B-Man Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) NASA’s Hansen: ‘Liberals’ Will Use Carbon Taxes ‘To Make the Government Bigger’ by Charles C. W. Cooke Testifying in favor of a carbon tax yesterday, James Hansen said something rather startling: “An important point is that such legislation I think needs to be introduced by conservatives, because I’m afraid liberals will try to take part of the money to make the government bigger. Not one dime should go to the government. 100 percent should go to the public.” That those who would grow the government might benefit from its existence clearly does not render the ”climate change” claim moot. That, as always, is a scientific question, and one that will stand or fall by the evidence. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the opportunity to tax and control is a boon to those who would tax and control, and, whether or not he is sincere in his warning, it is certainly nice to see a staunch proponent of government action acknowledging openly that many of his acolytes are in it for the wrong reasons. {snip} Thus far, the green movement’s greatest political asset has been its unity. When times were good, it managed reasonably effectively to pretend that a) there was no room for divergence on any questions pertaining to the climate, b) that there were really only two sides involved in the dispute: the selfless Good and the selfish Evil, and c) that any attempts to question proposed legislative responses were beyond the pale. Thus have we been told if you accept that mankind is causing any warming at all, you must accept that it is doing so catastrophically — and if you don’t, you’re a “denier.” Thus has it been implied that if you agree that there is a problem that requires state intervention, you must also agree with the particular policy prescriptions that the Left has forwarded — and if you don’t, you’re a “denier.” Thus has it been suggested that if you believe that there have been some demonstrable changes to the weather, you must acquiesce in the preposterous notion that everything is caused by climate change — hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, heat waves, cooling periods, and so forth — even when this is clearly false. What James Hansen just did – albeit in a small, reluctant, and possibly even inadvertent way – is to fracture that uniformity a little. “I’m not like those guys,” he seemed to be saying to the Senate. “They just want to serve themselves; I want to help.” That, in no small part, is a testament to the weak position in which the environmental Left currently finds itself. One wonders who will peel off next. . Edited March 16, 2014 by B-Man
Wacka Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) And themselves richer. Example-Al Gore. Edited March 16, 2014 by Wacka
Doc Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 It was the fourth warmest year on record for the planet, despite the snow some saw. For those keeping score, that's the 37th consecutive year that the temperature was above the long term average and the warmest years on record have all occurred since '98 (NOAA). But don't let facts get in the way of your politics... Oh, the irony!
3rdnlng Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
3rdnlng Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html Ah, whether it's global warming or global cooling, we still need to sacrifice or be controlled.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2014 Author Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure. But I do know that pretending it isn't happening is no solution. It's amazing that conservatives can be so pro-active when it comes to national defense and so obtuse when it comes to a threat that is bigger than any other foreign power on the planet combined. Wonder why that is... If we were having an adult discussion, and not a religious one, we might be inclined to deal with it differently. But we haven't been, have we? There's no wonder here at all: most of your pals in Hollywood began this, with their $, by yet again, overreaching and trying to impose socialsm both nationally and globally, using Global Warming as the pefect vehicle: because it's based on fear...this time of catastrophe. Cut the crap: that's precisely what happened. And, now that the purely political "solution" has been exposed, we are hearing things like "well, it still makes sense to cut pollution, manage our resources properly, and innovate away from fossil fuels"? No schit, really? What the F is that? I'll tell you: it's exactly what we've been saying the whole damn time. But, we've also been saying: get rid of the scam/money making for the corporatist left, and get rid of the socialist nonsense, and the welfare checks for China, India, and all the rest. For that? I've personally been called every name in the book, and so have many others here, and all over the web. We're just supposed to forget all the left's bad behavior on this issue, pretend it never happened, and begin the adult conversation now? Sorry dude. Your Hollywood friends went WAAAAAY too far on this one. Tell them they've got a whipping coming, and no amount of obfuscation is getting them out of it. Or, they can apologize. So? They're gonna chose the whipping, aren't they? Fine. November is coming. I did, the information is from NOAA.gov. Whether or not it happened before or if it's caused by man means little to me, that's a political argument that crazy righties and crazy lefties have hijacked to distract people from truth.The climate is changing incredibly fast on a geological scale. That will have an impact on every day people (as it already is) and will cost taxpayers untold billions down the line. Climate change is an issue of national defense. But you cannot even discuss it with people on the hard core right (or left) without getting bogged down in bull ****. Whose been running around saying the "Science is Settled" for the last 10 years? You want to start making corrections? Start there. You want to treat this like a defense issue? Really? I've been in "defense", and I'll be happy to discuss it with you right F'ing now, with exactly 0% BS. EDIT: In fact let's