Trump signs order sweeping away Obama-era climate policies

[dunroaming]

26 minutes ago, Redline said:

I hate to jolt you into reality, but Obama is not the president, and clean energy is taking over the world.  China is becoming stronger because of DT.  The guy is a joke.  Even he might realize it one day.  Don't live in the past.  Don't live in ignorance.

Agree but the "joke" really isn't funny.  Surely Trump's time is up?  Obama had some bad results when it came to approval ratings but Trump is already lower in the polls and he is supposed to be in his "honeymoon" period.

[Redline]

3 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Agree but the "joke" really isn't funny.  Surely Trump's time is up?  Obama had some bad results when it came to approval ratings but Trump is already lower in the polls and he is supposed to be in his "honeymoon" period.

Nope, it's not funny.  I think DT bumble on for another year unfortunately.  Hopefully he goes to prison, but that is unprecedented, or is that unpresidented?  So far he has not put through any laws, so that's good.  The other positive might be, that when he is gone, some of these departments he's cutting will be leaner and more efficient when they are restaffed.

[stander]

Obama's Clean Power Plan was implemented to put coal power plants out of business through impossible emission compliance regulations. 

[maewang99]

no problem. and not newsworthy info.

without a breakthrough in negative emissions.... that works to scale... nothing matters.






 

 

[pkspeaker]

11 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump's entire understanding of science, is that the sun rises in the morning, and steel girders allow his buildings to remain in an erect position. He is showing utter disregard for the planet, and the fragile ecosystems that are in dire need of protection. 

 

The room was filled with miners, coal company executives and staff from industry groups, who applauded loudly as Trump spoke. Shares in U.S. coal companies edged higher in response.

Does this not say it all? During his charlatan campaign he exclaimed over, and over, and over that he was going to drain the swamp. Yet, his entire administration is completely beholden to lobbyists, from top to bottom. How about re-populating the swamp with 16 foot crocodiles? 

 

They are now farming areas of Greenland that used to be barren ice fields. The country has become far more arable, due to extreme warming over the past 20 years. But, again we had nothing to do with that. How convenient a position for industry. We all know why the deflector in chief buys into this stuff. It is easy, and expedient. And the protection of the planet means nothing to him. He is not a visionary man. But, for the rest of us? Massive ice shelves are splitting off from the Antartican continent. Just a coincidence? 

 

On the Arctic Circle, a chef is growing the kind of vegetables and herbs - potatoes, thyme, tomatoes, green peppers - more fitting for a suburban garden in a temperate zone than a land of Northern Lights, glaciers and musk oxen.

Some Inuit hunters are finding reindeer fatter than ever thanks to more grazing on this frozen tundra, and for some, there is no longer a need to trek hours to find wild herbs.

Welcome to climate change in Greenland, where locals say longer and warmer summers mean the country can grow the kind of crops unheard of years ago.

"Things are just growing quicker," said Kim Ernst, the Danish chef of Roklubben restaurant, nestled by a frozen lake near a former Cold War-era U.S. military base.

"Every year we try new things," said Ernst, who even managed to grow a handful of strawberries that he served to some surprised Scandinavian royals. "I first came here in 1999 and no-one would have dreamed of doing this. But now the summer days seem warmer, and longer."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

If you take a look at the IPCC's 1st assessment report: page 250 or 202 of the actual report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

 

The Medevial warm period- was a much longer and warmer period.  This is the period when the Vikings thrived in Greenland and it had robust agriculture.  By 2003 the 'scientific consensus' had changed at the IPCC .. this issue is the biggest climate change debate.

 

here's your warming Greenland:

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by pkspeaker

[pkspeaker]

5 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

1. Yes, there are cycles in solar radiance, but the current warming of the planet is happening during a period of lower solar energy output. While solar radiance matters, it is on a much lower magnitude than the increase in amount of heat trapping greenhouse gases - i.e. gases that are transparent to visible light from the sun, but which are opaque to infrared (heat) wavelengths.
2. For over the past million years of Ice Ages, CO2 concentrations have ranged between 180ppm (cold cycles) and 280ppm (inter-glacial warm cycles) Humans as a species have only been around for a quarter of that time, so we (and most other species now on the planet) have never experienced the warmer conditions that a more efficient atmospheric thermal blanket (over 40% more CO2) will generate. Even GMO technology has yet to develop the food plants that can tolerate / photosynthesize and grow in conditions anticipated 30-60 years from now. Corn, Rice and Wheat crops will be too variable in yield to count on, and that is just for starters. The above graphic is from a video lecture by Prof. Battisti is from upstate New York, and his densely informative graphics clarify why and how everyone will be intensely and adversely affected... EVEN currently cooler areas like UPSTATE NY.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToMoNPwTFc&t=2090
3. The more thoughtful Carbon Tax proposals (like by James Hansen) are a Carbon Fee and Dividend to keep it revenue neutral to the government - though preventing politicians from trying to access it will be a chore we can agree on. The dividend on a per capita basis would ease the burden of price hikes on those with the least, while the 10% highest income earners who (see my chart in my earlier post) would be most able and inclined to switch to alternative energy so as to avoid as much of the carbon fee as possible. Since they generate nearly half the CO2, that would accelerate the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

On youtube there is a video "The Church of Global Warming"  in it there is a list of dozens of high quality CO2 measurements taken in the 1800's & early 1900's in which CO2 was over 320ppm.  The 280 figure comes from low quality ice cores.  Also fossilized leaves show higher CO2 levels than 311-that's per Tim Balls book.  So this appears to be a case in which 'establishment' science uses the lowest possible value to create a more extreme looking chart.

 

 

..meanwhile Trumps cuts in foreign aid and drought (blamed on climate change but not necessarily man made climate change) could create massive famine in Africa..:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-worst-humanitarian-crisis-hits-as-trump-slashes-foreign-aid-2017-3

Edited March 29, 2017 by pkspeaker

[selftaopath]

21 hours ago, janhkt said:

Cooling or not - this seems to be the dividing point between environmentalists and anti same - every idiot should be able to conclude it's not good for anything or anybody to pump out billions of tonnes of gases and particles every year. 

Not the Fake President idiot. All he ever sees is $$$$$$$$$$$$ that's all he's about. I believe his GOP aka Red Liars are more interested in their party than anything in the world. Hell they benefit most from what Fake President is doing. They said "economy" i.e. money is more important than environment. 

[selftaopath]

19 hours ago, stevenl said:

Maybe the Obama regulations would have killed the last few jobs in the mining industry. Those regulations have not been in effect though due to court proceedings, so jobs lost were jobs lost due to economics, not Obama regulations.

The "Red" bigots hated that a black man was elected POTUS. They did/will do EVERYTHING to dismantle and tarnish everything Obama. As  - Fake President - becomes DICTATOR he will re-write history so there is no mention of Obama (if he gets the chance). Viewing how the GOP aka "Reds" condone his every action/lie the U.S. will become increasingly corrupt and ruled by a few. 

Edited March 30, 2017 by selftaopath
word placement error

[selftaopath]

17 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Good post kowpot.

 

I would say that it doesn't matter how much of a difference Obama's contribution to dealing with climate change has made in itself, the point is he was leading other countries in the effort to tackle this enormous problem.  People around the world have looked to the USA to set an example.  Trump has now announced through his latest actions that in fact, the USA has stuck it's head firmly back in the sand.  Shame on you Trump!  

Fake President Trump has no shame about anything. He is psychologically disabled. I hope him and his team of thieves are gone soon. 

[selftaopath]

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

And creating a mess that tax dollars will be used to sort out.  What's he's done here is initiate a whole bunch of legal actions.  That are going to take years, and lots of money, to resolve. 

 

Thanks Donald, for wasting my money.  And wasting the time of our government officials.

Yes he and his family are wasting U.S. taxpayers money without regard. His end of week trip to play golf cost 3 million each weekend. When his "daughter" went skying she had 100 secret service members "protecting" her. How much did that cost. Now they fly around the world at taxpayers expense so they can do their business thievery..... oh how/when will they be gone. I really would love to see all of them behind bars.

[RPCVguy]

12 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

On youtube there is a video "The Church of Global Warming"  in it there is a list of dozens of high quality CO2 measurements taken in the 1800's & early 1900's in which CO2 was over 320ppm.  The 280 figure comes from low quality ice cores.  Also fossilized leaves show higher CO2 levels than 311-that's per Tim Balls book.  So this appears to be a case in which 'establishment' science uses the lowest possible value to create a more extreme looking chart.

