what i want to know is - how are they measuring the number of plankton in the ocean? do all these planton have birth records? GPS devices? SSNs? Are we sending them money in their losing battle with the whales?
The Climate Change Thread
- Thread starter Tim Steelersfan
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,548
- Reaction score
- 29,820
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Great point, tape. News warned me on Thursday that my area, northernish-Georgia, was going to experience "severe thunderstorms and rain." The map showed the "severe" weather was going to pass right over where I live.
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, some rain and lightning. Okay. Having lived in central Arizona for three years, I can tell you that the thunder and lightning I saw would barely register as significant in Prescott, AZ in July.
"Severe" my ***.
Huh? No way right?
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
Modeled climate predictions (average shown by red line) versus actual observations (source: J.R. Christy, Univ. of Alabama; KNMI Climate Explorer)
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.
Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress. Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack, arguing that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”
“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated. The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued that “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or whim.”
According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”
They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.
This chart shows CO2 levels (blue) and temperatures (red) over time, indicating little correlation and current levels of both at historic lows. (Source: Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese; Earth's Climate: Past and Future by Mark Peganini; Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene, Science magazine vol. 309.)
“The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they stated.
In addition, the scientists' testimony to the EPA stated that the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider the fact that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.
“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they stated. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”
..............Much more in the link
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
Modeled climate predictions (average shown by red line) versus actual observations (source: J.R. Christy, Univ. of Alabama; KNMI Climate Explorer)
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.
Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress. Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack, arguing that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”
“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated. The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued that “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or whim.”
According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”
They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.
This chart shows CO2 levels (blue) and temperatures (red) over time, indicating little correlation and current levels of both at historic lows. (Source: Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese; Earth's Climate: Past and Future by Mark Peganini; Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene, Science magazine vol. 309.)
“The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they stated.
In addition, the scientists' testimony to the EPA stated that the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider the fact that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.
“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they stated. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”
..............Much more in the link
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,301
- Reaction score
- 21,930
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,928
- Reaction score
- 11,491
- Points
- 113
Thomas Massie is a national treasurw
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,548
- Reaction score
- 29,820
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
I almost missed the days when ElftardPolo would respond to point out how dumb the Princeton physics professor and MIT meteorologist are.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,548
- Reaction score
- 29,820
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
More proof of tape's point about the overreaction to everyday weather. AlexVNews posted this horrific clip of "flooding" in Palm Springs:
Uhh, pretty sure people cannot casually walk across the street during a "flood."
Uhh, pretty sure people cannot casually walk across the street during a "flood."
Those two men almost got their dicks wet. Tragic climate change. Tragic.
It's cloudy in AZ today.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,548
- Reaction score
- 29,820
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
They get snap benefits too huh?
Having lived in GA. I’m fairly certain rain and thunder were common around this time of the year. Why is the media trippin?
Has GA changed a lot since 2015?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,548
- Reaction score
- 29,820
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Arguably the best part of that scenario? The cops are Native American Rangers since the idiots stopped on Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal land. So if the bonehead protesters want to raise a stink, it will be a case of the white man complaining about treatment by Native Americans!
My lord does CNN have a ragging hard on for this upcoming hurricane. I swear they are praying for it to go to a cat 5
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,548
- Reaction score
- 29,820
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
John Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. should team up as the "My name is Kennedy, you killed his father and you must die!" ticket for 2024.
If they ran the nation together, a vast number of problems - energy, inflation, the border, crime, Ukraine/Russia - would be over.
Yep. Great article, too long to post all of it.
When asked what concerns him most about the current narratives being pushed by climate alarmists, Mr. Bell answered: "I care about how climate hysteria, and how misinformation, drives policy. And these policies are driving our foundational bedrock policies that determine our economic well-being. They determine our national defense mastery—we won't run a Navy on ethanol. We're not going to run an Air Force on extension cords. It's just absolutely insane. People think of climate as science. No, it's not. It's the big lever of government. It's big globalism. And it ain't favoring the U.S.”
Meteorologists, Scientists Explain Why There Is ‘No Climate Emergency’
Flawed modeling and overblown rhetoric drowning out scientific reality for the sake of money and power, climate experts say
When asked what concerns him most about the current narratives being pushed by climate alarmists, Mr. Bell answered: "I care about how climate hysteria, and how misinformation, drives policy. And these policies are driving our foundational bedrock policies that determine our economic well-being. They determine our national defense mastery—we won't run a Navy on ethanol. We're not going to run an Air Force on extension cords. It's just absolutely insane. People think of climate as science. No, it's not. It's the big lever of government. It's big globalism. And it ain't favoring the U.S.”
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,301
- Reaction score
- 21,930
- Points
- 113
Similar threads
