tRump W.H. to create climate denier group.

[Pilot1]

I stopped reading after tRump.

 

[Tax Man]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

I read about this in the morning paper. Seems like rumpy wants to get a certain result to conform to HIS beliefs. Oh why oh why can not his lovers see the falseness of his "presidency".

 

[Tax Man]

Rocko, the earth's atmosphere really isn't that complex. The sun shines down through the layers of oxygen, carbon, and other gases to heat the water and earth. How much of the suns radiation hits the earth or water depends on the filtering gases in the atmosphere. The gases in the atmosphere that block the radiation do capture the heat that is with held from the planet surface.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

How’s it a scam?

Already answered. Please pay attention.

You didn’t answer. You said it’s a alternative to what the scientific community is saying. Now explain to me why that is such a bad thing

Because I don't care about results on climate change from a non qualified government agency. That was easy.

 

[rightwinger]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

Alternative Science

I’m not knowledgeable on climate change by any means, but what’s wrong is the left is trying to silence critics of the man made climate change believers. It’s plausible that the general consensus is wrong. I mean just look at what the so called experts used to tells us peons about nutrition not too long ago.

How does the left go about silencing critics of climate change?

There are climate scientists around the world who are coming to the same conclusions

 

[cnm]

William Happer

From an interview with TheBestSchools in 2016:

I believe that more CO2 is good for the world, that the world has been in a CO2 famine for many tens of millions of years and that one or two thousand ppm would be ideal for the biosphere. I am baffled at hysterical attempts to drive CO2 levels below 350 ppm [parts per million], or some other value, apparently chosen by Kabbalah numerology, not science.

(Note: According to the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, our atmosphere had a CO2 concentration of 405 ppm in 2017. The last time CO2 concentrations were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when the Earth was 2–3°C warmer and the seas were 50-80 ft (15-25 meters) higher than today.)
https://qz.com​

 

[PoliticalChic]

veFrom the link:

"The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades."

That is in the words of the Washington Compost, which means this is a misleading article. There is no consensus and it is meaningless in science research anyway, since it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters. There are no indications of dire climatic consequences showing up either, it is manufactured bull crap to try to convince the people to hand over money and power to the leftists.

Since the so called "consensus" are based mostly on climate models to year 2100, it is untestable and useless. This advisory committee is a waste of time since the AGW conjecture is already dead from the scientific standpoint, as the few short term prediction/projections have already utterly failed.

The per decade RATE of warming since 1990 never reaches the IPPC minimum warming rate level, and the "hot spot" doesn't exist, not even minimally. All the warming phases since 1979 have occurred when El-Nino shows up.

I am still waiting for warmist morons to realize that all the doom and gloom crap are coming from government agencies who like all that funding (despite that the science was supposedly "settled" years ago, why still spend billions more every year?) and the leftist media who continually mislead and lie over what is going on in the world of weather and climate matters.

May I point out that there is no such 'scientific consensus.'


1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

 

[skookerasbil]

AGW devotee's on the decline and skeptics on the rise. That's the history of the last 10 years. In fact, one could say that the climate crusader contingent is getting its clocked cleaned. Nobody is paying attention to them, thus, the makeup of the presidential committee.

 

[Crick]

veFrom the link:

"The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades."

That is in the words of the Washington Compost, which means this is a misleading article. There is no consensus and it is meaningless in science research anyway, since it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters. There are no indications of dire climatic consequences showing up either, it is manufactured bull crap to try to convince the people to hand over money and power to the leftists.

Since the so called "consensus" are based mostly on climate models to year 2100, it is untestable and useless. This advisory committee is a waste of time since the AGW conjecture is already dead from the scientific standpoint, as the few short term prediction/projections have already utterly failed.

The per decade RATE of warming since 1990 never reaches the IPPC minimum warming rate level, and the "hot spot" doesn't exist, not even minimally. All the warming phases since 1979 have occurred when El-Nino shows up.

I am still waiting for warmist morons to realize that all the doom and gloom crap are coming from government agencies who like all that funding (despite that the science was supposedly "settled" years ago, why still spend billions more every year?) and the leftist media who continually mislead and lie over what is going on in the world of weather and climate matters.

