Trump to sign order sweeping away Obama-era climate policies

[Spike]

U.S. President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Tuesday to undo a slew of Obama-era climate change regulations that his administration says is hobbling oil drillers and coal miners, a move environmental groups have vowed to take to court.

The decree's main target is former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, requiring states to slash carbon emissions from power plants - a critical element in helping the United States meet its commitments to a global climate change accord reached by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015.

The so-called "Energy Independence" order will also reverse a ban on coal leasing on federal lands, undo rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas production, and reduce the weight of climate change and carbon emissions in policy and infrastructure permitting decisions.

"We're going to go in a different direction," a senior White House official told reporters ahead of Tuesday's order. "The previous administration devalued workers with their policies. We can protect the environment while providing people with work."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-energy-idUSKBN16Z1L6

---------------------------

Black power!

 

[IndySteel]

Muh legacy! Ha ha ha!!!!!!!

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Muh legacy! Ha ha ha!!!!!!!

Live by the EO, die by the EO.

 

[Spike]

Garbage in, garbage out


Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong.

Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be “alarmism” from forecasters over man-made climate change.

“We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation,“People just don’t do it.”

Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.

According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/...scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/

 

[Spike]

Live by the EO, die by the EO.

American Spring!

The eight year long winter of the corrupt Obama regime is over.

Celebrate!

 

[Spike]

Bill Nye: Global Warming Could Be Solved By Cows Genetically Engineered To Cut Less Farts

Global warming could be solved by genetically engineering or breeding cows to fart less Bill "The Science Guy" Nye said

The Obama administration released a methane plan in 2014 that called for reducing emissions from the dairy industry 25 percent. That meant finding ways to capture or reduce emissions from cow farts and burps. Republican lawmakers, however, were quick to criticize the White House’s proposal, arguing the government could end up taxing cow farts.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/29/b...netically-engineered-to-cut-less-farts-video/

 

[Steelin]

Sure, or we could all stop eating beef. Bwahahaha. No way.

 

[madinsomniac]

Garbage in, garbage out


Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong.

Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be “alarmism” from forecasters over man-made climate change.

“We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation,“People just don’t do it.”

Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.

According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/...scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/

Once more, if i submitted data on par with those "peer reviewed" cesspools of biased nonsense id get a hefty fine and prison time... but then again i just use the actual methods for data collection and submit all my data, correctly bias adjust it using known standards, and calculate relative accuracy... id make a lousy scientist... so much better to just write down the conclusions that you want and omit orchange whatdoesnt agree with your agenda

 

[Spike]

There's a new sheriff in town


Energy Department bans use of the Phrase 'Climate Change'

A supervisor at the Energy Department’s international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases “climate change,” “emissions reduction” or “Paris Agreement” in written memos, briefings or other written communication........News of the DOE office’s word ban drew criticism from one green group.

"Employees of DOE’s Office of International Climate and Clean Energy learned of the ban at a meeting Tuesday, the same day President Donald Trump signed an executive order at EPA headquarters to reverse most of former President Barack Obama’s climate regulatory initiatives. Officials at the State Department and in other DOE offices said they had not been given a banned words list, but they had started avoiding climate-related terms in their memos and briefings given the new administration’s direction on climate change."


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03...ate-office-bans-use-of-phrase-climate-change/

 

[deljzc]

I thought this was a well written article about the Paris climate agreement (and those agreements in general) and maybe an alternative way to look at energy paths forward.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...eaty-emissions-bjorn-lomborg-column/99737238/

I think he's dead on that making fossil fuels MORE EXPENSIVE to compete with alt-energy is the wrong way to do things. Instead, keep investing in alt-energy (hell, invest in ALL energy production methods) to improve efficiency and discovery and then let the market place dictate the result. It's the only sure method to changing energy policy. You can't "tax away" the bad stuff.

 

[SteelerFan448]

Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong.

Was this research in the 1 percent?

 

[SteelChip]

 

[madinsomniac]

A competent energy program is diverse. It should be based on the safest newest nuclear and hydro plants with supporting coal plants close enough to be emergency generators on demand... gas plants should be the primary peakers to offset outages and high demand issues... wind and solar should be used as much as possible but never relied on...