5/23/2010 9:47:56 PM

Quote :

"If doing all the things on that list "cripples" your economy then how good was it in the first place?"

too bad that "doing all those things on the list" is not what is being proposed. rather, tax-and-tax is what is being proposed.

5/23/2010 10:19:50 PM

tax-and-tax? Really? Where was your bitching and whining about this when Bush proposed it?

5/23/2010 10:30:15 PM

showing your ignorance, again. remind me again where I've ever said that I supported everything Bush has every proposed?

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 10:38:31 PM

I am sure the EPA stormtroopers will extract that information when they invade your house. . .

5/23/2010 10:41:50 PM

they'll have to sift through a lot of porn first, lol

5/23/2010 10:53:37 PM

THREAD OVER

TIPPER AND AL HAVE SEPARATED

6/1/2010 12:46:38 PM

I knew global warming was fake!

6/1/2010 12:49:23 PM

^^lol.

Quote :

"Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism Ben Webster, Environment Editor Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures. The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause. The society appears to have conceded that it needs to correct previous statements. It said: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.” This contradicts a comment by the society’s previous president, Lord May, who was once quoted as saying: “The debate on climate change is over.” "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece

[Edited on June 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM. Reason : k]

6/1/2010 1:17:02 PM

Rebel scientists? What is this fucking Star Wars?

6/1/2010 1:19:06 PM

V

6/1/2010 1:28:35 PM

Quote :

" Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny. The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.” Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.” The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here."

No surprise here. If you want read the document here ya go: http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn%E2%80%99t-withstand-scrutiny/

6/8/2010 11:45:09 AM

Law Professor != Climatologist

6/9/2010 8:56:09 AM

your statement's pretty inconsequential.

6/9/2010 9:14:59 AM

Only if you think a Law Professor's opinion of climate science is just as valid as climatologist's opinion.

6/9/2010 9:32:06 AM

It's not an opinion. It's an evaluation of the facts and methods used in studies. Black and white.

6/9/2010 9:47:56 AM

An evaluation made by someone who has no clear expertise in climate science.

6/9/2010 9:51:15 AM

Quote :

"An evaluation made by someone who has no clear expertise in climate science is unbiased."

6/9/2010 9:52:02 AM

hehe well that is true. I am sure formally studying the topic your evaluating will "bias" you to some extent. Of course, some people would call that bias "competence" or "understanding".

6/9/2010 9:58:10 AM

I'll change your mind one of these days

6/9/2010 10:11:06 AM

Reminds me of another unbiased UC-Berkeley Law Professor:

I mean, who takes natural selection seriously anymore?

[Edited on June 10, 2010 at 11:45 PM. Reason : x]

6/10/2010 11:45:27 PM

How far back do you want to go? Remember when people were mocked at for NOT thinking the Earth was flat?

6/11/2010 12:12:11 AM

Quote :

"on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements"

I've been saying this for years...but still, if you are even a skeptic, you are apparently in Exxon's pockets...because thats easier than admitting climate scientists aren't the omniscient geniuses you people like to paint them as

6/11/2010 12:15:06 AM

^dude, it doesn't matter. if you're not a climatologist you can't understand logic and reason.

6/11/2010 9:23:30 AM

Quote :

"Remember when people were mocked at for NOT thinking the Earth was flat? "

actually no. that, too, was a fanciful tale, made up by Washington Irving.

But really, forgive me if even I am likely to question the word of a lawyer in the climate change discussion... I'm just saying

6/14/2010 6:53:30 PM

iiiiiinteresting. from the PDF posted above.

Quote :

"What is important to see is that most of the increase in global daily average surface temperature that is reported by the IPCC is due to an increase in nighttime minimum temperatures27 -- that is, daytime maximums have not increased by much over the period reported on by the IPCC."

Quote :

"In the chapter of its 2007 AR4 entitled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,” the IPCC notes that in the tropics, “where most models have more warming aloft than at the surface…most observational estimates show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere.”66 In other words, what the IPCC is saying rather obliquely here is that a crucial empirically testable proposition generated by climate models – that there should be more warming in the tropical troposphere than at the surface -- has not been confirmed by the existing data. Now there are two possibilities: either the data are bad, or something is wrong with the models. In its 2007 report, the IPCC is quite clear that the data, not the models, must be the problem. [pg19]"

Really? Question the data first, without cause? REALLY?

Quote :

"Even the official website of NOAA seems to put a rhetorical slant on the information it conveys: in 2009, summer arctic sea ice continued to increase in extent relative to its 2007 all-time low, but this increase – which could well be described as a trend back to the longer term norm – is instead described as the “the third lowest value of the satellite record." [pg72]"

kind of dirty, don't you think?

6/14/2010 9:30:24 PM

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/16/rick-perry-to-obama%E2%80%99s-epa-don%E2%80%99t-mess-with-texas/

EPA power grab in Texas, even though Texas' own local codes and enforcement have resulted in a dramatic improvement in the air quality of the state.

is there any question that the Feds want to use the guise of 'green' to grab power and oversight? even where it is not necessary?

6/16/2010 9:57:21 AM

an EPA power grab? Or could it be the EPA trying to protect citizens by enforcing federal law?

Even if Texas air has "improved," it's still one of the top two worse states in air quality (basically a toss up between Texas and California on who is worse).

http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/states/texas/

21/36 counties get an F for ozone (and thats generous since some of the counties didnt report)

http://scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/rank-states-emissions.tcl

It ranks first or second (depending on the pollutant) in tons of criteria air pollutants released.

http://scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/rank-states-risk.tcl?how_many=100&pollutant=total

When adjusted for population it ranks second in total days above the air quality standards.





