[jimjam]

Boyan Slat, Founder and CEO of The Ocean Cleanup, the Dutch foundation

This guy looks like a typical weak kneed delusional liberal. He's even from Socialist Holland .I want to know what Sean and Rush have bellowed out recently about cleaning up capitalism's stinking putrid mess that they are leaving behind.

I am aware of many fine efforts by good people to do the right thing. My beef is with Fox Fake News' propaganda which depicts any concern for the environment as a delusional "liberal" issue that any sensible "conservative" need not be concerned about. I listen to Fox Fake News because I like to be fair and balanced ( ) and I have never heard the slightest concern expressed for protecting the environment. It is typically: who should you be angry at and hate today.

[Sivad]

Anthony Lupo is a department chair and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri. He became a member of the American Meteorological Society in 1987, Sigma Xi in 1992, the National Weather Association in 2000, is a former expert reviewer for the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, and became a Fulbright Scholar in 2004. He is also a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society and the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal National Weather Digest.

[Pants-of-dog]

The America First Energy Conference was organised by the neoliberal think tank, the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute refuses to disclose who funds it. It has previously received funding from fossil fuel companies.

Lupo himself receives payment from the Heartland Institute.

[Sivad]

That is something to keep in mind, the trouble is there is no climate scientist that doesn't have a conflict of interest. Their funding and careers all depend on where they come down on the issue and the alarmists scientists all get funding from the environmental lobby. And there is no government agency that doesn't have a conflict of interest, the CAGW hypothesis has been a terrific boon to agencies like NASA and NOAA. It is the height of mendacity to pretend that CAGW isn't like the most convenient paradigm ever for climate scientists, universities, professional societies, government agencies, intergovernmental organizations, politicians, activists, media outlets, foundations. They've all gained enormously in terms of money, attention, prestige and authority, it's a gravy train and they're all lovin it and they all want to keep it going and they never want it to end.

[Sivad]

Climate panel discussion with Hans von Storch and Lennart Bengtsson

Lennart Bengtsson is a meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. Bengtsson was head of research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He became a recipient of the Milutin Milankovic Medal in 1996.[2] He is now a senior research fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.

In 2006 he was awarded the 51st International Meteorological Organization Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction. In 2009 he was made an honorary fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in recognition of his contribution to meteorology.

In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research

On 30 April 2014, Bengtsson joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization, and became a board member. On 14 May Bengtsson resigned from the organization.

Resigning from the GWPF

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

Climate panel discussion 2/2

Hans von Storch is a climate scientist. He is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and (since 2001) Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre (previously: GKSS Research Center) in Geesthacht, Germany. He is a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics.

In an article in Der Spiegel he co-wrote with Nico Stehr, which states that:

"Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information."

"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."

Storch said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They play science as a power game," he said.

On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."

[Pants-of-dog]

That is something to keep in mind, the trouble is there is no climate scientist that doesn't have a conflict of interest. Their funding and careers all depend on where they come down on the issue and the alarmists scientists all get funding from the environmental lobby. And there is no government agency that doesn't have a conflict of interest, the CAGW hypothesis has been a terrific boon to agencies like NASA and NOAA. It is the height of mendacity to pretend that CAGW isn't like the most convenient paradigm ever for climate scientists, universities, professional societies, government agencies, intergovernmental organizations, politicians, activists, media outlets, foundations. They've all gained enormously in terms of money, attention, prestige and authority, it's a gravy train and they're all lovin it and they all want to keep it going and they never want it to end.

False equivalence.

You are pretending that both sides have both been equally guilty of obfuscating the science for personally ends, when this is not correct.

Also, why do you simply copy and paste the arguments of others in YouTube form?

[Sivad]

False equivalence.

It is somewhat of a false equivalence because alarmists have gained far more from shilling for the establishment than the skeptics have from criticizing the establishment paradigm. The alarmists get celebrity and world travel and shit tons of funding and tenure and chairs and endowments and paid speaking engagements, and cash awards from tens of thousand to millions of $$$, if I was a climate scientist who was only in it for the pelf I would definitely go the alarmist route, no doubt about it.

You are pretending that both sides have both been equally guilty of obfuscating the science for personally ends, when this is not correct.

Go listen to Storch discuss the climategate scandal and what he thinks of that crew, and Storch is a consensus guy at the top of the field. The skeptics got nothing on the alarmists when it comes to political maneuvering, obfuscation(refused to release their data even after FOIA approval), and outright fraud. You're the only one pretending here, everything you come up with is always just transparently fake nonsense.