May I point out that there is no such 'scientific consensus.'


1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Dear Ms Political Chic.

Wrong

The 98% figure has appeared in numerous surveys, of scientists and of their work. Have a read through Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. Pay particular attention to the work of James L Powell.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

William Happer

From an interview with TheBestSchools in 2016:

I believe that more CO2 is good for the world, that the world has been in a CO2 famine for many tens of millions of years and that one or two thousand ppm would be ideal for the biosphere. I am baffled at hysterical attempts to drive CO2 levels below 350 ppm [parts per million], or some other value, apparently chosen by Kabbalah numerology, not science.

(Note: According to the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, our atmosphere had a CO2 concentration of 405 ppm in 2017. The last time CO2 concentrations were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when the Earth was 2–3°C warmer and the seas were 50-80 ft (15-25 meters) higher than today.)
https://qz.com​

Yes, he's a fraud. A paid fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

veFrom the link:

"The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades."

That is in the words of the Washington Compost, which means this is a misleading article. There is no consensus and it is meaningless in science research anyway, since it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters. There are no indications of dire climatic consequences showing up either, it is manufactured bull crap to try to convince the people to hand over money and power to the leftists.

Since the so called "consensus" are based mostly on climate models to year 2100, it is untestable and useless. This advisory committee is a waste of time since the AGW conjecture is already dead from the scientific standpoint, as the few short term prediction/projections have already utterly failed.

The per decade RATE of warming since 1990 never reaches the IPPC minimum warming rate level, and the "hot spot" doesn't exist, not even minimally. All the warming phases since 1979 have occurred when El-Nino shows up.

I am still waiting for warmist morons to realize that all the doom and gloom crap are coming from government agencies who like all that funding (despite that the science was supposedly "settled" years ago, why still spend billions more every year?) and the leftist media who continually mislead and lie over what is going on in the world of weather and climate matters.

May I point out that there is no such 'scientific consensus.'


1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Dear Ms Political Chic.

Wrong

The 98% figure has appeared in numerous surveys, of scientists and of their work. Have a read through Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. Pay particular attention to the work of James L Powell.

As I showed, the 98% is clearly a lie.

It is provided along the same lines as this:

October 25, 2016...NYTimes gave Hillary 93% chance of winning the election.
2016 Election Forecast: Who Will Be President?

It is self-serving wishful thinking by the Left....and just as accurate.




I have had experience with Wikipedia, when working to elect a Republican...and found the site completely under the control of the Left.


If, in light of one failed prediction after another by warmists, you will simply remain just a bug in search of a windshield.

 

[miketx]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

tRump to laugh at you so hard his comb over falls.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

No Victory for the Vermin and Vegetation

You mean they won't be subject to the blinding oversight of sterile nerds pushing their power-hungry fantasies that make them feel better about their inferiority to creative scientists? Have you hugged your tree today?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

No Victory for the Vermin and Vegetation

You mean they won't be subject to the blinding oversight of sterile nerds pushing their power-hungry fantasies that make them feel better about their inferiority to creative scientists? Have you hugged your tree today?

You are clearly not qualified to have an opinion on anything having to do with science.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

WTF is a FOA??

A Professor Becomes an Infallible Father Figure for Teenagers Who Are Afraid to Grow Up

Falsities of Academia

 

[Crick]

So between a half dozen internet trolls and ten thousand PhDs, you think you're better off trusting the trolls.

Got it.

 

[skookerasbil]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

No Victory for the Vermin and Vegetation

You mean they won't be subject to the blinding oversight of sterile nerds pushing their power-hungry fantasies that make them feel better about their inferiority to creative scientists? Have you hugged your tree today?

You are clearly not qualified to have an opinion on anything having to do with science.

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

 

[skookerasbil]

So between a half dozen internet trolls and ten thousand PhDs, you think you're better off trusting the trolls.

Got it.

Lol....that doesnt sound at all like a religion to me!!

 

[Crick]

You're right, it doesn't.

God are you fucking STUPID

 

[cnm]

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

You keep saying that. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

After all, policy around the world is being made on the basis of the science.

I understand US rightards have difficulty changing the record though. Senility is a terrible thing.