If I lived in Texas, Id be thinking this was necessary.

6/16/2010 10:53:34 AM

Texas has shown dramatic improvement over the past few years with their system.

but hey, Uncle Sam always knows better.

6/16/2010 11:59:01 AM

Bullshit. One can drive around in Houston, Dallas, or even a small town and see smog and disgustingly large exhaust plumes from cars. Everyone and their brother has a dualie down here, and they're all belching thick, black exhaust. And the poor air quality from Houston directly affects the air quality in several dozen other counties that are up-wind, including where I live. The only reason why it's "okay" down here because Texas is such a large state.

6/16/2010 12:05:20 PM

you will concede that like LA, Texas was extremely dirty to begin with. logically, it would take longer to clean it up than another place. the Feds should only step in if nothing was being done.

further, everyone driving privately owned trucks isnt going to change with the Feds...so whats your point there? they are still going to be "belching" smoke.

6/16/2010 12:13:48 PM

For all its dramatic improvement most of the state still cant meet air quality standards.

personally, I believe the permit system the Texas agency uses is designed to allow big companies to pollute more, while on the surface it makes it seems like they are meeting the goals. You don't have to look very far to find TCEQ doing some pretty sketch stuff

http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/jun/03/air-wars/

Quote :

"Los Angeles, another badly polluted city, has improved faster than Texas cities, says Smith of Public Citizen. In addition, according to Bary of the EPA, only one non-Texas city in his five-state region currently fails to meet EPA standards: Baton Rouge."

also automobiles are already federally regulated, there isn't much Texas could do about them unless they wanted to adopt some rules like California (The EPA won't ask them to do that though)

6/16/2010 1:54:43 PM

^The only federal regulation on automobiles is what pollution control devices they are built with. States have all the control that matters, i.e. yearly vehicle inspections.

Several states have no emission inspections while others only have emission inspection for newer vehicles. For example North Carolina only performs emission inspections on cars made after 1995. If you ask me that's ass backwards. We already know new(ish) cars are clean, cars greater than 15 years old are more of a source of pollution. hell I don't think SC does emissions testing...ever.

Of course, in the meantime I'll thank NC for performing only a visual (catalytic converter check) inspection on my 1992 Acura Integra. $12 inspections FTW.

6/16/2010 3:13:01 PM

Another panel exonerates UEA climate scientists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists-main-points

7/7/2010 4:16:53 PM

yes. clearly there is nothing wrong with asking people to delete data and emails in order to avoid a FOIA request.

7/7/2010 4:30:55 PM

There's no evidence they deleted data, only "some emails" which they have the right to do, even if it looks bad.

7/7/2010 7:28:57 PM

yes. and that is kind of the point. they did shady shit. which is far from "they did no wrong."

7/7/2010 9:31:08 PM

and also far from, unimpeachable neutral scientist with nothing to hide

7/7/2010 9:42:29 PM

How many of you have cracked a stats book since I last asked if anybody knows any stats?

7/8/2010 12:23:45 AM

^ Run the stats on this:

Quote :

"He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method."

7/8/2010 10:21:05 AM

^

Quote :

"carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law"

7/8/2010 2:05:49 PM

^ Your point?

Rajendra Pachauri, PhD, industrial engineering and economics
Chair, IPCC

Al Gore, BA, government

7/8/2010 3:39:40 PM

Gotta love how the panel never even asked the scientists in question if they had, in fact, deleted emails and other information.

Quote :

"The report is far from being a whitewash. And nor does it justify the claim of university vice-chancellor Sir Edward Action that it is a "complete exoneration". In particular it backs critics who see in the emails a widespread effort to suppress public knowledge about their activities and to sideline bloggers who want to access their data and do their own analysis. Most seriously, it finds "evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]". Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists

7/9/2010 11:38:55 AM

^^ yah, but Rajendra Pachauri got his PhD from NCSU so it goes a lot further.

But on a serious note, it isn't like Pachauri is writing every word in the IPCC reports. He is just one of many people contributing to them. And since one of IPCC's goal is to provide the world some insight on what the socioeconomic consequences of climate change will be, I think the insights of energy economist are valid.

But it isn't like he (or any of the other social scientists at the IPCC) is doing any climate research of his own. He is only working with the results that have been produced by climate scientists. So if you want to evaluate the validity of these results, you go to the climate scientists that produced them.

7/9/2010 3:01:25 PM

Quote :

"carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law"

your point? If what he is saying is correct (and it is), then his background really doesn't matter much. He listed a great deal of research, and did so quite well. He didn't analyze the research himself. Rather, he just compiled it and pointed out important facts about it.

now, the editorial given above does not adequately summarize what Johnston does. In fact, it grossly mischaracterizes it, as Johnston never states either way whether the climate science is right or not. In fact, he is quite careful not to do that.

7/9/2010 10:35:06 PM

Quote :

"Reminds me of another unbiased UC-Berkeley Law Professor: I mean, who takes natural selection seriously anymore?"

7/10/2010 12:41:35 AM

continue attacking the source, Socks...

7/11/2010 10:44:58 PM

Analyze a dataset for yourself yet? No? lol?

7/12/2010 10:32:00 AM

Global sea ice is still humming along at the 30 year mean...

7/12/2010 11:23:36 AM

^^ wow. i guess I have to analyze a dataset before I can spot shoddy math. wow

7/12/2010 7:25:44 PM