 

 

..meanwhile Trumps cuts in foreign aid and drought (blamed on climate change but not necessarily man made climate change) could create massive famine in Africa..:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-worst-humanitarian-crisis-hits-as-trump-slashes-foreign-aid-2017-3

I don't expect I'll convince you, pkspeaker, but for the record, and for those still wondering:
 

1. Industrialization "began in Britain in the 18th century and from there spread to other parts of the world. Although used earlier by French writers, the term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852–83) to describe Britain's economic development from 1760 to 1840."  https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution
   
   This means your citation of the 1800s is already AFTER humans began emitting fossilized carbon into the air, and not from remote sites that hold the possibility of representing a global average. More of a concern is the cherry picking of data, which Follett's video (your primary source) was awash in. Picking the record El Nino year, 1998, as a starting point for video assertions being just one example. The first image demonstrates how short time frames can be said to show patterns opposite the overall trend. The 2nd figure shows CO2 vs temperatures, but over far longer time frames. Over hundreds of millions of years, the planet has cooled as volcanic and tectonic forces have moderated. What is currently happening is upsetting the relative stable period of our current era, an era stable enough that the relatively minor shifts in radiance and planetary axis were able to dominate - giving us Ice Ages over the most recent million years of history. Contrast those time spans with the 2½-3 centuries since industrialization began adding to our thermal blanket. We now are midst atmospheric shifts and temperature shifts 10 times faster than caused the Permian extinction. Life does not evolve quickly enough to live under the conditions where the planet is quickly headed.
    
2. The current data set used to estimate average global CO2 concentrations is taken from atop a mountain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The reason for that is to better avoid tainting the readings by some source nearby and upwind. (a likely complication in those "precise measurements cited in the video you cited.)
   Is CO2 significant? Of the factors that affect the temperature (3rd figure), CO2 is the one that has become dominant - particularly since the post-war 60's (4th figure) Unlike water vapor which precipitates out of the atmosphere, CO2 keeps building as humans keep adding Gigatons of it into the air each year.  As for the source of the CO2 that is building, this short video explains the isotopic differences in Carbon, and how they point to human causes:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc8mUI_cMKk
   
3. Ice Core data is similarly valuable for trapping current atmospheric air of each layer and providing reverence points layer by layer as to the air composition going back in time. The stratified layers of Ice thus give excellent ability to see the trends, year by year, century by century for a few hundred thousand years. 
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RyvpsIx47E&t=1118

 

Overall, scientists took up their field of expertise due to their curiosity. If someone could prove the majority of explanations to be wrong, they'd be famous. When people choose instead to perpetuate disproven concepts that can not explain the data, their fame is of the quality considered infamous, detractors of truth.
My degree is in Chemistry, and I've used retirement to study climate science. What the denial movement you've pointed to in your video does is to perpetuate confusion - and give cover for those heavily invested in mineral extraction to continue their exploitation.  
Hillary was not up to the task of mitigating the problem, but the Tillerson /Trump linkages to Russian oiligarchy are catapulting the planet into accelerating the warming, assuring the consequences of more extremes in weather events, more volatility in crop yields, and a planet that will not support a continuation of human society, perhaps not even human life. 
See the expose at
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models
and 
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VbWp6bWC5PX

[stander]

“Global expenditures to ‘stop global warming’ already exceeded $1.5 trillion a year in 2015, or approximately $4 billion a day,” says Joe Bast, president, and CEO of the Heartland Institute. And the “progressives” who are leading the global warming alarmist campaign and promoting the climate hysteria, he charges, are doing so “not to protect the environment, but to wage war on capitalism.”

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25703-trumping-climate-hysteria-with-facts-heartland-s-d-c-climate-conference?utm_source=iContactPro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TNA+Top+Daily+Headlines&utm_content=TNA+Top+Daily+Headlines+Mar+29+17

[craigt3365]

32 minutes ago, stander said:

“Global expenditures to ‘stop global warming’ already exceeded $1.5 trillion a year in 2015, or approximately $4 billion a day,” says Joe Bast, president, and CEO of the Heartland Institute. And the “progressives” who are leading the global warming alarmist campaign and promoting the climate hysteria, he charges, are doing so “not to protect the environment, but to wage war on capitalism.”

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25703-trumping-climate-hysteria-with-facts-heartland-s-d-c-climate-conference?utm_source=iContactPro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TNA+Top+Daily+Headlines&utm_content=TNA+Top+Daily+Headlines+Mar+29+17

I avoid sites with articles when I see things like MSM bias, progressives, etc.  And articles like this!

