How to beat the climate crisis? Start with carrots

Earth
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

To speed up progress in tackling climate change, policymakers need to build political support by investing in clean-energy industries rather than first penalizing polluters, according to a new policy paper by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

In the paper, to be published Thursday, Sept. 10, in the journal Science, a multidisciplinary team of environmental, political and legal experts finds that instead of emphasizing cap-and-trade schemes and penalties on - strategies considered to be most efficient by many economists - policymakers should begin by providing benefits through green industrial policies, such as subsidies and tax rebates.

The paper comes in advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which will be held in Paris in December 2015.

"This paper is about how can we build political support for progress on climate policy, toward decarbonizing our ," said study lead author Jonas Meckling, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management. "We find that the more green industries form or expand, the stronger the coalitions for decarbonizing energy systems become. This runs counter to the prevalent notion that pricing carbon is the first-best choice in climate policymaking."

'Carrots buy sticks'

The authors noted that while green industrial policy may appear less efficient economically, supporting builds political support down the line for carbon regulation, such as carbon prices, that imposes costs on polluting industries. In essence, carrots buy sticks.

"Basically, if you can build political support and speed up the process overall by using less efficient but more powerful tools up front, you may still lower the total costs in the long run," said co-author Nina Kelsey, a postdoctoral scholar at the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy.

The authors pointed to the precedence for this approach. Two-thirds of all countries and sub-national entities that adopted a carbon pricing policy - including climate leaders such as California, Denmark and Germany - previously implemented incentives for clean energy, thus building political support among green industry for de-carbonization.

Strategies for winning coalitions

The authors suggest three key strategies for building winning coalitions for de-carbonization. One is to adopt targeted sector-specific policies, such as rebates and subsidies for renewable energy, that provide concrete benefits to firms and households.

The second recommendation is to focus on direct policy measures, such as renewable portfolio standards and feed-in tariffs, rather than broad, shallow ones. Such policies provide concentrated benefits to a few, but well-organized renewable energy firms and investors in low-carbon industries.

The order of these moves matter, the authors conclude. Getting buy-in from green industry will create constituencies that provide support for subsequent climate moves such as pricing carbon.


Explore further

How to curb emissions? Put a price on carbon

More information: "Winning coalitions for climate policy," by J. Meckling; N. Kelsey; E. Biber; J. Zysman: www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.aab1336
Journal information: Science

Citation: How to beat the climate crisis? Start with carrots (2015, September 10) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-09-climate-crisis-carrots.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
81 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 10, 2015
Science gave us germ warfare and fracking and 34 years of never saying their own CO2 Armageddon was "proven".
And this is how your children will remember you eager "believers".

*"Believers" deny 34 years of climate action failure, debate, delay and global disbelief.
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.

Sep 10, 2015
Government can be extremely inefficient so it stands to argue that subsidies and tax credits only go so far at building political support for carbon-less energy generation. Cap and trade has been proven to work in almost every instance so I honestly don't know what the authors of this study were smoking when they compiled it.

Sep 10, 2015
There is no climate crisis.

"The polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson

"I'm skeptical because I don't think the science [on climate] is at all clear, and unfortunately a lot of the experts really believe they understand [climate], and they do not" - Freeman Dyson

Sep 10, 2015
"The authors noted that while green industrial policy may appear less efficient economically, supporting clean energy builds political support down the line for carbon regulation, such as carbon prices, that imposes costs on polluting industries. In essence, carrots buy sticks."

Oh that's rich!!!! Even though something is less efficient it becomes "efficient" if there is enough government regulation and taxes supporting it.

Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 10, 2015
Or, start with your own hypocrisy.

Sep 10, 2015
What climate crisis? Have a look at the data yourself.

Global surface temperature anomaly from weather stations (HadCRUT4):
http://www.cru.ue...erature/

The IPCC AR5 says the 0.5 C increase from about 1910 to 1940 is not human-caused. (It was before a dramatic expansion in human population, industry and CO2 emissions.) It also says that the 0.6 C increase from about 1970 to 1998 is primarily human-caused. How do they know? They don't. 0.5 C over about 30 years vs. 0.6 C over about 30 years. One is natural, the other is human-caused. Right.

Satellite measurements show no warming for 17 years (UAH temp):
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

It could warm again, or not. We are at the tail end of an interglacial (warm) period. Previous glacial cycles looked like this:

https://en.wikipe...data.svg

The evidence suggests mostly natural warming perhaps modestly influenced by human emissions.

Sep 10, 2015
Which is worse, government or religion? They both depend on gloom and doom scenarios to justify their existence. And if there aren't any, they'll make some up.

Sep 11, 2015
The trolls are out in large numbers today, I see.

Sep 11, 2015
"The polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson

"I'm skeptical because I don't think the science [on climate] is at all clear, and unfortunately a lot of the experts really believe they understand [climate], and they do not" - Freeman Dyson

Shootist, Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist, nor a biologist, nor an environmentalist. He does not actually know whether the polar bears will be fine, nor whether the climate science is at all clear because he is not a climate scientist.

Now, to be fair, he is an eminent physicist, so he likely understands more than you do about the physics of climate change, but that does not mean his opinion should trump that of people who study this stuff. At least offer something that comes from an accredited climate scientist.

Furthermore, please stop making every article that mentions climate change about doubting AGW, automatically derailing the comment section into a flame war. This isn't about you.

Sep 11, 2015
The trolls are out in large numbers today, I see.

They always are when any of a handful of key phrases are included in the title. Mention "climate", "dark matter", "dark energy", or "evolution", and the crackpots will not be able to resist. Often crackpots who subscribe to one delusional stance will often subscribe to another.

They aren't interested in the content of the article, which, in this case would be the hypothesis that offering incentives for clean energy instead of punishments, is more effective for mitigating climate change. They are only interested in their own narrative.

One day, just for fun, an author should write an article with the title, "Dark matter driven climate change might have contributed to evolutionary epoch, scientists say", fill it with "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,..." and then time how quickly the comment count reaches 1000.

Sep 11, 2015
FritzVonDago This climate research HogWash is gettting out of hand......Lets do some real Science instead of this neo-science climate change HogWash!
-------------------------------------------

Okay, .. what's stopping you?

Prove it is hogwash, or be quiet.

Sep 11, 2015
FritzVonDago This climate research HogWash is gettting out of hand......Lets do some real Science instead of this neo-science climate change HogWash!
-------------------------------------------

Okay, .. what's stopping you?

Prove it is hogwash, or be quiet.

haha. Seconded.

What Fritz means is,
"This climate research is getting out of hand. By that, I mean, any research into climate that doesn't confirm my bias is out of hand. Stop doing research guyz. I mean it."

Though, I would qualify you request with, "demonstrate it by appealing to arguments from accredited climate scientists, and showing that their arguments aren't discredited by peer review."

Sep 11, 2015
The trolls are out in large numbers today, I see.

And, the stupid are always late I see. Hmm.. must be why they call you "slow".

Sep 11, 2015
Carrots or sticks, it's socialism either way.

Dyson is not a climate scientist,


Yes, he is as all climate 'science' is computer models. Dyson is quite expert at such models and understands their failings.

Sep 11, 2015
What climate crisis? Have a look at the data yourself.

Global surface temperature anomaly from weather stations (HadCRUT4):
http://www.cru.ue...erature/

Yes. It looks like the temperature is rising to me. Why do you think this data DOESN'T indicate a climate crisis?

The IPCC AR5 says the 0.5 C increase from about 1910 to 1940 is not human-caused. (It was before a dramatic expansion in human population, industry and CO2 emissions.)

Where does it say this? Please direct me to the page where IPCC concludes this. Did you get this from Judith Curry?
It also says that the 0.6 C increase from about 1970 to 1998 is primarily human-caused. How do they know?

That's a good question. Instead of using "how do they know" to cast doubt on anything that doesn't confirm your bias, perhaps you should ACTUALLY FIND OUT.

Sep 11, 2015
the temperature is rising


It has been rising for thousands of years.

Why is this article published in Science? It has nothing to do with science.

Sep 11, 2015

Satellite measurements show no warming for 17 years (UAH temp):
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Well, we've already established, that 17 years is not long enough to establish whether climate is warming or cooling. See my, and other's arguments with denglish, here: http://phys.org/n...ght.html

Indeed, if you plot the trend line (as I actually did), you will see that the uncertainty of the slope is LARGER than the predicted slope.

That's like you telling me you live in Texas plus or minus ONE EARTH. It doesn't tell me ANYTHING about where you actually live. Even if the trend line of the last 17 years were positive, it STILL would not tell use how the climate is changing.

If you want, I can take this data, here, and statistically analyze it for you.

Sep 11, 2015
It could warm again, or not. We are at the tail end of an interglacial (warm) period. Previous glacial cycles looked like this:

No. It's warming RIGHT NOW, despite your silly statistical fluctuations. As thermo argues, here (http://phys.org/n...s.html), radiative transfer from GHGs is accumulating energy here on earth, NOW.

Previous glacial cycles looked like this:

https://en.wikipe...data.svg

The evidence suggests mostly natural warming perhaps modestly influenced by human emissions.


You are using fluctiuations over the last 450,000 years. Take a look at any of the dramatic rises in temperature. They occur over a spans of THOUSANDS of years. Ours is taking HUNDREDS or fewer. You are shooting yourself in the foot here.

