Posted by Tina
The President’s radical EPA demands a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030. They claim another utopian outcome; it will: “…produce jobs, cut electricity bills and save thousands of lives.” This is the same administration that promised Obamacare would result in $2500.00 savings to Americans on health insurance. Hold on to your wallet!
Americans depend on electricity at home and in their businesses. Every product we buy is manufactured using electricity powered by coal. In fact, some states get over 90% of the electricity they use from coal. Overall coal supplies 40% of our nations electricity. Why is the President willing to raise the price Americans pay for electricity especially when it is estimated that it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs as plants across the country close?
FOX reports options mandated to the various states:
The options include making power plants more efficient, reducing the frequency at which coal-fired power plants supply power to the grid, and investing in more renewable, low-carbon sources of energy. They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.
If a state refuses to create a plan, the EPA can make its own.
Apparently some states will be allowed to emit more pollution than others…not sure by what measure or standard. If the administration follows its pattern it will depend on whether the state is blue or red.
It’s easy to see that Obama’s professed goal, that lives will be saved by hamstringing American business, killing American jobs, and hitting Americans hard in their wallets, is faulty as well as unconstitutional. China and India will cheer…less competition from America means greater opportunity for them, and increased carbon emissions from their less regulated coal burning plants .
Trampling the Constitution is a thug game for this administration; it doesn’t need no stinking Congress. But the wisdom behind our checks and balances system was that it would prevent such dictatorial oppression of the people. This administration, indeed the Democrat Party, is filled with radical hard left activists that have no respect for our Constitution and are committed to fundamental transformation to bring America down. The only option left to us is to throw the bums out whenever the chance presents itself!
nationalcenter.org…ten reasons to oppose this edict.
Red state, Texas, is required to reduce emissions by 39% in the set of regulations that is 645 pages in length.
Can’t wait to hear what they do about it.
They would never do it of course, but as I understand it Texas is a volunteer state and they could withdraw from the United States by virtue of a clause within the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo. Supposedly they are the only state afforded this option. Maybe some history buff can help me out on this one, any takers?
““Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” Gov. Perry said. “My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that.”
Jack according to Salon its a myth…but:
The rambling idiot strikes again!
I can’t wait until the reign of this very bad mistake is over.
Our CO2 emissions are the lowest we’ve had since 1992!
So, why are we doing this when it should be China doing it?
This move represents another blow to mine workers:
According to PJ Media the EPA spokesperson said, “Rising temperatures bring more smog, more asthma, and longer allergy seasons.”
Coal plants don’t cause rising temperatures. The science isn’t settled and we humans sure as hell don’t have any business hurting Americans in need of jobs for an elitist political and money grubbing game. (Dewey your leftist green energy corporatists are all standing in line to benefit from these regs while workers lose their jobs!)
The earth has not been warming of late. It has been cooling for the last fifteen years and the sun and ocean churning cycles, according to scientists, are the big shots that are in control. Please read the entire article and get educated.
Here’s an excerpt pertinent to our time:
So kids are NOT suffering because man has caused “Rising temperatures” to “bring more smog, more asthma, and longer allergy seasons.” Man cannot control rising temperatures!
The cost in human suffering from these radical left EPA mandates is horrendous. These regulations will “…decrease a family’s disposable income by $3,400 per year and increase their electricity bills by $200.” That’s for people that still have a job. Count yourself half-a$$ed fortunate if you can keep your job but lose another $3400. a year in disposable income. People will start loosing their homes again because they can’t pay the energy bill. Food prices will soar and people will have do make do with less and probably less healthy food.
Man these guys are good at fundamentally transforming America…the transformation is to a third world nation where people share misery while Barack and Michelle go to Martha’s Vinyard for the summer.
Mr. Decimal, since when is the very breath we exhale and the “food” of all vegetation, magically transformed into a form of “pollution” that causes “Global Warming?”
It’s a load and useful idiots like you help spread this evil agenda…
http://www.tomatobubble.com/id594.html
Global warming is a load of you know what…
http://iceagenow.info/
Tina, I can understand why someone who doesn’t understand how to read actual scientific data would turn to Peter Ferrara, a non-scientist who admits he has been paid by the likes of Jack Abramof to write editorials pushing an ideological agenda.
Those who are interested in actual science can look at these graphs provided by NASA. It is pretty clear that Ferrara’s claim of a “cooling trend” over the past 15 years is wrong.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
And maybe people who don’t have the foggiest idea how to even read a scientific study should stop lecturing others on how misinformed they are, whilst citing serial misinformers to make their case.
Crazy Bob, somehow I doubt the brilliant minds behind the “Ice Age Now” website know anything more about science than they do about basic web design.
Chris: “I can understand why someone who doesn’t understand how to read actual scientific data would turn to Peter Ferrara…”
What an a$$hole. Peter Ferarra “turned to” scientists…experts in the field!
Please read the entire article and get educated.
” pushing an ideological agenda”
You idiot! What the hell do you think the global warming fantasy has been besides an ideological agenda? How do you think radical socialists gain control of the people? Using guns was abandoned in the fifties after the allies defeated their butts in a spectacular fashion and exposed the death and evil the underlies all radical socialist regimes be they fascist or communist or religious in nature!
They gain control by creating a straw man enemies or problems…and by creating hysteria and panic! They do it by defeating reason and faith!
The idiot at NASA that floated all of the propaganda about global warming is gone and rightly so. You are behind the curve kid and arrogantly stupid.
