Gulf of Maine cooling down !!

[GasBlaster]

It’s human nature to ponder what-ifs and worse-case scenarios. Every time I board a flight, I think about the plane going down. But I know the statistical likelihood of that happening is near nil. And I certainly don’t go around spreading misinformation about how unsafe planes are.

Climate alarmists, however, see things differently. They want the world to share their concerns and seem willing to say “whatever it takes” to get people on board. But propagating improbabilities isn’t science. It’s irresponsible and does a disservice to the climate discussion broadly.

[TightLinesMaine]

It’s human nature to ponder what-ifs and worse-case scenarios. Every time I board a flight, I think about the plane going down. But I know the statistical likelihood of that happening is near nil. And I certainly don’t go around spreading misinformation about how unsafe planes are.

Climate alarmists, however, see things differently. They want the world to share their concerns and seem willing to say “whatever it takes” to get people on board. But propagating improbabilities isn’t science. It’s irresponsible and does a disservice to the climate discussion broadly.

Nicolas (Nick) Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental, and regulatory issues as the Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation ... Before joining Heritage in 2007, Loris was an associate at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, immersing himself for a year in a market-based management program.

The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[72] The Heritage Foundation is one of many climate change denial organization that has been funded by ExxonMobil.[72][73]

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/latest-climate-report-feeds-alarmist-fearmongering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

So... we are suppose to believe an Economist (not a Scientist) who has ties with the Koch Brothers and is writing an article for a right wing/conservative think tank which takes money from ExxonMobil? seems legit... 

[zwiggles]

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/latest-climate-report-feeds-alarmist-fearmongering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

So... we are suppose to believe an Economist (not a Scientist) who has ties with the Koch Brothers and is writing an article for a right wing/conservative think tank which takes money from ExxonMobil? seems legit... 

I would argue to my dying breath that getting different points of view cannot hurt anyone’s understanding of a subject. That being said I just did the exact same thing you did, and found said article, and looked up the author as well.

But do you think his background invalidates his points? For instance just the point regarding how a specific study assumed the worst possible outcome of pop growth, coal burning increasing,gdp stalling, and lacking tech dev seems a bit extreme to me at least.

I also appreciate the fact you’re not throwing around insults, but just pointing out facts/citing the article GB quoted.

[TightLinesMaine]

I would argue to my dying breath that getting different points of view cannot hurt anyone’s understanding of a subject. That being said I just did the exact same thing you did, and found said article, and looked up the author as well.

But do you think his background invalidates his points? For instance just the point regarding how a specific study assumed the worst possible outcome of pop growth, coal burning increasing,gdp stalling, and lacking tech dev seems a bit extreme to me at least.

I also appreciate the fact you’re not throwing around insults, but just pointing out facts/citing the article GB quoted.

I'm a skeptic, I just tend to trust Scientists over Economists... that's just me though... one can do/believe whatever they want, it's a free country.  There's no point to "throwing around insults" or personal attacks, they don't accomplish anything.  And yes, pointing out facts and citing articles (thank you) is all i'm trying to do here.  Don't believe every op-ed you read, a lot are full of crap.  But to answer your question, no I don't think his background automatically invalidates his points.

But hey, by doing some basic research after copy/pasting GasBlaster's word-for-word text, I learned something new, that is Trump's trade war is costing American consumers significantly more per year than the 2009 cap-and-trade bill! (American Clean Energy and Security Act) 

[GasBlaster]

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/latest-climate-report-feeds-alarmist-fearmongering

There's a link I'll save you the trouble . If your googling away go ahead and search climate change fear mongering . Good reading there ..   

   I love getting you environmentalist nut jobs wound up 😁

Paper straws will save the world !!


🐄💨.          🐄💨.            🐄💨.   Cow farts are killing the planet !!??!

