Patterico's Pontifications

Ding.

Patterico (fecd9b) — 10/6/2015 @ 9:45 pm

I tended to be on the side of the environmentalists for a long time until I saw this. I’m happy to pay for a clean environment but this isn’t about the environment its a crime ring.

“Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-gwpf-voices-shock-and-concern-at-the-extent-of-intolerance-within-the-climate-science-community/

Joe (29bbdb) — 10/6/2015 @ 10:10 pm

That is very much what talking to Global Warming Alarmists is like. I’m surprised the Sierra Club President wasn’t throwing links at Ted Cruz though.

And Joe, that kind of pressure was what the Climategate emails were about too. It’s certainly a sinister movement. They attach ALL environmental and liberal positions to the theory so that to get someone to agree, they only need a foothold on someone caring about one thing.

Care about poverty? Check. It causes it.
Care about War? Check, it causes that too.
Care about pollution? Check, it’s the same as trash in your water and soot in your air.
Care about over population? Check, it’s a good excuse to reduce global populations.
Care about saving world Population? Check, if you don’t stop it, coastal cities will flood.
Care about migration patterns of bird? Well damn it, Check that too!

Its the magical, irresistible, do it all theory of everything!

Dejectedhead (5ce477) — 10/6/2015 @ 10:18 pm

Cruz should have blasted him a lot more for referencing such a fraudulent study.

scrubone (99c86b) — 10/6/2015 @ 11:08 pm

Well Played, Ted, very well played. My God, affirmative action pays well, but the stupid is strong with this one.

Gazzer (7baf28) — 10/6/2015 @ 11:24 pm

We’ve seen Ted Cruz take on leftist prevaricators mano-y-mano (and sometimes woman-o) and rhetorically beat them down time and time again. Code Pink. Ellen Page. Stephen Colbert. And now this dude.

I gotta wonder if Cruz, whenever he has to share a stage with Donald Trump, feels like Jon Lovitz as Michael Dukakis debating Dana Carvey’s George H.W. Bush on Saturday Night Live, thinking “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy!”

L.N. Smithee (0868c7) — 10/6/2015 @ 11:45 pm

Maddening. I wanted to get up and smack that man across his fat head.

Mr Black (f1b3a7) — 10/6/2015 @ 11:45 pm

What is everyone so excited about?
A gotcha 10 minutes of questioning to an elected member of the Sierra Club? The man is not a climate scientist. He is a “Spatial Epidemiologist” which a quick wiki search tells me has to do with “spatial distribution of health outcomes”.

I love Cruz, but honestly if you want to debate climate science and bring up data on the spot, get someone who is qualified to do so. Dont lambast this poor guy over specific data points. I mean it is clear he isnt able to do it, look how he leans back and gets the answers second hand.

If Cruz really wants to get an understanding he should talk directly to those people making the conclusions. But he wont do that. Hell, the “ultra scientific” Cruz wont even go on record if he accepts the theory of evolution.

Gil (4e1585) — 10/7/2015 @ 12:49 am

you can’t even imagine Meghan’s coward daddy facing down a hoaxster like that with such confidence and poise

happyfeet (831175) — 10/7/2015 @ 3:00 am

I would enjoy burning tires at the door of the sierra club. Maybe spill some oil as well.

mg (31009b) — 10/7/2015 @ 3:05 am

After viewing, I think my wife needs a new Sig Sauer P239 40.

mg (31009b) — 10/7/2015 @ 3:38 am

97% of Biden’s hairplugs recommend you get her a double-barreled shotgun and show her how to fire a couple of shots out the back door, mg.

nk (dbc370) — 10/7/2015 @ 5:23 am

Gil, I think that the issue that—expert on climate science or not—people in that camp are contemptuous and rude toward folks who disagree with them or even ask questions.

Like Al Gore.

What you are saying makes perfect sense during a scientific discussion. But most environmental topics, sadly, are religious in nature.

Cruz just wants to drive the moneychangers from the temple with a rhetorical whip.

