to graduate school, from Sesame Street to the Simpsons and by taking their “news” from the likes of John Stewart and Bill Maher I’m surprised any of them can think outside the box. They are no longer taught critical thinking or to be skeptical of wild “end of the world” claims and scenarios. Rather they are taught to submit to the what “everybody knows” to be true philosophy as John and Jeffery allude to.
The good news is both John and Jeffery choose to post here with us. They are therefore, against all odds, beginning to open their minds to other ideas. It’s a beginning. If we can encourage them to keep up the dialogue and not start the name calling and personal attacks usually employed by the left when they’re hearing something they don’t like we may be able to agree on something. Some day. Maybe.
Not a chance, they’re lefties.
You haven’t been around here very long, have you?
No, I haven’t drowningpuppies, but hope springs eternal. I figure if they’re not old enough to have lived through the “ice age” scare of the 60’s the “overpopulation” scare of the 60-70’s, the “warming and starving” times of the 80’s then seen that because all that hysteria failed to work the big switcheroo to AGW they haven’t had the opportunity to really look back and watch the same old players making conflicting claims for decades. One needs to ask: beside grant money, tenure, phony prestige and the accompanying awards, and then more grant money why would they keep changing their minds? These people live an insular life meeting, living with, socializing with and marrying only people with the exact same views. Is there any wonder their inability to understand that to an outsider when the pieces don’t fit or make no sense there is something wrong with the premise?
NOAA turned over the documents as requested by the FOIA lawsuit, but not to the Congressional witchhunt. The question is, What damning evidence did the documents reveal?
The Earth continues to warm rapidly from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere.
According to the IPCC the temperature averaged over all land and ocean surfaces has warmed roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius since 1880. That amount of warming over 186 years is neither rapid nor abnormal even without human activity. Again, what should the temperature be, Jeffery?
The other problem we face here Jeffery is you are attributing CO2 which occurs naturally in different amounts at different times strictly to human actions. This is not proven and most likely not accurate.
Finally, if your team is to be believed you all would need to immediately stop using fossil fuels of any kind. Nobody listens to hypocrites who preach what is good for thee but not for me. Now if you want to talk nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuel you have my attention, but windmills and artificially subsidized solar ain’t gonna meet our energy needs for decades.
–the little guy who exaggerates often is being dishonest again or has reading comprehension issues
Judicial Watch sued the agency on December 2 and served the complaint on the agency on December 8. Less than a week later, on Tuesday, December 15, NOAA finally began to turn over documents to the House committee. That same day, NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.
The question is why does a governmental agency refuse requests from an Congressional oversight committee and a FOIA request until a subpoena is issued and a lawsuit filed.
I’m gonna take a wild guess here, drowningpuppies and say because they’re lying and covering something up?
What did I win?
A gold plated lifetime membership at the Cove.
Again, Covians, any evidence that NOAA hid anything? Just your suspicions since they wouldn’t turn over their work to far-right science deniers in the House? The House wanted emails and other communications, even after having the data and computer programs/models used.
Hoagie – There is no scientific debate over whether the CO2 increase in the past century is from humans burning fossil fuels. It is. We can discuss the evidence if you’d like.
A 0.85C increase over a century IS large and IS rapid. We can discuss the evidence if you’d like.
They have not completed the document request. The Judge on the case has not signed off that the documents were delivered as ordered. Secondly, you apparently have no issue that it took a lawsuit to get NOAA to comply with the law.
Interesting that you believe that NOAA is somehow a witch. The fact of the matter is that Judicial Watch launched the FOIA request when NOAA illegally denied a Congressional subpoena. Once again, it appears you have no issues with a legal subpoena not being filed by a government agency.
Previous governmental documents obtained by Judicial Watch showed the formulas and data used to prop up AGW was seriously flawed. The documents also showed collusion between the agencies and outside groups which is illegal.
You probably won’t any of this as an issue, but most people who care about the law, transparency, scientific honesty and integrity will.
You know full well what the House Deniers were after, so stop playing dumb.
So in this particular case you have no evidence that NOAA hid anything?
Please outline your claim that formulas and data was seriously flawed.
What illegal contacts were revealed?
Finally, is it your contention that the Earth is not warming?
It is my contention the earth may or may not be warming or cooling as it has thousands of times over billions of years. My contention is that human contribution to any warming or cooling is infinitesimal at best since these events have occurred long, long before mankind could be any contributing factor.