Sep 11, 2015
The temperature has been rising for thousands of years.
Ours is taking HUNDREDS or fewer.

So?

Sep 11, 2015
the temperature is rising


It has been rising for thousands of years.

Why is this article published in Science? It has nothing to do with science.

Well, yes, it has been rising and falling over ~10 THOUSAND YEAR INTERVALS. That's about 0.055 degrees every hundred years. Compare that with our ~0.7 per hundred.

Sep 11, 2015
The temperature has been rising for thousands of years.
Ours is taking HUNDREDS or fewer.

So?

So, it is happening at a much faster rate. The environment won't be able to adapt quickly enough. There will be mass extinctions.

Even if nature does recover, it will not bode well for us.

Do yourself a favor.

Take a glass pan that is cold and heat it slowly in a convection oven.

Now. Take that same, cold, glass pan, and place it on hot coals. What happens?

Our environment is like that glass pan. It cannot adjust quickly enough to the temperature change. Honestly, what is so difficult to understand about this?

Sep 11, 2015
So, it is happening at a much faster rate. The environment won't be able to adapt quickly enough. There will be mass extinctions.


It's happened before.

Btw, the range of high and low temperatures in MA for the past 6 months was over 100 deg F.
No extinctions.

Our environment is like that glass pan.

BS!

In the US Great Plains temperatures have ranged from -30 F to +110 F within a 6 month period.
The only things that crack are the man-made highways.


Sep 11, 2015
Take a glass pan....

and bang some sense into your head. Honestly, I don't expect you to understand, that glass pan has more sense than you.

Sep 11, 2015
So, it is happening at a much faster rate. The environment won't be able to adapt quickly enough. There will be mass extinctions.


It's happened before.

When?


Btw, the range of high and low temperatures in MA for the past 6 months was over 100 deg F.
No extinctions.

Um...what? What are you talking about? Massachusetts? The mean temperature there?

Jesus Christ.

Take a look, here: http://www.curren...rage.php

What are you talking about?

But let's suppose that you are correct about the temperature in MA.

Why do you think that 6 months of localized extreme temperatures should be the same as 100 years of GLOBAL extreme temperatures?

In the US Great Plains temperatures have ranged from -30 F to +110 F within a 6 month period.

Oh my god.
Dude.
Climate is not weather--especially not LOCAL WEATHER.

You guys are like little babies.

Sep 11, 2015
Take a glass pan....

and bang some sense into your head. Honestly, I don't expect you to understand, that glass pan has more sense than you.


And here I thought I was on your ignore list. How silly of me.

So...are you ready yet to engage in a fair conversation? I am willing to stop insulting if you are willing to respond the points that I make to you.

Sep 11, 2015
What are you talking about?

Yeah, Whatcha talkin bout Willis!
http://data.giss....amp;ds=0

Sep 11, 2015
In the US Great Plains temperatures have ranged from -30 F to +110 F within a 6 month period.

So, I didn't have enough room to properly address this.

Extreme localized weather over a short period of time, in general, is not going to lead to mass extinction. I can't believe you think this. Unless a species is confined to that one area, and is immobile, it will be able to outlast the bad weather.

But, this is not so with climate. Climate happens over LARGE AREAS, and over LARGE PERIODS OF TIME.

When the weather is bad over a large region, essentially, there is no place for certain species to migrate to fast enough, immobile or otherwise. However, there will be hardy individuals, so even bad weather over a large region for a short period of time, while harmful, will likely not wipe out a population. However, once you have weather that is inhospitable to a species over a long period of time, well, you do the math.
(to be continued)

Sep 11, 2015
(continued)
Furthermore, the entire earth IS WARMING. By that, I mean that thermal energy is being transferred to earth as they are trapped by green house gases, which are steadily accumulating in the atmosphere. Didn't they teach you this in school?

Some of that goes into the troposphere, and we see this. Some of it goes into the ocean. Some of it goes other places. The point is, due to conservation of energy, it has to go SOMEWHERE. Where do you think it goes? Narnia?

I don't think you realize that species are dying RIGHT NOW from climate change.

Take a look: http://news.natio...ronment/

Sep 11, 2015
What are you talking about?

Yeah, Whatcha talkin bout Willis!
http://data.giss....amp;ds=0


If I respond to whatever this shows, are you actually going to address specific points in my response?

Sep 11, 2015
Here take another look at reality:
http://www.wsj.co...05018917

Sep 11, 2015
. Where do you think it goes?


I KNOW it radiates into space.

species are dying RIGHT NOW from climate change


This has been happening for billions of years.

Extreme localized weather over a short period of time, in general, is not going to lead to mass extinction.


It kills off the weak. That's the way nature works. Didn't they teach you this is school?


Sep 11, 2015
What are you talking about?

Yeah, Whatcha talkin bout Willis!
http://data.giss....amp;ds=0


If I respond to whatever this shows, are you actually going to address specific points in my response?

You have always been responding to that which you are clueless, so why stop now.

Sep 11, 2015
. Where do you think it goes?


I KNOW it radiates into space.

Oh? And what's the mechanism that does this? Where are your sources?
species are dying RIGHT NOW from climate change


This has been happening for billions of years.

That's not an argument. It isn't just that species are dying. They are dying from climate change CAUSED BY US. We might not be able to do something about the ones dying off now, but we can certainly do something about the ones that will in the future.

Extreme localized weather over a short period of time, in general, is not going to lead to mass extinction.


It kills off the weak. That's the way nature works. Didn't they teach you this is school?


Um...what?

No. Extreme localized weather doesn't, in general, cause mass extinction. Again, where are your sources?

Sep 11, 2015
What are you talking about?

Yeah, Whatcha talkin bout Willis!
http://data.giss....amp;ds=0


If I respond to whatever this shows, are you actually going to address specific points in my response?

You have always been responding to that which you are clueless, so why stop now.

That's not an argument. That's an insult.

Are you so intellectually feeble that you can't actually construct your own arguments, but instead, rely on links to make your arguments for you?

What a pity. By the way, the funny thing about the first link you shared, regarding Boston weather is that it only goes up to 2011. So, congratulations on not showing me the evidence for the last six months in MA being over 100 degrees (as if that would happen anyway).

(to be continued)

Sep 11, 2015
(continued)
Also, well, yes, some species do benefit from climate change, in the short term, as presumably pointed out by your corporate shill--err wall street journal article (still wondering why you get your science from them).

Of course, in the long term, when phytoplankton massively die out or migrate from ocean acidification, thereby disrupting the entire food chain, those species will kind of be screwed, including us.

http://news.mit.e...ton-0720

Spilled milk, right?

Sep 11, 2015
just for fun, an author should write an article with the title, "Dark matter driven climate change might have contributed to evolutionary epoch, scientists say ,... and then time how quickly the comment count reaches 1000.
......and your 5 Star vote will be among the very first.

Sep 11, 2015
just for fun, an author should write an article with the title, "Dark matter driven climate change might have contributed to evolutionary epoch, scientists say ,... and then time how quickly the comment count reaches 1000.
......and your 5 Star vote will be among the very first.

Have you solved that word problem, yet?

Sep 11, 2015
What are my sources for survival of the fittest, or adapt or die in nature?

Any biology book,

not showing me the evidence for the last six months in MA being over 100 degrees


You must not have look very hard.

Lows in Feb 15 were below 0 F highs this summer were in the 90s F.

Sep 11, 2015
What are my sources for survival of the fittest, or adapt or die in nature?


Any biology book,

No...what are your sources that short term, localized, severe weather tends to cause mass extinction?

Also, "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer. It's more like "proliferation of those best fit for reproduction." Evolution does not wipe out weaklings. It makes it harder for them to proliferate (though not impossible).

I prefer "natural selection." It's more accurate, and less turn-of-the-century eugenicist.

not showing me the evidence for the last six months in MA being over 100 degrees


You must not have look very hard.

Lows in Feb 15 were below 0 F highs this summer were in the 90s F.

So...now they were less than 100 degrees? What is consistency, and how does it work?

It doesn't matter anyway, though, because you are talking about LOCALIZED WEATHER, and not CLIMATE. Which I keep saying. Which you keep ignoring.

Sep 11, 2015
just for fun, an author should write an article with the title, "Dark matter driven climate change might have contributed to evolutionary epoch, scientists say ,... and then time how quickly the comment count reaches 1000.
......and your 5 Star vote will be among the very first.
Have you solved that word problem, yet?


Just as soon as you can figure out that Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle is not derived in General Relativity as you have explicitly stated that it was. Also just as soon as you can figure out that Special Relativity precludes the existence of Dark Matter, but you're unable to comprehend that because the calculation of the derivation for gravitational lensing in GR also eliminates any possibility that 75-90% of the Universe is composed of such cosmic fairy dust.

So how ya been doin' on your Relativity homework problems?

Sep 11, 2015
Just as soon as you can figure out that Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle is not derived in General Relativity...

Benni, you are an idiot. I never said that mass/energy equivalence is derived in general relativity.

I will repeat this again, because you suck at reading comprehension.

I never said that mass/energy equivalence is derived in general relativity.

Oh, and by the way, I NEVER SAID MASS/ENERGY EQUIVALENCE WAS DERIVED IN GENERAL RELATIVITY.

