Trump Picks Climate Change Dissenter to Lead EPA

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You'll get no argument from me about how liberal elites have treated this issue. I find their "solutions" to be ridiculous, draconian, and in many cases outright evil. They propose to make everyone in the world poor(except them, of course) through onerous taxation. They want to prosecute anyone who disagrees, and they've even proposed to curb our food supply and cull populations to meet their climate change goals.

I do not take that approach because I'm not an idiot.

Anthropogenic Climate Change, to me, is a signal of our transition to a Type 1 Planetary Civilization. Because of that I believe that we need to leave a scientific problem to scientists and engineers.

That said, denying the cause of climate change as a matter of political opposition to liberal agenda is ridiculous.

Is that what we're calling scientific consensus? Liberal elitism? This is why kids need better education. I have no doubt these idiots would call quality education something lame like liberal indoctrinization. So tired of right wingers going full retard.

a reply to: projectvxn

It is hard to transition to Type 1 when we are so focused on fossil fuels. With out renewable/green energy we will never be a Type 1 not enough fossil fuels exists to allow it. We are at a point where much of the world is ready for the transition to renewable/green energy and yet the president elect seems to be doing everything in his power to appoint people that are against that change due to profits.

Scientists and engineers have already said what their solution is for climate change. It is the transition from fossil fuels.

a reply to: Pyle

And politicians have answered that with crippling taxation schemes.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

All liberals have managed to come up with is tax schemes and ridiculous authoritarian regulations. Instead of funding research and development they've come up with ways of accruing power to governments.

Pity it seems career Republicans say it ain't happening at all, or it ain't our fault so let's do nothing about it.

Hard to make much progress with that attitude.

a reply to: Greven

I agree with that assessment as well.

The fact is politics will get us nowhere. It has become apparent to me that we need to proceed without their say so. But with everyone adhering to their own political religion, the solutions that are being presented by scientists and engineers will continue to be ignored.

a reply to: projectvxn

I'd love to hear some republican ideas once they get past the flat earth theory. No one can critique liberals talking about investments in green sustainable energies and awareness of climate change, signing on to initiatives to reduce emissions when the ignorant as F republicans aren't even in the game. They want to double down on coal and oil-- what F heads. Seriously. They really need to pull their heads out of their greedy ignorant #sses. Doesn't the republican douche factor feel a bit much? Like on every Fing issue. Where is their brain in this? Are they 100% greedy villain d#cks because that's exactly what they act like. Their willfull ignorance act... they know what's going on, they just pretend not to, and allow the false intel to be fed to their followers. I got no respect at all for that.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Let me know when you can address this topic like an adult and we can continue this discussion.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Is that what we're calling scientific consensus? Liberal elitism? This is why kids need better education. I have no doubt these idiots would call quality education something lame like liberal indoctrinization. So tired of right wingers going full retard.

You are right, kids do need a better education. Given the latest PISA stats, it's time for the liberal approach to education to end. Hopefully once the liberal indoctrination has been wiped clean, both sides of the climate change argument can be addressed properly by the next generation of scientists. Perhaps with a new govt we can also hear more from the thousands of scientists (the majority) who don't agree with the currently pushed 'facts' on man made global warming.

The below was from 2013... surprising how such a consensus amongst scientists that man was not the cause of global warming was buried and we've been propagandised into believing the scientific community is in lock step with globalists making money off the effort to 'save the planet'

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem...

...People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

www.forbes.com...< br />

Moreover, from 2015, addressing the '97% agree' propaganda.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong Alex Epstein ,

How do we know the 97% agree? To elaborate, how was that proven? Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position. Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. Here is Cook’s summary of his paper:

“Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t. The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate. It’s time to revoke that license.

www.forbes.com...

There is still much debate to be had and when we dispense with pejorative terms like climate change denier, and also threats of making it illegal to deny climate change, we can get to the bottom of teh issue. Until then, climate change is destined to fall into the same trap most issues fall into when liberals have power - extreme division.

a reply to: UKTruth

That Forbes article has been debunked over and over again on here, but those who ignore science pretend the article is truthful.

The writer of the article works for the Heartland Institute....

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: UKTruth

That Forbes article has been debunked over and over again on here, but those who ignore science pretend the article is truthful.

Debunked by the climate change religious priesthood. I know.
The named people in the article whose papers were used to calculate the 97% and have since publicly criticised the calculation don't necessarily disagree that humans effect the climate. The extent to which we do is a different question, but the climate change priesthood and their devout followers have already decided on the doomsday scenario. i view these people the same way as I view Niburu/Planet X pushers.

a reply to: UKTruth

Are you also ignorant of the Heartland Institute and the B$ they pull?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.theguardian.com...&

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: UKTruth

Are you also ignorant of the Heartland Institute and the B$ they pull?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.theguardian.com...&

Pulling out a non credible dissenting voices, the Heartland Institute or other, does not prove any case for man made global warming being a serious issue.
That kind of 'tactic of association' in arguments is popular with brainwashed liberals, but works less and less these days.

