Page 337 of 345 FirstFirst ... 237287327333334335336337338339340341 ... LastLast
Results 5,041 to 5,055 of 5166
  1. #5041
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,667

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    ^^^ Would you rather we all DIE?


  2. #5042
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    9,954

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  3. #5043
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,335

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Scott Adams....

    The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science


    . . .
    So when I say I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change, I’m endorsing the scientific consensus for the same reason I endorsed Hillary Clinton for the first part of the election – as a strategy to protect myself. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.

    . . .


    There are plenty of examples where the majority of experts were wrong. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong. Let’s dig into that question.

    It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

    1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

    2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

    3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

    4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.

    5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.

    6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

    One of the things that always fascinated me about jury trials is that attorneys from both sides can sound so convincing even though the evidence points in only one direction. A defendant is either guilty or innocent, but good lawyers can make you see it either way. Climate science is similar. I’ve seen airtight arguments that say climate science is solid and true, and I’ve seen equally credible-looking arguments that say it is bunk. From my non-scientist perspective, I can’t tell the difference. Both sides look convincing to me.

    As I have described in this blog before, I’m a trained hypnotist and I have studied the methods of persuasion for years. That gives me a bit of context that is different from the norm. In my experience, and based on my training, it is normal and routine for the “majority of experts” to be completely wrong about important stuff. But in the two-dimensional world where persuasion isn’t much of a thing, it probably looks to most of you that experts are usually right, especially when they are overwhelmingly on the same side and there is a mountain of confirming evidence.

    We like to think we arrived at our decisions about climate science by using our common sense and good judgement to evaluate the credibility of experts. Some of you think you have superior sources of information as well. But both sides are wrong. No one is using reason, facts, or common sense to arrive at a decision about climate science. Here’s what you are using to arrive at your decision:

    1. Fear

    2. Unwarranted trust in experts

    3. Pattern recognition


    On the question of fear, if you believe that experts are good at predicting future doom, you are probably scared to death by climate change. But in my experience, any danger we humans see coming far in the future we always find a way to fix. We didn’t run out of food because of population growth. We didn’t run out of oil as predicted. We didn’t have a problem with the Year 2000 bug, and so on. I refer to this phenomenon as the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters. When we see a disaster coming – as we do with climate science – we have an unbroken track record of avoiding doom. In the case of climate change danger, there are a number of technologies under development that can directly scrub the atmosphere if needed.

    On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume.

    And when it comes to pattern recognition, I see the climate science skepticswithin the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters. The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.

    While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission. And climate science doesn’t provide the option of total certainty.

    To put it another way, it would be easy for a physicist to buck the majority by showing that her math worked. Math is math. But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to “tune,” you don’t have that option. Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid. So don’t expect to see many of the latter. Scientists can often be wrong, but rarely are they stupid.

    To strengthen my point today, and in celebration of my reopening of the blog commenting section, please provide your links to pro and con arguments about climate science. This might be the only place in the world you will see links to both sides. If you want to be amazed, see how persuasive BOTH sides of this debate are.
    As I said above, I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.

    If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #5044
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,667

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle



    Polar Bears are in such terrible risk, their populations are up 27%.

  5. #5045
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,335

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    ^^^ There is only one cure.. moar photos of polar bears!! DENIER!
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #5046
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,335

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    About damn time we stopped financing the left's hunt for manbearpig......

    Trump Orders EPA To ‘Zero Out’ Global Warming Programs

    The White House is pushing for significant cuts to EPA programs and staff levels, giving a glimpse of how the Trump administration plans on devolving more control to the states.

    The budget plan sent from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to EPA leadership calls for eliminating dozens of programs, including at least 16 that have to do with global warming and implementing former President Barack Obama’s climate agenda.

    OMB also requested a 30 percent cut in grants to states and a 20 percent reduction in EPA’s workforce through buy-outs and layoffs. In total, President Donald Trump is calling for a roughly 25 percent cut to EPA’s budget — about $2 billion.

    The cuts are laid out in a letter sent by William Becker, the executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), to his group’s member state and local regulators. Becker said NACAA received the “pass back” budget information sent from OMG to EPA Monday, according to InsideEPA.
    Here are all the programs NACAA said OMB wants “zeroed out”:
    Alaska Native Villages
    Beach and Fish programs
    Brownfield projects
    Clean Power Plan implementation
    Climate Voluntary partnership programs‹there are 14 separate ones
    Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
    Endocrine grants
    Energy star grants
    Environmental education
    Environmental justice
    Geographical programs for lake [Champlain], L.I. Sound, S.F. Bay and South Florida
    Global Change Research
    Mexico Border grants
    Multi-purpose grants
    Office of Public Engagement
    Radon
    Star Research grants
    Small minority businesses
    State indoor radon
    Targeted air shed grants
    U.S. Mexico Border
    Water Sense
    Democrats and environmentalists have opposed Trump’s budget cuts, and EPA union leaders are hemming and hawing about cutting staffing levels. Even some Republicans aren’t on board with cutting so much from EPA’s budget.