 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25630-top-climate-alarm-scientist-get-rid-of-cars-coal-steel-or-its-end-of-the-world

Quote

Top Climate Alarm “Scientist”: Get Rid of Cars, Coal, Steel — or It's the End of the World

Click Bait.

[RPCVguy]

For those who prefer labeling as "Fake News" what they don't like, this headline reporting on Climate Change will set off their cognitive filters immediately. 

Climate Catastrophe Will Hit Tropics Around 2020, Rest Of World Around 2047, Study Says

By Eric Zuesse

The first study to integrate all prior scientific research in order to project approximately when climate change will produce permanent catastrophic consequences has been accepted and will soon be published in the scientific journal Nature, and it finds that things will start going haywire in the tropics at around the year 2020, and in our part of the world at around 2047.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/climate-catastrophe-to-hi_b_4089746.html 

The problems of plant physiology mount quickly when the environment is already at the upper temperature range of viability. Mammals also need to be able to shed metabolic heat, but that too becomes a problem as the environment approaches body temperatures. The tropics are the region that will suffer heat effects first.
 

Not that mid-or higher latitude locations will be free of effects.
Care to see the current satellite data for CO2?  How thick is the thermal blanket over what was natural before our industrial age?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=83.82,25.84,408/loc=100.150,14.685

Why is the Arctic warming faster than elsewhere? Maybe it has something to do with the thicker layer of thermal insulation that exists there - especially during the winter. This 3D video accentuates (over represents) the altitude, but the video well illustrates why the Arctic is losing ice mass. Once that ice is gone, the Equator to Polar temperature differential that empowers the jet stream, wind circulation in general will largely fade away. A meandering (wavy) jet stream forms large scale standing waves (weather holding patterns) that translate to heat waves, polar vortexes, dry spells, and/or days of persistent rain/floods.The shortened name is extreme weather events.

 

[craigt3365]

It's hard for anybody to argue the climate isn't changing.  It is.  The cause is not 100% known.  No doubt humans are having an impact.  To what extent? 

[RPCVguy]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

It's hard for anybody to argue the climate isn't changing.  It is.  The cause is not 100% known.  No doubt humans are having an impact.  To what extent? 

The effects of the different forces on net imbalance between energy received from the sun, and energy radiated back into space are quite well known and quantified. This image posted above shows that the CO2 effect is larger than the net warming. In other words, the recent history would have been a net cooling except human emissions of Greenhouse gases more than compensated for what minor cooling we would have experienced.
Saying "we don't know" is a repetition of the myths that the fossil energy companies paid since the 80s to propagate.

[pkspeaker]

RPCVguy:

I appreciate what you guyz saying, if nothing else the human impact on the environment in general, regardless of what the effect of added co2 is..as it is impossible to definitively prove or disprove, I have also looked at sites like skepticalscience, realclimate etc., and I would much rather see government money going into the environment or alternative energy technologies instead of going into the defense sector.

 

My problem with what the Gavin Schmidts, the Jim Hansons, the New York Times editorials etc. is doing is the LYING .  

They are saying or at least insinuating that there is this melting ice epidemic that is leading to RAPID rate of sea level rise; that's not real.

They are saying that the world is 'hotter' now than it has ever been and that there has been this massive spike in heat since 1950. History alone contradicts this.. right now in New Foundland Canada (almost April) it is -2* with an afternoon high of 0*. Southern Greenland is -7*/-13* We are supposed to believe that The Vikings were so keen to settle these area's so they could be frozen in month after month after month and that they even thrived in such conditions.  You can only imagine surviving there with nothing more than basic agriculture. To keep from freezing you only have wood-that you have to stockpile in those few months when it's not freezing.  You have to keep your livestock fed and you have to keep them from freezing to death as well..  All this must be done with a crop cycle of no more than a few months.  The Vikings were a maritime civilization; They were not eskimos that survive by cutting a circle in the ice and living off fish.

Especially with New Foundland-why not just move south, at least to manhattan island like the Dutch did?

The truth is The Vikings died in those area's when the medevial warm period ended and the worlds climate became something similar to what we have today.  Who are they trying to kid?

 

[RPCVguy]

PKSpeaker
I appreciate that you have cited some excellent websites and ask a plausible question. In the SkepticalScience website you referred to, this article may assist in reconciling the Viking settlement questions.

"The Medieval Warm Period saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures were even as warm as today. However, certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

The Medieval Warm Period was not expressed globally, but rather regionally. 