handle this exactly like an Army training document, shall we? ARMY304440-1 Treatment of Global Warming as a threat to National Security Objective: To explain what is initially required for treating Global Warming as a national defense issue. Summary: Instrcution will describe the Army's culture of all leaders admitting to their mistakes in training exercises, and correcting them. It will also describe actions taken to prevent group think when developing strategic plans, and avoid countermission consensus. Detail: The first thing you do in a defense paradigm? Admit your mistakes. No seriously, you go to any training in the Army, and the first thing you will see after an exercise is the officers admit where they messed up. That is the culture. Not admitting your mistakes is the fastest way out of today's Army. This is life and death, and therefore, ego over fact will not be tolerated. Still want to treat this like a Defense issue? Hey, you said you believe this is a life and death issue. Ok, then treating this as a defense issue does make sense. Thus: practically every Democrat in the country needs to admit they've F'ed up huge, immediately, understand each mistake and why they made it, and make the corrections. When you're done making that happen, we can move on. Ok, the second thing we do, if this is a defense issue, is organize teams of people whose job it is to argue opposite, and sometimes 3 or more, sides of every position. The mission here is to establish the OPPOSITE of consensus. Group think is an enemy to feared(google the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, or our Pre-WW2 Pacific Defense plans), and so drastic measures are taken to avoid it. Given 1 and 2, what are the chances, do you think, of the current "experts" and policy people getting past them? But, if you really want to treat this as a defense issue, that is what must happen. There are more things, but let's just start with these 2, shall we? Conclusion: Treating Global Warming like a defense issue requires all of the bad actors involved to admit their mistakes, understand them, and correct them. It also requires that we understand that group think is the enemy to successful strategic planning, and that therefore discussion of, or attempting to attain, consensus is countermission. There more requirements, which will be discussed in ARMY304440-2. That is the 0% BS discussion of handling of this as a defense issue that you requested. It even follows the Army's "tell them what you're gonna say, say it, and then tell the what you said" format. National defense issue. How many Democrats have the ability and character to treat this as a defense issue? Edited March 16, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
B-Man Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) The EPA is charging $75,000/day over a private citizen’s pond, but don’t you worry about their revisions to the Clean Water Act Earlier this week, I mentioned an NYT article detailing the concerns of a large group of farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, builders, and etcetera over the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent undertaking to personally revise the parameters of the Clean Water Act. The Act was originally meant to give the EPA the authority to regulate waters connecting to the “navigable waterways” of the United States, but as the EPA has steadily and aggressively tried to expand their jurisdiction over the years, they have had to deal with far too many bothersome lawsuits challenging their authority. Ergo, they decided to rewrite the rules to more clearly define exactly what bodies of water are within their regulatory power — and a bunch of lawmakers, lobbies, businesses, and private citizens are worried that the end result is going to be yet another massive EPA power grab that will make big government an even more pervasive and retarding for in commercial activity and on private property. The EPA, of course, is scornfully dismissing these concerns and would really like for everyone to just calm down. After all, these bureaucrats are just trying to do their munificent “green” jobs, and as one lawyer in the aforementioned NYT article impatiently noted of the draft regulations leaked late last year, “The draft guidance is clear that irrigation ditches, drainage ponds and even groundwater are not considered waters of the U.S. Nor are gullies, rills, swales and other erosional features. This has been explained over and over again.” Yes, I simply can’t imagine why any of these concerned groups think they have a reason to worry. Via Fox News: All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children. But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine. … The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond — a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife — which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations. The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it. … But the EPA isn’t backing down and argues they have final say over the issue. They also say Johnson needs to restore the land or face the fines. But those Clean Water Act revisions they say they have no intention of abusing? You should definitely just take their word for it. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/15/the-epa-is-charging-75000day-over-a-private-citizens-pond-but-dont-you-worry-about-their-revisions-to-the-clean-water-act/ Edited March 16, 2014 by B-Man
B-Man Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Climate as Religion: Craving a Holocaustby Stanley Kurtz Do climate activists yearn to be oppressed? I’ve argued they do. Now I take the case a step further in “Ecologism: The Campus Cult of Victimhood,” from the latest issue of Academic Questions. I survey Pascal Bruckner’s biting treatment of climate fanaticism as religion then give his argument a twist. Today’s secular religions crave holocausts. I explain why. .
Tiberius Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 .Do climate activists yearn to be oppressed? Ha! Hey 3rding, look at that! They want to be just like you claim Conservatives to be. Why does everyone want to be oppressed?
