|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Isn’t this how the famed “climate consensus” works?
In late July, the Department of Energy and the EPA issued a report by the Climate Working Group which, for once, didn’t parrot the false claims that the world would end unless we all flew on jets to climate warming conferences to discuss how to raise taxes on Americans.
The members of the Climate Working Group were serious people including two former senior NASA scientists who had developed the first satellite-based technique for global temperature monitoring.
Their report was far from a fundamental break with global warming, rather, like a lot of ‘dissidents’ within the industry, it just argued that the greens had…
1. Falsely connected so-called ‘extreme weather’ to human activity
2. Misstated the impact that so-called ‘green policies’ by the government would have on the environment
I don’t think much of the report myself which feels more focused on industrial concerns than dismantling the green hoax, but it’s an improvement over the stuff that the EPA would put out under Biden.
Environmentalist groups reacted the way that the lefty nonprofits integrated with the government do to every Trump action… which is to sue.
How do you sue over a report you don’t like?
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists claim that the report is bad because the scientists involved are “skeptics of the effects of climate change” and obviously such folks should not be allowed to write environmental reports.
Only true believers may do so.
What this really shows is how the famed “climate change consensus” is really made. It’s easy to create a consensus when you simply screen out everyone who doesn’t agree. And then when an administration comes in that isn’t on board with your agenda, you just sue to keep them out.
That’s not a consensus. That’s a manufactured consensus enabled by gatekeeping and the EDF lawsuit proves the truth of that accusation. When you sue because scientists you don’t like are writing reports, your consensus is as fake as global warming.
Global warming is not fake. The evidence is plentiful and easily available.
“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention.” This is a quote FROM THE LINK YOU ARE PROVIDING!!!!!!
One of my favorite Greenfieldism is when he expresses his all-knowing opinion on texts he hasn’t actually read.
Great analysis, Daniel!
sillly dickhorn, the peanut in mr. greenfield’s morning deuce has a higher i q than you. analyze that ya pathetic little wanker.
Mr. Greenfield did not say that that global warming is fake. The consensus in question is not whether there is a consensus amongst scientists as to whether climate change is real, but whether it is created by — and can be fixed by — people. Mr. Greenfield is quite clear that the report is questioning the latter assumptions, not climate change in general.
Average global temperature hasn’t deviated by a single degree Fahrenheit in 28 years. In 1997 it deviated by a single degree Fahrenheit. And that was a stand alone year. Temperatures were stable until then soon after 1936, which saw the highest global temperatures in recorded history, all in America.
“your consensus is as fake as global warming.”
“Mr. Greenfield did not say that that global warming is fake.”
Maybe President Trump can get our schools to do a better job when it comes to improving students’ reading comprehension.
As for the climate change controversy, I agree with Bjorn Lomborg’s recommendations.
Global climate warming change is definitely fake. I don’t burn up when I go outdoors. Nobody does. We were all predicted to die of heat stroke decades ago by the chicken Littles. We’re still here and so are the harmless ozone holes at the poles. Where’s the smog besides Beijing, Chicken Little? Where are the tidal waves, super storms and arid induced famine? Up your lying asses, that’s where.
The world would be better off if it were warmer. All the “optimal”warming periods advanced human society. The Mycenaean, Roman, Medieval and all other warming periods induced human advancement.
Fuck off, you parasites.
Greenfield has stated hundreds of times in his columns that he believes climate change is not real and that climate science is a hoax. If you agree with Bjorn Lomborg, for example (who agrees that human-caused climate change is real) then you could call out Mr. Greenfield for his ignorance on this issue.
Maybe?
I do not know if Bjorn Lomborg is correct when it comes to “human-caused climate change.” I DO agree with him that the solutions being proposed by those who do think it is a serious problem are too costly. Lomborg states there are less costly things that can be done.
As for Jeff Bargholz’s predictably immature comment, yawn……….
Climate science? That’s as real as voodoo economics. And Bjorn Lomborg does NOT believe the fantasy of anthropogenic global warming.
The temperature at 20,000 feet is MINUS 60 degrees, why doesn’t that increase if everywhere else is allegedly increasing so fast?
28 years of the same average global temperature is PROOF that global climate warming change is a hoax, Dickporn.
It took less than one minute to look this up. You should try learning what you’re talking about. Commence with the predictable name-calling.
“Specifically, Lomborg’s views and arguments on anthropogenic global warming include:
Acceptance of the reality of warming and human contribution: Lomborg acknowledges that global warming is a real phenomenon and that human activities are largely responsible for it.
Concerns about exaggeration of impacts: He argues that the negative impacts of climate change are often overstated and that many predictions are based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions.
Critique of mitigation efforts: He is critical of policies like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which he has called a “charade”, arguing they are economically inefficient and may have minimal impact on global temperature while potentially hindering economic growth, especially in developing countries.