Phew.

It's like you'd think I was trying to hammer home a point to a particularly obtuse individual, or something.

Sep 11, 2015
LOCALIZED WEATHER, and not CLIMATE

In 6 months in NE, there were temps swings of over 90 deg F, -3 F to +93 F.
You asserted such swings would break an environment and kill everything.
In the Great Plains, even greater temp swings occur with 6 months.
Yet it is a thriving environment.
If life can adapt to such rapid changes in such a short time why won't it adapt to gradual changes over years?

Sep 11, 2015
LOCALIZED WEATHER, and not CLIMATE

In 6 months in NE, there were temps swings of over 90 deg F, -3 F to +93 F.
You asserted such swings would break an environment and kill everything.

You are STILL talking about LOCALIZED WEATHER.

And no, I did not say that swings in localized weather such as fluctuations in the weather of the state of Nevada would cause mass extinctions.

I am saying that warmer CLIMATE, which is not weather, will lead to mass extinctions.

Sep 11, 2015
In the Great Plains, even greater temp swings occur with 6 months...
If life can adapt to such rapid changes...why won't it adapt to gradual changes over years?

Basic math.

Let's think about this. Imagine that during a heat wave, over, say, 1 year, 1.01% of a population is killed off. Let's say that it has a 1% annual population growth rate. Well, assuming the heat wave is singular, the population will decrease by 0.01%. That's not so bad in the long run. Lots of members of your population will have died, but many new ones will be born. And so, you will only get a small loss in population. Furthermore, if your heatwave is not part of a trend, then you will also get periods of weather more conducive to population growth. Your species will live on, and likely grow.

Now, suppose that it isn't only for one year. Every year, your population is going to decrease by 0.01%. You population growth is now exponentially shrinking. You figure out what happens next.

Sep 12, 2015
In the Great Plains, even greater temp swings occur with 6 months.
Yet it is a thriving environment.
If life can adapt to such rapid changes in such a short time why won't it adapt to gradual changes over years?

And also, you are using adapt wrong.

Life does not adapt to rapid changes. Adapting to rapid changes implies that life somehow alters its physiology or behavior to account for the temporary extreme conditions. That doesn't happen. We don't have Pokemon. Evolution happens over long periods of time. 100 years is not enough.

What really happens is that temporary extreme conditions kill off some members of a population, while others survive, (unless the conditions are REALLY extreme, like an 6-mile asteroid impact, in which case there will be mass extinction) But, don't kid yourself. They don't adapt.

Sep 12, 2015
What really happens is that temporary extreme conditions kill off some members of a population, while others survive,


That's how nature works. Natural selection. Adapt or die.

6-mile asteroid impact, in which case there will be mass extinction


Why are the AGWites so worried about slow climate change, but are not worried about asteroid impacts? Such events are well documented to have occurred. It's a straightforward problem to work on. Unlike AGW where there is much controversy because the computer models are uncertain.
My guess is the AGWites are socialists and AGWism advances their cause.
Detecting and deflecting asteroids does not require more govt control over the lives of others.

Sep 12, 2015
Every year, your population is going to decrease by 0.01%.


So you assert.

Life adapts.

Do you know most anti-biotics no longer work? Why? Not ALL the bacteria were killed. The survivors adapted, had resistance to the anti-biotic.
That's nature.


Sep 12, 2015
Another reason for AGW hype and not asteroid hype it the govt monies to solve the problem won't be granted to university institutes like Mann's at Penn.
Aerospace companies will get those funds to build systems to seek, detect and deflect threatening asteroids.

Sep 12, 2015
What really happens is that temporary extreme conditions kill off some members of a population, while others survive,


That's how nature works. Natural selection. Adapt or die.

No. That is not natural selection, and no, that is not what adaptation means.

Nature is not made of Pokemon. Creatures don't evolve on the spot when conditions get undesirable.

If there are 1000 people in an unfurnished room, and you randomly open fire on them, killing 500, that does not means that the other 500 adapted. It just means that they weren't hit by bullets. They didn't grow bullet-proof skin, or gain the ability to dodge bullets. They just got lucky.

Evolution does not happen in one generation. It happens over several generations.
(to be continued)

Sep 12, 2015
@ryggesogn2
(continued)
Natural selection happens when conditions favor an individual's ability to reproduce. That means that an animal that has lived only 5 years, but had 10 offspring because it was more attractive to the other sex, is likelier to pass its genes on than one who who lived 100 years, but only ever had one because it was unattractive.
Why are the AGWites so worried about slow climate change, but are not worried about asteroid impacts?

...we are.
Why do you think we aren't?

In fact, we certainly do advocate for better NEO detection systems.

The problem is that the govt. is composed of politicians who subscribe to anti-science stances, or who are held hostage to anti-science voters. The overlap between officials who fail to act on AGW and those who fail to act on asteroid detection is very large.

Sep 12, 2015
Every year, your population is going to decrease by 0.01%.


So you assert.

Life adapts.

Not very quickly.
Do you know most anti-biotics no longer work? Why? Not ALL the bacteria were killed. The survivors adapted, had resistance to the anti-biotic.
That's nature.

No, the survivors did not adapt.
LINEAGES adapted.

Alsom there are on the order of 10^29 of them on earth (http://www.nature....11275). They also reproduce very quickly--much faster than more complex organisms, but even so, they still require several generations to evolve.

Larger complex organisms don't have the benefit of being nearly as numerous, or as prolific.

Sep 12, 2015
The problem is that the govt. is composed of politicians who subscribe to anti-science stances, or who are held hostage to anti-science voters.

BS.

But typical arrogance and hubris. Voters are too stupid to know what's good for them so the scientists must take over and dictate all?

The way natural selection adaptation works is evidenced by all the life that clings around black smokers, and in deep dark caves or in Antarctic lakes covered by ice or in the ooze and muck thousands of feet under water.

I was told that cattle overgrazed parts of Southern AZ enabling the cholla and mesquite trees to 'invade'. Saguaros are unique plants and are quite fragile living in narrow climate zones. If their climate changes they must adapt or die and something else will grow their.
Why do AGWites fear nature so?

Sep 12, 2015
@ryggesogn2
Do you understand just how large 10^29 is? Right now, there are 7x10^9 people on earth. That means that there ~10^20 TIMES more bacteria than humans.

In order words, take 9 billion, and multiply it by a billion twice, and then multiply it by 10.

To compare the rate of evolution of more complex organisms with that of bacteria is absurd.

Sep 12, 2015
To compare the rate of evolution of more complex organisms with that of bacteria is absurd.


It's called science.

You asserted a theory that life can't adapt to climate and you just admitted that theory is false. Life can and does adapt to climate.
Your glass dish analogy is just BS.
Now are you asserting that humans can't adapt to changing climate?
Humans, that with little advanced technology live in Siberia, northern Canada, deserts, jungles, plains, ... just about every climate their is.
And with technology, create their own environment in space and under water.
So why all the wild eyed panic?

Sep 12, 2015
BS.

But typical arrogance and hubris. Voters are too stupid to know what's good for them so the scientists must take over and dictate all?

Yup. Welcome to representative democracy, dude.

Voters are INCREDIBLY UNINFORMED. For example 2 out of 5 voters can't even name the 3 branches of govt. 1 in 4 surveyed think the sun orbits the earth.

See for yourself:
http://www.usnews...an-voter
http://time.com/7...s-earth/
http://washington...-theory/

Sep 12, 2015
@ryggesogn2
Do you understand just how large 10^29 is? Right now, there are 7x10^9 people on earth. That means that there ~10^20 TIMES more bacteria than humans.

In order words, take 9 billion, and multiply it by a billion twice, and then multiply it by 10.

To compare the rate of evolution of more complex organisms with that of bacteria is absurd.

A human being consists of cells, just like bacteria, so why not ?

Sep 12, 2015
2 out of 5 voters can't even name the 3 branches of govt


And these are college graduates and educated in govt schools.

Sep 12, 2015
"New research demonstrates how humans are still evolving"
http://io9.com/59...evolving


Sep 12, 2015
@Furlong, so, let's count the claims you've so far made for yourself:

1.You claim you've derived better hypotheses for the ultimate particle than Peter Higgs, the physicist who derived the discovery of the Higgs-boson. Your claim to this fame for your alternate hypotheses of the Higgs-boson is so vague that you won't post your resume so all of us to see why you think you are so much smarter than Peter Higgs.

2.You identified the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle as having been derived by Einstein in General Relativity, when I caught you in that mis-identification you have been trying to walk back that claim, but you still won't identify where that Principle is found…….cont'd

Sep 12, 2015
......cont'd @ Furlong

3.You identified Einstein as the one who predicted the existence of Black Holes in his General Relativity. When I pointed out to you that it was Karl Schwarzchild who was the father of Black Hole theory & developed the well known Shwarzchild Radii based on the Einstein Field Equations for gravity, your posted response was that you never heard of him, then after a much delayed lookup on WikiPedia you finally replied with the trite comment that I misspelled the name, it's been spelled three different ways, take your pick. ........cont'd

Sep 12, 2015
....cont'd @Furlong

4.I've pointed out to you in General relativity that Einstein made exact calculations for Gravitational Lensing which totally precludes any possibility that Dark Matter cosmic fairy dust exists inside our solar system, but you didn't know that & you still imagine that 75-90% of our solar system is missing in spite of the Einstein GR calculations for gravitational lensing which contradict your assertions to the contrary.