Show evidence that the world is heading into catastrophic times because of man made global warming to prove your case.

In the mid 2000s at the Leaders in London conference I sat through Al Gore's 2hr presentation on his worldwide propaganda tour. I didn't know it was propaganda at the time, but I now know that every conclusion he drew from the science he had been advised on was complete bunk.

I think liberals are pretty sore at the moment that their propaganda machine is not working. Like I said, a man made global warming disaster is akin to Niburu prophecies. This new appointment by Trump gives me hope that all sides will get equal airing and we can come to the correct conclusions and cease with the fearmongering and threats to drive an agenda that makes a few people richer and many poorer.

a reply to: UKTruth

Case and point....you are clueless in this discussion.

You have been lead to believe thanks to think tanks and clever manipulation that anthropgenic climate change is bogus, despite what the scientists and data tell us.

originally posted by: projectvxn
...
That said, denying the cause of climate change as a matter of political opposition to liberal agenda is ridiculous.

The sun itself is changing and acting strangely. Other planets and moons with an atmosphere in the solar system are also undergoing dramatic climate changes, and in the form of warming nonetheless.

Global Circulation Models have been wrong time and again...



CO2 failed to increase temperatures by ~0.4 degrees in 18 years.

The AGW scientists claim "they don't know where the warming went" Yet the sun's overall activity has been decreasing at the same time we saw a slowdown in global temperatures. Except that the sun seems to be acting up, and it's visible light has increased and has been warming Earth.

But somehow none of this matter and "it must be mankind causing climate change" when the whole solar system is undergoing similar changes to Earth's changes?...

The magnetic field of the Earth has been weakening since 1840s-1860s. Global seismic activity has been increasing. We have found, despite the lies from the AGW camp that Antartica has been melting because of underwater volcanoes. An increase in global seismic activity points to an increase in global geothermal activity, which means more active volcanos, which would be why Antarctica has been melting.

Yet none of this matter and "it has to be mankind's fault"?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: UKTruth

Case and point....you are clueless in this discussion.

You have been lead to believe thanks to think tanks and clever manipulation that anthropgenic climate change is bogus, despite what the scientists and data tell us.

Provide the data that proves man made climate change is so dangerous that it is the biggest threat to humanity, as has been claimed
I'll remind you of the quite disgusting propaganda video at the DNC. Your priesthood has no evidence for anything in this video being caused by man made climate change and the so called 'consensus is fake.

There are number of research programs ongoing to remove carbon from CO2.
www.sciencealert.com...
In the near future there is a very big demand for pure carbon for carbon fiber products.

But the process to get pure carbon for carbon fiber products now is expensive.

Plants remove carbon from the air so there must be a way to remove it from power plant emissions cheaply.
I ran a CO2 recovery plant where we used monoethanolamine (MEA) to removed around 200 ton/day of CO2 from a power plant flue gas and used it to process soda ash Na₂CO₃ into Sodium bicarbonate NaHCO3

this is old tech.
now we just need a way to remove the Carbon from the CO2 leaving pure carbon and O2.
the pure carbon can then be used to make carbon nano tube filters and carbon for carbon fiber, both highly sell-able products used in many fields.

If a process can be found it can be a process that will make money for power plants at the same time cutting emissions its a WIN WIN for these companies.

This has nothing to do with CO2 and global warning.
But the AGW people want nothing to do with this as its not part of there agenda of putting out of business power plants that put out CO2 instead of make a salable product.

a reply to: ANNED

Not sure how you're saying that AGW people are not interested in efforts to capture CO2. This process is actually a must. Reducing emissions is not enough. We need to remove CO2 from the air. So, maybe there's something I'm missing here, but why are you saying AGW people are not interested in tech that captures CO2 from the air?

We've spent enough time polluting the planet, filling the atmosphere with smog, emitting massive emissions from our engines and smoke stacks. We've been doing it a long time. Whether you believe the scientists or not-- our current system is not sustainable. We can do better, and it's time with all the global support that's out there, to start doing better. It's time to upgrade our systems from old pollution machine's to new futuristic green sustainable energies. 

We have a huge population on this planet, burning fuel, spewing toxins into the air every day.

It's to have green sustainable energy driving our cars, businesses, and homes... Time to create a system that IS sustainable and good for our environment. Time to elevate.

We need to build a sustainable energy system. That's our next evolution.