Climate Change

[Herman Hickman]

This has become religious dogma for the left. It has to be defended at all costs. If the cost is the sacrifice of the Bill of Rights and Freedom of Speech, then so be it:

Conservative Groups Targeted in Climate Change Racketeering Suit

The existence of the subpoena was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in April. A newly released copy obtained by the Washington Free Beacon reveals the names of the organizations targeted in the effort, which had previously been redacted.

Those organizations include some of the nation’s preeminent conservative and libertarian nonprofit groups. The AG is requesting Exxon Mobil communications with the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, the Hoover Institution, the Reason Foundation, and the Mercatus Institute, among other groups.

If the Church of the High Holy Climate Alarmists were truly confident in their Climate Change messiahs, then they would not feel the need to use legal instruments to silence those who disagree with their "science."

If the science behind climate change was as sound as its advocates suggest, then you would not be seeing these attempts to use government force to silence opposition.

The alarmists have much more in common with Pope Paul V and his refusal to consider challenges to the true faith than they will ever have with a real scientist like Galileo.

Rather than consider the opinions of those who question their religion, the alarmists would prefer them arrested and prevented from voicing their critiques.

 

[Sandvol]

This has become religious dogma for the left. It has to be defended at all costs. If the cost is the sacrifice of the Bill of Rights and Freedom of Speech, then so be it:

Conservative Groups Targeted in Climate Change Racketeering Suit



If the Church of the High Holy Climate Alarmists were truly confident in their Climate Change messiahs, then they would not feel the need to use legal instruments to silence those who disagree with their "science."

If the science behind climate change was as sound as its advocates suggest, then you would not be seeing these attempts to use government force to silence opposition.

The alarmists have much more in common with Pope Paul V and his refusal to consider challenges to the true faith than they will ever have with a real scientist like Galileo.

Rather than consider the opinions of those who question their religion, the alarmists would prefer them arrested and prevented from voicing their critiques.

They figure it works for their brethren in China so why not here?

China warns economic analysts to stop being so pessimistic - MarketWatch

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Forbes Welcome

"Pressuring the left via natural gas, hydro power and nuclear power will produce one of two possible outcomes. Under one outcome, the left agrees to stop opposing these low- and zero- emission power sources. The left achieves its desired carbon dioxide reductions while conservatives successfully safeguard our economy from expensive and unreliable wind and solar. Under the other outcome, the left refuses to budge in its opposition to everything except wind and solar. In the process, the left will lose substantial political credibility; after all, the left can hardly make the argument that global warming is our nation’s greatest threat while it rejects a multitude of reasonable, affordable and effective means to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

So Bart, which hypocrisy do you want to pick?

 

[BartW]

It's cooler today.. Climate change

I got a nice tan this week. It’s been hot!

Seattle smashes record for hottest April on record

And globally,

April joins parade of record temperatures, making it 12 months in a row

 

[BartW]

fyp?

Coral bleaching is “BS pseudo science from the left”?

Fascinating

 

[tumscalcium]

I got a nice tan this week. It’s been hot!

Seattle smashes record for hottest April on record

And globally,

April joins parade of record temperatures, making it 12 months in a row

Lies. You don't go outside.

 

[BartW]

This has become religious dogma for the left. It has to be defended at all costs. If the cost is the sacrifice of the Bill of Rights and Freedom of Speech, then so be it:

Conservative Groups Targeted in Climate Change Racketeering Suit

If the Church of the High Holy Climate Alarmists were truly confident in their Climate Change messiahs, then they would not feel the need to use legal instruments to silence those who disagree with their "science."

If the science behind climate change was as sound as its advocates suggest, then you would not be seeing these attempts to use government force to silence opposition.

The alarmists have much more in common with Pope Paul V and his refusal to consider challenges to the true faith than they will ever have with a real scientist like Galileo.

Rather than consider the opinions of those who question their religion, the alarmists would prefer them arrested and prevented from voicing their critiques.

As Climate Deception Investigations Gain Momentum, ExxonMobil Plays the Victim

Again, change a few key words and this is exactly the argument Big Tobacco used. Not only is it the same argument, it’s the same people making the argument. Exxon’s law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison defended Big Tobacco for years. So have the CEI and their attorneys. So have several of the organizations listed in your article. In fact, Theodore Wells Jr., one of the lawyers who submitted Exxon’s Texas suit to attempt to block the more recent subpoenas, was co-lead counsel for Philip Morris during the tobacco RICO trials.