3rdnlng Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Ha! Hey 3rding, look at that! They want to be just like you claim Conservatives to be. Why does everyone want to be oppressed? Shouldn't you be spending your time reading the obituaries---just for laughs?
B-Man Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) The climate change deniers have won Observer (U.K.) Whining that the "little people" just won't accept their projections as law..................... Climate Scientists Refuse to debate "Skeptics Hilarious: Mother Jones Says MH 370 Not found because of........ You guessed it. / Edited March 24, 2014 by B-Man
KD in CA Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Climate ChangeTM will create bad weather!! http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/03/24/climate_change_to_blame_for_extreme_weather_disasters_says_un.html
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I am just a layperson in all of this. What is the basis for argument that we have better technology to measure and collect data now. Also, we collect much, much more. ?? I have been following the Great Lakes coverage everyday this winter. Looking back @ past data, it appears that 1979 still won out with slightly more coverage @ 94 or so %... Only a 1-2% win over this year. Now, back then we didn't have the satellite tech we have now... What I am saying is, how do we known the data in 1979 is just as accurate as it is today? Could it be off? Could today's data be off? Afterall, we are using "better" technology than we did... Better satellite and we are getting away from the mechanical/phyiscal tools like using planes, phyiscal spotters, and such. I mentioned @ times the debate about how Chicago diverts Great Lakes waters in its diversion. Michigan sues Illinois every so often. Last time in the late 1990's Michigan took Illinois back to court and said that they were violating the Supreme court decree on the amount of water diverted, I think that decree was ammended in the late 1960's. Anway, guess what Illinois' argument was? They said that they were diverting the same amount of water from the Great Lakes as was ordered in the late 1960's! Michigan said: "No way!" Illinois said: "Yes way!" The defense? Illinois was using the same technology that was used in the 1960's, Michigan was using the more modern 1990's technology. Back to the ice and this winter... Constructively, I can't make out if 1979 was worse or not. By ice amount, it appears it was... But, now we are dragging into late March and early April and still have +70% coverage. Of course the data is there... Yet, I am under the impression that in 1979, the ice coverage peaked earlier in the winter... Doesn't that have a lot to do with things too? Does collecting more data AND in a different way skew things? Of course it does... Now mix in the human element about not wanting change and then seeing change via the flood of incoming data through easier, quicker, maybe more accurate means. We are looking @ things so much more closer and accurate now, of course there will be change... I am not denying the change, just the leap that's causing the change and the methods some want to do to "correct" this change.
Azalin Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 What I am saying is, how do we known the data in 1979 is just as accurate as it is today? Could it be off? Could today's data be off? Afterall, we are using "better" technology than we did... Better satellite and we are getting away from the mechanical/phyiscal tools like using planes, phyiscal spotters, and such. those are entirely reasonable questions, and it's a viewpoint that I wish was more widely shared. a little healthy skepticism is a good thing.
B-Man Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 ANDREW BOLT: If Temperatures Don’t Rise, The Hype Must. Over 95% of Computer Models agree............................ Our observations must be wrong.
Tiberius Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I am just a layperson in all of this. What is the basis for argument that we have better technology to measure and collect data now. Also, we collect much, much more. ??, guess what Illinois' argument was? They said that they were diverting the same amount of water from the Great Lakes as was change, just the leap that's causing the change and the methods some want to do to "correct" this change. what about the melting glaciers? They can just see that!
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) what about the melting glaciers? They can just see that! That's just the last ten or so years... That your hype gets played. They have been retreating for a long time now... Who cares? Yet, on Greenland between 1946 and 1994 the ice sheet grew by 7 stories (about 70 feet). How to you explain the "Lost Squadron" locked under all that ice? Edited March 24, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois
DC Tom Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I am just a layperson in all of this. What is the basis for argument that we have better technology to measure and collect data now. Also, we collect much, much more. ?? A much greater number of stations, with better equipment polling more frequently, with better means to collect, store, and analyse it. (40 years ago we were still at the "guy reading a thermometer twice a day" stage; now I can buy a weather station off the shelf for less than $300 that will log data every thirty seconds, and automatically transmit it to the NWS). With greater geographical coverage (e.g. far more - and better - ocean data). And new technology (doppler radar, satellite platforms more advanced than just B&W pictures in visible light).
3rdnlng Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 what about the melting glaciers? They can just see that! Polar ice caps are growing. Google and see for yourself or click on the link: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ice+caps+growing&qpvt=ice+caps+growing&FORM=IGRE#a
DC Tom Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Polar ice caps are growing. Google and see for yourself or click on the link: http://www.bing.com/...ing&FORM=IGRE#a I like this one:
Recommended Posts