From the article:
Mr. Ferarra, a well respected economist and journalist and Harvard/Harvard Law graduate, works for Forbes…who the hell are you to suggest he is misinformed?
If global warming is for real and if it’s human made then why is Obammie flying around bureaucrats in $55 million jets when they could fly coach?
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/laborde/laborde060314.html
Why do Algore and Ahnode Schwartenwhatever (who brought us AB 32) own multiple mansions, fly around the world in private jets and own fleets of gas guzzlers?
I will tell you why. It’s all a load. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with CONTROL and MONEY.
But of course partisan hacks like Mr. Decimal and Chris couldn’t figure that out if it hit them in the head like a brick.
They are already so brainwashed they are already fully controlled.
Tina, pointing out that you do not understand basic science is not being an asshole. You have taken it upon yourself to “educate” others on a scientific issue, so it is completely relevant to point out that you do not understand even the basics of how to read scientific literature.
For instance, you have at least three times posted an article by James Taylor in which he misrepresents a scientific study, falsely claiming that the study found a “majority of scientists” don’t believe in man-made global warming. But as I explained to you each time, the study said nothing of the sort, as you would have known had you attempted to read it. The study actually surveyed a group of engineers in Alberta, and did not survey any climate scientists. And even among that group, the majority believed that some amount of man-made global warming was occurring.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/08/18/ofa-targets-climate-denier-republicans-fails-miserably/
I’ve explained this to you every time you have posted this article. I’ve even shown you the study’s authors, in their own words, pointing out how Taylor misrepresented their study. And yet every time, you have refused to acknowledge Taylor’s very serious errors, and your own error in citing that article as a source. You have continued citing it in multiple discussions even after the errors have been explained to you in the simplest possible terms.
There are only two possible explanations for this bizarre behavior:
1) Your knowledge of science is so abysmal that you don’t even understand the very obvious misrepresentations in the Taylor article you’ve repeatedly cited, even after they have been explained to you in the simplest terms possible, and after the authors of the study themselves showed how Taylor lied about their work.
Or
2) You do understand that Taylor misrepresented the study, but you don’t care, because he told you what you wanted to hear. And you intentionally continued citing Taylor’s dishonest article because you wanted others to fall for the lies he told therein.
And that’s not even getting into the fact that last week, you claimed that evolution was just a theory on par with creationism, and backed up this absurd claim by citing a religious fundamentalist site which lied about Charles Darwin and argued that any scientific evidence that does not comport with the Bible must be rejected out of hand.
So again, saying that you don’t understand basic science is not being an asshole. It’s actually the generous, polite option. Because the only other reasonable explanation for this kind of consistent scientific misrepresentation is that you are a craven liar who is intentionally trying to misinform your readers in order to further a political narrative.
Aren’t you glad I’m not an asshole?
Tina: “Peter Ferarra “turned to” scientists…experts in the field!”
The word you’re looking for is “misrepresented.”
For instance, Ferrara quotes an article from The Voice of Russia in which Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory says this:
“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.”
But what Ferrara leaves out is that in the same Voice of Russia article Ferrara cites, Nagovitsyn also says this:
“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth”.”
In other words, Nagovitsyn is actually arguing against the proposition that solar activity is the primary driver of climate change, and is actually pointing out that other factors are more significant.
(To be fair, the Voice of Russia article is incompetently written, and directly misrepresents Nagovitsyn multiple times, claiming that he is arguing FOR the hypothesis of global cooling due to reduced solar activity when he very clearly says that solar activity only accounts for 20% of climate change. But at least the Voice of Russia quotes Nagovitsyn in context, whereas Ferrara, quoting VoR quoting Nagovitsyn, does not. Perhaps Ferrara realized some of his more careful readers might notice VoR’s error, and decided against quoting Nagovitsyn’s statement that solar activity does not greatly affect climate change.)
So thank you, Tina, for citing yet another Forbes article by a Heartland Institute lackey who is clearly misrepresenting a scientist.
“Please read the entire article and get educated.”
I did read the entire article, but unlike you, I also looked into the article’s sources. That’s how one gets educated, Tina; by digging beneath the surface. Had you bothered to educate yourself, instead of just believing whatever you’re told whenever it fits your narrative, perhaps you wouldn’t have made the embarrassing mistake of once again citing scientific misrepresentations as evidence that your opponents are scientifically misinformed.
Or perhaps you would have done it anyway. Who knows.
Since I have already caught Ferrara misrepresenting one scientist on my first try, I am not about to waste my time investigating his other claims. I am not going to waste my time on proven liars.
If you have another, more reputable, non-Heartland and non-Forbes source (and I think that is a fair request, since I just proved that at least two Heartland writers for Forbes are guilty of misrepresenting science), then perhaps I will consider them.
However, the condition is that you must admit that the James Taylor piece and the Peter Ferrara piece misrepresented the words of scientists. If you cannot acknowledge this, then you are proving my point that you either do not understand basic science, or you are intentionally misrepresenting it yourself.
Tina: “You idiot! What the hell do you think the global warming fantasy has been besides an ideological agenda? How do you think radical socialists gain control of the people? Using guns was abandoned in the fifties after the allies defeated their butts in a spectacular fashion and exposed the death and evil the underlies all radical socialist regimes be they fascist or communist or religious in nature!”
Tina, are you making the accusation that NASA has been infiltrated by radical socialists?
What is your evidence for this accusation?
“The idiot at NASA that floated all of the propaganda about global warming is gone and rightly so. You are behind the curve kid and arrogantly stupid.”
Is this a joke?
