The nub of the climate change thing problem

[Seahawks08]

How is this thread still alive? Tman you need to take a chill pill and simply let it go.

[travelinman67]

How is this thread still alive? Tman you need to take a chill pill and simply let it go.

Sure thing.

As soon as the Alarmists quit whining like little princesses and start actually providing scientific proof rather than attempting to force their agenda by shout-down, mockery and intimidation.

[houndawg]

How is this thread still alive? Tman you need to take a chill pill and simply let it go.

Sure thing.

As soon as the Alarmists quit whining like little princesses and start actually providing scientific proof rather than attempting to force their agenda by shout-down, mockery and intimidation.

Full JSO mode today are we?

[kalm]

How is this thread still alive? Tman you need to take a chill pill and simply let it go.

Sure thing.

As soon as the Alarmists quit whining like little princesses and start actually providing scientific proof rather than attempting to force their agenda by shout-down, mockery and intimidation.

Projectionman67 strikes again!

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

How is this thread still alive? Tman you need to take a chill pill and simply let it go.

Sure thing.

As soon as the Alarmists quit whining like little princesses and start actually providing scientific proof rather than attempting to force their agenda by shout-down, mockery and intimidation.

Who to believe.... 97% of climate scientists or the
hollering of a histrionic halfwit..... ?

[houndawg]

I can't tell you how much I got the giggle over this T-man
Thank you so much my old friend

Why did I get a case of the snickers over this - because - you always seem genuinely shocked
whenever you run into somebody as bat-sh!t crazy as you are (which makes me smile)



Yup She's a TRUE BELIEVER
and you've met your dream match Yen and Yang

I'll admit there's some truth to your observation.

One big difference though...

...I don't control one of the largest regulatory agencies responsible for establishing rules that have hundreds of billions dollars impact on the economy, and genuinely effect the lives of every American, in some cases, determining their means to survive.

I thought Browner and Jackson were reckless...then along comes McCarthy.

"affect".

[houndawg]

Sure thing.

As soon as the Alarmists quit whining like little princesses and start actually providing scientific proof rather than attempting to force their agenda by shout-down, mockery and intimidation.

Projectionman67 strikes again!

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He hasn't been the same ever since his waterfront property scam in Auburn fell through.

[travelinman67]

Densedawg...

...you do realize you have an unhealthy obsession over me?

[houndawg]

Densedawg...

...you do realize you have an unhealthy obsession over me?

Its just laziness; keeps me picking the low-hanging fruit.

[travelinman67]

More NOAA fraud...

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... d-at-noaa/

[kalm]

The Park Formerly Known as Glacier?

In a few years, the Going To the Sun Road will be open by June.

Glaciological and geodetic observations (~5200 since 1850) show that the rates of early 21st-century mass loss are without precedent on a global scale, at least for the time period observed and probably also for recorded history, as indicated also in reconstructions from written and illustrated documents. This strong imbalance implies that glaciers in many regions will very likely suffer further ice loss, even if climate remains stable.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/i ... .alexandra" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CAA Flagship]

This is tragic. I was believing the earlier scientists that said galaxies were fueled by the explosive mergers of star systems. Dammit. Now I have to change my way of life. I'll have to sleep on the other side of the bed and shower at night instead of in the morning. This is bullshit. Maybe the VW thing will turn out to be no big deal after another 10 years or so.

Paris (AFP) - The brightest galaxies in our universe are fuelled by what their gravity sucks in, not through explosive mergers of star systems as scientists previously argued, researchers said Wednesday.

In what may be the most complete explanation yet of how these enormous collections of stars and dust came to be, scientists found the galaxies pulled in hydrogen gas and then used it to pump out the equivalent of up to 2,000 Suns per year, according to a study in Nature.

By comparison, our own galaxy -- the Milky Way -- turns out stars at the rate of about one "Sun" per year.

The brilliant light put off by these so-called submillimetre galaxies (SMGs) -- named for the part of the electromagnetic spectrum they use -- is all but invisible to the naked eye.

"The massive galaxy grows via [pulling in] gas from intergalactic space and forms stars at a steady but large rate for nearly a billion years," study co-author Desika Narayanan of Haverford College in the United States told AFP.

These galaxies date from the early days of our roughly 14-billion-year-old universe, but researchers have only known about them for a couple of decades.

Their brightness, which gives off 1,000 times the light of the Milky Way, is due mostly to their prolific output of stars.

Scientists disagree on how the SMGs were born, but one of the favoured explanations is that they result from massive galaxies slamming together and exploding into an intense burst of star-making.

But Narayanan says this theory can't account for all the qualities of super bright galaxies, especially their relatively large sizes, since mergers tend to make rather compact galaxies

http://news.yahoo.com/universes-brighte ... 53894.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LeadBolt]

A graph of climate change for the last 4500 years or so:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTp5h9BuQtQ[/youtube]

[BDKJMU]

"AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions.

He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer.

“My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03 ... e-deniers/


The fact that the AG admits they discussed going after so called climate change deniers civilly and/or criminally is proof right there she is an absolute wing-nut.

[JohnStOnge]

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions.