[zwiggles]

I'm a skeptic, I just tend to trust Scientists over Economists... that's just me though... one can do/believe whatever they want, it's a free country.  There's no point to "throwing around insults" or personal attacks, they don't accomplish anything.  And yes, pointing out facts and citing articles (thank you) is all i'm trying to do here.  Don't believe every op-ed you read, a lot are full of crap.  But to answer your question, no I don't think his background automatically invalidates his points.

But hey, by doing some basic research after copy/pasting GasBlaster's word-for-word text, I learned something new, that is Trump's trade war is costing American consumers significantly more per year than the 2009 cap-and-trade bill! (American Clean Energy and Security Act) 

I completely agree. We’re probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I would guess we share a lot of the same values. Civil conversation around these topics is something that is sorely lacking.

[TightLinesMaine]

Civil conversation around these topics is something that is sorely lacking.

yep, one side seems to be more concerned about "owning the libs" than civil conversation.  There are some 's on each side though, no one is perfect.

[TightLinesMaine]

🐄💨.          🐄💨.            🐄💨.   Cow farts are killing the planet !!??!

Methane (which is in Cow farts) traps heat in the atmosphere, much more so than CO2.  These are facts.

[GasBlaster]

Methane (which is in Cow farts) traps heat in the atmosphere, much more so than CO2.  These are facts.

OMG 

[TightLinesMaine]

[GasBlaster]

[CLAMFARMER]

"More than two-thirds of the military’s operationally critical installations are threatened by climate change, according to a new DoD report.

The January 2019 report, “Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense,” was submitted to Congress Thursday without an official announcement of the report or a public release. Several environmental organizations made the report publicly available early Friday.

After several reporters questioned why the report was not made public by DoD, the Pentagon published it on Defense.gov mid-Friday.”
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/18/dod-majority-of-mission-critical-bases-face-climate-change-threats/

[CLAMFARMER]

The verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause.

This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkely, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago, but the difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

In an opinion piece in Saturday’s New York Times titled “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Muller writes:

“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.” 

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong

[CLAMFARMER]

"What possible findings would these so-called “respected scientists” have that would have any bearing on the future of the human race on this planet?

For one, there’s a groundbreaking discovery that states how climate change is affecting the food supply; rice is losing vitamins in a carbon-rich environment. Not too much of a serious heath concern, except for the fact that 600 million people on the planet have a diet that consists mostly of… rice.

Also mentioned in one of the buried studies was how climate change could worsen allergy seasons, as well as a warning to farmers on the reduction of quality grasses essential to raising cattle.

And there were no discrepancies on this being a partisan issue, the climate change studies were peer-reviewed by scientists and cleared through the non-partisan Agricultural Research Service.”

https://observer.com/2019/06/trump-administration-hides-studies-climate-change-studies/

[CLAMFARMER]

"The Nature Climate Change analysis – by EPA scientists Jeremy Martinich and Allison Crimmins – examines 22 different climate economic impacts related to health, infrastructure, electricity, water resources, agriculture, and ecosystems. The bottom line conclusion: by the year 2090, impacts on those 22 economic sectors in the U.S. would cost about $224 billion more per year if we follow the RCP8.5 pathway than if we achieve the RCP4.5 pathway. The authors’ report comes with an important caveat:

only a small portion of the impacts of climate change are estimated, and therefore this Technical Report captures just a fraction of the potential risks and damages that may be avoided or reduced when comparing the alternative scenarios.
Asked to comment on the new research, economist Frank Ackerman, who was not involved with writing the report, said it is “entirely consistent with the broader hypothesis that climate change, if unmitigated, will have large negative impacts throughout the economy before the end of the century.” Impressed with the large number of impacts analyzed, Ackerman, formerly with Tufts University and now principal economist at Synapse Energy Economics, in Cambridge, Ma., said the report would have benefited had the authors been able to use a consistent base year and discount rate in evaluating all of the different impacts.”

 https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/04/climate-change-could-cost-u-s-economy-billions/