Or are you seriously arguing that NASA no longer endorses the scientific consensus that AGW is real and poses a significant threat? That all this was just the theory of one wackjob at NASA, and the rest of the organization no longer endorses the theory of AGW?
Because if that is the argument you’re making…wow. To call me “behind the curve” and “arrogantly stupid” after making such wild implications shows some serious lady-balls, but zero actual knowledge. You simply don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Crazy Bob: “If global warming is for real and if it’s human made then why is Obammie flying around bureaucrats in $55 million jets when they could fly coach?
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/laborde/laborde060314.html
Why do Algore and Ahnode Schwartenwhatever (who brought us AB 32) own multiple mansions, fly around the world in private jets and own fleets of gas guzzlers?”
Sorry Bob, but anyone who forms their opinions on science based on what politicians believe is too dumb to participate in this conversation in any productive way. You are not a scientist; you should form your opinion based on what scientists believe, not on what politicians believe.
97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening. The fact that Al Gore and Barack Obama agree with them should not matter one whit to a true seeker of knowledge. Even if you believe that Barack Obama is the “Devil Incarnate,” a closeted Muslim and a closeted homosexual (all things you’ve recently called him–my, such varied tastes!), that does not mean you should base your opposition to the AGW theory on his support of same.
OK, I couldn’t resist. I investigated another one of Peter Ferrara’s claims.
In a comment under his article, Ferrara writes, “Even James Hansen, NASA, Phil Jones, the British Met Office, the Hadley Centre, and the CRU admit no warming for the last 15 years.”
As other commenters pointed out, there are at least three lies in this sentence.
The Met Office still holds that the warming trend has been significant for the past 15 years:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts
So does James Hansen:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/17/global-warming-not-stalled-climate
And so does NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/
I have not investigated the other three sources Ferrara names, but he is definitely lying about the other three. None of them have gone on record as saying that there has been no warming for the last 15 years. All of them have reached the opposite conclusion, and argue that the warming trend has continued.
Now, you could argue that the opinions of NASA, the Met Office, and James Hansen do not matter. But if that’s the case, then why did Peter Ferrara feel the need to lie about them?
Tina, do you acknowledge that it is wrong to claim that someone has made an argument that they have not actually made?
For example, if I went around telling people, “Even Tina Grazier admits that humans are contributing to global warming,” you realize that would be wrong, right?
So can you admit that your sources, James Taylor and Peter Ferrara, are wrong to misrepresent the conclusions of scientists in the ways that I have demonstrated?
So I’m dumb and crazy, eh Chris. Well, coming from you that’s a badge of honor.
Ahnode and Algore are the biggest hypocrites in the world.
They tell us we must change our lives to fight “global warming.” For starters that’s going to mean much higher energy prices and that will contract the economy and hurt the poor the most.
And as far as the “science” is concerned I guess these guys are dumb too as they don’t buy your dire dogma.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[20]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[21]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
While we must decrease our “carbon footprints” these jokers have multiple mansions, gas guzzlers and fly around the world in private jets.
Let the little people eat their carbon.
Bob, once again, the attitudes and actions of politicians have no bearing on whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real. To act as if the hypocrisy of politicians is evidence that AGW is not real reveals you to be an incredibly shallow thinker. As does your thinking that citing a handful of scientists (many who do not even study climate) who disagree with the 97% consensus proves that consensus wrong.
If you provide some actual evidence for your position that AGW is a scam, maybe I’ll look into it. Try to do better than Tina. It would help if you cited actual published, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and not misrepresentations of scientific articles by paid Heartland hitmen.
Just google studies that dispute global warming and you’ll find a bunch.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/06/02/2003-global-warming-pentagon-report-proves-hot-air/
I follow the data. I always have. We have lived in a period of global warming even though the data indicates that it has stopped for at least 15 years. No Mann hockey stick or other predictions have proved to be factual.
Yet people continue to make this a political issue. My greatest grief is that left wing conservationists treat this prima vera and not ocean pollution.
Thank you Crazy Bob.
By the way, Crazy Bob, good science is not and never will be by consensus. That is not what science is nor should be. Good science stands on its own merit. The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis does not.
Bob, I addressed that lying Forbes article in comment #17. As I explained, Tina has tried to use it as evidence to dispute global warming many times, but the article completely misrepresents the study’s findings. The study did NOT find that a majority of scientists are skeptical of global warming–it would have been literally impossible for the study to find such a thing, since it only polled engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, Candada, and did not poll any climate scientists. The authors of the study, as well as dozens of commenters, call James Taylor out in the comments to that article, but neither he nor Forbes has ever printed a retraction, because Forbes has no standards.
I will not visit a website called “Tea Party Economist.”
Try again.
Again, if you have a link to actual scientific literature, I will look at it. If all you have are political editorials that misrepresent scientific literature, I’m not going to waste my time.
These young people give me hope for America’s future.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/144315-watch-nancy-pelosi-wilt-tough-questioning-teenager/
Man made global warming scare mongers have spent at least three decades writing articles of OPINION using words like “prestigious” and “consensus” to add weight to the man made global warming opinion.
At the same time any articles that express scientific disagreement, even when experts in the field are cited, use words that disparage the author and refer to the scientists as “deniers” to discredit them.
Several of the global warming expert community, meantime, have been exposed as fabricators, liars and cheats. Their peer reviewed articles were hand picked for publication while papers demonstrating an alternative opinion were systematically rejected. So the warming community manipulated the evidence, manipulated review, and claimed consensus based on LIES.
The propaganda damage done by the greed, power hungry, energy consuming hypocrite Al Gore is immeasurable. His book is filled with several lies that were called out by the British government.
What we don’t know about forces that affect climate change is significant and apparently dismissed entirely by “consensus” true believers. This is not how science works. Scientists don’t reach conclusions to force redistribution of wealth or to destroy industry. Generally speaking scientists are interested in their work, not in agenda politics. “Consensus” scientists are, therefore, suspect.
Chris’s blind acceptance of man made global warming consensus demonstrates an absence of intellectual curiosity.In addition, rather than seeking information when alternative opinion presents itself he demands, in bullying fashion, that others provide it for him. This is evidence of that entitlement mentality that is destroying our freedom and blunting creative, dynamic thought…not to mention destroying wealth and opportunity.
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
Climate Depot has a menu of scientific papers that dare to suggest “consensus” is not science…it is political BS.
An easier path might be to zero in on Watts Up With That on a regular basis. Anthony Watts addresses the science citing scientific papers all of the time and has a world wide following!
And Chris this blog isn’t directed to you exclusively! Nobody asked you to read the Ferarra article.
Nobody demanded that you to take the time to reply either.
If you see this as a waste of your time then please restrain yourself.
Please refrain from lecturing me and others who might enjoy reading alternative opinions based on the opinions of scientists whose research happens to upset political consensus.
Tina,
Please address the many lies and misrepresentations you have spread here by linking to those articles by Peter Ferrara and James Taylor. I have clearly laid out exactly where and how they lied, so this should not be difficult for you. So far you have responded with vague accusations of dishonesty toward unnamed climate scientists, and refused to acknowledge the specific lies told by the specific individuals you have cited.
If you are going to accuse others of lying, you have an ethical imperative to make sure that your own sources are not lying. And when it is proven that one of them has told a lie, then the honest, Christian thing to do is admit it.
If you cannot do this, then it is clear that you don’t actually care about the truth, but are simply charging your opponents with dishonesty as a debate tactic whilst tolerating dishonesty from your own side.
“Please refrain from lecturing me and others who might enjoy reading alternative opinions based on the opinions of scientists whose research happens to upset political consensus.”
Tina, as I’ve shown you numerous times, the Forbes articles you cited were not “based on the opinions of scientists whose research happens to upset political consensus.” The research cited by Taylor and Ferrara actually supported the consensus that AGW is a real threat. Taylor and Ferrara simply took the scientists’ research out of context and lied about their results.
To claim that lying about a scientists’ work constitutes an “alternative opinion” is the type of politically correct garbage that is dumbing down our planet. There is a difference between a lie and an opinion. My seventh graders understand the difference. Why don’t you?
Another question: If consensus doesn’t matter, why have you cited that Taylor article which falsely claims there is no consensus at least three times over the past year?
Chris: “The research cited by Taylor and Ferrara actually supported the consensus that AGW is a real threat.”
Absolutely? No it does not! What it does is bring into question conclusions that have been declared absolutely accurate…and then politicized!
We were told in the eighties that scientists were certain the rain forest would disappear in five years. We’ve been told that scientists predict an imminent rise of the oceans of up to twenty feet…still waiting…be afraid, be very afraid and then give governments all of your money so we can force you to unworkable alternative energy sources to stop it. We, the green activists, will make a lot of money by investing in new green technology; you, you poor shlub, will be without heat and a job…poor you!
I offer alternative opinion simply BECAUSE the lies and misinformation of the consensus activists/scientists has been so pervasive.
If you can’t handle alternative opinion in a space that allows all opinion, you are nothing more than a propagandist whose mission is to stifle speech.
I repeat…I trust our readers to decide for themselves!
There is no consensus, Chris, because experts in the field and in supporting fields disagree…that’s how science works when scientists are being true to the scientific method rather than being activists for ideological causes.
Tina: “I offer alternative opinion simply BECAUSE the lies and misinformation of the consensus activists/scientists has been so pervasive.”
Tina, you did not offer “alternative opinion.” You offered lies and misinformation from the right in order to counter what you see as lies and misinformation from the left.
I’ll ask again: do you believe it is wrong for someone to lie about what someone else has said?
If you do, can you finally acknowledge that James Taylor was wrong to claim that the study he cited showed that a “majority of scientists” are “skeptical” of global warming, when the study said no such thing?
Can you also admit that Peter Ferrara was wrong to take Yuri Nagovitsyn out of context to make it seem like he was saying climate change is predominately caused by solar activity, when he was actually saying the opposite? And that he was wrong to claim that NASA, James Hansen and the Met Office all admitted that there has been a global warming “pause,” when in fact each of these sources still argue that the warming trend is continuing?
“There is no consensus, Chris, because experts in the field and in supporting fields disagree…”
Tina, 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is occurring and posing a significant threat. SOME experts disagree, but there is still an overwhelming consensus.
Now, it’s possible that the consensus is wrong, and the few experts that disagree are right. But you haven’t given any good reasons for believing the few over the consensus, other than the fact that the few agree with you politically, and you believe that the consensus is asking you to do things that you believe are bad for the economy.
(I’m not counting your various charges of malfeasance against climate scientists, because they’re impossible to take seriously. You’ve shown absolutely no concern or even awareness of the serious scientific misrepresentations of your own sources, so it’s not at all clear that you know what misrepresenting science even looks like.)
“that’s how science works”
Tina, you still have not shown that you understand the very basic errors and misrepresentations committed by James Taylor and Peter Ferrara. You also have not responded to my point that last week, you claimed evolution was just a theory on par with creationism, and cited a fundamentalist website that argued any scientific evidence that does not comport with the Bible should be rejected.
Given all of this, why on earth should anyone believe that you understand “how science works?”
Don’t have time right now to post this on the front page but thought some of you would delight in knowing that the earth manages itself very well in a wonderfully balanced system. Posted at Watts Up With That and
sourced from the University of Southampton:
Are we not blessed?
Chris you have a habit of insisting that opinion you disagree with is automatically discredited. It is your opinion that the Ferarra article is filled with lies. Goodie for you. It is still just your opinion.
You also have a degree in English literature, if I recall, which hardly qualifies you to speak on the subject as an authority, whether or not you have read studies.
I have not claimed to be an authority nor pretended that a degree in English lit qualifies me to speak in opposition to the opinions of those who hold science degrees and do offer alternative opinion, nor the journalists who report on those opinions.
“you still have not shown that you understand the very basic errors and misrepresentations committed by James Taylor and Peter Ferrara.”
You have done nothing to suggest that your opinion about their study is to be believed. Why should anyone believe that you know what you are talking about? Just because you brag that you can understand a scientific paper? and how do we know you are telling the truth? You have not demonstrated that you know anything.
Tina: “Chris you have a habit of insisting that opinion you disagree with is automatically discredited.”
No.
I have a habit of proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you have posted is filled with errors.
You have a habit of stubbornly refusing to engage with my arguments once I have proven that you are wrong.
If you had any real counter-argument to the proof I offered, you would have made it by now. But you don’t, because the errors in Taylor’s and Ferrara’s articles are so obvious even YOU can see them. And yes, I’ve given up on arguing that you are merely ignorant; your entire approach here, in which you have ignored every single critique of those articles I have offered, proves that you know exactly how dishonest you are being. If you were truly ignorant, you would at least try to justify Taylor and Ferrara’s misrepresentation of the scientific literature. But you know that you cannot, so instead you continue to pretend that this is merely a matter of “opinion,” hoping that your dumber readers will be persuaded simply because they always take your side. (And they always take your side. That’s the one consistent thing you can always expect of partisan sheep.)
Your assertion that the FACTS I have presented are “just my opinion” show that you are actively engaged in the dumbing down of America. Your support of teaching creationism in schools while downplaying the significance of evolution also contribute to this dumbing down.
“You have done nothing to suggest that your opinion about their study is to be believed. Why should anyone believe that you know what you are talking about? Just because you brag that you can understand a scientific paper? and how do we know you are telling the truth? You have not demonstrated that you know anything.”
Well God, Tina, it’s not like you could just go read the actual study your damn self and prove to yourself that James Taylor misrepresented it. And of course you can’t go read the comments to the James Taylor piece where the AUTHORS OF THE STUDY TAYLOR cites politely inform him that he is lying about their work. And you can’t be arsed to click on any of the links to the Met Office, NASA, or James Hansen I provided which prove Ferrara’s claim that these sources admitted a “pause” completely false. I’ve done everything I possibly can to get these facts into your thick skull, but I’m fighting layers upon layers of cognitive dissonance, so it’s completely impossible. You simply won’t accept facts that don’t fit your narrative. Anything that disturbs your political ideology must be automatically dismissed. (No wonder you support people who say you should reject any scientific evidence that does not comport with the Bible.)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: You don’t have to take my word for anything. I have never asked you to take my word for anything. I have provided unequivocal proof of everything I’ve said here. You’ve made unsubstantiated accusations against world-renowned climate scientists with zero supporting evidence, and nearly all the evidence you have provided has been lying garbage.
In the next comment I’ll quote the authors of the study Taylor cited directly. But that probably still won’t get you to admit that Taylor lied about their work.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t turn them into a damn unicorn.
Here is the comment left by the study’s authors in the comments of Taylor’s Forbes piece:
“Dear Mr. Taylor –
Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.
All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.
But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!
We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.
Best regards,
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer”
In my opinion they are far too polite. I would be much less restrained if some political hack tried to lie about my work in order to advance a partisan agenda.
Here are my questions for you, Tina: Do you understand the critiques against Taylor’s piece? Do you understand why the authors and others have accused Taylor of lying about the findings of this study?
If you do understand them, then do you have any defense against these critiques? Are you prepared to explain why you believe Taylor’s portrayal of the study is honest and factual, and the authors are wrong in correcting Taylor about the methodology and results of their own study?
Because if you have no real defense, then it’s clear that you either do not understand basic science, or you do understand it, and you just don’t care, because you are perfectly comfortable lying and pretending to be stupider than you really are in order to fool more gullible readers, and in order to refuse to admit that you were ever wrong.
You have said before that this is a serious issue. You believe that if believers in AGW are able to convince the public of their theory, then it could cause severe economic devastation. If you are genuine in this belief, then you owe your readers an intellectually honest response to these questions. If your opinion is that Taylor is being honest, you should be able to explain why, despite the serious critiques levied against him by the authors of the study he cites as well as many, many others. But if you can acknowledge that he misrepresented this study, then you also owe it to yourself and the readers of this blog to admit that. This is too serious an issue for people to put politics over the truth.
Global cooling is here
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
Hillarious!
One of the EPA’s brats has a doctorate degree from an “unaccredited, shuttered online correspondence school that congressional auditors targeted a decade ago in an investigation into diploma mills.”
The advisory board member is listed as Dr. Connie Schreppel in EPA records, which highlight her doctorate from Kennedy Western University and a master’s from Greenwich University.