He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

You know, when heard that I thought about something I've posted a number of times. It's a discussion from a statistics textbook used for two basic graduate level Experimental Statistics courses I took. And it specifically uses cigarette smoking as an example. It uses it as an example where you should not SAY there is cause and effect. It says we should not say cigarette smoking causes cancer or heart disease.

I did not even realize that had happened with the tobacco industry. The fact that it did is very chilling. If the tobacco industry was saying it is not correct to say cigarette smoking causes cancer there was ample basis for doing so. If government was able to "convict" them or something for doing that that's really bad.

[Baldy]

"AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions.

He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer.

“My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03 ... e-deniers/


The fact that the AG admits they discussed going after so called climate change deniers civilly and/or criminally is proof right there she is an absolute wing-nut.

Criminalizing dissent.

This is probably worthy of it's own thread.

[LeadBolt]

"AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions.

He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer.

“My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03 ... e-deniers/


The fact that the AG admits they discussed going after so called climate change deniers civilly and/or criminally is proof right there she is an absolute wing-nut.

Criminalizing dissent.

This is probably worthy of it's own thread.

This is a standard tactic of the left. The whole issue with the PC moment, safe zones, hate speech and the rest is regrettably not to give respect and dignity to those who are oppressed as it should be, but rather to limit the debate to one side of issues. For example, see how the LGBT agenda in Canada is being applied not just to allow these persons to marry who they wish in peace, but rather to prosecute those who use traditional gender language and have traditional beliefs on gender.

[BDKJMU]

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment
http://www.providencejournal.com/opinio ... punishment

Almost all the comments are ripping this nutjob orwellian professor a new a-hole..

[JohnStOnge]

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment
http://www.providencejournal.com/opinio ... punishment

Almost all the comments are ripping this nutjob orwellian professor a new a-hole..

That guy's essay is wrong on so many levels. And it's the kind of thing that kind of depresses me. Because here is a guy with impressive credentials (Yale Ph.D.) who either does not understand what it takes to infer cause and effect or is lying about it. And what are you going to do when people with impressive credentials are doing that? Nobody's going to believe you. It's awful.

[Chizzang]

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment
http://www.providencejournal.com/opinio ... punishment

Almost all the comments are ripping this nutjob orwellian professor a new a-hole..

That guy's essay is wrong on so many levels. And it's the kind of thing that kind of depresses me. Because here is a guy with impressive credentials (Yale Ph.D.) who either does not understand what it takes to infer cause and effect or is lying about it. And what are you going to do when people with impressive credentials are doing that? Nobody's going to believe you. It's awful.

Just to be clear... John,
You're not suggesting that the climate isn't changing right..?

You're simply saying that we're not certain of the reasons
We're all past the "its not changing" part though right..?

[Pwns]

Given that JSO harps on understanding the difference between studies and experiments, I would say that he doesn't deny the climate is changing.

Anyone who thinks climate science methods are as rigorous as epidemiological methods to test for the relation between tobacco and cancer does not know what they are talking about. All that nonsense and all the McCarthyism of alarmists calling critics flat Earthers isn't productive.

Meanwhile, no one is calling out anti-nuclear greens for promoting renewables that have practically no chance of making emissions reductions on pace that the alarmists say they need.

[kalm]

Given that JSO harps on understanding the difference between studies and experiments, I would say that he doesn't deny the climate is changing.

Anyone who thinks climate science methods are as rigorous as epidemiological methods to test for the relation between tobacco and cancer does not know what they are talking about. All that nonsense and all the McCarthyism of alarmists calling critics flat Earthers isn't productive.

Meanwhile, no one is calling out anti-nuclear greens for promoting renewables that have practically no chance of making emissions reductions on pace that the alarmists say they need.

Do you have an epidemiological study that says renewables can't?

[EWURanger]

Wow, it's 2016, and we're stil debating this shit?

[AZGrizFan]

That guy's essay is wrong on so many levels. And it's the kind of thing that kind of depresses me. Because here is a guy with impressive credentials (Yale Ph.D.) who either does not understand what it takes to infer cause and effect or is lying about it. And what are you going to do when people with impressive credentials are doing that? Nobody's going to believe you. It's awful.

Just to be clear... John,
You're not suggesting that the climate isn't changing right..?

You're simply saying that we're not certain of the reasons
We're all past the "its not changing" part though right..?

Is there anyone on earth who believes the climate is or ever HAS been "static"? Ever?

[UNI88]

Given that JSO harps on understanding the difference between studies and experiments, I would say that he doesn't deny the climate is changing.

Anyone who thinks climate science methods are as rigorous as epidemiological methods to test for the relation between tobacco and cancer does not know what they are talking about. All that nonsense and all the McCarthyism of alarmists calling critics flat Earthers isn't productive.

Meanwhile, no one is calling out anti-nuclear greens for promoting renewables that have practically no chance of making emissions reductions on pace that the alarmists say they need.

Do you have an epidemiological study that says renewables can't?

It's certainly not an epidemiological study but read smaller faster lighter denser cheaper and you'll get an idea of the scale/space needed for wind and/or solar to having a major impact. I don't think we've invented the solution yet so we need to innovate, innovate and innovate.