You get all the above things 100% wrong then imagine you can be my math teacher. You're having problems with grade school arithmetic, not to speak of the Differential Equations in GR. I could challenge you to delve into those Partial DEs in GR but you wouldn't even know what I'm talking about. All your posts contain the usual "scientific"name calling routines as employed by all the other pseudo-scientists on this site going under names like Stumpy, Ira, VietVet, etc. Great resumes all.

Sep 12, 2015
It's called science.

You asserted a theory that life can't adapt to climate and you just admitted that theory is false.

No, I didn't. Where did I do this? Stop speaking in terms of absolutes. Nature will likely adapt to climate change, just like nature adapted to the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. But you DO remember that that event had the unfortunate effect of wiping out MOST LARGE ANIMAL SPECIES, right?
Life can and does adapt to climate.

It depends on the life, and it depends on how quickly the climate changes.
Now are you asserting that humans can't adapt to changing climate?

Sigh.

Again, it depends on the RATE at which climate changes.

This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Evolution (for complex organisms) happens over a long period of time. In order for it to adjust to climate change, climate change has to happen over a long period of time.

What doesn't make sense about this?

Sep 12, 2015
2 out of 5 voters can't even name the 3 branches of govt


And these are college graduates and educated in govt schools.

One, I don't think that;s true, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Two, that is besides the point. It doesn't matter where people are educated. What matters is that they are ignorant. Hence, in important matters of science, like whether we should have vaccination, have an NEO detection program, or are actively changing the climate, we should defer policy decisions to people who actually understand the science.
Again, I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.
"New research demonstrates how humans are still evolving"
http://io9.com/59...evolving

AT WHAT RATE? That is what you need to ask.

Sep 12, 2015
It doesn't matter where people are educated. What matters is that they are ignorant.


Yes it does.
It demonstrates the failure of the state. The same state you support to 'save the planet'.

we should defer policy decisions to people who actually understand the science


No.
Science is amoral.

AT WHAT RATE? That is what you need to ask.


Why? People have and are adapting to environments that have changed quiet rapidly.

Sep 12, 2015
"The National Association of Scholars recently released the results of a little test, in which today's college seniors were asked 15 questions to assess their general cultural knowledge.

The results were terrifying, but not unexpected: Today's college seniors know slightly less than those who were high school graduates in 1955, 53.5 percent vs. 54.5 percent, and way less than college seniors of 1955, 53.5 percent vs. 77.3 percent.

Every day, in my community college classroom, I ask for discussion on cultural issues. It is rare if even one of my students can respond. I usually have to give them the information they need—teach them the pertinent history—in order for them to consider it. Few know anything about the 20th century. They've never heard of Herbert Hoover; don't know Ike or LBJ. I mentioned something about the Bay of Pigs invasion. One student ventured, "Wasn't that in the 1800s?"
http://baltimorec...box.html

Sep 12, 2015
"On the plus side, the students hardly seem to embrace their ignorance, as they admit 9/11 needs to be taught about more in American classrooms.

"Our country cannot depend on academic institutions to adequately educate students on the history of the 9/11 attacks," said YAF spokeswoman Emily Jashinsky. "In fact, universities are actively teaching students the United States was to blame for the tragedies of that day. It's crucial we do everything in our power to impart the proper lessons regarding the abhorrent actions of radical Islamists to students as we move further and further away from the attacks."
http://dailycalle...1-video/

Sep 12, 2015
To speed up progress in tackling climate change, policymakers need to build political support by investing in clean-energy industries rather than first penalizing polluters, according to a new policy paper by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

With the exception of believing we can influence the climate, this is a very wise statement.

It makes no sense to hamstring the energy sources that will bring us to cleaner alternatives.

Politics. Won't be tracking this one.


Sep 12, 2015
Again, I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.


.....of course you don't. You are so badly educated in the fields of science that you are incapable of sorting "science fact" from "science fiction".

Here's a challenge for you to prove to all of us why you're so much smarter than Peter Higgs, post your resume & stop the name calling routines you & the Stumpy cadre of pseudo-scientists so persistently engage in. Do you think you can even do that one simple thing to gain some credibility for your claims in scientific endeavor?

Sep 12, 2015
@benniTROLL
intentional emphasis added since you apparently can't read, you are illiterate, or you need glasses
You claim you've derived better hypotheses for the ultimate particle than Peter Higgs
PROVE IT… i've not seen this ONCE from furlong!
You identified the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle as having been derived by Einstein in General Relativity
PROOF/LINKS? you have no evidence of this
You identified Einstein as the one who predicted ...
PROOF/LINKS? you have no evidence of this
I've pointed out to you in General relativity that ...
NO, you have NOT!
you made a CLAIM, which you refused to substantiate with any evidence!

what you are saying is:
you INTERPRETED something a certain way

You have NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO PROVE ANYTHING!

you have YET to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence for ANY CLAIM YOU MADE ABOVE

if you can't even link a conversation or quote a direct comment that proves your point... why are you bothering?

it's called TROLLING

Sep 12, 2015
post your resume


Why would you believe anyone's CV today?

Sep 12, 2015
post your resume


Why would you believe anyone's CV today?


He (Furlong) has probably already sent his resume over to that retired fire fighter. Remember when Antialias Phy bragged about doing so not too long ago? Why would anyone send a resume to someone like Stumpy whose chief claim to fame on this site is his incessant name calling routines? Just look at what he posted two posts above this one, the trademark Stumpy routine of name calling & zero science content.

Whenever the pseudo-scientists show up here finding they're unable to refute others viewpoints, they give themselves away with the name calling routines. Instead of refuting the post with which they disagree, they should post a proficient rebuttal, the fact that the Stumpy/Furlong cadre never do is makes it self evident what their proficiency in science is, or for that matter the limits of their interest for trading viewpoints in a discussion in science.


Sep 12, 2015
He (Furlong) has probably already sent his resume over to that retired fire fighter.

Try again. Stumpy? You received a resume from me?
Just look at what he posted two posts above this one, the trademark Stumpy routine of name calling & zero science content.

Well, one cannot have a decent conversation with you because you are like a crackpot within a crackpot--a recursive crackpot if you will.
Whenever the pseudo-scientists show up here

Like...you?
finding they're unable to refute others viewpoints,

Oh, you mean like the opposite of what we did to all the bilge you posted here? http://phys.org/n...mos.html

Why don't you tell ryggesogn2 how you accuse people of not knowing differential equations, but then are unable to solve them once challenged to do so?

(to be continued)

Sep 12, 2015
(continued)
Tell him about how after more than 18 posts from you, you STILL have not solved my simple word problem, even after I posted a solution and provided a clue to the password to open the file that you would immediately get had you studied General Relativity, and that's AFTER Whydening and Techno did something similar here:
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

Tell him about how you didn't know what an ODE was, even though anybody who's familiar with differential equations would know what that stands for. Go on.
Instead of refuting the post with which they disagree, they should post a proficient rebuttal

We do. You are just too busy always foaming at the mouth to understand.

Dunning Kruger? What's that?

Sep 12, 2015
Tell him about how you didn't know what an ODE was, even though anybody who's familiar with differential equations would know what that stands for.
.......and I've noticed you've still not identified the Partial DEs in Einstein's GR. I guess that must be for two reasons:

1. You wouldn't recognize a Partial DE when you see it.
2. You wouldn't be able to come up with a solution for any of them. Don't understand what I'm alluding to here do you? But you claim to be smarter than Peter Higgs when you can't even solve a PDE in GR.


Sep 12, 2015
Stumpy? You received a resume from me?
@furlong
Nope

.

Instead of refuting the post with which they disagree, they should post a proficient rebuttal
@benniTROLL
but, there HAS been sufficient rebuttal and refute.

you refuse to accept basic knowledge, throw out words you don't understand, then talk like you won some medal or award

problem is: you never prove anything except that you don't know WTF you're talking about

the perfect description of Benni and the trolls on PO at this link (substitute "christians" with their name, and it perfectly describes their argument tactics): http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qLjrE1R8UYw/UPKwGr7zY2I/AAAAAAAAEgI/klFxr8AGRHw/s640/0ugb0.jpg

another (substitute "creationist" with Benni)
https://ukiahcomm...pg?w=740


Sep 12, 2015
.......and I've noticed you've still not...
WOW
i could NOT have been given a more perfect example of the above links!

furlong actually demonstrates and tries to engage benjiTROLL in a scientific debate... so benjiTROLL does this:
https://ukiahcomm...pg?w=740

then furlong points out the mistakes, absolutely destroys benjiTROLL's arguments, proves he doesn't know WTF is going on, even with simple terminology and math... so what does benji do?
this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qLjrE1R8UYw/UPKwGr7zY2I/AAAAAAAAEgI/klFxr8AGRHw/s640/0ugb0.jpg
(use copy/paste in the address bar on this link)

you know... you can't make up stuff that stupid! people won't believe it!
but there it is in black and white (and blue links)!!

WOW

just...
WOW

thanks for reinforcing that post of mine, benjiTROLL, with your own brand of fanatical religious style " foaming at the mouth"

there really couldn't be a better example of Dunning-Kruger!


Sep 12, 2015
It doesn't matter where people are educated. What matters is that they are ignorant.


Yes it does.
It demonstrates the failure of the state. The same state you support to 'save the planet'.

What are you talking about? The state's not doing a goddamn thing to save the planet. They're all too busy concerned with having the one of the most idiotic, and counterproductive debates in human history.

we should defer policy decisions to people who actually understand the science


No.
Science is amoral.

Well yes, because science isn't alive. However, the scientists who study it are, and they are not amoral.

In fact, the reason why climate scientists are making such a stink about global warming is because they are concerned about the lives of future generations. It doesn't get much more moral than that.

Sep 12, 2015
You wouldn't recognize a Partial DE when you see it.

Try me.

You wouldn't be able to come up with a solution for any of them.

It depends on the PDE. Not every PDE is solvable, and I am not familiar with every method for solving them.

What order is it? Is it 2nd degree, linear and homogenous? Because then I could just use separation of variables.

Does it have constant coefficients, or functional? Would solving it require spectral methods, like, say, the equation for the hydrogenic atom, or the quantum harmonic oscillator?
Does it have nonlinear terms?

I sort of know how to solve those last two. For the first, you have to transform it to spherical coordinates, and then use a Taylor expansion to show that the eigen-functions are Legendre polynomials.

Perhaps, since you know so much, you can explain what I mean. Perhaps, also, since you know so much, you can tell me where else in physics Legendre polynomials appear. Go on.

Sep 12, 2015
Don't understand what I'm alluding to here do you?

No, honestly I don't, because you aren't making any sense.
But you claim to be smarter than Peter Higgs

Nope!
when you can't even solve a PDE in GR.

Well, incidentally, you're right about that. The tensor equations of GR are famously difficult, and I haven't yet gotten to that point in my book. Though, it is pretty straightforward to work out numerical solutions. That's what Einstein did, until Schwarzchild's solution.

But, you are apparently the expert in GR, so let's see a demonstration. Show us how to solve the EFEs. Just remember, contravariant means upper, and covariant means lower. You wouldn't want to make a rookie mistake like confusing indices.

Sep 12, 2015
Stumpy? You received a resume from me?

@furlong
Nope

Ok. Phew. I was beginning to think I had dissociative identity disorder.

AT WHAT RATE? That is what you need to ask.


Why? People have and are adapting to environments that have changed quiet rapidly.


Ugh. No. Just. No.

Ok, let me break this down for you. There are several different ideas at play, here. You are getting several of them wrong, and even if you weren't, you aren't synthesizing them into a coherent picture, anyway. So, let's try this. I will list all the facts and you tell me whether you agree, or disagree.

1) Natural selection is when environmental conditions favor an individual's ability to pass its genes on through procreation.
2) Evolution is the process by which species change, and give rise to new species through various genetic mechanisms, one of which is natural selection (though there are others, such as genetic drift)
(to be continued)

Sep 12, 2015
(continued)
3) For any measurable phenotypical change to manifest in a species, it takes many generations.
4) Single celled organisms like bacteria reproduce at extremely high rates
5) more complex, multicellular, organisms like mammals, fish, and birds, reproduce at comparably much lower rates than non complex organisms
6) Because of 4 and 5, the time span between two generations of a single celled organism species is much smaller than that between two generations of a multicellular organism.
7) Because of 6, bacteria evolve much faster than multicellular organisms.
8) All multicellular organisms depend on the food web.
9) A distruption to the lower parts of the food chains in the food web has dire effects on those at the top of the food chain.
10) Previous regular climate warming and cooling periods happened over spans of 10s of thousands of years.
11) The current warming is happening at 100x that speed.

I'll stop there. Please let me know what you don't agree with.

Sep 12, 2015
I wrote
2) Evolution is the process by which species change, and give rise to new species through various genetic mechanisms, one of which is natural selection (though there are others, such as genetic drift)

Let me amend that to:

2) Evolution is the process by which species change, and give rise to new species OVER SEVERAL GENERATIONS through various genetic mechanisms, one of which is natural selection (though there are others, such as genetic drift)

Also, I wanted to change one more thing. I wrote,
11) The current warming is happening at 100x that speed.

Let me amend that to:

11) The current warming is happening at ~100x that speed.

Sep 12, 2015
Good scientists must be amoral or else they become wild eyed fanatics like Paul Ehrlich or James Anderson or Mann whose research can't help but by tainted by their bias.

It's up to society to decide the value of any science and that value is usually determined via economic activity.

Ever hear of Mengele or Lysenko? They were not amoral.

Sep 12, 2015
10) Previous regular climate warming and cooling periods happened over spans of 10s of thousands of years.
11) The current warming is happening at 100x that speed.

Care to supply the peer reviewed papers where you found this, or must we peer where the sun don't shine?

Sep 12, 2015
Good scientists must be amoral or else they become wild eyed fanatics

Nope! Do you see good scientists experimenting on humans? No, because it isn't moral. You are confused between amorality and lack of bias in interpreting data.
like...James Anderson

The guy who claimed to have solved division by zero? Hahahahaha.
Dude. What are you talking about? How did morality have anything to do with that?
or Mann whose research can't help but by tainted by their bias.

Michael Mann is not a wild eyed fanatic. Where are your sources?
It's up to society to decide the value of any science and that value is usually determined via economic activity.

Well, the collapse of our way of life has some pretty serious economic ramifications. Please respond to my last two comments. Your understanding of basic principals is fundamentally different from mine, so I have no way of actually arguing with you until I can pinpoint and address the root problems.

Sep 13, 2015
Michael Mann is not a wild eyed fanatic.

He did put the Mann in GloBULL warming.

Sep 13, 2015
Michael Mann is not a wild eyed fanatic.


So you acknowledge he is biased.

What legitimate scientist needs to sue for libel?

Sep 13, 2015
"Science advice is supposed to meet idealistic standards for objectivity, impartiality, and lack of bias. Acknowledging that science advisors are imperfect at meeting those standards, they nonetheless need to strive to produce sound, non-partisan advice, because of the privileged accountability given to science advice in decision-making. When science advisors cease to strive for those ideals and promote advocacy science, such advice loses the right to that privileged position. There are temptations to shape science advice by using information that "strengthens" the conservation case selectively. Giving in to such temptation, however, dooms the advice; science advice becomes viewed as expressions of the biases of those who provide it rather than reflecting the information on which the advice is based."
http://judithcurr...-making/

Sep 13, 2015
Wild eyed scientist:

"Scientists must leave the ivory tower and become advocates, or civilization is endangered, says Stanford biologist"

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


Sep 13, 2015
"Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify political choices based on their ethical preferences, and who are willing to act to suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying reality. This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, healthcare and climate policy.

In the area of climate policy, recent revelations of emails from the government- sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to suppress contradictory studies and indicate that scientific misconduct has been used intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers' advocacy of addressing a problem that may or may not exist."
Avery, George H. (2010) "Scientific Misconduct: The Perversion of Scientific Evidence for Policy Advocacy,"

Sep 13, 2015
Greenie, try and practice some science and try to figure out why Finland might have a better public education system than UK or US.
Maybe you should compare like to like, for example. Finnish schools to say WI or MN or IA schools. Places with the similar cultures, similar homogeneity, for example.

In Sweden, vouchers are provided by the state so each student can choose what school to attend.


Sep 13, 2015
What legitimate scientist needs to sue for libel?
@rygg
one that is being libeled
publishing something that is not true (you know, like you regularly do) is like calling yourself intelligent: you might actually believe it, but it doesn't make it true

thus, anyone who actually is harmed by various wrongful accusations or libel deserves compensation for the illegal act

i am surprised you don't agree with this... no, wait...
i see... you don't like the fact that you can be held accountable for your own actions.
ah...

never mind

Sep 13, 2015
EPA immoral science:

"For decades, EPA has conducted essentially secret experiments in which agency and agency-funded scientists intentionally exposed human beings (including children, the sick and elderly) to unrealistically high levels of various air pollutants and combinations of air pollutants in hopes of causing some sort of health harm to the subjects. But EPA's experiments have never been able to cause so much as a cough or wheeze among its human guinea pigs, let alone a death.

The purpose of these (inhuman and illegal) experiments was to develop actual biological or medical evidence that air pollution harms health. This medical evidence is needed because, without it, EPA only has some dubious statistical evidence on which to rely — evidence that it has admitted in federal court is insufficient to substantiate the notion that typical levels of air pollution harm human health."
http://www.breitb...te-lies/

Sep 13, 2015
students are educated in govt schools


Ok, US govt schools under the control of the US Dept of Education, teacher's unions and 'liberal' educators that are opposed to discipline, standards and parental choice.

When I graduated HS in 1979, social promotions were becoming the norm. Our English teacher, who was born in 1923, was not allowed to fail any students. She did fail students, but the principal changed the grade to a 'D'.


Sep 13, 2015
10) Previous regular climate warming and cooling periods happened over spans of 10s of thousands of years.
11) The current warming is happening at 100x that speed.

Very debatable.

If ocean rise is a direct result of warming, past ocean rise has been as high as 1-2.5m per century. We're currently at .28 m per century, iirc.


Sep 13, 2015
"EPA's statistical evidence is so flimsy that the agency has — for more than 20 years — hidden from the public and Congress the raw data on which the statistics are based. The House has subpoenaed EPA and has even passed a bill barring EPA from relying secret science. But the data remains locked away from public scrutiny.

Rep. Johnson has long helped EPA keep this raw data secret. One can always hope that the embarrassing public schooling she got from the Texas environmental commissioner will cause to her to cease continuing as EPA's stooge."
http://www.breitb...te-lies/

Why does greenie like the Fascist EPA?

Sep 13, 2015
Raw data is not hidden - it is always available.

Depends.
When the folks at ClimateAudit requested raw data from Science or Nature they were denied.

And Mann has tried to keep his data proprietary.


Sep 13, 2015
"Our critique of Mann's work – the critique that Mann alleged to be "pure scientific fraud" – is inseparable from its "official" use in IPCC 2001. Similarly, Steyn's criticism of the "fraudulent hockey stick" surely is also inseparable from its "official" use, rather than private use and that criticism is of "official" and not "private" conduct.

Once EPA had issued a finding that Mann's use of the term "pure scientific fraud" was not defamatory, but even "appropriate" if a scientist believed his opponents' argument to be "scientifically flawed", it seems to me that the following statements by EPA thereby established a substantial additional barrier and deterrent to any potential claims that we or others might have against Mann for his defamatory remarks."
http://climateaud...gations/

Sep 13, 2015
"The good news on the science is that, after all these years, I have obtained data that supersedes in quality and quantity what EPA has been relying on all these years. Analysis of the data performed by my colleagues and myself entirely debunk the EPA's claims about fine particulate matter being associated with premature death.

We are preparing our results for publication at which time we will make our raw data available on the Internet so that anyone — including the EPA and its cabal of black box scientists — can attempt to replicate our results without even going to the trouble of making a formal request.

That is how the scientific method should operate. It's a pity for Gina McCarthy that she has to learn the hard way.

Read more at http://rare.us/st...m0VGO.99

Sep 13, 2015
When the Obama regime ignores the law, why should they care what any court does or does not do?

"In a statement shortly after the ruling, the EPA was defiant and said that the injunction only applies in the 13 states that filed for it: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

"In all other respects, the rule is effective on August 28," EPA Press Secretary Melissa Harrison said in the statement. "The agencies are evaluating these orders and considering next steps in the litigation."

The EPA's interpretation appears to conflict with responses from most stakeholders, lawmakers and others."
http://thehill.co...ter-rule

"Obama Administration found in contempt of court over drilling moratorium"
http://www.examin...ratorium


Sep 13, 2015
The good news on the science is that, after all these years, I have obtained data that supersedes in quality and quantity what EPA has been relying on all these years


I guess that means that the epa data is available - so you are a liar.


After many years of demanding.

Not very open, honest or scientific, but quite political and corrupt.

Sep 13, 2015
From 2001:

"Because of difficulty in obtaining the Pope study data, a federal law was enacted in October 1998 requiring that federally funded scientific data used to support federal policy must be publicly available through the Freedom of Information Act. "
http://junkscienc...science/


Sep 13, 2015
Data is freely available?

"the science committee of the U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to subpoena the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for data from key studies used to justify air pollution regulations."
"The information in question includes the underlying data in a 1993 paper considered to be groundbreaking work on the impact of air pollution. In the so-called Six Cities Study, Harvard researchers followed more than 8000 participants for 14 to 16 years and found an association between death rates and particulate matter, or soot, in the air. The study informed EPA's 1997 decision to tighten its air quality standards and continues to underpin Clean Air Act regulations. "
http://news.scien...ion-data

Sep 13, 2015
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change."
http://freebeacon...-change/

Sep 13, 2015
EPA is so open they use aliases.

"In addition to the Harvard study data, Vitter wants the agency to agree to Freedom of Information procedures and restrict the use of personal e-mails for official business. Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an alias, Richard Windsor, to send e-mail among associates. Vitter has criticized the use of that address as a way to circumvent open-records procedures, and wants disclosure of all of McCarthy's use of a personal e-mail for government business while serving as an assistant EPA administrator. "
"The individual data behind the Harvard studies is particularly nettlesome, as one original set was compiled and is owned by Harvard."
http://www.bloomb...mination

How can publicly funded data be owned by a private party?

Sep 13, 2015
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change."
http://freebeacon...-change/

Hmm... why shouldn't one cult leverage the success of another.

Sep 13, 2015
Lots of comments. None about the contents of the article. I see Norway does not subsidize their petrol, and as a consequence 40% of their new car sales are electric.

The ideal that Americans espouse is to subsidize nothing, except gas of cause. Capitalism, but someone else must pay for my muscle car's d gas bill.

My source Gentlemen.
http://www.bloomb...ay:USD:g

Sep 13, 2015
Error. 22% of new car sales are electric.

Sep 13, 2015
Bigger error. They all heavily subsidized. http://www.reuter...20150512

Sep 13, 2015
No worries folks. The environmental crisis is over. Everyone is doing what they need to.

You'll notice night time sky lines are damped. This means probably half the heat releasing coal is being used. Then consider 40% of transmitted electricity is waste.
Then consider how many solar panels you see feeding individual lights.
Then consider the wind turbines propping up.
And the solar farms...
And electric cars.

The last two years have been cold, so will this winter.
The climate crisis is over, did you feel like you contribbuted?

I am not sure.

Sep 14, 2015
Well done anti-everything for keeping the discussion on track. It would be better off you had addressed the nub of my argument though.
And that is the anomoly in the American ideal.
Why are you (plural) so fixated on pure Capitalism but insist that "somebody else" subsidize your gas?
http://www.thegua...ompanies

Sep 14, 2015
Some research has to promise the participants confidentiality

How convenient. Use secret data, data collected without fully informed consent, to control the lives of others.

Sep 14, 2015
10) Previous regular climate warming and cooling periods happened over spans of 10s of thousands of years.
11) The current warming is happening at 100x that speed.

Care to supply the peer reviewed papers where you found this, or must we peer where the sun don't shine?

Actually, this wasn't from a peer reviewed paper. This was from eyeballing data the ryggesogn2 provided here:
https://en.wikipe...data.svg

and looking up how quickly the earth is warming, which I found here:
http://earthobser...age2.php

The units in the first link are 1000 years. Hence, I was using my eyes to estimate how long it took.
(to be continued)

Sep 14, 2015
(continued)
This was sloppy of me, and what I should have done is found the actual consensus from people who have studied climate history in depth. If you want peer reviewed research discussing how the current rate of warming compares to past warming, see here for an example:
http://earthobser...age3.php

Here is an excerpt:
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees.

Now, there are various natural warming-cooling cycles in our climate, so I suspect the data that ryggesogn2 provided actually portrayed BULK changes in our climate--slower warming that happens over longer periods of 10000 years, peppered by smaller warming-cooling cycles.

Mea culpa. I should be more meticulous in my posts, especially given the level of sophistry from the other side.

Sep 14, 2015
Michael Mann is not a wild eyed fanatic.


So you acknowledge he is biased.

What legitimate scientist needs to sue for libel?

Well, yes. He is biased--towards evidence!

Having bias is not the same as performing biased research.

If you were familiar with the scientific method, you would know that one of the steps in research is to form a hypothesis (usually by first analyzing the data). By doing this, by definition, you are biased towards your hypothesis. If you are a good scientist, however, the next step is to offer an argument for your hypothesis (if you can) that withstands scrutiny by people equipped to understand the data and the arguments that you make. This is not to say that good scientists can't be wrong--but just that their findings should be well researched and supported by evidence, and their papers should be thorough and anticipate all obvious counter-arguments by others.

Sep 14, 2015
He is biased--towards evidence!

Except for all the data he discarded as it did not fit his bias.
If you are a good scientist, however, the next step is to offer an argument for your hypothesis

If you are a good scientist you will seek out data and arguments AGAINST your hypothesis.

you just agree to keep the persons personal data confidential.

Then you must reject its use to create laws that destroy the lives of others.

Sep 14, 2015
As for Mann:

"In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre requested the MBH98 data set from Mann. He is not a scientist or an economist, he was just curious how the graph was made and wanted to see if the raw data looked like hockey sticks too. After some delay Mann arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used for MBH98. One of the first things Stephen discovered was that the PCs used in MBH98 could not be replicated. In the process of looking up all the data sources and re-building Mann's data set from scratch, Steve discovered a quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of available series, etc. Some of these had small effects on the final results, but replacing the PCs had a big effect. "
http://www.uoguel...tick.pdf

Sep 14, 2015
As for Mann: "In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre ..."


Of course propogandists are always toads with a purpose... @R2 sites Stephen McIntrye to attempt to discredit Mann's uber famous and factual Hockey Stick graph. Google this piece of crap Steve McIntyre and tell me that his opinions (and I do mean opinions) are the spawn of the oil industry. Isn't that correct @R2?


Sep 14, 2015
Except for all the data he discarded as it did not fit his bias.

Show me evidence that he did this, please.
If you are a good scientist you will seek out data and arguments AGAINST your hypothesis.

Totally agreed. This was covered when I said,
but just that their findings should be well researched and supported by evidence, and their papers should be thorough and anticipate all obvious counter-arguments by others.

You are assuming that Michael Mann (and the majority of climate researchers) didn't do this, but you have yet to offer any evidence for this assumption.