SEE ALSO: Harry Reid blocks GOP attempt to derail EPA rules
Both schools are unaccredited or unapproved in several states, including Texas, where it’s a misdemeanor crime to cite a degree from either school in seeking a job or a promotion.
EPA officials declined to comment on Ms. Schreppel’s educational credentials and questions about her qualifications for the post. But the scientific panel’s deliberations have drawn intense interest from industry and environmental groups. In 2011, The New York Times reported that “Dr. Schreppel” was one of two New Yorkers serving on the EPA’s “board of independent scientists” studying the relationship between hydraulic fracturing — the drilling technique that has revolutionized American energy production — and drinking-water resources.
See they don’t need credentials or honesty; they are just right and the rest of us should just shut up. Lord, the arrogance of these people.
BUSTED: Tol takes on Cook’s ’97% consensus’ claim with a re-analysis, showing the claim is ‘unfounded’
Re Bigoted and Crazy Bob: Chris is a lost cause moron.
By the way, Chris is a true example of people willing to put politics above science. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has driven a stake into the heart of real science and has blackened it forever.
I find it interesting that no one seems to be able to find an anti-AGW scientist who does not work for the oil-funded Heartland Institute.
That said, Easterbrook is a real scientist who really does believe that AGW is not a significant problem, so his findings are worth responding to.
And other scientists have:
“Josh Willis, a scientist who tracks ocean changes in relation to climate at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, rebuts Easterbrook’s global cooling theory, which Willis says is based on a poor understanding of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Willis points out that while “its true that the PDO has brought cooler than normal temperatures to a big chunk of the Pacific off and on for most of the last 10 years”, the PDO is not “a big see-saw that rocks back and forth, cooling and then warming the whole planet every 20 years. Sometimes it flips back after just 5 years and sometimes it stays pretty much the same for 25 or so. Furthermore, the so-called “cold phase” of the PDO is not exclusively cold. It also involves warmer than normal waters in the western and northern parts of the Pacific. So the effect of the PDO on global temperatures is not nearly as clear as it is for its smaller and better known cousins, El Nino and La Nina. It’s a pretty wild statement to claim that the PDO data shows conclusively that global cooling will occur for the next 10 years.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook
While I do feel comfortable with basic scientific issues, I’m not going to pretend to understand the intricacies of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
That said, as a non-scientist, I think it’s best to accept the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists. I have looked into claims of malfeasance, such as “Climategate,” and found nothing. Investigation after investigation was done into that non-scandal by various bodies, and no fraud was found. It is the doubters that I continue to catch in overt lies and misrepresentations.
Cris thinks that Post Scripts is out “fool more gullible readers.” What an ass. The perfect left wing extremist ass. So much blow, so little content. We got it Chris.
Hey Chris, do you have blog? Is it hosted by The Daliy Kos? May I comment on it?
Re Chris: “I have a habit of proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you have posted is filled with errors.”
Too damn funny to comment on.
Re: “It’s easy to see that Obama’s professed goal, that lives will be saved by hamstringing American business, killing American jobs, and hitting Americans hard in their wallets …”
Yup. You nailed it besides Chris’ earnest attempts to derail, deflect, and confusticate the issue.
Chris: “That said, as a non-scientist, I think it’s best to accept the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists. I have looked into claims of malfeasance, such as “Climategate,” and found nothing.”
That in itself calls into question your ability to understand any scientific paper, not to mention opinion.
I’m assuming you will have more free time as the school year ends. You might try reading this:
Science and Public Policy.
Tina: “That in itself calls into question your ability to understand any scientific paper, not to mention opinion.”
Tina,
Please address my earlier questions. Do you understand the critiques levied against James Taylor’s misinterpretation of a scientific study by the authors of said study?
If you do understand these critiques, can you explain whether you still hold the opinion that Taylor’s portrayal of the study was accurate, and why?
Do you understand that Peter Ferrara took Yuri Nagovitsyn out of context to make it sound like Nagovitsyn was saying solar activity is the determining factor in climate change, when Navogitsyn was really saying the opposite?
Do you understand Ferrara was wrong to claim that NASA, the Met Office, and James Hansen acknowledged a pause in global warming, when all of these sources have said that the warming trend has actually continued over this time?
A bonus question: Do you agree with the fundamentalist home schooling website you cited last week that all scientific evidence which does not comport with the Bible should be automatically rejected?
Please answer these questions before making any further accusations against climate scientists.
Tina: “I’m assuming you will have more free time as the school year ends. You might try reading this:
Science and Public Policy.”
“According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Van der Lingen has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/gerrit-van-der-lingen
Tina: “That in itself calls into question your ability to understand any scientific paper, not to mention opinion.”
Tina, my opinion is based on the findings of numerous scientific bodies who have cleared the actors in “Cimategate” of any wrongdoing.
Are you saying that the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee does not know how to read a scientific paper?
How about the Science Assessment Panel at the University of East Anglia?
How about Penn State University?
How about the U.S. EPA?
How about the National Science Foundation?
Are you really going to accuse each of these organizations, all of which found no wrongdoing in “Climategate,” of not knowing how to read scientific literature?
Are you going to make that accusation when you STILL have not addressed the clear misrepresentations of scientific literature that you yourself have cited here?
Because that would take a pretty unhealthy combination of ignorance and arrogance.
Fact Check has also evaluated the Climategate accusations and found them extremely wanting:
“Missing the Mark
We find such claims to be far wide of the mark. The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. An investigation is being conducted by East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has “stepped aside” until it is completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.
Even as the affair was unfolding, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. (The hottest year on record was 1998.) This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All three organizations synthesized data from many sources.
Some critics claim that the e-mails invalidate the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world scientific body that reaffirmed in a 2007 report that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising and that human activity is “very likely” the cause of “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.” But the IPCC’s 2007 report, its most recent synthesis of scientific findings from around the globe, incorporates data from three working groups, each of which made use of data from a huge number of sources — of which CRU was only one. The synthesis report notes key disagreements and uncertainties but makes the “robust” conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” (A robust finding is defined as “one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties.”)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Re Chris: “I find it interesting that no one seems to be able to find an anti-AGW scientist who does not work for the oil-funded Heartland Institute.”
Oh really? Please name them you silly propagandist turd. Don’t hold back. Give it a good go.
By the way, if someone actually does receive grants through the Heartland Institute, does that mean their science and scientific opinions are invalid? Seriously, you Soros dupe.
Well to you they probably do, but science isn’t done by consensus. Good science stands on it own merits and is constantly challenged and improved. Mann’s hockey stick was not good science and James Hanson is a laughable, radical, political activist just like you and the rest of your ridiculous “Occupy Crowd.”
But I am not laughing.
Hansen preparing to do the perp walk while the crowd cheers —
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/09/appalachia-rising-James-Hansen-arrest-2.jpg
Oh brother. So apparently according to “Fact Check” and Chris, “hiding the decline” was not actually a manipulation of data to get a desired result. That is pretty thin to say the least.
Professor Judith Curry is not funded through the Heartland Institute and begs to differ with the AGW propaganda Chris espouses.
Oh, forgot about a not-Heartland funded Jonathan Overpeck who stated, “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”
This was not inaccurately often paraphrased as “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”
Oh yeah, great science that.
There is no question in my mind that we live in a period of global warming, even though the data shows that it has stalled for at least a decade. The real question is, how much do human beings contribute and how much is a natural phenomena out of our sphere of influence. Another real question is, “Is it catastrophic?”
The debate, even in scientific circles, has degenerated into the very same slurs that Chris so freely tosses about on “oil”. As if the energy producing companies, their corporate heads, and all their their employees and investors whose work we all benefit from and whom provide the energy that is the backbone of civilization were in some sort of vast anti-science conspiracy. God, this makes me tired. Have you had enough of this silly and odious clown yet?
Is global warming catastrophic? The seas are not rising (except for, perhaps, a miniscule and insignificant amount) and the polar ice still reforms although in the north there is an overall decrease on record for the past 50 years. It was not until recently, in our own lifetimes, that anyone has been paying close attention to polar ice or had the diagnostic equipment on satellite to record the extent and seasonal behavior. That isn’t much of a record. All other supposed polar data is interpolated or anecdotal. Ice cores are an excellent diagnostic for historical interpolation but have little value understanding or predicting the current situation. The same with the badly used and abused significance tree rings as adiganostic.
Would you prefer entering another ice age? The data shows that the incidence of tornadoes and violent storms have actually decreased over the last decade and the only increase ever accounted was due to better diagnostics and reporting. Too bad the data does not fit the CAGW hysteria Chris subscribes to. Mann’s hockey stick truly is a worthless joke that has born no fruit whatsoever, except to hysterics. The complex climate models have been repeatedly manipulated to achieve a desired result and have failed to produce any valuable information. When I worked as a systems engineer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the ICLF project a respected and brilliant physicist told me of the trap of “modelitis.” Models can be helpful, even useful, but they can be deceptive and are not the thing itself. He was absolutely spot on. Theory is theory but in the end empiricism rules the day, not some model. In the physics world what Einstein didn’t know can fill a book, but most of his brilliant mathematical modeling has been born out by empirical evidence. The same cannot be said of the CAGW modeling.
The supposed scientific “consensus” of CAGW only really consists of small good ol’ boy club of insulated “modelitis” quacks talking garbage to insure their salaries.
Have you had enough of the CAGW liars and manipulators, their dupes, and the ridiculous IPCC yet? Have you had enough of the cartoon Al Gore who has an enormous carbon producing lifestyle? Homer Simpson would be a better mouthpiece. At least Gore’s wife got a clue and divorced him. Can a nation divorce him too?
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a sexy issue, but it has failed as good science, and Chris is little more than another victim.
Pie Guevara: “Oh brother. So apparently according to “Fact Check” and Chris, “hiding the decline” was not actually a manipulation of data to get a desired result. That is pretty thin to say the least.”
It’s not thin, it’s just that you don’t know what the phrase “hide the decline” actually meant. But you can easily find out; it is probably the most discussed phrase ever written in an e-mail by a scientist. Here is one explanation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
“Professor Judith Curry is not funded through the Heartland Institute and begs to differ with the AGW propaganda Chris espouses.”
Judith Curry is an enigma to me. She used to agree with the consensus, but now she mostly pushes against the idea that there even is a consensus. I find that she engages in a lot of double talk; sometimes she speaks as if she is agnostic on the issue of AGW, stressing the “uncertainty” of global warming, and other times she speaks as if she is confident that AGW is simply not a problem at all. I’ve also seen a lot of rebuttals to her claims that seem to show her interpretation of data is downright wrong. But she is a real scientist and I appreciate you bringing her up.
Answer the questions, Tina.
Answer to Chris’s questions is I have not suggested any of the things he imagine’s I have suggested.