Simon Jester (c698a4) — 10/7/2015 @ 5:42 am

And you had to throw in that attack on Christians there at the end. No, Gil, you do not like Ted Cruz. You lied. Because Ted Cruz, like me, is an unashamed Christian (the total opposite of Baraka Obama, who lies to claim the mantle of Christianity).

John Hitchcock (05901d) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:05 am

Ike warned us long ago:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.”

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Lorem Ipsum (cee048) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:07 am

A “warmist” is someone that is unable to recognize that the 97% consensus studies/claims are based on bogus/highly questionable surveys yet possesses the superior intellectual capacity to ascertain the validity of climate science.

Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:32 am

The video does demonstrate that most skeptics have a far better grasp of the actual science than the vast majority of warmists.

Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:34 am

The thing with Cruz is the more you debate, the better he looks.

He is not the most camera friendly guy when he is forced to be brief.

Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:37 am

#8. Huh?

So the “CEO” comes on and taks Global Warming and you are upset Cruz calls him out for citing bad science?

U r brain dead.

Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:39 am

He is a “Spatial Epidemiologist”

So, he was there to testify about Spatial Epidemiology ?

If that’s the best they can do….

Mike K (90dfdc) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:48 am

Our nation is faced with a legislative climate that seeks to expand our national carbon footprint while systematically trying to dismantle the EPA. We are living in an era of the largest expanding economy while personal incomes are being depressed, creating a culture of fear and insecurity that makes protecting our immediate and global environment seem like a material luxury. Political leaders have pushed an anti-green jobs/green industry agenda and shifted the national discourse. The biggest threat right now is the political argument of climate denial funded by the 1 percent of America for its own corporate interests and profits at the expense of the environment, the people of our great nation, and the people of the globe. The Sierra Club needs to lead the charge to create and galvanize the movement that will scale up to take on this global corporate climate threat.

— Aaron Mair

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:49 am

well he removes all doubt by the second second, when 93 million are out of the workforce, we’re not talking about an expanding economy,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:51 am

sentence, green energy is why we needed the industrial revolution,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:53 am

since they have spotted skydragons a corrective,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/05/satellite-image-shows-south-carolinas-once-in-a-thousand-years-flood-was-due-to-a-complex-meteorological-event/

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:04 am

Gil,

I completely disagree with your point.

As Cruz said at the end of hearing in response to a similar comment Senator Coons, Cruz asked the Sierra Club witness about climate change data because the witness submitted a written statement arguin that climate change data supported the Obama Administration’s proposed regulations. His statement acknowledged that the regulations would adversely impact the poor and minorities by raising the costs to heat and cool their homes, but it was worth it because the data proved it would save the environment.

Thus, the Sierra Club witness was testifying as an epidemiologist regarding the impact of regulations on the poor and minorities, and he specifically argued that climate change data supported his argument. The witness therefore put the data in evidence and it was appropriate for Cruz to question him about his knowledge of the data — or lack of knowledge, as became apparent in the questioning.

DRJ (521990) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:28 am

Someone above said they wished Cruz would’ve hammered this dolt more on the bogus study and I agree. This guy based his ENTIRE testimony on the false 97% claim and it deserved to be destroyed.

Hank_Scorpio (b03d7a) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:59 am

well it’s not about facts, it’s dogma,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:03 am

If Cruz really wants to get an understanding he should talk directly to those people making the conclusions. But he wont do that. Hell, the “ultra scientific” Cruz wont even go on record if he accepts the theory of evolution.
Gil (4e1585) — 10/7/2015 @ 12:49 am

1. Watch it again. The point isn’t that Mair wasn’t well-versed on debating “The Pause,” it’s that he insisted his and the Sierra Club’s position would NOT change even if the data was proven not to support their position.

2. Belief in the theory of evolution as an indicator of one’s intelligence is one of the great canards of our time. This nation was founded before the advent of Darwinism and whatever it has become afterward has nothing to do with whether one accepts it as fact. Mostly, it’s used as a device by desperate leftists to question the mental fitness of religious people.

L.N. Smithee (0868c7) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:14 am

nk, the sig is for concealment at work. The shotguns are all set. And she can hit what she is aiming for. No need to waste shells on a backdoor when the target has been painted.

mg (31009b) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:16 am

# 8
Yes he should debate a climate scientist such as Mann.

I would love to see Mann explain why the AMO/PDO is responsible for the pause as his most recent study claims, yet warming cycle of the AMO had nothing to do with the warming of the 1920’s/30’s and the 1980’s/1990’s

Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:21 am

Mair is pretty clearly a dope, and was ill-prepared for his appearance. Cruz isn’t a dope, and in those circumstances it wasn’t hard to make Mair look bad.

But the 17-year “pause” discussed by Cruz focuses on only one outlier year (1998), and ignores that the temperature trend over the past few decades has continued upward. To me, Cruz’s decision to skew the data in that manner shows that he’s not serious about the truth, but rather simply wanted to make an argument.

I’d also like to hear if Cruz thinks that global-warming skeptics might be influenced by grants from industry groups, in a similar manner to the way he thinks that climate scientists are so eager to obtain government money for research that supports a theory of global warming.

Jonny Scrum-half (9ca6ac) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:30 am

much like the lion’s share of casualties in fukushima was caused not by the tsunami or even the meltdown, but the precipitous evacuation procedures,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:38 am

Thank you, half-sack. That was enlightening.

JD (34f761) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:39 am

#31

I’d also like to hear if Cruz thinks that global-warming skeptics might be influenced by grants from industry groups, in a similar manner to the way he thinks that climate scientists are so eager to obtain government money for research that supports a theory of global warming.

Look at http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/#comments

$40m in Government grants over 10 years to promote the science.

One of the fallacies of the warmists is the money spent by industry to question the science is bad – but – 100x the money spent by the warmists to promote the theory is pure.

Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:42 am

So, he was there to testify about Spatial Epidemiology ?

If that’s the best they can do….
Mike K (90dfdc) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:48 am

And don’t forget that the guy brought up AGW, not Cruz. So if he doesn’t want to debate AGW, he shouldn’t go there.

felipe (b5e0f4) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:58 am

Belief in the theory of evolution as an indicator of one’s intelligence is one of the great canards of our time. This nation was founded before the advent of Darwinism and whatever it has become afterward has nothing to do with whether one accepts it as fact. Mostly, it’s used as a device by desperate leftists to question the mental fitness of religious people.

That’s all I usually see the theory used for, Smithee. Fact is it’s a theory which means it passes the scientific smell test. I am a religious Christian and I believe in the theory of evolution. I don’t believe it to be a fact, just a theory. But I would love to see it proved an indisputable fact someday just to prove the brilliance of a God that builds into the universe it’s own advancement mechanism without any help from anyone. God is good.

The other thing I wonder about anti-theists is why do they constantly argue theology using science? Would they argue bridge building with restaurant management? They are two different subjects. And if they were not so ignorant they would know anything they can prove or disprove in science is because God did such a spectacular job creating science in the first place! Without God there would be no science.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/7/2015 @ 9:09 am

Belief in the theory of evolution as an indicator of one’s intelligence is one of the great canards of our time. This nation was founded before the advent of Darwinism and whatever it has become afterward has nothing to do with whether one accepts it as fact. Mostly, it’s used as a device by desperate leftists to question the mental fitness of religious people.

The story of the creation in the bible is really the scientific theory of the creation of the universe circa 2000BC. If some person had put forth the same theory in 1400’s – 1700’s, that person would today be recognized as a scientific genius. Look what the bible theory got right. Small animals were made first, then bigger animals and eventually man, ie evolution, The earth sun & stars were all created in a rapid burst,
It wasnt until Darwin that the theory of evolution was refined.
George lemaitre proposed the big bang theory 1920ish.

Holier than thou anti religious bigots ridicule one of the most brilliant scientific theories in mankind’s history, Given the scientific knowledge of the day, it was certainly a brilliant theory circa 2000BC. Yet it is ridiculed because it was proposed by religious people and the religious people got a few things wrong all the while the basic concepts remain intact.ie the basic big bang theory and evolution.

Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/7/2015 @ 9:39 am

Yet it is ridiculed because it was proposed by religious people and the religious people got a few things wrong….

Oddly, Joe from Texas, non religious people get a few things wrong too, they just don’t own up. An ice age becomes global warming becomes climate change as an example. The problem I have is when anti-God folks poorly use science or, use just plain bad science to argue with believers. That’s not what science is for and if they really had any respect for science they’d put it to the use God had intended rather than use it to bully people.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/7/2015 @ 10:13 am

BTW, it amuses me no end when these “types” quote science as the definitive end all be all. Science, like man and like everything else in the universe is in a constant state of evolution. Today’s settled science is tomorrows old wives tales. Today’s AGW is tomorrow’s flat earth.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/7/2015 @ 10:18 am

#38 –

Yet it is ridiculed because it was proposed by religious people and the religious people got a few things wrong….

Oddly, Joe from Texas, non religious people get a few things wrong too, they just don’t own up. An ice age becomes global warming becomes climate change as an example. The problem I have is when anti-God folks poorly use science or, use just plain bad science to argue with believers. That’s not what science is for and if they really had any respect for science they’d put it to the use God had intended rather than use it to bully people.

Expanding on the topic – The theory of creation as told from the bible which is basically one of the first scientific theories on evolution and the the big bang theory, got the basic concept right – first the small animals, then larger animals, and eventually humans. It took almost 3,000 years for science to advance the knowledge.

There is this believe that science and religion is 100% mutually exclusive.

For

Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/7/2015 @ 11:16 am

Joe from Texas:

The theory of creation does not record a comprehensive history. However, whether it is the myth of creation or spontaneous evolution, neither theory can be processed in the scientific domain. One or the other, both, or neither, may be an accurate description of origin and the underlying order that gave rise to what can be observed within a limited frame of reference in the scientific [logical] domain.

That said, the scientific method was introduced to constrain pagan/secular excess, not people who acknowledge their faith, and recognize the different logical domains.

n.n (71510b) — 10/7/2015 @ 11:59 am

oh my goodness sweet picklehead

genesis is NOT a scientific theory on evolution and the big bang

i would know if it were

happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/7/2015 @ 2:10 pm

Written in specifically Jewish terms but easily translatable to Christian terms….
http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Creation-Encounter-Cosmology-Evolution/dp/9652295949/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444254234&sr=8-1&keywords=Challenge+of+creation

(Link is through Patterico’s Amazon widget.)

kishnevi (28fa9f) — 10/7/2015 @ 2:47 pm

HF, you have already proven you know next to nothing about the Bible, and the parts you don’t like, you throw out.

John Hitchcock (1b87a1) — 10/7/2015 @ 3:24 pm

That being said, Genesis has nothing, zip, zilch, zero to do with the evolution hoax.

John Hitchcock (1b87a1) — 10/7/2015 @ 3:24 pm

She went for a 9 mm Smith & Wesson. A Purse Gun, nk.

mg (31009b) — 10/7/2015 @ 4:01 pm

no no u got me all wrong

happyfeet (9fecc3) — 10/7/2015 @ 5:27 pm

Finally had a chance to watch the video. Masterful. I like the cut of Cruz’s jib. He’s able to coolly and methodically expose the lies and reiterate the simple fact that these “men of science” (the 97%) are among those taking their spots at the trough, hoping for a piece of the action.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/7/2015 @ 6:00 pm

I don’t believe it to be a fact, just a theory

@36 Barack

A theory is an explanation of the facts. As in the theory of gravity.
But I agree, you should not “believe” it. You should accept it as the most accurate model we have.

Belief in the theory of evolution as an indicator of one’s intelligence is one of the great canards of our time

@28 Smithee
I agree. I do not use that as a measure of intelligence. In this instance Cruz is being a stickler for data and upset that his question isnt getting answered. Strikes me as hypocritical to ignore scientific data and dodge giving answers then in the case of evolution, but berate this poor sod for the same thing in the case of this 18 year temp data.

Going back, I dont think he said they would not change no matter what. He kept repeating the 97% statement. Again this guy was clearly flustered and Cruz masterfully got him to blurt out some unsupportable statements “the earth is cooking” (haha). But once again who cares? Its like proving to a literature expert that quantum theory is wrong and boasting about it.That he testified on his organization’s position / interpretation of the data does not mean he was the right one to argue about the data with.

And you had to throw in that attack on Christians there at the end. No, Gil, you do not like Ted Cruz. You lied. Because Ted Cruz, like me, is an unashamed Christian

@14 Johnnyboy
Actually, I really do. I paraded the youtube clips of him around to anyone who would listen when he attacked his own party for lying and both parties for being in the pockets of big business. I dont hate Christians either, hell I golf with one (not on sundays). Your being oversensitive in this instance. Cruz can believe what he wants, but pretending to be ultra scientific in this case and ignore the other is a bit two faced.

Gil (4e1585) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:04 pm

Your mendoucheity never gets old, Gil.

JD (34f761) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:17 pm

97% of sentient beings think the Sierra Club asshat got his arse handed to him. Why not argue data with the person hiding behind the shield of manufactured consensus and manipulated data ?

JD (34f761) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:19 pm

The other thing I wonder about anti-theists is why do they constantly argue theology using science?

Because they think of G-d as a thing, like all the things this universe consists of. And the existence of things is verifiable. So they think G-d is verifiable.

That G-d is not a thing, being totally beyond and prior to the universe, is apparently something they can not grok. All the categories of human thinking are inapplicable to G-d but they insist on trying to apply categories. To be fair, so do a lot of people who think they believe in G-d.

kishnevi (9cb6b5) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:25 pm

G-d? Global warming doesn’t even pass thermodynamics.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:36 pm

Aaron Mair is a community organizer from Schenectady, New York and works for the NY Department of Health. Mair was elected president of the Sierra Club on May 16, 2015. He is the organization’s first African-American president. From *Wikipedia:

Mair is a graduate of Binghamton University, where he received a Bachelor of Arts in History and Sociology and a certificate in Southwest Asia and North Africa Studies. Mair also trained at Rhode Island’s Naval Education and Training Center and attended The American University in Cairo. He participated in Binghamton University’s Political Science Doctoral Program, but left the program to begin State service in 1988.

*Barry Diller, the man behind Wikipedia announced he’d leave the country if Donald Trump becomes president.

ropelight (4e9d6e) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:50 pm

Methinks the “pause” that Cruz refers to is the reason that “global warming” became “climate change”. After all, who can argue against the climate changing? It’s always changing! Like I’ve said before, in its history the planet has been hot, cold, wet, and dry; humans had nothing to do with it. It’s reasonable to postulate that the warming just prior to the “pause” would have happened even without humans.

norcal (a6e04e) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:55 pm

Your mendoucheity never gets old, Gil.
JD (34f761) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:17 pm

It never rises to the level of intelligent rejoinder, either.

John Hitchcock (1b87a1) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:55 pm

That he testified on his organization’s position / interpretation of the data does not mean he was the right one to argue about the data with.

But his ilk really wouldn’t have defended the side of AGW all that differently or any more effectively. Simply put, all the disciples — the holy rollers, if you will — of the Church of Global Warming haven’t even answered the question of how carbon dioxide affects areas of atmospheric high pressure, which is the weather phenomenon that always cause warm to hot temperatures.

The West Coast has been sweltering this summer due to such areas of high pressure. But if that were due to CO2, and that gas were as far reaching as the cultists believe, the entire country, including the East Coast, also should have been burning up from those zones of high pressure. But it hasn’t and, if anything, a good portion of the East and Midwest has experienced a rather comfortable, temperate summer. (As a Californian, circa 2015, btw, I’m envious.)