I keep asking for evidence of your claim of foul play that somehow indicates that the climate science consensus is dubious. Please provide some.

Sep 14, 2015
As for Mann:

"In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre requested the MBH98 data set from Mann. He is not a scientist or an economist, he was just curious how the graph was made and wanted to see if the raw data looked like hockey sticks too. After some delay Mann arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used for MBH98. One of the first things Stephen discovered was that the PCs used in MBH98 could not be replicated. In the process of looking up all the data sources and re-building Mann's data set from scratch, Steve discovered a quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of available series, etc. Some of these had small effects on the final results, but replacing the PCs had a big effect. "
http://www.uoguel...tick.pdf

If I address this, do you agree to respond to my criticisms (if any exist)?

Sep 14, 2015
@thefurlong, the proof is in the pudding. Just about all graphs on global temperature and CO2 to date show the same lockstep exponential *hockey stick* that Mann showed years ago. If poor old @R2 wants to attack Mann's hockey stick, he should look at the latests data and explain where Mann was wrong!

Sep 14, 2015
This was covered when I said,

Not very well.
do you agree to respond to my criticisms

No.
no one passes laws to destroy others lives

The US govt and Obama does this every day. Passing laws that destroy businesses, jobs and industries.
You are assuming that Michael Mann (and the majority of climate researchers) didn't do this

No assumption required.
Climate 'science' has been criticized for 'pal' review, not peer review.

"If you are a member of the National Academy, you can submit four manuscripts a year, called "contributed papers" as long as you do the "peer review" yourself! That's right: you send your manuscript to two of your friends, and then mail your paper along with their comments. Again, pal review.
"
http://www.forbes...science/

Sep 14, 2015
'This situation is compounded, in the present example, by the absurdly lax standards applied to papers supportive of climate alarm. "
https://www.maste...eatment/

Sep 14, 2015
More EPA attempts at secrecy, to CYA.

"The EPA may have been trying to hide the identity of the contracting company responsible for causing a major wastewater spill in southern Colorado, but the Wall Street Journal has revealed the company's identity.

Environmental Restoration (ER) LLC, a Missouri-based firm, was the "contractor whose work caused a mine spill in Colorado that released an estimated 3 million gallons of toxic sludge into a major river system," the WSJ was told by a source familiar with the matter. The paper also found government documents to corroborate what their source told them."
http://dailycalle...axpayer/

Sep 15, 2015
do you agree to respond to my criticisms

No.

See, that RIGHT THERE is the problem. You and your ilk flood these forums with your bullshit, but when asked to engage in a fair conversation where you might actually have to defend what you write, you refuse.

It's because you are intellectually weak. Also, let's face it. Because of human psychology, you have the upper hand. All you need to do is repeat the same old lies, and less informed people, who are none the wiser, simply think there must be some truth to them. This whole task that I, thermo, greenonions, stumpy, and the rest face, to try put out the fires of willful ignorance that you blowhards start is sisyphean.

So far, the only one of you I have seen TRY to have fair conversation about this is Denglish. I don't agree with him by any measure, but at least he tries to have a fair conversation.

(to be continued)

Sep 15, 2015
(continued)
I wish the mods would just do away with the comments section altogether. Why have one, if all that ever that ever happens is you narcissistic, borderline-sociopathic trolls hijack it with your anti-science, willfully ignorant, nonsense.

You know what? I don't care if this gets me banned. Fuck you, and fuck your cherry picking.

Sep 15, 2015
ou know what? I don't care if this gets me banned. Fuck you, and fuck your cherry picking.

You just wasted time and space bitching instead of addressing the issues.
Why?

Sep 15, 2015
All you need to do is repeat the same old lies, and less informed people, who are none the wiser, simply think there must be some truth to them.This whole task that I, thermo, greenonions, stumpy, and the rest face, to try put out the fires of willful ignorance that you blowhards start is sisyphean.


Oohhh, well then, your little cadre of 5 Stars voters needs to embark some more of your math courses so you can impress us with why you imagine you are so much smarter than Peter Higgs as you've claimed to be.

Tell you what then, get off the profanity & name calling & start some math courses on those Partial DEs in GR, skip the ordinary stuff every engineering student knows how to do, there's nothing challenging there.

Next you can write a paper on why Peter Higgs & his Hboson assessments are wrong, get it peer reviewed, and get it published, then we can be impressed with your scientific stature rather your proficiency in profanity, vulgarity & other expletives.


Sep 15, 2015
" I think that Mike (Mann) is becoming a serious enemy in the way
that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like "flawed" when
describing my work and probably your and Keith's as well. This is in part a
vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my
recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as
another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don't think
so."
http://wattsupwit...s-enemy/

Sep 15, 2015
ou know what? I don't care if this gets me banned. Fuck you, and fuck your cherry picking.

You just wasted time and space bitching instead of addressing the issues.
Why?

Wow, you have a really short memory. You JUST told me you wouldn't respond to my criticisms of your arguments, which means that would I waste my time actually trying to address the issues you put forth. You buffoon.

Understand? You are like a drainage pipe relentlessly spewing effluent, and no matter how much I try to wash it away with reason and actual research, like the mindless artifact you are, you'll just spew more.

So, what's the point? You tell me. How could my time be well spent talking to you, when you are the verbal equivalent of a bull with diarrhea?

Sep 15, 2015
@Benni
Nobody cares.

Hush.

Sep 15, 2015
I waste my time

I agree, you are wasting time and space with invective.
Typical of those who can't respond with substance.

Sep 15, 2015
I waste my time

I agree, you are wasting time and space with invective.
Typical of those who can't respond with substance.

I would respond with substance, but you just told me you are not interested in actually responding to anything I say to your claims. Are you interested in responding?

Sep 15, 2015
Are you interested in responding?

Depends.
Why do you need to ask?
Toss out your assertions, not invective, and see what happens.
Why do you need my permission?
You have wasted more time and energy asking for permission when you could have said something of potential substance.

Sep 15, 2015
Are you interested in responding?

Depends.
Why do you need to ask?
Toss out your assertions, not invective, and see what happens.
Why do you need my permission?
You have wasted more time and energy asking for permission when you could have said something of potential substance.

I don't need to ask anything. You are making claims.

I have critiques of your claims. Will you respond to those responses, or will you ignore them? I don't want to waste my time by critiquing your claims, only to have you ignore them.

Sep 16, 2015
Will you respond to those responses, or will you ignore them?
@furlong
ryggy is one of the few blatantly stupid trolls who will not actually try to even comprehend anything... worse still than benji or dung
he just posts his delusional political dogma. thats it

he can't even get his own philosophy right, arguing againts communism but calling it socialism (he can't tell the difference... and can't read definitions either)

don't waste your time unless you think it will help someone who is new to the site: ryg will only ignore you, post irrelevant BS and go OT with every post

also note: he will not actually accept any guidelines either for rational debate. it is anathema to him
... and in all honesty, i don't think he is capable of rationality. he couldn't even figure out what an Article 15 is called in the Navy- but claimed he served... you go figure that one out

good luck, though

Sep 16, 2015
I don't need to ask anything.


Why did you?

.....Will you respond to those responses, or will you ignore them?


Sep 16, 2015
I don't need to ask anything.


Why did you?

.....Will you respond to those responses, or will you ignore them?


Stop stalling. Will you respond when I critique what you have to say?

Sep 16, 2015
Stop obsessing about CO2 climate warming and worry about a real problem: 'Peak Energy'. Get on with development of a better nuclear power option, LFTR or some equivalent. (Side benefit: wasting time and money on AGW research and 'renewable' solutions goes away.)

Sep 16, 2015
communism but calling it socialism


Why do you want to give socialism a pass?
Definition: Socialism is state control of private property.
Definition: State- monopoly on violence within a land region

Socialism, communism, fascism ALL control private property in some fashion. Communism is the most brutally honest while socialism and fascism try to make you like having your life controlled by the state.

As for the Navy, stump asked a question about my DD214. Now that I have a duplicate, I can answer.
guidelines either for rational debate.

Isn't' the guideline for rational debate rationality?
What I see from stumpy and furry (and others) is irrational invective when they can't answer serious questions.

Sep 16, 2015
Isn't' the guideline for rational debate rationality?
What I see from stumpy and furry (and others) is irrational invective when they can't answer serious questions.


And yet, you are the one who won't agree to answer me when I critique your points. We get angry because you think debate is posting lie after lie without ever having to defend the points you made.

Sep 16, 2015

Actually, this wasn't from a peer reviewed paper. This was from eyeballing data the ryggesogn2 provided here:
https://en.wikipe...data.svg

OK. Now use more than your eyeballs and you would notice, not only does CO2 lag temperature but it starts cooling while CO2 is increasing. Now look at the peaks. Even though current CO2 is at or above previous cycles, current temperature not only peaked lower but flatlined and is actually cooling.

Sep 16, 2015
Why do you want to give socialism a pass?
Definition: Socialism is state control of private property.
Definition: State- monopoly on violence within a land region

Nope! You are talking about STATE SOCIALISM, which is an extreme form of socialism.

Socialism, according to the Oxford Dictionary is:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


State Socialism is:
A political system in which the state has control of industries and services.


There are many forms of socialism. Stop having such a simplistic view of things.

