Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Gary M]

On 11/1/2018 at 6:15 PM, DC Tom said:

 

Alternate theory: Bloomberg, instead of pushing veganism, made the editorial decision to give PETA a platform to show the world how batshit crazy they are.

 

And my diet is plant-based: I eat nothing that doesn't eat plants.

 

I am a second hand vegan.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

And there we go.  The Stupidest Thing I'll Read All Day.

That's just because you are ignorant. You can't understand intelligent thoughts. Tell us again, oh ignorant one, how Lee freed more slaves than Lincoln. You are a dumb ass 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

That's just because you are ignorant. You can't understand intelligent thoughts. Tell us again, oh ignorant one, how Lee freed more slaves than Lincoln. You are a dumb ass 

Lee had slaves and Lincoln didn't. Of course he could free more.

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lee had slaves and Lincoln didn't. Of course he could free more.

 

Lee didn't have slaves.  He freed his father-in-law's.

 

Score: Lee, 200 freed.  Lincoln, zero.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Lee didn't have slaves.  He freed his father-in-law's.

 

Score: Lee, 200 freed.  Lincoln, zero.

Did you find that in your Lincoln Log?

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

The judge, Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court in Montana, said theState Department ignored crucial issues of climate change in order to further the president’s goal of letting the pipeline be built. In doing so, the administration ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires “reasoned” explanations for government decisions, particularly when they represent reversals of well-studied actions.

It was a major defeat for Trump, who attacked the Obama administration for stopping the project in the face of protests and an environmental impact study. Trump signed an executive order two days into his presidency setting in motion a course reversal on the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as another major pipeline, Dakota Access.

The ruling highlights a broader legal vulnerability in the Trump administration’s push to roll back Obama-era environmental protections. Since Trump took office, federal courts have found repeatedly that his agencies have short-circuited the regulatory process in areas ranging from water protections to chemical plant safety operations. Robust environmental and administrative procedure laws, many dating back to the 1970s, have given the administration’s opponents plenty of legal ammunition.

 

Suck it 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/09/keystone-xl-pipeline-blocked-by-federal-judge-major-blow-trump-administration/?utm_term=.1c7e240dbe7f

[Rob's House]

 

[B-Man]

WHY WON’T LIBERALS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE?

 

This is a theme that Steve and I have recurred to many times on this site. Today it is voiced by Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most eminent scientists. Dyson, a theoretical physicist and professor emeritus of Mathematical Physics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, is famous among other things for unifying the three versions of quantum electrodynamics. He has been a harsh critic of the slovenly science practiced by climate alarmists.

 

Dyson wrote a foreword to a report on the benefits of carbon dioxide by Indur Goklany which is quoted at length in the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was. Here are some excerpts:

 

To any unprejudiced person reading [Goklany’s] account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.

 

I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence. Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing. I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts? In this foreword I offer a tentative solution of the mystery.

 

MORE AT THE LINK:

 

.

[B-Man]

"Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth's oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors..."

 

"... that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are. Two weeks after the high-profile study was published in the journal Nature, its authors have submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, home to several of the researchers involved, also noted the problems in the scientists' work and corrected a news release on its website, which previously had asserted that the study detailed how the Earth’s oceans 'have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought.'... The central conclusion of the study... is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions...."

WaPo reports. 

 

 

.

[/dev/null]

20 hours ago, B-Man said:

"Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth's oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors..."

 

"... that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are. Two weeks after the high-profile study was published in the journal Nature, its authors have submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, home to several of the researchers involved, also noted the problems in the scientists' work and corrected a news release on its website, which previously had asserted that the study detailed how the Earth’s oceans 'have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought.'... The central conclusion of the study... is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions...."

WaPo reports. 

 

 

.

 

Don't harsh The Narrative

[Rob's House]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6e2c68c23f9f

 

The claim that 97% of scientists support the left's theory of global warming is utter horse *****.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Rob's House

[boyst]

23 hours ago, Rob's House said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6e2c68c23f9f

 

The claim that 97% of scientists support the left's theory of global warming is utter horse *****.

But what % of dentists agree?

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

But what % of dentists agree?

 

4 out of 5 - so only 80%.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[DC Tom]

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Hint: it's not climate change.

[GoBills808]

On 11/13/2018 at 5:18 AM, B-Man said:

'...the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial...'

That does sound vaguely familiar...

[Chef Jim]

51 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

No your life is pointless because you're a talking head on MSNBC.  Geez...do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you??

[Wacka]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

So do us all a favor bit**.

[3rdnlng]

33 minutes ago, Wacka said:

So do us all a favor bit**.

Save the oxygen, Katy!

[Azalin]

4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Save the oxygen, Katy!

 

I prefer to think of it as her own way of producing CO2, thereby helping to promote the greening of the Earth, which will generate more oxygen for the rest of us. It's like her words are akin to fertilizer, but for the atmosphere.