(On a related note, Exxon’s attorneys also happen to represent the NFL in the ongoing concussion/CTE litigation)

The first amendment doesn’t give you blanket protection from fraud investigation. As Lamar Smith would say, if Exxon has nothing to hide, why not hand over the data? Let’s not forget climate contrarians have been engaging in this type of harassment (and worse) for years.

Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

Sen. Inhofe inquisition seeking ways to criminalize and prosecute 17 leading climate scientists

 

[BartW]

Forbes Welcome

"Pressuring the left via natural gas, hydro power and nuclear power will produce one of two possible outcomes. Under one outcome, the left agrees to stop opposing these low- and zero- emission power sources. The left achieves its desired carbon dioxide reductions while conservatives successfully safeguard our economy from expensive and unreliable wind and solar. Under the other outcome, the left refuses to budge in its opposition to everything except wind and solar. In the process, the left will lose substantial political credibility; after all, the left can hardly make the argument that global warming is our nation’s greatest threat while it rejects a multitude of reasonable, affordable and effective means to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

So Bart, which hypocrisy do you want to pick?

Not sure what you’re asking, but I believe you’re begging the question and presenting a falsa dilemma. I don’t identify with the left. I have said all along that I support nuclear, gas, and hydropower. I strongly support nuclear energy. I think fracking issues are overblown but realize there could be unknown long-term problems. I wonder about the methane emissions, for example. Nonetheless, I believe gas will be an important bridge fuel to a low-carbon economy over the next 30-50 years. Hydropower I’m a little more on the fence. We’re more-or-less maxed out on dams already, and there are a few dams here in the northwest especially that could probably go. I don’t care much about California’s random endangered species, but salmon are a big deal out here. Salmon are a huge part of the northwest’s economy and ecosystem, both for white folks and the natives. But overall I am more for it than against. Over 90% of my electricity comes from hydropower.

We should definitely be encouraging investment in wind and solar, too. Solar is the future imo. You guys like to point to Solyndra and other failures, but there have been many more successes than failures. Solar has come a long way already, and is competitive in some places already, but there is still tons of potential. Btw, the radical leftist you’re describing would probably oppose wind and solar too because they fry/slice birds or whatever. I don’t fit this stereotype. This is a dumb stereotype.

 

[Sandvol]

Coral bleaching is “BS pseudo science from the left”?

Fascinating

As if it's something new or unordinary.

 

[BartW]

Lies. You don't go outside.

I'm in the field about half the time, but I've been outside four and a half days this week!

I'm actually in the field today; I'm just getting some refreshments and internets at the cafe down the street between data points in the world's slowest infiltration test. Gotta love infiltrating hardpan during Seattle summers... plenty of time to lay out in the sun and dick around on the internet.

 

[BartW]

As if it's something new or unordinary.

You keep telling yourself that.

We've only had 3 global coral bleachings in recorded history; in 1998, 2010 and presently. The 1998 El Nino killed 15% of the world's coral. This one will probably kill even more.

Great Barrier Reef bleaching made 175 times likelier by human-caused climate change

Heat causes coral bleaching, and over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans.

 

[Herman Hickman]

As Climate Deception Investigations Gain Momentum, ExxonMobil Plays the Victim

Again, change a few key words and this is exactly the argument Big Tobacco used. Not only is it the same argument, it’s the same people making the argument. Exxon’s law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison defended Big Tobacco for years. So have the CEI and their attorneys. So have several of the organizations listed in your article. In fact, Theodore Wells Jr., one of the lawyers who submitted Exxon’s Texas suit to attempt to block the more recent subpoenas, was co-lead counsel for Philip Morris during the tobacco RICO trials.

(On a related note, Exxon’s attorneys also happen to represent the NFL in the ongoing concussion/CTE litigation)

The first amendment doesn’t give you blanket protection from fraud investigation. As Lamar Smith would say, if Exxon has nothing to hide, why not hand over the data? Let’s not forget climate contrarians have been engaging in this type of harassment (and worse) for years.

Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

Sen. Inhofe inquisition seeking ways to criminalize and prosecute 17 leading climate scientists

Why did Inhofe call those hearings again?