The only things I have ever suggested are as follows:
1. There are highly respected, credentialled scientists who do not agree with the consensus or with consensus science.
2. There are still reputable people who think the hockey stick WAS a deliberate attempt to hide data and fool the public.
3. Scientists have attested to the fact that the political global warming crowd manipulated data and the narrative to get grant money and control peer review.
4. The warming/man caused warming issue is political and/or manipulated for political purposes (And money)
5. The green lobby pushes man made global warming for selfish interests.
6. There is strong evidence that indicates natural forces are the main driver of climate change and the human contribution miniscule.
7. The economic consequences of this and other green ideas are dire.
8. There has been global cooling for some time and yet the alarmists continue to frighten people with outlandish lies.
9. I object strongly to children being propagandized on this issue…bad education and unethical edication standards.
10. Global Warmists who discredit what they have labeled “deniers” are engaging in #12 Saul Alinskly smears in an attempt to control the warming propaganda message and narrative.
It is my experience that discussing any issue that you feel strongly (emotional) about is nearly impossible, Chris. You are a #12 guy and can sometimes be quite nasty. Maybe it just bothers you that people know things when they’re “not qualified” by your standards to know them.
Hide the Decline – Junk Science
How about you address the subject at hand and answer this question:
“So, why are we doing this when it should be China doing it?”
Ya’ll have a nice day…and CONGRATS to all posters…you’ve been awesome lately, even outpacing those dang spammers!
Tina,
The questions I am referring to are in regards to the many scientific misrepresentations in the Forbes articles you linked to previously.
Do you understand the critiques of the authors of the actual studies that were misrepresented?
If so, do you still believe James Taylor and Peter Ferrara represented these scientists accurately? And can you explain why or why not?
Sorry, the above should say “Do you understand the critiques FROM the authors of the actual studies that were misrepresented.”
If you do understand these critiques, you should be able to explain why they are either correct or incorrect. If you do not understand these critiques, you should not comment on this subject any further until you do.
Chris: “If you do not understand these critiques, you should not comment on this subject any further until you do.”
Who the hell do you think you are to order me around or attempt to control when and how I comment?
If you do not understand that I am not under your charge, or that you are a guest here, then maybe you should refrain from commenting on any post about any subject!
Nothing worse that a puffed up pipsqueak.
Tina,
You are still pretending that it is an unreasonable request to ask you to respond to serious critiques regarding the evidence you’ve used to make your arguments. You have once again accused me of acting like a tyrant for my very basic request that you back up your assertions with facts, and address when your own evidence has turned out to be fallacious.
Only someone who knew that their argument was extraordinarily weak would do this.
You will not make a counter-argument to these critiques because you know you have none. You understand perfectly well that Taylor and Ferrara lied, because you’re not a complete idiot, and anyone can see exactly how they lied.
To recap: Taylor claimed the study he cited showed that a “majority of scientists” doubted global warming, even though the authors made it clear that this was not a representative study of scientists, but rather a study of the viewpoints of a small group of geoscientists and engineers working for the oil industry in Alberta. They did not study the viewpoints of climate scientists, so they could not possibly have reached any conclusion about the consensus on climate change, and they never claimed to have; only James Taylor made that claim. And even among those studied, the majority still believed that man-made global warming was a problem, so even if Taylor had been honest about the group studied, he still would have been wrong about the conclusions.
In your other Forbes piece, Peter Ferrara took a Russian scientist’s words out of context to make it sound like he was saying solar activity is a primary driver of climate change, when he was actually saying the exact opposite. And in the comments, Ferrara falsely claimed that many scientists and organizations had acknowledged a pause in global warming, even though at least three out of the six he named had never done any such thing.
I have asked you about twenty times to address these facts, and you have not only blatantly refused, you have attempted to find every possible excuse to weasel out of it. According to you, being asked to address basic facts and admit when your evidence is crap is equivalent to intellectual tyranny, as if the PC thought police is just around the corner trying to “control the discussion,” instead of, you know, just making sure that you’re doing the basic things necessary to have one.
You have no regard for the truth or real discussion. If you did, you would either acknowledge the many proven lies in the links you’ve cited, or you would attempt to explain why they are not, in fact, lies. Instead you choose the cowardly third option, where you pretend that the guy asking you to just explain your own damn arguments is being an unreasonable bully, and you clutch your pearls so tight you get a hand cramp.
Frankly, that’s bullshit, and you know it’s bullshit. But you don’t care, because you have literally no incentive to change your behavior. Your small band loyal followers have never called you out on this, and they never will; there is a tacit agreement here never to acknowledge the mistakes of any other conservative poster, and to bash and verbally assault anyone who does.
I’ve had it with your intellectual dishonesty, your terrible, terrible arguments, your feigned obliviousness, your false accusations, your bigotry (yes! your bigotry, and I make no apologies for the word), and your stubborn inability to ever admit you are wrong. I’ve had it with this stodgy, closed-minded retirement community of a blog. I leave you to bitch and moan to one another in your echo chamber without any trouble from me. Lie as much as you want from now on; I won’t bite. I’m sure Libby and Dewey will stick around to keep up the good work of mocking you mercilessly, which is really a strategy I should have taken up years ago, since reason obviously will never work.
I wish you all well.
Chris: “You have once again accused me of acting like a tyrant for my very basic request that you back up your assertions with facts…”
No, I call you a tyrant because your attitude is $#!*
I refuse to discuss the matter reasonably because your attitude is $#!*
I leave you to your lecture tour.
The pause continues – Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months – WUWT: