| The Trump Administration Wants To Debate Climate Change On TV. Here's What Scientists Think About It - Jun26-11-2017 15:38 |
monckton ★★★☆☆
(436) |
...Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet," and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."...
..."What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.
...Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that "there is not much to debate"...
...John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that "there's nothing to debate, Climate change is a done deal," he added."...
...Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating "settled" scientific topics such as climate change "is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what's true and what's not."...
...Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science ... "There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy," Reich told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,' those debates are closed..."
...Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change "destructive." Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a "fake debate"...
...Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the "science is clear," and that Pruitt's proposal "isn't about scientific debate. It's bad policy in search of excuses."...
..."The public isn't buying Trump's retreat from climate progress," she added, "and it won't buy into this cheap charade..."
www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-trump-administration-wants-to-hold-a-televised-climate
Phew, they weren't shy with the sound bites. |
| 26-11-2017 22:31 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
I guess the deck being stacked toward government funding of science doesn't bother you, eh? |
| 27-11-2017 03:54 |
monckton★★★☆☆
(436) |
Now this is leadership, 33% wow ...
COP 21: Putin's full speech on Russia climate change reform
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4R28THutKI |
| 27-11-2017 20:59 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
monckton wrote:
...Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet," and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."...
..."What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.
...Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that "there is not much to debate"...
...John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that "there's nothing to debate, Climate change is a done deal," he added."...
...Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating "settled" scientific topics such as climate change "is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what's true and what's not."...
...Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science ... "There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy," Reich told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,' those debates are closed..."
...Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change "destructive." Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a "fake debate"...
...Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the "science is clear," and that Pruitt's proposal "isn't about scientific debate. It's bad policy in search of excuses."...
..."The public isn't buying Trump's retreat from climate progress," she added, "and it won't buy into this cheap charade..."
www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-trump-administration-wants-to-hold-a-televised-climate
Phew, they weren't shy with the sound bites.
The reason that they do not want to debate is simple - they will be made to look the absolute fools they are. Mann's lawsuit is about to resume and he will then be held in contempt of court, ordered to obey the order to show his data, and his case kicked straight out of court.
His data will then show that his entire case for CO2 heating is absolutely false and arrived at only by lying. The Oregon Petitioners with that data will then demonstrates that the heating could ONLY have come from variations of output of the Sun. |
| 27-11-2017 21:29 |
monckton★★★☆☆
(436) |
I think they already made it quite clear thank you.
I heard Putin is suing Trump and the Republicans.
They're making him look good. |
|
| 30-11-2017 19:40 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
monckton wrote:
I think they already made it quite clear thank you.
I heard Putin is suing Trump and the Republicans.
They're making him look good.
Being British are you afraid that the US may become allies with a new free Russia and put GB in the economic dumps unless they follow through with Brexit AS THE MASS OF GB CITIZENS VOTED FOR? By the way - why hasn't that occurred yet? Is that because the ruling party doesn't think that the vote of the people means anything? |
| 30-11-2017 22:35 |
monckton★★★☆☆
(436) |
Wake wrote:
...And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me round again to find
And all this science I don't understand
Oh no no noooo, I'm a rocket man
A Rocket man - burning out his fuse up here alone
Yeah the Nigerian royal family have been complaining as well.
You're making them look like reliable online business partners.
They want their mojo back. |
| 30-11-2017 22:39 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet," and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."...
..."What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.
...Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that "there is not much to debate"...
...John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that "there's nothing to debate, Climate change is a done deal," he added."...
...Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating "settled" scientific topics such as climate change "is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what's true and what's not."...
...Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science ... "There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy," Reich told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,' those debates are closed..."
...Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change "destructive." Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a "fake debate"...
...Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the "science is clear," and that Pruitt's proposal "isn't about scientific debate. It's bad policy in search of excuses."...
..."The public isn't buying Trump's retreat from climate progress," she added, "and it won't buy into this cheap charade..."
www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-trump-administration-wants-to-hold-a-televised-climate
Phew, they weren't shy with the sound bites.
The reason that they do not want to debate is simple - they will be made to look the absolute fools they are. Mann's lawsuit is about to resume and he will then be held in contempt of court, ordered to obey the order to show his data, and his case kicked straight out of court.
His data will then show that his entire case for CO2 heating is absolutely false and arrived at only by lying. The Oregon Petitioners with that data will then demonstrates that the heating could ONLY have come from variations of output of the Sun.
I find it amazing that you will say this, then turn right around and claim that H2O warms the Earth.
Make up your mind, dude.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-11-2017 23:58 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet," and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."...
..."What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.
...Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that "there is not much to debate"...
...John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that "there's nothing to debate, Climate change is a done deal," he added."...
...Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating "settled" scientific topics such as climate change "is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what's true and what's not."...
...Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science ... "There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy," Reich told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,' those debates are closed..."
...Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change "destructive." Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a "fake debate"...
...Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the "science is clear," and that Pruitt's proposal "isn't about scientific debate. It's bad policy in search of excuses."...
..."The public isn't buying Trump's retreat from climate progress," she added, "and it won't buy into this cheap charade..."
www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-trump-administration-wants-to-hold-a-televised-climate
Phew, they weren't shy with the sound bites.
The reason that they do not want to debate is simple - they will be made to look the absolute fools they are. Mann's lawsuit is about to resume and he will then be held in contempt of court, ordered to obey the order to show his data, and his case kicked straight out of court.
His data will then show that his entire case for CO2 heating is absolutely false and arrived at only by lying. The Oregon Petitioners with that data will then demonstrates that the heating could ONLY have come from variations of output of the Sun.
I find it amazing that you will say this, then turn right around and claim that H2O warms the Earth.
Make up your mind, dude.
Not nearly as amazing as the fact that you think that nothing in the atmosphere has the slightest effect on energy transfer.
Most people would think that if you put a blanket over you, you will be warmer than without one.
Most people could BOTHER to look things up and discover that air has a density of about 1.8 kg/m^3 and that pure water - pretty much what clouds are made of - has a density of 1,000 kg/m^3.
I know that this is pretty far out for someone with a brain the size of a pea but try to keep up - most people including a jackass like yourself, could understand that there is more than 500 times as much energy stored in the water vapor in the atmosphere as in plain air.
But I'm sure this is just too scientificy for you to follow.
So why don't you stick to telling us what you believe a calorimeter to be, why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation works for the Sun but not for the Earth and how you can make "electronic calorimeters". |
| 01-12-2017 01:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet," and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."...
..."What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.
...Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that "there is not much to debate"...
...John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that "there's nothing to debate, Climate change is a done deal," he added."...
...Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating "settled" scientific topics such as climate change "is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what's true and what's not."...
...Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science ... "There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy," Reich told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,' those debates are closed..."
...Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change "destructive." Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a "fake debate"...
...Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the "science is clear," and that Pruitt's proposal "isn't about scientific debate. It's bad policy in search of excuses."...
..."The public isn't buying Trump's retreat from climate progress," she added, "and it won't buy into this cheap charade..."
www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-trump-administration-wants-to-hold-a-televised-climate
Phew, they weren't shy with the sound bites.
The reason that they do not want to debate is simple - they will be made to look the absolute fools they are. Mann's lawsuit is about to resume and he will then be held in contempt of court, ordered to obey the order to show his data, and his case kicked straight out of court.
His data will then show that his entire case for CO2 heating is absolutely false and arrived at only by lying. The Oregon Petitioners with that data will then demonstrates that the heating could ONLY have come from variations of output of the Sun.
I find it amazing that you will say this, then turn right around and claim that H2O warms the Earth.
Make up your mind, dude.
Not nearly as amazing as the fact that you think that nothing in the atmosphere has the slightest effect on energy transfer.
Never said anything like that, liar.
Wake wrote:
Most people would think that if you put a blanket over you, you will be warmer than without one.
You are an energy source. The Earth isn't. False equivalence. The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.
Wake wrote:
...deleted mantra 4... air has a density of about 1.8 kg/m^3 and that pure water - pretty much what clouds are made of - has a density of 1,000 kg/m^3.
Rain is rather pure water also. Why does it fall? How does fog form?
Wake wrote:
...deleted mantra 1...1...2...there is more than 500 times as much energy stored in the water vapor in the atmosphere as in plain air.
I'm already aware of the difference in specific heat between water and air. I've pointed it out several times. For some reason, you decide to lie again and say that I'm saying otherwise.
...deleted mantra 1...2...10...attempted redefinition of 'science' as 'data'...
...deleted answered questions...
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: The Trump Administration Wants To Debate Climate Change On TV. Here's What Scientists Think About It06-03-2018 02:03 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"don'T rump" pushing AGW denier liar whiner "sigh-ants", is countered by real science:
https://www.voanews.com/a/ap-fact-check-trump-climate-and-ice/4228282.html
Edited on 06-03-2018 02:05 |
| 06-03-2018 16:38 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote: I guess the deck being stacked toward government funding of science doesn't bother you, eh?
Government funding to fake science. These people see their endless stream of money drying up and will fight it by simply refusing to debate real science. |
| 06-03-2018 16:45 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet," and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."...
..."What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.
...Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that "there is not much to debate"...
...John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that "there's nothing to debate, Climate change is a done deal," he added."...
...Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating "settled" scientific topics such as climate change "is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what's true and what's not."...
...Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science ... "There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy," Reich told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,' those debates are closed..."
...Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change "destructive." Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a "fake debate"...
...Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the "science is clear," and that Pruitt's proposal "isn't about scientific debate. It's bad policy in search of excuses."...