    “They are operating at 1989 staffing levels. So you really want to be sure you are not cutting the meat and muscle with the fat,” Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole, who is on the House Committee on Appropriations, told Inside EPA.

    “There’s not that much in the EPA, for crying out loud,” Rep. Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, told The Washington Post. Thompson formerly chaired the appropriations committee’s subcommittee dealing with EPA.

    What’s unsurprising is Trump wants to get rid of more than a dozen global warming programs at EPA, including funding to implement the Clean Power Plan (CPP)

    Trump promised to repeal Obama’s “Climate Action Plan” — the CPP is the linchpin of the former president’s climate agenda. The CPP limits carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants.

    EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt helped lead a coalition of 28 states to overturn the rule while he was attorney general of Oklahoma. Trump is preparing to sign an executive order to rescind the CPP, so it’s not surprising they’d cut funding for its implementation.

    WaPo reported EPA’s “Office of Research and Development could lose up to 42 percent of its budget, according to an individual apprised of the administration’s plans.”

    The budget plan “eliminates funding altogether for the office’s ‘contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program,’” according to WaPo.

    One area of concern, however, is the reduction in state and tribal grants for infrastructure and environmental clean-up. The Environmental Council of the States (ECS) sent a letter to EPA and OMB urging them not to cut those programs.
    ECS wrote that “cuts to [state and tribal] categorical grants, or to EPA programs operated by states, will have profound impacts on states’ ability to implement the core environmental programs as expected by our citizens.”
    More than 90 percent of EPA programs are carried out by state environmental regulators. That’s something that concerns Pruitt, who promised to push back against OMB and preserve grants to states.


    “I am concerned about the grants that have been targeted, particularly around water infrastructure, and those very important state revolving funds,” Pruitt told E&E News Tuesday. “What’s important for us is to educate OMB on what the priorities of the agency are, from water infrastructure to Superfund, providing some of those tangible benefits to our citizens,” Pruitt said, “while at the same time making sure that we reallocate, re-prioritize in our agency to do regulatory reform to get back within the bounds of Congress.”
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #5047
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    9,954

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    ^^^ Prolly outta send in the Waambulance on that one...

    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  8. #5048
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,335

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Two thoughts right off the top:

    1) We have an "environmental justice" division at the EPA? Sounds like a damn good place to start cutting.

    2) Sounds like Mustafa saw the writing on the wall and beat the boot...

    EPA environmental justice head resigns

    &

    Pruitt's Right: The Science Isn't Settled

    New EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is being lampooned for downplaying the extent of carbon dioxide’s alleged effects on the climate. According to Pruitt, “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that [CO2 is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.” You can imagine the uproar that ensued.

    Critics responded with a slew of scientific information on the greenhouse gas effect and how scientists collectively agree that human-induced fossil fuels are most assuredly to blame for our warming climate. On the EPA’s own website it stipulates that “the primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.” And Forbes’s Alex Knapp says, “We can get one thing clear — climate change is complicated,” but he goes on to confidently argue “the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted every year by humans is … happening faster than nature can take care of it.”
    This ridicule, of course, is an effort to smear Pruitt and portray him as an anti-science rube. But pay close attention to what he also said in the same interview: “But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.” What he’s trying to say is that the climate debate is not etched in stone, which is what the ecofascist lobby is trying to desperately to do. Yes, we know that the greenhouse effect is real, but scientists themselves are disgraceful if they think they’ve discovered all there is to know about how the climate operates. The same ones who told us that the California and Texas droughts were permanent and that the Arctic sea ice would be gone by now want to lecture us on “what the science says.” Pruitt has a different approach: Let’s see what the facts say, which takes time. And that’s exactly why he’s the right man to lead the EPA.
    We must silence dissent.... in the name of science of course. Same theme repeats itself on just about every issue libtards push these days.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #5049
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,335

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Boiiinnnggg...


    Trump to Sign Executive Order Removing "Climate Change" As Factor Government Agencies Regulate


    I don't know how much Putin paid this guy, but I know I'm getting my money's worth.
    Not just the EPA, either.

    President Donald Trump is set to sign a sweeping directive to dramatically shrink the role climate change plays in decisions across the government, ranging from appliance standards to pipeline approvals, according to a person familiar with the administration's plan.

    The order, which could be signed this week, goes far beyond a targeted assault on Obama-era measures blocking coal leasing and throttling greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that has been discussed for weeks. Some of the changes could happen immediately; others could take years to implement.