Jeffery, that was a lucid and amicable challenge on both accounts. Kudos. Unfortunately, I must decline any in depth discussion about any topic, especially one in which I am no expert like climate change at this venue. The reason is that I am personally not willing to dedicate the time, research and effort to thoroughly lay out my case and then sit here hour after hour typing it in and refuting your response etc., etc.. I also figure you face the same handicap unless you are an expert in the field or your plan is to regurgitate the same old pabulum I’ve seen a thousand times and I have more respect for you than that.
I can only state I am not a “climate denier” as so many would be prone to say. Rather, I am a skeptic as to the volume of human impact on climate and since I am an economist by education and a businessman by trade I am reluctant, to say the least, to devote trillions and trillions of dollars and the possibility of economic collapse causing untold human suffering on a theory. I am also reluctant to sign off on any remedies which would not be enforced on the worlds worst polluters that being the communist countries, the third world and the entire continent of Africa. Unfortunately, the first world seems to believe they can solve environmental problems in Beijing by selling carbon credits in Baltimore. That’s nonsense.
But thank you for the offer to discuss the topic. It was made in good faith and offered as a gentleman and I appreciate the thought behind it. I’m sure we will touch on it from time to time and I really do wish we could talk in person over a beer (or in my case a bourbon). I think I would learn something.
The people of the House Committee were after documents of another Federal agency that the agency was required by law to produce, but failed to do so. It doesn’t matter what you or I think the House was “after.” The fact of the matter is that they were required to produce the documents and failed to do so.
You can’t be that dense. The NOAA failed to produce the required documents as required by the House subpoena. That’s hiding. NOAA then failed to comply with a FOIA request. That’s hiding. After 7 months, NOAA has not completed providing the documents. That too is hiding.
The collusion between the government and outside groups. I already answered this but it appears you are ignoring the answers.
Stay on point. Is it your contention NOAA failing to comply with a legal subpoena is not an issue? Is it your contention that NOAA failing to comply with a legal request under the FOIA is not an issue? Is it your contention that a lawsuit had to be filed in order to make the agency comply with the law not an issue?
The executive branch contests House subpoenas all the time, and no one goes to jail. Let’s be honest here, House subpoenas are not “real” subpoenas, they’re political shillelaghs.
When the right-wing Judicial Watch sued for the documents via FOIA, NOAA complied. Do you really expect NOAA to stop all work to deliver millions of documents immediately?
Don’t forget, the evidence supports NOAA’s conclusion that the Earth is warming.
Actually if you read the report. They are reporting:
However, over the full period of record, from 1880 to present, the newly calculated warming trend is not substantially different than reported previously (0.68°C / Century (new) vs 0.65°C / Century (old)), reinforcing that the new corrections mainly have in impact in recent decades.
And again I must go back to what EVEN the IPCC recognizes as relevant and that is HEAT RETENTION and not temperature readings are the true factor in determining the Mean of Global warming.
Heat retention is not up at all. In fact it is the very reason the IPCC themselves started the pause MEME. Climate scientists with an agenda jumped all over this and began talking thermometer readings once again.
Pure Bunk. And any “””””STUDY””””” would have been colated, bound, peer reviewed and the entire process and methodology documented and a 1000 copies made.
To suggest that they cannot find some of the research or discuss their methodology is pure bunk….They have once again cooked the books then threw the baby out with the bathwater.
You can’t be that dense.
NOAA is not a part of the executive branch. It is funded by the legislative branch which, by law, has the right to see any documents it wants.
Secondly, the only time the executive branch can avoid complying with a subpoena is when there is a separation of powers issue. You cannot seriously be saying that even if NOAA were in the executive branch, there is a separation of powers issue as to public records.
Okay, let’s be honest. The House subpoena has the same weight as any other legally issued subpoena by a court. Failure to respond to a House subpoena results in a “contempt of Congress” which carries civil penalties.
NOAA did not comply when they were sued. It took a judge’s order to make them comply. Furthermore, they have not fully complied as of yet. And of course you are deliberately forgetting or ignoring that a lawsuit would not have been necessary except for the fact that NOAA had not complied with the law.
Once again, your ignorance and scurrilously trying to find a lie in any storm is showing. The Freedom of Information Act allows for the fact that agencies to not have to “stop all work to deliver millions of documents immediately” and that all they have to do is to start to deliver documents and give estimates of when the compliance would be complete.
NOAA did not follow the law.
Period.
The failure to follow the law when it comes to documents and the FOIA has been a trademark of this administration
Stay on point. Is it your contention NOAA failing to comply with a legal subpoena is not an issue? Is it your contention that NOAA failing to comply with a legal request under the FOIA is not an issue? Is it your contention that a lawsuit had to be filed in order to make the agency comply with the law not an issue?
(We won’t even mention the fact that until NOAA releases data and calculations, we cannot know if their claim is true.)
The little guy who exaggerates often is not dense, he’s just dishonest.
My mistake. I thought NOAA was part of the Dept of Commerce. Oh, it is. So you think NOAA is part of the legislature?
No, I am not bothered when one branch of gov’t thumbs its nose at another branch, especially when it stems from a political pissing contest.
The Republican Teabaggers in the House were looking for embarrassing emails.
Did you find the smoking gun in the documents proving that global warming is a hoax?
Hey, did you find those “illegal” contacts the NOAA scientists had with “outsiders” yet? You’ve mentioned them a couple of times but neglect to add any details.
It’s not? How does one measure “heat retention”?
It’s not? How does one measure “heat retention�
A simple study of the laws of Physics will reveal the necessity of questioning the Climatologists claims of Co2 as cause of a warming planet.
No object in the universe can heat itself by its own radiation so that the source of radiant heat must always be at higher temperature than the object or substance absorbing the radiation. Greenhouse gases at all levels in the atmosphere are a minor component of a gas in an open system that cannot be compressed other than by its own weight.
If a slightly higher concentration (from 0.0278% to 0.0387%) of greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs more radiant heat than it otherwise would have done, this excitation simply expands the gas volume slightly. It does not heat or “trap heat†within the surface-troposphere system.(The Troposphere is where the IPCC and AGW climatologists place all their eggs.)
Clausius’ simple statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says: “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.â€
Low-level heat in the cold upper atmosphere cannot result in heating or retention of heat to increase the temperature of the warmer atmosphere below it. ***The incorrect popular cartoon-like diagram as IPCC published it on page 115 of their Report 4 to illustrate the “Greenhouse Effectâ€****
Their version of global warming flies against everything known about the laws of thermodynamics.
Hence according to the laws of thermodynamics one only has to look at the stratosphere or the upper atmosphere and measure the retention of heat to get some idea of the actual expansion of gas that are causing the so called alarming HEAT RETENTION.
According to NOAA the rise in Stratosphere temperatures was a mere 4/10ths of one degree from the time they began measuring till the time they took down their website and changed all their numbers to correspond to a higher heat retention.
These numbers however do not coincide with the laws of thermodynamics and anyone with a basic understanding….say Physics1 and 2 in college would understand that the laws are being bent by the AGW crowd in order to justify crying wolf at GASES in the atmosphere causing Heat retention.
TO WIT: The laws of thermodynamics say garbage in….garbage out. The Earth cannot be out of thermal equilibrium with the Sun in the long term because the Sun is the ONLY source of heat for the Earth plus surface-troposphere system (assuming negligible geothermal effects).
The only way to heat or cool the Earth in the long run is to change the amount of solar energy that is absorbed. The presence of greenhouse gases does not change the energy input and if the absorbed energy input remains unchanged, the output energy cannot change.
So to answer your question we must turn to Astro-physics to get a true indicator of the most effective way of calculating not only heat retention but the retention of any molecule within the atmosphere itself.
1. Calculate the escape speed from the surface of a planet, then divide by 6. This
represents the estimate of how much faster the escape speed must be than the
root-mean-square speed.
2. Pick a gas of interest, say molecular oxygen or CO2.
3. Write down the surface temperature of the planet, either calculated via the
equilibrium temperature above, or (better) the observed surface temperature.
Calculate the rms (root-mean-square) speed of these molecules.
4. Compare the speeds calculated in (1) and (3) above. If V esc 6 > p
then there is a good chance that the planet or moon has retained the atmosphere.
all of the above take into account the laws of thermodynamics which says that says heat in equals heat out no matter how much the AGW crowd try to deflect with Infrared this or absorption that….all of these “tricks” simple refute the laws of thermodynamics which are as certain and fundamental as Newtons Law.
This is actually not hard for me to do as I have speeches prepared on this very subject as we present environmental impact studies to clients before any large project is commissioned.
Pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. We call this sort of talk “sciency”.
This is a blast from the past argument.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states, in essence, that heat doesn’t go “uphill”, that is, a cooler mass cannot warm a warmer mass.
Nothing about the theory of greenhouse gas warming of Earth violates that. As you both state and deny, the Sun heats the Earth’s surface and oceans – the heat is not being transferred from a cool atmosphere to a warmer surface. It’s as if you’re arguing that sunlight warms the air in your car on a sunny day and that warm air heats the black vinyl. The truth becomes evident when you plop your bare legs on the seat.
To deny the greenhouse effect on theoretical reasons denies the real world measurements in real world greenhouses, insulation, blankets, not to mention the real world world.
Are you really now arguing that greenhouse gases do not increase warming?
Using “sciency” arguments does not equal science. Real world physicists don’t argue about the 2nd Law, real world deniers do.
The Sun is always warmer than the Earth.
Irrelevant and imprecise. A microgram of polonium will kill an average human, 1 microgram/100 kg = 10 ng/kg or 10 pg/g or 10 parts per trillion, clearly a very “minor component” but deadly. Regardless, atmospheric CO2 levels are clearly increasing with time, higher now than at any time in the past 800,000 years. CO2 has increased about 40% since the industrial revolution.
Yet the Earth has warmed significantly the past century largely independent in changes in insolation. So why this rapid and significant warming? Do you think the oceans and land have become more “absorptive” to solar radiation over this brief period?
True! The sunlight wavelengths are absorbed by the land and oceans and houses and streets largely unimpeded by the real world measured significant increase in greenhouse gases.
Not true! Warm a water bed to 30C with a heat lamp. Measure the rate of heat “escape” over time. Repeat the experiment but put a blanket over the bed after warming. We would bet that the heat retention in the water bed with the blanket was greater than without a blanket. Svante Arrhenius conducted similar experiments a century ago using carbon dioxide as the “blanket”. Guess what?
Thanks for playing Jeffery. When you want to circumvent science it is always imperative that you divert the laws of thermodynamics into a Saul Alinsky debate.
As in Polonium we were discussing greenhouse gases….a radioactive component is hardly considered greenhouse gases.
What causes the earth to heat and cool? Is it some mysterious God of fire? It is the sun and trying to dance around the predominant source of heat(You have already dismissed my assertion of underwater super plumes and geo thermal activity as a source of heat) this planet has is embicillic.
As for Your Mysterious Arrhenius whom the AGw crowd love to discuss he conducted NO EXPERIMENTS….he only put forth a theory based upon mathematical calculations and concluded that If x then y.
Thanks for playing Jeffery, but the laws of physics cannot be bent to suit your own needs.
Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Heat in must equal heat out in order to maintain balance. This is always the case. What changes is the rate at which heat enters and exits and the majority of the greenhouse effect which is a misnomer relies upon Water Vapor which increases as the planet warms….Co2 being an insignificant GAS only expands when excited by heat….it does not act as a shield.
And the constant debate throughout Paleoclimatology is one of determining if Co2 causes a rise in temperature or is a result of rising temperatures and since the SUN is the ONLY source of heat this planet has…since you have so conviently denied my assertion that geo thermal activity plays a part in planetary warming then you are stuck with the laws of Thermodynamics.
Laim,
Thank Allah for thermodynamics, as every law supports the theory of AGW!
You conveniently ignore the reality of greenhouse gases preferring to dabble in undersea volcanoes causing the oceans to warm.
With no atmosphere, the Earth would reach equilibrium but at a much lower temperature than with an atmosphere. Why is that?
Why does the sunlit side of the moon reach over 200F and the dark side drop to -240F? Why doesn’t the “dark side of the Earth” drop to below zero each night?
Over half of the sun’s energy comes to earth in the infrared spectrum, and a huge amount of that is reflected back into space by CO2 and other gases. Of the 1006 W/M^2 reaching the surface, 527 Watts is infrared, 445 Watts is visible, and 32 watts is ultra-violet… so CO2 actually has the ability to act on a very huge portion of the sun’s incoming energy – and does exactly that. It’s just that other 445 watts with which it doesn’t interact on the way in, but does on the way out, that matters.
CO2 favors a narrow spectrum of infrared over others, but does not act exclusively on that spectrum. In fact, it interacts with UV to create ozone and interacts over a large infrared band. More CO2 means a healthier ozone layer. It also means more filtering of infrared heat from the sun. That should mean, that at some concentration, the atmosphere will become more opaque to the infrared energy from the sun, but will trap more of the converted visible light as heat.
Now if you consider the core of this planet is molten steel and that there is tremendous geo thermal activity all around the world….combining the small role that co2 plays in SLOWING, not trapping radiated heat back into space it is plausible that the rising temperatures for the last 18,000 years is a result of co2 lagging not leading because we all know the planet continued to warm when co2 levels were in the 200’s.