Oh yeah...those so-called scientists were caught fixing the data to fit the dogma.

Press Release | Press Releases | Newsroom | U.S. Senator for Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe


https://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

Note the end of the article:

None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.

When you are attempting to enact policies that will kill jobs, reduce the standard of living, and make basic energy costs exponentially more expensive for American citizens, you tend to get Congressional interest when it is discovered you are playing fast and loose with your scientific findings you haven't even bothered submitting to peer review.

Inhofe isn't attempting to silence the alarmists. He is attempting to get answers as to why this so-called science responds more to the necessities of socialist dogma than it does to the need for peer review.

The attorney general in question, on the other hand, is using the laws regarding fraud and racketeering to silence criticism of this religion. Note he doesn't merely ask for Exxon's papers. He just happens to request documents from conservative and libertarian organizations who also dare question the evangelical zealots of the alarmist community.

He isn't looking for fraud. He is looking to silence the right of individuals and groups to critically review findings deemed by your beloved government as sacrosanct and so beyond question that it need not be subjected to peer review.

 

[hog88]

You keep telling yourself that.

We've only had 3 global coral bleachings in recorded history; in 1998, 2010 and presently. The 1998 El Nino killed 15% of the world's coral. This one will probably kill even more.

Great Barrier Reef bleaching made 175 times likelier by human-caused climate change

Heat causes coral bleaching, and over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans.

How long have we been keeping records of reef bleaching?

 

[Herman Hickman]

While were at it, let's revisit the 1988 climate predictions of Mr. Hansen

How close did the Pope of Climate Marxism come to meeting his predictions? Let's take a look:

That isn't just slightly off the mark. That is completely off the mark.

They call it climate science. In reality it is quackery produced by fear-mongers whoring themselves out in service of crony politicians bent on enriching themselves at the expense of a citizenry they seek to control and regulate.

 

[Herman Hickman]

Remember when NOAA and NASA said 2015 was the "warmest year ever"?

Funny how their own data doesn't match the claim. That happens when you do the bidding of progressive crony politicians who just happen to have large investments in green energy businesses.

Anyone remember when NOAA and NASA engaged in legitimate science instead of politically-motivated quackery?

 

[AM64]

I got a nice tan this week. It’s been hot!

Seattle smashes record for hottest April on record

And globally,

April joins parade of record temperatures, making it 12 months in a row

Don't suppose you've ever heard of El Nino.

 

[Sandvol]

You keep telling yourself that.

We've only had 3 global coral bleachings in recorded history; in 1998, 2010 and presently. The 1998 El Nino killed 15% of the world's coral. This one will probably kill even more.

Great Barrier Reef bleaching made 175 times likelier by human-caused climate change

Heat causes coral bleaching, and over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans.

El Nino is a natural event. We can't stop global warming any more than we can stop global cooling. Are you concerned about what will happen to the coral during the next ice age? What are you going to do about it?

 

[Sandvol]

Remember when NOAA and NASA said 2015 was the "warmest year ever"?

Funny how their own data doesn't match the claim. That happens when you do the bidding of progressive crony politicians who just happen to have large investments in green energy businesses.

Anyone remember when NOAA and NASA engaged in legitimate science instead of politically-motivated quackery?

It's called government worker job security.

 

[Sandvol]

While were at it, let's revisit the 1988 climate predictions of Mr. Hansen

How close did the Pope of Climate Marxism come to meeting his predictions? Let's take a look:

That isn't just slightly off the mark. That is completely off the mark.

They call it climate science. In reality it is quackery produced by fear-mongers whoring themselves out in service of crony politicians bent on enriching themselves at the expense of a citizenry they seek to control and regulate.

They're trying to forget all that crap right now and veer toward different crap like Bart's new chart of global ocean heat content since surface temperatures aren't cooperating. Wow don't you find 10^22 really scary? I sure do.

 

[Sandvol]

You keep telling yourself that.

We've only had 3 global coral bleachings in recorded history; in 1998, 2010 and presently. The 1998 El Nino killed 15% of the world's coral. This one will probably kill even more.

Great Barrier Reef bleaching made 175 times likelier by human-caused climate change

Heat causes coral bleaching, and over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans.