 

You are correct also in saying that the planet has been at at least our current temperatures in prior stretches of our 235-250 thousand years as a species. Only 2 graphs this time, the first since agriculture started - about 10,000 years ago.

The second graph covers all of human history and more, and highlights the problem we face since the thermally dominant swing factor of CO2e now at play is so far out of the experience of most species. While we are in the record warm range for all of the history of our species, the CO2 is over 40% more than those prior warm spells. (BTW - Methane and Nitrous Oxide gases released via Fracking, and agriculture are serious complicating issues. Expressing combined greenhouse gas emissions based upon their equivalent effect "CO2e" puts the insulation into the range of 490ppm => 75% higher than the pre-industrial level.)

Like climbing into bed on a cool night, adding enough blankets allows one to get warm, maybe even too warm. For a person in bed, rearranging the blankets is possible. For the atmosphere, we do not yet have the technology to effectively sequester enough of the greenhouse gases to reverse the momentum towards warming now underway. The planet has already lost reflectivity at the poles, and northern latitude soils are warming, accelerating soil composting that releases CO2 and methane at faster rates than before... amplifying the warming we humans started with the CO2e emissions of our industry. 

It takes about 40 years for half the eventual warming to occur, so the storms, droughts, floods etc. that are enhanced so far by human caused changes to that atmospheric blanket are primarily due to emissions through the Nixon era. Over half of human emissions have occurred since the end of the Reagan era (1988.)

We have a LOT of climatic disruption already in the pipeline. Building more pipelines for more extraction of Tar Sands and Fracking Fields is NOT a wise investment for a nation or for humanity. That infrastructure does however lock in a continued use of fossil fuels - because bankers and the financial structure of society will demand use to pay off the funds borrowed to build them - all the while lining the pockets of those holding the mineral rights. Ultimately, that is the driving force in the system. Those with the assets have marketed a short sighted strategy - for their benefit, but to the detriment of future life. 

[iReason]

18 hours ago, stander said:

Obama's Clean Power Plan was implemented to put coal power plants out of business through impossible emission compliance regulations. 

Excellent progressive thinking. 

 

It was the beginning of the end for the neanderthal greed heads pushing their policies for a buck.

They ain't lookin' out for you.

 

Now, these swamp dwellers have returned with a new puppet in the form of the ignorant, massively incompetent buffoon in the White House.

 

Coal generates 44% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.

 

Air pollution: Burning coal causes smog, soot, acid rain, global warming, and toxic air emissions. 
 

Wastes generated: Ash, sludge, toxic chemicals, and waste heat create more environmental problems. 
 

Water use: Coal plants need billions of gallons of cooling water and harm wildlife. 

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html#.WNylBKtWdg0

 

coal power: air pollution

 

"Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies."

 

"Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream."

 

"SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams."

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-air-pollution#.WNyl2KtWdg0

 

Only ignorance, pure arrogance or rampant greed would buy into insanity like this.

Or a combination of the above...

[iReason]

GE CEO Immelt knocks Trump on climate

 

"General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt says President Donald Trump’s imagination is at work if he doesn’t believe in climate change science or the Paris agreement that President Barack Obama signed onto before leaving office."

 

"And Immelt is calling on other companies to step up to fill the void that the administration is leaving behind."

 

“Companies must be resilient and learn to adjust to political volatility all over the world," Immelt wrote Wednesday in an internal company blog post obtained by POLITICO. 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-climate-change-immelt-236671

Edited April 12, 2017 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

[boomerangutang]

Trump's environmentalism stance:   Barge unannounced into a changing room where little girls are nude, and gape at them thinking, "nice to see them getting fresh air on their bodies."

[pkspeaker]

if your really bored here is yesterday's hearing:

 

 

@ 30:42  "The world is facing threats from rising sea levels"      heehee

Edited March 31, 2017 by pkspeaker

[janhkt]

And now the US government gags Energy Department's Climate Office from using certain words and phrases: 

 

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/energy-department-climate-office-banned-phrase-climate-change/

[Traveler19491]

On 3/29/2017 at 8:28 AM, maoro2013 said:

If you start with the right year the world is actually cooling.

 

 

And contained within your own statement is the glaringly destructive flaw in your argument.  "If you start with the right year..." That's what is known as "cherry picking the data".

[Traveler19491]

On 3/29/2017 at 9:40 AM, stander said:

The coal miners are going back to work, throughout his campaign, President Trump promised the American people that he would roll back Obama era regulations that KILLED the coal mining industry. Those regulations left millions of Americans jobless and hopeless; they felt they had no place to turn.