For example, liberal socialism supports a mixed market economy, and isn't opposed to capitalism. Indeed, it espouses both private and public ownership. It is, however, opposed to laissez faire capitalism and unregulated industry.

See: https://en.wikipe...ocialism

Sep 16, 2015

Actually, this wasn't from a peer reviewed paper. This was from eyeballing data the ryggesogn2 provided here:
https://en.wikipe...data.svg

OK. Now use more than your eyeballs and you would notice, not only does CO2 lag temperature but it starts cooling while CO2 is increasing. Now look at the peaks. Even though current CO2 is at or above previous cycles, current temperature not only peaked lower but flatlined and is actually cooling.


How about instead of using our eyes, which can deceive us, we analyse data, instead?

How about you point me to the data set, in which you claim this is happening, and I will analyze it and determine whether this is true, and if so, what it means in the greater context.

Then, we can get to the bottom of your contention, and see whether you actually have a point.

By the way, with my eyes alone, I don't see this happening. But the data will tell us otherwise, if you are correct.

Sep 16, 2015
Socialism is
@rygTROLL
i don't advocate socialism; but at least i understand what it is
-Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and/or social control (MAY refer to state ownership)
http://www.wisege...nism.htm

stump asked a question about my DD214
then answer it: you can google the question as easy as anyone else... have you researched what an article 15 is called yet? i know you researched what the different parts of a DD214 are... do you have the full or partial DD214, because you need the FULL to answer the question
What I see from stumpy
i don't use vituperation until the individual proves themselves to be TROLLING, or refuses to accept factual evidence while posting political, religious, subjective or conspiracist etc stupidity as though it was equivalent to scientific studies... like you do

post FACT and you get discourse

Sep 16, 2015
... rationality?
@rygTROLL
and that would also require knowledge of evidence, including the different types and the nature of those types

you cannot have rational debate when one person (like you) posts irrelevant political rhetoric that is based upon subjective beliefs and fallacious evidence

you must establish rules of evidence

when talking science, and to be rational in said debate, you must stick to evidence that is powerful enough to make a point (reputable peer reviewed studies- those that are validated carry the highest power; secondary is single studies because of the empirical evidence)
when you simply quote random political BS and then make conjectures based upon your interpretations, that means you refuse to accept known facts and scientific evidence for a delusional belief, political argument or conspiracist ideation: IOW - you are like the following

http://penguinpet...hess.png

Sep 16, 2015

Actually, this wasn't from a peer reviewed paper. This was from eyeballing data the ryggesogn2 provided here:
https://en.wikipe...data.svg

How about instead of using our eyes, which can deceive us, we analyse data, instead?

How about you point me to the data set, in which you claim this is happening, and I will analyze it and determine whether this is true, and if so, what it means in the greater context.

Then, we can get to the bottom of your contention, and see whether you actually have a point.

By the way, with my eyes alone, I don't see this happening. But the data will tell us otherwise, if you are correct.

OK. Slowly....now...on that wiki page scroll down until you see the text "Data sets used are" and there are 3 links.

Sep 16, 2015

Actually, this wasn't from a peer reviewed paper. This was from eyeballing data the ryggesogn2 provided here:
https://en.wikipe...data.svg

How about instead of using our eyes, which can deceive us, we analyse data, instead?

How about you point me to the data set, in which you claim this is happening, and I will analyze it and determine whether this is true, and if so, what it means in the greater context.

Then, we can get to the bottom of your contention, and see whether you actually have a point.

By the way, with my eyes alone, I don't see this happening. But the data will tell us otherwise, if you are correct.

OK. Slowly....now...on that wiki page scroll down until you see the text "Data sets used are" and there are 3 links.

Thank you. I will take a look.

Sep 16, 2015

Actually, this wasn't from a peer reviewed paper. This was from eyeballing data the ryggesogn2 provided here:
https://en.wikipe...data.svg

How about instead of using our eyes, which can deceive us, we analyse data, instead?

How about you point me to the data set, in which you claim this is happening, and I will analyze it and determine whether this is true, and if so, what it means in the greater context.

Then, we can get to the bottom of your contention, and see whether you actually have a point.

By the way, with my eyes alone, I don't see this happening. But the data will tell us otherwise, if you are correct.

OK. Slowly....now...on that wiki page scroll down until you see the text "Data sets used are" and there are 3 links.

All right, so I have the data. I have to familiarize myself with methods for comparing time series, with which I am unfamiliar, so this will likely take a few days to analyze.

Sep 16, 2015
There are many forms of socialism.


So?
ALL forms of socialism control private property.

Mises describes most forms in "Socialism". It's very straightforward and quite interesting why so many who claim not to be socialists keep trying to parse out the 'state control' part.
Why does it matter whether mob rule controls your life and property or whether its a committee or a dictator? All forms of socialism are the same: it controls people's lives and property.

answer the question

Waiting for the question.

Sep 16, 2015
subjective beliefs


The definition of socialism is quite objective: state control of private property.

It seems those who want to defend socialism want to quibble about the definition of 'state'.The 'state' could be a dictatorship like DPRK, a kingdom, a dictatorship by committee, a parliament, a republic, a democracy, ...If that state owns all the property or controls that property with violence, then it is a form of socialism
The sole purpose of a non-socialist state is the protection of private property of each citizen of the state.
Clear and objective.

AGWites must support and endorse socialism to impose their will upon all. Hence the creation of the IPCC and promotion of regulatory bodies that don't answer to the citizens and use secret data and have no accountability.

Sep 16, 2015
"Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.
Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford

Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred ...because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany's Institute for Coastal Research

Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.
Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh"

http://www.steyns...133.html

Sep 16, 2015
"Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy says the massive spill of toxic chemicals her agency caused last month in Colorado was an accident and no one may be to blame."
http://www.washin...lick=rss

The company that bought out Hooker Chemical had nothing to do with approving toxic waste in Love Canal nor did they approve the sale of the property to build a school and houses.
Yet the govt forced them to pay.
Who will force the govt to pay for all its toxic spills?
The govt?

Sep 16, 2015
Govt failures are rewarded:

"But make no mistake, within seven days, all of the 500gpm flow will return to Cememnt Creek. Contamination may actually increase… The "grand experiment" in my opinion will fail.

And guess what [EPA's] Mr. Hestmark will say then?

Gee, "Plan A" didn't work so I guess we will have to build a treat¬ment plant at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million to $500 million (who knows).

Read more at http://thefreetho...sfMzp.99

Sep 17, 2015
@RyggyTROLL

thank you for demonstrating my assessment of you above... proving in your own words that you are a troll of unprecedented ignorance

thank you for demonstrating that you can't tell the difference between empirical evidence and subjective personal conjecture, and that your idea of evidence is "anything that supports your POV, regardless of it's credibility"

and thank you for showing the world the accuracy of this link

http://penguinpet...hess.png

you are truly a pigeon to be reckoned with

Sep 17, 2015
Still no DD214 question from sailor stumpy.

Sep 17, 2015
Still no DD214 question from sailor stumpy.
@rygg
since you never are on topic, i am going to answer this:

you forgot how to read?
or did your google break?
LMFAO
then answer it: you can google the question as easy as anyone else... have you researched what an article 15 is called yet? i know you researched what the different parts of a DD214 are... do you have the full or partial DD214, because you need the FULL to answer the question
i've already asked the question, troll boy
the onus of proof is upon you to provide the answer
LMFAO

why not scan the 214 and post it so it can be read and validated?
:-)

Sep 17, 2015
If you can't remember stump, I'm not going to waste more time to look it up.

Sep 18, 2015
Why AGWites need socialism:

"The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming."

http://dailycalle...keptics/

Sep 18, 2015
If you can't remember
@Rygg
i DO remember. i also have the question highlighted in my database of trolls, their comments, and how to spot blatant lies

it spoke volumes about you

tell you what, though... since i know you typically lie and misdirect with stupidity, and you think it somehow proves you are legit, i will give you a HINT:
A barrier to UHI [Urban Heat Islands] mitigation is the lack of quantitative attribution of the various contributions to UHI intensity (expressed as the temperature difference between urban and rural areas, ΔT)
this quote comes straight from the study linked to the PO article

that gives you plenty of info to get the PO article and page where the comments are posted, along with your blatant lies

i would have linked it, but the onus of proof is on YOU, not me
you've used this tactic in the past to promote a lie as well

above gives you MORE than enough to get there
feel free to post your answers when you find it

Sep 18, 2015
I guess stumpy can't handle the truth about his lies.
I have the DD214, but you don't REALLY want to know, do you?

Sep 18, 2015
can't handle the truth
@ryg
IOW- you didn't find the thread! can't figure out how to keyword search in Google OR on PO? want me to give you another hint?
here: you said
I was a midshipman for 1.5 years
but then also claimed
Homosexuals views are forced upon heterosexuals by the command structure
and also
The US military is forcing members to observe Ramadan
2014
a midshipman would know that both are false AND illegal, as well as that homosexuals were (until very recently) being discharged under the UCMJ for their sexuality

I asked for info from 4 boxes: where is it, ryg? you claim i am lying but i've given you more than enough info to find the thread! even QUOTES from it! and from it's study!

tired of LYING yet?
you will need a FULL DD214 (not the short form)
and just FYI - theft of a 214 is illegal and punishable under law as a Felony


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more