Emphasis on cost-benefit analysis: Lomborg advocates for a cost-benefit analysis approach to climate policy, arguing that we should prioritize solutions that offer the greatest benefits for the cost, and consider other pressing global issues like poverty and disease alongside climate change.
Support for adaptation and green energy innovation: He suggests focusing on adaptation strategies to deal with the effects of warming and investing in research and development to make green energy cheaper and more widely available. “
Who wrote that bullshit? Not Lomborg.
How many asses have you sucked today? Did they taste like sticky chocolate or human waste? Nasty ass taste, right? But you munched it anyway.
“Global warming is not fake. The evidence is plentiful and easily available.”
The problem with that statement is that the supposed evidence is subjective rather than objective.
That is to say, you posit a conclusion and then go about collecting evidence to support that conclusion and omit evidence that disputes or disagrees with it. That is not science, that is religion.
In the real world of science, you posit a theory and then go about trying to disprove that theory with the known, objective facts
The evidence for global warming is at best pseudo science based on anecdotal facts.
RTA
Their report was far from a fundamental break with global warming, rather, like a lot of ‘dissidents’ within the industry, it just argued that the greens had…
1. Falsely connected so-called ‘extreme weather’ to human activity
2. Misstated the impact that so-called ‘green policies’ by the government would have on the environment
I don’t think much of the report myself which feels more focused on industrial concerns than dismantling the green hoax, but it’s an improvement over the stuff that the EPA would put out under Biden.
The Eco-Freaks are upset because the Skeptics are allowed to oppose their stupid ideas looks like the only Green they care for has big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on it
Exactly. The Climate Working Group is threatening their bread and butter. That’s a no-no.
Climate Change: When the weather is all your fault and the only solution is more communism.
If I understand climate change science correctly, scientists don’t even know for sure what made climates go up and down in the past before internal combustion engines. How do they know now? (Hint: They don’t)
The only real solution to their notion of global warming is to cause an ice age which is doable. How you might ask? Simple. Drop nukes into several of the worlds to case major eruptions. The tonnage of sulfur compounds spewed into the atmosphere will spread world wide and quite effectively block the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth and thus causing the earth’s surface temperature to drop several degrees.
Otherwise those climate change/global warming dimwits need to STFU and learn some real science and stop parroting bullsh*t. Not everyone is a science illiterate like those dumb asses.
United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer. For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
Ozone hole? That’s still a threat? After all the cost to “reform” A/C systems?
Thanks for the tip!
“Nazi-like Environmentalist Groups…….”
Title correction for the purpose of clarity and truth.
The EDF has used Kids in their False ads and the Union of Concerned Scientists are as authentic as a 3 Dollar Bill their all about Politics not Science their just like PETA,s phony Doctors group Phyicians Council on Responsible Medicine
“Save the trees?” Trees would all die without CO2, and lots of it. They use the carbon for cellular growth and expel the oxygen for us and the animals to breathe.
Lefties are hopelessly brainwashed and retarded. The global climate warming Change hucksters have them on leashes.
“Specifically, Lomborg’s views and arguments on anthropogenic global warming include:
Acceptance of the reality of warming and human contribution: Lomborg acknowledges that global warming is a real phenomenon and that human activities are largely responsible for it.
Concerns about exaggeration of impacts: He argues that the negative impacts of climate change are often overstated and that many predictions are based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions.
Critique of mitigation efforts: He is critical of policies like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which he has called a “charade”, arguing they are economically inefficient and may have minimal impact on global temperature while potentially hindering economic growth, especially in developing countries.
Emphasis on cost-benefit analysis: Lomborg advocates for a cost-benefit analysis approach to climate policy, arguing that we should prioritize solutions that offer the greatest benefits for the cost, and consider other pressing global issues like poverty and disease alongside climate change.
Support for adaptation and green energy innovation: He suggests focusing on adaptation strategies to deal with the effects of warming and investing in research and development to make green energy cheaper and more widely available.”
I haven’t seen any evidence of Climate Change.
And you never will. It’s a scam, as we both know.
Used to be skepticism was the heart of science.
Yes. Observation and experimentation with results. Always skepticism until proof is experienced.
No dumb-ass doomsday proclamations made for monetary gain.
Remember when the .003 degrees celsius the earth had warmed over the past 100 years stopped and the climate hoaxers were baffled? Then they started saying that all the warming had slithered off the land and swam to the bottom of the ocean to hide out but someday it would emerge from the depths like Godzilla. Science lol.
Yes, those mentally retarded liars actually said and wrote that. Unfortunately, plenty of fellow retards believe them and even more hucksters get rich off of it while they screw over America.
Screw the Delta Smelt/Spotted Owl/Kangaroo Rat, Save the Great Auk Passenger Pigeon Heath Hen, Labrador Duck, Carolina Parakeet and Dodo