Also, why do you simply copy and paste the arguments of others in YouTube form?

If I was a ludicrous babbitt that wanted to go around spreading bullshit I would probably hate YouTube as well. Anything that can give people the ability to instantly debunk bullshit by presenting top experts speaking directly to the bullshit at issue would be catastrophic for babbittry, it would spell doom for all babbitt kind.

[Pants-of-dog]

:knife: It is somewhat of a false equivalence because alarmists have gained far more from shilling for the establishment than the skeptics have from criticizing the establishment paradigm. The alarmists get celebrity and world travel and shit tons of funding and tenure and chairs and endowments and paid speaking engagements, and cash awards from tens of thousand to millions of $$$, if I was a climate scientist who was only in it for the pelf I would definitely go the alarmist route, no doubt about it.

I doubt that you can find credible evidence of a climatologist lying about climate change to make money this way.

All you have are unfounded accusations.

Go listen to Storch discuss the climategate scandal and what he thinks of that crew, and Storch is a consensus guy at the top of the field. The skeptics got nothing on the alarmists when it comes to political maneuvering, obfuscation(refused to release their data even after FOIA approval), and outright fraud.

Will this Storch person make an actual argument?

If I was a ludicrous babbitt that wanted to go around spreading bullshit I would probably hate YouTube as well. Anything that can give people the ability to instantly debunk bullshit by presenting top experts speaking directly to the bullshit at issue would be catastrophic for babbittry, it would spell doom for all babbitt kind.

I do not hate YouTube.

I just wonder why you use videos of people (supposedly) making argumnets instead of making arguments yourself.

[Sivad]

this Storch person

classic.

[Hindsite]

This guy looks like a typical weak kneed delusional liberal. He's even from Socialist Holland .

He is actually a young innovative capitalist.

List of socialist states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

You will not find Holland (Netherlands) listed because it is a capitalist society with some social programs. By the way, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland…cannot classify as socialist countries at all. Actually, they all belong to the capitalism world. The claim that they are socialist countries is more fake news.

[Pants-of-dog]

:lol: classic.

It is still an argument from authority, at best.

[Hindsite]

It is still an argument from authority, at best.

You are wrong on many things but are too stubborn to admit it. There is no point in making an argument with someone who will not accept the truth, but relies on fake news.

[jimjam]

He is actually a young innovative capitalist.

List of socialist states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

You will not find Holland (Netherlands) listed because it is a capitalist society with some social programs. By the way, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland…cannot classify as socialist countries at all. Actually, they all belong to the capitalism world. The claim that they are socialist countries is more fake news.

That's nice but, one more time, why is it that one rarely, if ever, hears "conservatives" speaking out in favor of environmental issues? I think if I ever tuned into Rush or Sean and heard them speaking in favor of protecting the environment I would likely go into cardiac arrest. Protecting the environment has been positioned as a "liberal" cause to the exclusion of "conservatives".

[Hindsite]

That's nice but, one more time, why is it that one rarely, if ever, hears "conservatives" speaking out in favor of environmental issues? I think if I ever tuned into Rush or Sean and heard them speaking in favor of protecting the environment I would likely go into cardiac arrest. Protecting the environment has been positioned as a "liberal" cause to the exclusion of "conservatives".

The Republican Party has a deep tradition of environmental stewardship. Ulysses S. Grant created Yellowstone National Park. Benjamin Harrison created the first national forest reserves, the precursor to our national forests. In the 20th century, Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency by executive order and signed into law a dozen big environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, whose name is now shorthand for an ultraconservative who loathes big government, co-sponsored the Senate bill that became the Clean Air Act of 1970. President George H.W. Bush moved aggressively, and despite howls by industry, to stem acid rain.

Reagan administration addressed the stratospheric ozone hole and regulations on chlorofluorocarbon emissions. The Reagan administration pushed for an international treaty and substantive regulations to tackle an urgent environmental issue. It was one of the most important international environmental treaties that’s ever been put together, and one of the most successful.

We conservative Republicans have always been in favor of clean air and clean water, but we also are in favor of cheap energy. The Green New Deal is not something any conservative Republican can support, because it is too extreme and crazy. The Senate Democrats voted present rather than to vote for such a crazy idea.