    It aims to reverse President Barack Obama's broad approach for addressing climate change. One Obama-era policy instructed government agencies to factor climate change into formal environmental reviews, such as that for the Keystone XL pipeline. Trump's order also will compel a reconsideration of the government's use of a metric known as the "social cost of carbon" that reflects the potential economic damage from climate change. It was used by the Obama administration to justify a suite of regulations.


    So knocking out this underlying justification also knocks out a bunch of regulations.


    Of course, Trump is about to be impeached for paying $38 million in taxes in 2005, so, you know, anything can still happen.
    What was done by Mr. "Phone and pen" can be undone in kind.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #5050
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Cornelius, OR
    Age
    71
    Posts
    18,239

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Well I found this funny
    "Of course, Trump is about to be impeached for paying $38 million in taxes in 2005, so, you know, anything can still happen."

    He will be impeached for paying $38 million in taxes? Really? He should have paid more? Do you add a little extra for the good of the IRS? A tip maybe? Or do you claim any legitimately allowed deduction and just pay that ? He had tax professionals help him file his return, for sure it was audited by the IRS, was yours?
    There are advantages to being retarded...and I'm taking advantage of all of them.

  11. #5051
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,667

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    ^^^ Typical Ace tongue in cheek...

  12. #5052
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    9,954

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    I had to look at this twice to believe it came from a MSM entity

    Ignore the critics: If Trump withdraws from Paris Climate Agreement, he will demonstrate US leadership.

    "Instead, the argument is that honoring the Paris Agreement is all about U.S. leadership. As Timmons Roberts and Caroline Jones wrote in a recent Brookings Institution paper : “To renege on our commitments … in support of the Paris Agreement would weaken America’s ability to muster enthusiastic support on important international policies we might care about.“

    This is fantasy. Gratitude is a rare commodity in international affairs – just look at the vast majority of U.S. foreign assistance recipients. They routinely vote against the U.S. most of the time in the U.N.

    Those arguing for the U.S. to remain in the Paris Agreement are less interested in bolstering U.S. leadership than in ensuring that they have means to criticize Trump when he fails to follow Obama’s other ineffectual climate policies.

    Repudiating the Paris Agreement would be akin to ripping off a Band-Aid – a small pain in the form of anger from the U.N. and other governments committed to the agreement, but after that, nothing.

    How do we know this? Because President George W. Bush lived through discarding the Paris Agreement’s predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The Clinton Administration signed the Protocol in 1998, despite unanimous Senate resistance. President Bush correctly concluded the Protocol would be ineffective in addressing the problem and impose heavy economic costs on the U.S economy, particularly to the manufacturing sector.

    Despite strong pressure from the U.N. and European governments, Bush held firm by announcing that he would not ratify or implement the agreement.

    What was the impact of Bush’s actions on American leadership role? Foreign governments criticized the decisions, but continued to cooperate and work with the U.S. More importantly, they learned that the U.S. was willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

    Having other countries know that the U.S. President is resolute is valuable diplomatic currency, not fecklessness."
    Last edited by SteveW; 03-15-2017 at 06:37 PM.
    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS Z170-AR i7 6700, 16G RAM - Liquid Cooled
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  13. #5053
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,335

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    F*ck YA! Preach on brotha!

    OMB Director Mulvaney: Climate Change Research ‘A Waste of Your Money’

    Thursday at the White House press briefing while answering questions about President Donald Trump’s “America First Budget,” Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney called climate change research “a waste of your money” regarding proposed cuts in that area.


    Mulvaney said “A couple of different messages, when we talk about science and climate change — let’s deal with them separately. On science, we’re going to focus on the core function. There are reductions in the NIH, National Institutes of Health. Why? Because we think there’s been mission creep, we think there are things outside their core function. We think there’s tremendous opportunity for savings. We recommend a couple of facilities can be combined and there is cost savings from that.”


    “Again, this comes back to the President’s business person view of government, which is if you took over this as a CEO and you look at this on a spreadsheet, and you go, ‘Why do we have all of these facilities? Why do we have seven when we can do the same job with three? Won’t that save money?'” he continued. “The answer is yes. So the part of your answer is focusing on efficiencies and focusing on doing what we do better. As to climate change, I think the President was fairly straightforward saying we’re not spending money on that anymore. We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. So that is a specific tie to his campaign.”
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #5054
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,335

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    That we even need to convene a panel to give thought to having an opposing view to that currrently held by members of the cult of thermogeddon shows how far off the rails our scientific community is.

    These scientists want to create ‘red teams’ to challenge climate research. Congress is listening

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #5055
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,840

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Podesta: Trump 'On a Rampage to Endanger the Planet'

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/0...nvironment-epa

    Oh No! It couldn't be worse if the Russians don't kill us global warming will. We will be double dead...

    A feeble attempt at fear mongering by a feeble minded Hillary buttboy...
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •