Jump to content
This ones for you.
At the outset, let's be quite clear: There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) -- and there never was. There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly. So what's all this fuss about?
Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus. Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein. [Another way to phrase this issue: Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.] In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.
The degree of consensus also depends on the way the questions are phrased. For example, we can get 100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe in climate change?" We can get a near-100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe that humans have some effect on the climate?" This latter question also would include also local effects, like urbanization, clearing of forests, agriculture, etc.
Regards climate change and the current administrations stand that the debate is over. Reasonable people can disagree and I have attached a link to an article that is worth a read.
It is written by a couple of scientists, not knuckle draggers such as myself. I look forward to the comments of the climate change is a coming disaster true believers.
Here is a brief part of the article.
"What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.
We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.
For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was "one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results." As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years."
You OK if EPA takes away your wood stove? Hopefully your stove slides in under the rules.
This just in. No less a climate expert than Secretary of State John Kerry (how many homes does he have again - no energy use there) has declared that climate change is "the world's largest weapon of mass destruction." Hey the good news is when Iran gets nukes we can threaten them with "climate change". That ought to tell them who is boss. I can hear Iran, North Korea, China, Russia all quaking in their boots. Is it just me or does anybody else wonder why government is so intent on raising energy prices and health care costs while declaring they are for the people. When they say people I assume they mean all Americans which would include the middle class and less then middle class. Does anybody thing the 10%ers (which includes most if not all of congress) are impacted by energy costs or health care costs. Do you think, Hollywood, musical entertainers, professional athletes who are driven around in limos, fly in private jets and have big houses that use lots of energy care about higher costs. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge them the ability to waste energy, I just giggle at those who claim to be for the environment and waste all that energy. No hypocrites in that group.
And Ken here is not such good news. You may have to find an alternative energy source to heat your home.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently imposed restrictions on wood-burning stoves that will deal a blow to rural Americans who rely on wood to heat their homes.
Critics charge that the rule changes were enacted following pressure from environmental groups.
Here is another opinion. It is ok to present another opinion isn't it. I am not smart enough to know the correct answer and odds are I won't be around to see the final result but I do believe, contrary to the LA Time which won't publish any opinion pieces denying global warming/climate change (how's that for free speech) that an argument can be made against global warming. I will never deny climate change as that has been happening and will continue until the sun pulls the plug. Now that will be climate change eh. Almost wish I could be around to see that, but probably wouldn't be good for my kids.
Keystone Pipeline. Have you ever seen the number of pipelines crisis crossing the USA. The Keystone Pipeline would be a gnat on the elephants behind. No, let's keep transporting by rail and clean up that mess when trains crash.
A very passionate letter. I have one question for you. What if it was the conservative/republican party that was promoting the concept of global warming/climate change/polar vortex would you be so passionate in supporting them.
Here is a solution. build a solar electric generating station with a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee that raises temperatures in the area to 1000 degrees, fries birds that didn't get the memo about the temps and generates electricity at twice as much as conventional sources.
U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is scheduled to speak Thursday at an opening ceremony for the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station, which received a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee.
One reason: the BrightSource system appears to be scorching birds that fly through the intense heat surrounding the towers, which can reach 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. ( HEY - I wonder if they taste like chicken) Some of the dead birds appeared to have singed or burned feathers, according to federal biologists and documents filed with the state Energy Commission. The dead birds included a peregrine falcon, a grebe, two hawks, four nighthawks and a variety of warblers and sparrows. (HEY - at least no Eagles appear to have been fried)
I think there is a Saturday Night Live skit in there with The Falconer.
Here is the article in it's entirety as I don't want to be accused of cherry picking from the article.
As you choose to ignore my questions regards Mia Love, Jonathon Turley and the attribution to a quotation and you have accused most every body that disagrees with you of being a republican, a right winger or both and as I most definitely disagree with most of what you have posted that puts me in that category. Now you can choose to use semantics when you say you have never accused me of being a "registered" republican but that is splitting hairs.
John, Jerry, Joe, Kevin et all best of luck and Mr. Shores I bid you adieu.
continuation of Turley statements
TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don't believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we're beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, 'I'm going to ignore this,' or, 'I'm going to shift funds that weren't appropriated by Congress into this area.'
The president's State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it's dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we've never seen it to this extent
TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they're just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.
But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.
I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn't matter what party held the White House. But what we're seeing now is the usurpation of authority that's unprecedented in this country.
I will look forward to your interpretation of his remarks.
And finally I hate to burst your bubble but I am not a registered republican
You have complained about John not answering your questions.
I asked you about Mia Love - no response
I asked you about the following article - no response
I asked for an attribution to a quotation you used - no response
I referenced Jonathon Turley - no response.
Actually I am not surprised as the above items would not fit into your narrative.
Speaking of Mr. Turley, here are some recent statements he made regarding the current administration.
TURLEY: Well, I'm afraid it's quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.
And what we've been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that's what the president is doing. I think that we've become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.
TURLEY: I'm afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.
And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.
to be continued
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.