Senate Democrats dodge vote on Green New Deal resolution

Senate Democrats backed away from a Green New Deal resolution offered by Republicans, even though it copied the version introduced and cheered by many Democratic lawmakers, including those running for president.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/ ... resolution

[Sivad]

METEOROLOGISTS’ VIEWS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members

Table 1. Meteorologists’ assessment of human-caused global warming by area and level of expertise.



https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... 13-00091.1

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Importantly, the survey addressed merely one of the necessary components of a human-induced global warming crisis. The survey did not ask whether temperatures are warmer than those of the Medieval Warm Period or other recent warm periods, did not ask whether temperatures are warming at a rapid pace, did not ask whether recent warming has been harmful or beneficial and did not ask whether transforming our energy economy would stop global warming or pass a cost/benefit test. Certainly, many of the 52 percent of meteorologists who believe humans are primarily responsible for some warming would nevertheless question some of these other necessary components of a human-induced global warming crisis.

In short, the news for global warming activists is far worse than the survey results showing barely half of meteorologists believe humans are primarily responsible for some global warming. The reality is when you factor in the other necessary components of a global warming crisis, clearly less than half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe in the frequently asserted global warming crisis.

[Sivad]

It is still an argument from authority, at best.

If the authority cited is an actual authority then an argument from authority is a perfectly valid inductive argument. You don't want to get rid of argument from authority anyway, all babbittry is is one big argument from authority, if you take it as a fallacy then your entire worldview collapses.

[jimjam]

The Republican Party has a deep tradition of environmental stewardship.

Your points are well taken, thank you. But in the present, can you tell me what Donald, Sean and Rush have said/done recently to promote protection of the environment?

Senate Democrats backed away from a Green New Deal resolution offered by Republicans, even though it copied the version introduced and cheered by many Democratic lawmakers, including those running for president.

The epitome of fake news. Shame on you .

[Hindsite]

The epitome of fake news. Shame on you .

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate turned away from the Green New Deal on Tuesday as both parties shunned an opportunity to debate a comprehensive climate change plan offered by Democrats.

Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate forced the vote as they seek to turn the Green New Deal into a wedge issue in the 2020 elections. Democrats called the GOP’s move a “sham” and said it carries its own political risk by mocking an issue — climate change — that a growing number of Americans care deeply about.

Senators voted 57-0 against a procedural motion to take up the nonbinding resolution, which calls for the U.S. to shift away from fossil fuels such as oil and coal and replace them with renewable sources such as wind and solar power.

Three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, joined all 53 Senate Republicans in opposing the climate plan. Forty-three Democrats voted “present” to protest the GOP’s action. Democrats accused the GOP of quashing debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change.

In shifting the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels, the Green New Deal calls for virtual elimination by 2030 of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

The plan has broad support among Democratic activists, and all six of the 2020 presidential contenders serving in the Senate have signed on as co-sponsors, putting it at the forefront of the party’s sprawling primary race.

However, Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper said Tuesday he opposes the Green New Deal. The former Colorado governor said the proposal sets “unachievable goals” and shuns the private sector.

Republicans say the plan would devastate the economy and lead to a huge tax increase. They call it more evidence of the creep of “socialism” in the Democratic Party, along with “Medicare for All” and a sweeping elections reform package that would allow public financing of congressional campaigns.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky scheduled Tuesday’s vote, saying it would force Democrats to take a stand on a plan that “might sound like a neat idea in places like San Francisco or New York” but would result in communities across the country being “absolutely crushed.”

By “basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford,” the Green New Deal would “kill off entire domestic industries” and eliminate millions of jobs, McConnell said. The plan could lead to a spike in household electric bills of more than $300 a month, he said.

President Donald Trump also weighed in against the plan, which the White House called “job crushing.” At a luncheon with Senate Republicans, Trump urged lawmakers to keep the Green New Deal alive as an issue to use against Democrats.

“He said it’s important to run against,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. Trump likes the way the Green New Deal makes Democrats “uncomfortable,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, called the Green New Deal “ridiculous” and displayed pictures of dinosaurs, cartoon characters and babies as he derided the plan. He said he was treating it “with the seriousness it deserves.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 39869.html

[jimjam]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate turned away from the Green New Deal on Tuesday as both parties shunned an opportunity to debate a comprehensive climate change plan offered by Democrats.

Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate forced the vote as they seek to turn the Green New Deal into a wedge issue in the 2020 elections. Democrats called the GOP’s move a “sham” and said it carries its own political risk by mocking an issue — climate change — that a growing number of Americans care deeply about.