P.S.-I can't believe you're actually presenting a chart from the NOAA-those charlatan raw data adjusters.

 

[Herman Hickman]

It's called government worker job security.

Yep. And you are never, ever to question the quality or accuracy of their work, not even if you are a Senator with a clearly defined oversight role on this issue. The religion is settled. It is beyond dispute or question. Those who dare critique it? Well we know what statists would like to do to those who dare question their Chicken Little faith:

The alarmist community deny the right of people like Senator Inhofe to review work produced almost entirely through taxpayer funds. But when it comes to climate studies produced through private sources, the legal authority of the state deems it their right to control and even suppress the criticism.

They can't refute it. This is why they seek to censor it and punish those who produce and fund the studies.

That isn't scientific debate. That is absolute denial of the very scientific process they claim to support.

 

[Sandvol]

yep. And you are never, ever to question the quality or accuracy of their work, not even if you are a senator with a clearly defined oversight role on this issue. The religion is settled. It is beyond dispute or question. Those who dare critique it? Well we know what statists would like to do to those who dare question their chicken little faith:

the alarmist community deny the right of people like senator inhofe to review work produced almost entirely through taxpayer funds. But when it comes to climate studies produced through private sources, the legal authority of the state deems it their right to control and even suppress the criticism.

They can't refute it. This is why they seek to censor it and punish those who produce and fund the studies.

That isn't scientific debate. That is absolute denial of the very scientific process they claim to support.

100%.

 

[AM64]

Yep. And you are never, ever to question the quality or accuracy of their work, not even if you are a Senator with a clearly defined oversight role on this issue. The religion is settled. It is beyond dispute or question. Those who dare critique it? Well we know what statists would like to do to those who dare question their Chicken Little faith:

The alarmist community deny the right of people like Senator Inhofe to review work produced almost entirely through taxpayer funds. But when it comes to climate studies produced through private sources, the legal authority of the state deems it their right to control and even suppress the criticism.

They can't refute it. This is why they seek to censor it and punish those who produce and fund the studies.

That isn't scientific debate. That is absolute denial of the very scientific process they claim to support.

Speaking of that, wonder if they will ban cremation - all that extra CO2 from burning bodies?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Not sure what you’re asking, but I believe you’re begging the question and presenting a falsa dilemma. I don’t identify with the left. I have said all along that I support nuclear, gas, and hydropower. I strongly support nuclear energy. I think fracking issues are overblown but realize there could be unknown long-term problems. I wonder about the methane emissions, for example. Nonetheless, I believe gas will be an important bridge fuel to a low-carbon economy over the next 30-50 years. Hydropower I’m a little more on the fence. We’re more-or-less maxed out on dams already, and there are a few dams here in the northwest especially that could probably go. I don’t care much about California’s random endangered species, but salmon are a big deal out here. Salmon are a huge part of the northwest’s economy and ecosystem, both for white folks and the natives. But overall I am more for it than against. Over 90% of my electricity comes from hydropower.

We should definitely be encouraging investment in wind and solar, too. Solar is the future imo. You guys like to point to Solyndra and other failures, but there have been many more successes than failures. Solar has come a long way already, and is competitive in some places already, but there is still tons of potential. Btw, the radical leftist you’re describing would probably oppose wind and solar too because they fry/slice birds or whatever. I don’t fit this stereotype. This is a dumb stereotype.

Your second paragraph just shows your ignorance. Do you honestly think that wind and solar will not depend on oil? Please tell me you think they wont. You're a government stooge, your posts reflect that big time. Fossil fuels have had many more successess than failures. Also, our whole economic system is set up around fossil fuels. To change that system would take a monumental effort that likely would cost many fortunes. But you keep up your litle homemade graphs and conspiracy theory retorts.

I really like when you talk about recorded history. Like we really have any reliable way to tell exactly what the weather was like around the globe, say a billion years ago. Jesus man, you cannot honestly believe everything you spew.

 

[ajvol01]

You keep telling yourself that.

We've only had 3 global coral bleachings in recorded history; in 1998, 2010 and presently. The 1998 El Nino killed 15% of the world's coral. This one will probably kill even more.

Great Barrier Reef bleaching made 175 times likelier by human-caused climate change

Heat causes coral bleaching, and over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans.

Chris Farley's fault IMO

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkSRUf02gu8[/youtube]