The AGW crowd is simply placing their collection plate on Co2 because its such a convient way to collect extortion money from contrite governments. There is almost no tangible evidence to support co2 as breaking the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore the heat must be coming from something else……Could that be a 3000 mile in diameter molten core and massive volcanoes and geo thermal activity around the planet spewing methane and co2 into the air and oceans continuously for the last 18,000 years.
Im betting on the latter, not some hocus pocus attempt at convoluting thermodynamic laws to show co2 as this big culprit to global warming.
You conveniently ignore the reality of greenhouse gases preferring to dabble in undersea volcanoes causing the oceans to warm.
NO you moron I was the one who discussed this at great lenghts with you about a year ago and YOU were the ONE who was calling me a lair and delusional.
I have stated from the beginning that the pacific rim is awash with underwater volcanoes spewing metric tons of co2 and methane into the oceans….You were like buh..buh..buh…but you full of shit its CO2 and the planet is warming.
Now your embracing my very theory as you dance around that which you really dont understand.
Pathetic.
Fine. It is certainly your right to say that the government has the right to break the law. Of course, that should mean that regular citizens should be able to break the law, but you won’t follow that through.
The Republican Teabaggers in the House were looking for embarrassing emails.
Yet oddly you seem to support the illegal subpoenas of AG’s against Exxon when those Ag’s are looking for “embarrassing emails.”
It is clear that you don’t care about the laws or the people the use them as long as they protect and project your religion of AGW.
Did you find the smoking gun in the documents proving that global warming is a hoax?
I haven’t seen the documents and neither have you. We do know the government has altered data in the past to fit the AGW. Of course, you don’t have a problem with that either.
Hey, did you find those “illegal†contacts the NOAA scientists had with “outsiders†yet? You’ve mentioned them a couple of times but neglect to add any details.
There are no “details” to add. Emails in the past, as in those with the AG’s, show an illegal collusion to act contrary to the law.
Once again, you really have no clue as to what is going on and yet you zealously protect liars and criminals because they believe as you do.
You have lied throughout this entire discussion, but that is what people have come to expect from you.
Buh bye.
This is the very reason I won’t discuss a topic like AGW on an internet form like this. There can be no conclusion because neither party can prove his assertions. At least not to the satisfaction of the opposition.
What you fail to understand is that while global warming or cooling is a scientific subject AGW is a political one. Once any government decides to run people’s lives, purchases, energy, housing, food and more because of a scientific theory you are establishing a dictatorship. It really doesn’t matter if the reason behind the dictatorship is religion, race, labor, war or in this case science, it’s still a dictatorship. It has to be to enforce all the rules and regulations fellows like Jeffery want to impose on everybody for their own protection. I suggest we find another way to approach and correct global warming other than the enslavement of mankind to a Borg-like cartel of science bureaucrats. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure Jeffery and John are much nicer fellows than Adolf or Pol Pot nevertheless, I still have no desire to have them as rulers over me and extra-Constitutionally at that. Regardless of their good intentions.
Laim,
So there has been a change in the Earth’s core and resultant undersea volcanoes in the past 100 years to cause the current period of rapid warming? Any evidence to support your hypothesis?
gc,
Of course politics is messy! Dems go after Reps and Reps go after Dems. The system works itself out somehow. NOAA is supplying the documents for which JW sued. JW will surely slip them to the House Teabaggers. If crimes were committed we’ll surely find out. Same applies to Exxon and the AGs.
Hoagie,
In a complex society such as ours we will all face disappointments, but isn’t it just a tad dramatic to consider the government support for the gradual transition from fossil fuels to renewables to be the end of western society? A scientific consensus reduced your access to halogenated carbon molecules. Was that akin to Hitler invading Poland? To the Shah having dissidents murdered?
Hospitals can’t send radioactive wastes to the landfill. It’s illegal to sell cocaine. We have stop signs and speed limits. Most places make it illegal to burn your trash in a 55 gal barrel as I did as a kid. Or to burn your leaves in the fall. In my state we have all sorts of restrictions on hunting deer and other game, and a license is required to fish. We have noise laws in my county – a band can’t practice at a 120 db into the wee hours of the morning. The restaurant behind my house has to shut off the loud music by 11 PM. I can’t hold a turkey shoot in my back yard without the neighbors calling the police. I can’t carry my Colt revolver onto an airplane. Kids can’t buy liquor. You can’t marry a 14 yr old girl, you can’t even bang her even if she’s willing! Mufflers on cars, catalytic converters, airbags, seatbelts, child safety seats… motorcycle helmet laws, bike lanes, oh my. Public school teachers can’t lead public prayers in class anymore. You can’t even beat your child or your wife when they clearly deserve it without someone calling the cops. Cigarette smokers are singled out with onerous taxes. In Philly they just passed a sugared drink tax. Machine guns require a permit and a fee. You can’t piss, shit or spit wherever you want. I can’t raise and butcher goats and sell the meat in my backyard without a permit.
But you draw the line at the government proposing a tax on carbon pollution? That’s the sure sign of a dictatorship?
So you’ve decided on reductio ad absurdum rather than straw man, Jeffery? Please do not insult me nor embarrass yourself by making silly, snarky comments. This is why any discussion of AGW goes nowhere. It’s also why engaging in any sort of political discussion with leftists is futile. There can be no compromise because leftists fail to respect anyone with whom they disagree and end up doing what you just did in your last comment. Either you intimate those with whom you disagree are complete morons incapable of understanding the high level of your thought or out come the slurs and name calling. So if I disagree with you on AGW I’m either a “denier” or stupid. I can never, ever have a legitimate concern about the imposition of your agenda and it’s effects on my life, my freedom, my family or my finances because I’m too stupid to count. So out comes the mockery, the sarcasm, the belittlement in an ultimate attempt to discredit not my concerns nor my arguments but to discredit me, the person. Which is why I have no intension of discussing AGW with you because I refuse fight for both my point of view and my right to give it without being ridiculed.
Right. You compare climate realists to Pol Pot and Hitler but whine when challenged.
Again. Explain how a tax on carbon pollution equates to the Nazis.
A tax on carbon pollution is an oppressive tax levied upon the people least able to afford it which will crush their ability to move forward economically and thereby destroys their free will to say no. The Nazi’s did the same thing to their people who disagreed. Happy?
Do you consider our government regulations on food safety to also be dictatorial ? Do you think that the “free market” should be allowed with no regulation Speed limits on public roads? mandatory vaccinations for school kids?
Conservatives scream loudest when government fails to live up to their expectations VA schools etc.
ExxonMobil recognizes the dangers of AGW and so states on their website. they also agree that a carbon tax is the best way to solve the problem
Zoning to keep the poor out of your neighborhood? well of course THAT is good use of government.
Some state AGs believe that fossil fuel companies (as did tobacco companies before them) may have committed FRAUD by withholding research, that they paid for that shows that fossil fuels cause AGW. They have filed discovery motions to see if that is true, just as they did with big tobacco. If that is found to be true than they have committed commercial fraud
@John.
You would love to take every fossil fuel company to the cleaners wouldnt you? Its what the left does….they sue everyone in sight to get their cut of the pie.
Suing out of existence the fossil fuel companies would also require that the USA and Russia and Saudia Arabia ad nauseum be held also responsible.
In return for winning such lawsuits you would bankrupt the world as the world is RUN ON FOSSIL FUELS.
But then some countries would just thumb their noses at the deal….Probably the same country that you represent on these forums with your monotonous diatribe against capitalism.
Drawing on original insights and cutting-edge research, Epstein argues that most of what we hear about fossil fuels is a myth. For instance . . .
Myth: Fossil fuels are dirty.
Truth: The environmental benefits of using fossil fuels far outweigh the risks. Fossil fuels don’t take a naturally clean environment and make it dirty; they take a naturally dirty environment and make it clean. They don’t take a naturally safe climate and make it dangerous; they take a naturally dangerous climate and make it ever safer.
Myth: Fossil fuels are unsustainable, so we should strive to use “renewable†solar and wind.
Truth: The sun and wind are intermittent, unreliable fuels that always need backup from a reliable source of energy—usually fossil fuels. There are huge amounts of fossil fuels left, and we have plenty of time to find something cheaper.
Myth: Fossil fuels are hurting the developing world.
Truth: Fossil fuels are the key to improving the quality of life for billions of people in the developing world. If we withhold them, access to clean water plummets, critical medical machines like incubators become impossible to operate, and life expectancy drops significantly. Calls to “get off fossil fuels†are calls to degrade the lives of innocent people who merely want the same opportunities we enjoy in the West.
Taking everything into account, including the facts about climate change, Epstein argues that “fossil fuels are easy to misunderstand and demonize, but they are absolutely good to use. And they absolutely need to be championed. . . . Mankind’s use of fossil fuels is supremely virtuous—because human life is the standard of value and because using fossil fuels transforms our environment to make it wonderful for human life.â€
–The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels
by Alex Epstein