Senators voted 57-0 against a procedural motion to take up the nonbinding resolution, which calls for the U.S. to shift away from fossil fuels such as oil and coal and replace them with renewable sources such as wind and solar power.

Three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, joined all 53 Senate Republicans in opposing the climate plan. Forty-three Democrats voted “present” to protest the GOP’s action. Democrats accused the GOP of quashing debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change.

In shifting the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels, the Green New Deal calls for virtual elimination by 2030 of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

The plan has broad support among Democratic activists, and all six of the 2020 presidential contenders serving in the Senate have signed on as co-sponsors, putting it at the forefront of the party’s sprawling primary race.

However, Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper said Tuesday he opposes the Green New Deal. The former Colorado governor said the proposal sets “unachievable goals” and shuns the private sector.

Republicans say the plan would devastate the economy and lead to a huge tax increase. They call it more evidence of the creep of “socialism” in the Democratic Party, along with “Medicare for All” and a sweeping elections reform package that would allow public financing of congressional campaigns.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky scheduled Tuesday’s vote, saying it would force Democrats to take a stand on a plan that “might sound like a neat idea in places like San Francisco or New York” but would result in communities across the country being “absolutely crushed.”

By “basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford,” the Green New Deal would “kill off entire domestic industries” and eliminate millions of jobs, McConnell said. The plan could lead to a spike in household electric bills of more than $300 a month, he said.

President Donald Trump also weighed in against the plan, which the White House called “job crushing.” At a luncheon with Senate Republicans, Trump urged lawmakers to keep the Green New Deal alive as an issue to use against Democrats.

“He said it’s important to run against,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. Trump likes the way the Green New Deal makes Democrats “uncomfortable,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, called the Green New Deal “ridiculous” and displayed pictures of dinosaurs, cartoon characters and babies as he derided the plan. He said he was treating it “with the seriousness it deserves.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 39869.html

Fake news

BTW … still waiting ….can you tell me what Donald, Sean and Rush have said/done recently to promote protection of the environment?

[Hindsite]

Fake news

BTW … still waiting ….can you tell me what Donald, Sean and Rush have said/done recently to promote protection of the environment?

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

Issued on: August 21, 2018

The Trump Administration is proposing the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule in order to restore the proper role of States under the Clean Air Act.

The ACE Rule – which will undergo public comment – proposes new emission guidelines for States to use when developing plans to limit greenhouse gases at their power plants. This Rule gives States the flexibility needed to construct diverse, reliable energy portfolios that best fit their specific needs.

The ACE Rule proposes to reduce emissions and provide flexibility through four key actions:
Defining the “best system of emissions reduction” for existing power plants as on-site, heat-rate efficiency improvements.

Providing States with a list of “candidate technologies” that can be used to establish standards of performance, which can be incorporated into State clean air plans.

Updating the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) New Source Review permitting program in a way that encourages investments in innovative power plant technologies.

Aligning regulations to give States adequate time and flexibility to develop State plans.

PROMOTING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE: The Trump Administration’s ACE Rule promotes American energy dominance while ensuring environmental protections are in place.

The ACE Rule, if finalized, will significantly decrease bureaucratic red tape and compliance costs, keeping American energy affordable and competitive on the world stage.

The EPA projects that the ACE Rule could reduce compliance costs by up to $6.4 billion compared to the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

The ACE Rule can achieve these savings while still reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The ACE Rule will ensure that the United States remains the world’s gold standard for energy production and environmental protection.

REPLACING BURDENSOME AND COSTLY REGULATIONS: The Trump Administration proposes replacing the Obama Administration’s costly and overreaching CPP.

At President Trump’s direction, the EPA undertook a review of the Obama Administration’s overly prescriptive and burdensome CPP.

The CPP was challenged by 150 entities, including 27 States and 24 trade associations.
A bipartisan majority of the United States Congress formally disapproved of the CPP.
The Supreme Court issued an historic stay of the CPP before it could be implemented.
The CPP’s top-down approach to energy regulation would have unnecessarily raised electricity prices, harmed our economy, and cost jobs.

An analysis by the National Economic Research Associates found that the CPP could have caused double-digit electricity price increases in 40 States.

The impact of the CPP would have been disproportionately felt by low- to middle-income Americans who, as a group, spend a larger percentage of household income on energy costs.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st ... ic-growth/