Mark (f713e4) — 10/7/2015 @ 7:56 pm

He doesn’t loathe Christians, why, Hell, he even golfs with one!

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:02 pm

A theory is an explanation of the facts. As in the theory of gravity.
But I agree, you should not “believe” it. You should accept it as the most accurate model we have.

That’s exactly how I think of it, Gil. I don’t “believe” it because I realize it’s not correct. It’s a “best guess” at the moment with an * meaning subject to change. And as time moves on and God in His wisdom imparts more and more of His secrets of His universe on us we will continue to evolve in just the manner He wishes. Therefore, anyone using the term “settled science” is limited in perception and basically ignorant of the great evolution we are part of. Nothing is settled until the end.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:14 pm

The evolution question is a “gotcha question” only for candidates who do not want to offend people who take the Old Testament literally. On the other side are the people who “believe” in the Big Bang Theory and could not tell you the names of the planets of the Solar System. “There’s Libra, and Pisces, and Sagittarius and Gemini ….” Pfooey. Politicians mostly suck because the people whose votes they need mostly suck.

nk (dbc370) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:30 pm

Politicians mostly suck because the people whose votes they need mostly suck.

True. That’s why I laugh when people complain about politicians. Politicians are just a reflection of the people.

norcal (a6e04e) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:39 pm

Don’t forget the mendacity of the media. When all the framing supports the Democrats (and if the Ds take a liberal position then the media will spin with fervor) can we really expect the people to sort thru the nonsense? The media is waning in influence but in a certain crowd (the Democrats) they hold great sway. 55% believe the media and the rest think the media lies for the Republicans so they can watch, but then correct for the bias (snicker).

East Bay Jay (c65ac0) — 10/7/2015 @ 10:13 pm

Nk. Bingo. I’ve found that people that you and I would nominally and normally respect day to day as normal, Mom’s, Dad’s, Christians, Jews, and neighbors, are so so so so often, WAY WAY DUMBER than we expected. Even many of those we thru our day to day lives, believe are equally intelligent, and equally decent, and equally moral. …. ARE CLUELESS.
One example. Bernie Sanders is a U.S.SENATOR. Ok. We kind of accepted that because he’s from a northeastern blue hell hole. How did VERMONT become such a FOCKED UP SHYTE HOLE???
So, we go along not recognizing nor PUSHING BACK on CREEEEEEEAPING LIBTARD/SOCIALISM/MARXISM. And our schools teach ANTI-AMERICAN CRAP….
We let it infect us, and when we become infected, we don’t know why???

GUS (7cc192) — 10/7/2015 @ 10:24 pm

East Bay Jay. By and large, Rank and File, those who ARE and MAKE UP the MEDIA…..are kindergarten to U-MISSOURI or COLUMBIA grad school ARE LEFTIST DRONE FOOLS.
They ARE LIBERAL. They were TRAINED and INDOCTRINATED by LIBERALS. It’s not by CHOICE, the SNAKE BITES, the LIBTARD LIES.

GUS (7cc192) — 10/7/2015 @ 10:27 pm

So McCarthy dropped out of the Speaker’s race but he is personally backing Paul Ryan. I’m personally glad to see McCarthy drop out, especially since Boehner suffered from appearing weak and apparently McCarthy has similar tendencies. But I don’t see the value of putting a budget wonk like Ryan in charge of political strategy and tactics. He seems far too likely to get bogged down in the policy details to be an effective leader.

Why does everything Republicans do in Washington have to be done by agreement? Democrats think that votes matter. Maybe Republicans should take a lesson from them.

DRJ (521990) — 10/8/2015 @ 12:00 pm

they should have a bake-off where everyone bakes something native to their district

happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/8/2015 @ 12:46 pm

Dr. Richard Tol is a former lead coordinating author of the chapter on economics in past IPCC reports on global warming. He grew disgusted with the scientific malpractice of so-called “climate scientists” and finally demanded his name be removed from the IPCC’s reports early last year.

He completely dismantles the fictional 97% consensus figure here:

http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html

Some highlights:

…Two years after publication, Cook admitted that data quality is indeed low.

Requests for the data were met with evasion and foot-dragging, a clear breach of the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet defended by an editorial board member of the journal as “exemplary scientific conduct”.

Cook hoped to hold back some data, but his internet security is on par with his statistical skills, and the alleged hacker was not intimidated by the University of Queensland’s legal threats. Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist.

…Cook later argued that time stamps were never collected. They were. They show that one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman effort.

Assuming that rater slept 8 hours a night, and took no bathroom breaks and no meal breaks, that’s 14 abstracts an hour every day for three days.

An aside, you can not draw any final conclusions from the abstracts. Often researchers make claims in the abstracts that aren’t supported by the data presented in the full report. So much for the myth of “peer review.”

The money quote:

…Cook’s 97% nonsensus paper shows that the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour. If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

Naturally the climate pols posing as scientists immediately attacked Dr. Tol’s integrity when he went public about the scientific fraud the IPCC is perpetrating on the public. But he’s no skeptic. He believes that human activity is the primary cause of global warming, and supports some of the policy proposals that would cripple economies world wide. But he does make the case, convincingly, that the apocalyptic predictions of the alarmists go to far. That they can’t be supported by the evidence.

Steve57 (d94282) — 10/8/2015 @ 1:16 pm

That doesn’t work for me, hf. The members of the Texas delegation would probably bake an armadillo and I don’t think that would win many votes. They would do better if their entry were a pecan pie but I doubt anyone in Washington knows how to bake a good pecan pie.

DRJ (521990) — 10/8/2015 @ 1:36 pm

Also, so much for the idea of “settled science.” Two discoveries in the past few months of this year alone which should completely destroy any idea that the climate is so well understood that “skeptics” are wrong.

Scientists have a duty of skepticism. Anyone who says otherwise, like this clueless Sierra Club tool, doesn’t know the first thing about science. If you’re talking about some supposed consensus you’re doing politics, not science.

Another former true believer discovers the incompetence and dishonesty behind climate alarmism. From Australia:

http://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnk0b1ks-1227555674611

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

…“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

…“It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”

Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.

I don’t know if these researchers were ever true believers, as the University of Leipzig, where the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS) is physically located, has been a leader in demonstrating that multi-decadal oscillations of the deep ocean currents are far more predict of weather patterns than the climate models that over-rely on CO2. But they along with researchers from the University of Lyon have made a breakthrough discovery as well:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/new-discovery-surface-of-the-oceans-affects-climate-more-than-thought/

From the LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR TROPOSPHERIC RESEARCH (TROPOS) and the department of settled science comes this new discovery related to cloud formation.

Surface of the oceans affects climate more than thought

First detected abiotic source of isoprene

…The results underline the global significance of the chemical processes at the border between ocean and atmosphere, write the researchers in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. Isoprene is a gas that is formed by both the vegetation and the oceans. It is very important for the climate because this gas can form particles that can become clouds and then later affect temperature and precipitation. Previously it was assumed that isoprene is primarily caused by biological processes from plankton in the sea water. The atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, could now show that isoprene could also be formed without biological sources in surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.

The oceans not only take up heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they are also sources of various gaseous compounds, thereby affecting the global climate. A key role is played by the so-called surface microlayer (SML), especially at low wind speed. In these few micrometers thin layer different organic substances such as dissolved organic matter, fat and amino acids, proteins, lipids are accumulating as well as trace metals, dust and microorganisms…

By aiding in cloud formation isoprene has a cooling effect on the Earth. Before these researcher discovered that isoprene can be produced abiotically climate modellers assumed that the oceans produced 1.9 mega tons of isoprene annually. But based upon this research, these climate scientists estimate the oceans produce nearly twice as much isoprene as previously thought; approximately 3.5 mega tons.

Global warming alarmism is a political fraud being inflicted on people by governments under the color of science. It is precisely because it’s a fraud that they insist the science is settled, the debate is over, and anyone who dissents should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Because they have to inflict their policy preferences before we have the evidence. The weight of the evidence will sink them.

Steve57 (d94282) — 10/8/2015 @ 1:41 pm

kolaches! the rep from el campo could put this whole baby to bed

happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/8/2015 @ 2:00 pm

homesick now

happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/8/2015 @ 2:01 pm

and also i want to also say as messy as this process is the deposing of boehner is the most heartening political development in many many moons

and having mccarthy torpedo himself is just gravy

happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/8/2015 @ 2:17 pm

Newt pointed out the contest for speaker in 1923 took nine ballots, some perspective.

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/8/2015 @ 3:19 pm

Those meats look delicious, happyfeet.
More torpedos, please…

mg (31009b) — 10/8/2015 @ 3:20 pm

it’s a special place

happyfeet (831175) — 10/8/2015 @ 6:05 pm

Here’s another source regarding the recently published discoveries regarding the larger role the oceans play in climate than previously thought. The climate alarmists have an annoying, vicious, and anti-intellectual habit of trying to discredit the research by smearing the source. So they’ll typically assert you can’t believe anything you read on sites like Watt’s Up With That since they smear Anthony Watts of being a “climate denialist.”

In other words they climate alarmists will deny the science if someone like Anthony Watts alerts the public to what true climate scientists are publishing in scientific journals.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150930073214.htm

Surface of the oceans affects climate more than thought
First detected abiotic source of isoprene

Date:
September 30, 2015
Source:
Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS)
Summary:
The oceans seem to produce significantly more isoprene, and consequently affect stronger the climate than previously thought. This emerges from a new study of samples of the surface film in the laboratory. The results underline the global significance of the chemical processes at the border between ocean and atmosphere.

…Thus, it is now possible to estimate more closely the total amounts of isoprene, which are emitted. So far, however, local measurements indicated levels of about 0.3 megatonnes per year, global simulations of around 1.9 megatons per year. But the team of Lyon and Leipzig estimates that the newly discovered photochemical pathway alone contribute 0.2 to 3.5 megatons per year additionally and could explain the recent disagreements. “The existence of the organic films at the ocean surface due to biological activities therefore influences the exchange processes between air and sea in a unexpected strong way. The photochemical processes at this interface could be a very significant source of isoprene,” summarizes Prof. Hartmut Herrmann from TROPOS.

The processes at the boundary between water and air are currently of great interest in science: In August, the team from the CNRS and TROPOS presented evidence in Scientific Reports, the open-access journal of Nature, that dissolved organic material in the surface film is strengthening the chemical conversion of saturated fatty acids into unsaturated gas phase products under the influence of sunlight. For the first time it was realized that these products have to be of biological origin not only, but also abiotic processes at the interface between two media have the potential to produce such molecules. In early September another team from Canada, the US, Great Britain and Germany showed in the journal Nature that organic material from the surface film of the oceans can be an important source for the formation of ice in clouds over remote regions of the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Ocean. The recent publication of the teams from CNRS and TROPOS in Environmental Science & Technology provides indications how the climate models in the important details of the influence of isoprene could be improved. Because of the great importance this paper will be open access as “Editor’s Choice.”

Note how every time the models are “improved” the estimates of the amount of global warming, and its projected impact on human society, decline dramatically.

Which is why the alarmists insist we abandon self-government before actual scientists gather any more evidence that discredits them.

Steve57 (d94282) — 10/8/2015 @ 8:16 pm

That’s exactly how I think of it, Gil. I don’t “believe” it because I realize it’s not correct.

@Barack 58

We’re almost on the same page. Just because a theory may not be a perfect understanding, doesnt mean it isnt accurate or should be disregarded as wrong. The term “settled science” is worthless though.

G-d? Global warming doesn’t even pass thermodynamics.

@Papertiger 52

What do you mean?

Gil (4e1585) — 10/8/2015 @ 9:04 pm

10/6/2015

Ted Cruz Questions Clueless President of Sierra Club

77 Responses to “Ted Cruz Questions Clueless President of Sierra Club”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out