 

Sorry to disabuse you of your fantasy, but the vast majority of miners will never go back to work in the mines. However, according to the linked article from Forbes (not exactly a bastion of liberal thought), the reason is not Obama's environmental regulations. As the article states, as of this time last year, 64% of the newly generated energy coming on line the previous year was developed from natural gas and renewables (100% for January, 2016), due primarily to the lower cost of extracting natural gas and the declining costs of renewables, both of which are rendering coal obsolete and non-competitive (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/03/18/whats-killing-the-coal-industry/#5b204ddb7dd4). It's coal's inability to compete cost-wise that killed the industry, not anything Obama did.

[RPCVguy]

On 3/31/2017 at 6:51 AM, pkspeaker said:

if your really bored here is yesterday's hearing:

 

 

@ 30:42  "The world is facing threats from rising sea levels"      heehee

Not all that bored, but I took advantage to witness how the majority chair and team had used the session. Both sides were well prepared to phrase questions and parse answers. It truly is an art, sadly too much on display.

Sometimes the witnesses crossed the line in parsing what they said such that it was more mis-representation than sleight of wording. Dr. Pielke for instance stated the IPCC denied increases in climate related floods, droughts and weather - here are two data sets, I've seen and people can search to find multiple similar assessments.

Dr. Curry denied that the most up-to-date IPCC has asserted the human causation of the factors, and have quantified the factors (again as posted twice as a graphic in prior comments.) The current dominant factor, far larger as a change that matches what is showing up in the lower atmosphere, is CO2. Further, the isotopic evidence in carbon (in the video link also previously provided) says the carbon increase is from carbon that has been sequestered from cosmic radiation rather than recent plant growth or volcanic action... i.e. fossil fuels. 


http://climateaccountability.org/about.html

Looking at his CV, he certainly did not think enough of it to include among the many pages of groups and events he did list: http://climateaccountability.org/pdf/Mann CV Aug14.pdf
 

My guess, having helped found and head 2 NGOs when I was active, is he might only have been approached at a conference or event where he met one of the 2 board members, had a good exchange,and was asked to be an advisor. He may not subsequently have had much if any contact, he does not list them in any of his many writings, and could honestly have forgotten they existed. (That's totally my guess of that answer he gave.)
As for the UCS? Hard not to know of or avoid signing any of their petitions. If that is the test, I'm associated too. It is as well known as Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. The UCS was active during the Climategate debate - arguing supportively for Dr Mann, but hey, I'm repeating commentary written up in many newspapers and online media. Here is one example found while I was seeking links between Dr. Mann and the UCS... https://shadowproof.com/2017/03/29/gops-new-front-culture-war-climate-science/

[maoro2013]

20 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

And contained within your own statement is the glaringly destructive flaw in your argument.  "If you start with the right year..." That's what is known as "cherry picking the data".

Exactly, that is what they do. There is so much momentum and money making behind this movement it is now impossible to stop.

 

I explained at one point about a large company worked for and a 2 day seminar on this topic. I left this seminar totally convinced that it was pretty much crap, while previously I had an open mind on this. The examples used to show water levels rising were absurd and proven wrong. You need to show me proper evidence before I will buy into this stuff. I lunched during this seminar with an environmental scientist who shares my views.

[janhkt]

Republican Senator Claims Human Body Heat Causes Climate Change:

 

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/republican-senator-claims-human-body-heat-causes-climate-change/

[ilostmypassword]

On 4/1/2017 at 9:40 AM, maoro2013 said:

Exactly, that is what they do. There is so much momentum and money making behind this movement it is now impossible to stop.

 

I explained at one point about a large company worked for and a 2 day seminar on this topic. I left this seminar totally convinced that it was pretty much crap, while previously I had an open mind on this. The examples used to show water levels rising were absurd and proven wrong. You need to show me proper evidence before I will buy into this stuff. I lunched during this seminar with an environmental scientist who shares my views.

Yes, the movement has so much money  compared to the impoverished fossil fuel industry.

[boomerangutang]

Australia's Great Barrier Reef has suffered widespread coral bleaching events in recent years, but never two years in a row, .....until now.   Further proof, if any were needed, of the dire consequences of a warming world.

 

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/10/523254085/great-barrier-reef-hit-by-bleaching-for-the-second-year-in-a-row