..."The public isn't buying Trump's retreat from climate progress," she added, "and it won't buy into this cheap charade..."
www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-trump-administration-wants-to-hold-a-televised-climate
Phew, they weren't shy with the sound bites.
The reason that they do not want to debate is simple - they will be made to look the absolute fools they are. Mann's lawsuit is about to resume and he will then be held in contempt of court, ordered to obey the order to show his data, and his case kicked straight out of court.
His data will then show that his entire case for CO2 heating is absolutely false and arrived at only by lying. The Oregon Petitioners with that data will then demonstrates that the heating could ONLY have come from variations of output of the Sun.
I find it amazing that you will say this, then turn right around and claim that H2O warms the Earth.
Make up your mind, dude.
Not nearly as amazing as the fact that you think that nothing in the atmosphere has the slightest effect on energy transfer.
Never said anything like that, liar.
Wake wrote:
Most people would think that if you put a blanket over you, you will be warmer than without one.
You are an energy source. The Earth isn't. False equivalence. The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.
Wake wrote:
...deleted mantra 4... air has a density of about 1.8 kg/m^3 and that pure water - pretty much what clouds are made of - has a density of 1,000 kg/m^3.
Rain is rather pure water also. Why does it fall? How does fog form?
Wake wrote:
...deleted mantra 1...1...2...there is more than 500 times as much energy stored in the water vapor in the atmosphere as in plain air.
I'm already aware of the difference in specific heat between water and air. I've pointed it out several times. For some reason, you decide to lie again and say that I'm saying otherwise.
...deleted mantra 1...2...10...attempted redefinition of 'science' as 'data'...
...deleted answered questions...
Every time I read something like this I get a chuckle out of nightmare. Everyone get this - the Earth is not an energy source. All of the 84 terrawatts of energy that the earth sheds each day isn't energy. |
| RE: The Trump Administration Wants To Debate Climate Change On TV. Here's What Scientists Think About It06-03-2018 21:51 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet," and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."...
..."What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.
...Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that "there is not much to debate"...
...John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that "there's nothing to debate, Climate change is a done deal," he added."...
...Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating "settled" scientific topics such as climate change "is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what's true and what's not."...
...Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science ... "There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy," Reich told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,' those debates are closed..."
...Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change "destructive." Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a "fake debate"...
...Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the "science is clear," and that Pruitt's proposal "isn't about scientific debate. It's bad policy in search of excuses."...
..."The public isn't buying Trump's retreat from climate progress," she added, "and it won't buy into this cheap charade..."
www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-trump-administration-wants-to-hold-a-televised-climate
Phew, they weren't shy with the sound bites.
The reason that they do not want to debate is simple - they will be made to look the absolute fools they are. Mann's lawsuit is about to resume and he will then be held in contempt of court, ordered to obey the order to show his data, and his case kicked straight out of court.
His data will then show that his entire case for CO2 heating is absolutely false and arrived at only by lying. The Oregon Petitioners with that data will then demonstrates that the heating could ONLY have come from variations of output of the Sun.
I find it amazing that you will say this, then turn right around and claim that H2O warms the Earth.
Make up your mind, dude.
Not nearly as amazing as the fact that you think that nothing in the atmosphere has the slightest effect on energy transfer.
Never said anything like that, liar.
Wake wrote:
Most people would think that if you put a blanket over you, you will be warmer than without one.
You are an energy source. The Earth isn't. False equivalence. The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.
Wake wrote:
...deleted mantra 4... air has a density of about 1.8 kg/m^3 and that pure water - pretty much what clouds are made of - has a density of 1,000 kg/m^3.
Rain is rather pure water also. Why does it fall? How does fog form?
Wake wrote:
...deleted mantra 1...1...2...there is more than 500 times as much energy stored in the water vapor in the atmosphere as in plain air.
I'm already aware of the difference in specific heat between water and air. I've pointed it out several times. For some reason, you decide to lie again and say that I'm saying otherwise.
...deleted mantra 1...2...10...attempted redefinition of 'science' as 'data'...
...deleted answered questions...
Every time I read something like this I get a chuckle out of nightmare. Everyone get this - the Earth is not an energy source. All of the 84 terrawatts of energy that the earth sheds each day isn't energy.
Not from the Earth. From the Sun. Why do you insist on removing the Sun from the system when it's part of the system?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 06-03-2018 21:52 |
| 06-03-2018 21:55 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Most people would think that if you put a blanket over you, you will be warmer than without one.
You are an energy source. The Earth isn't. False equivalence. The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.
Not from the Earth. From the Sun. Why do you insist on removing the Sun from the system when it's part of the system?
My point is made - you don't even know that anything above absolute zero is an energy source. |
| 06-03-2018 23:53 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Most people would think that if you put a blanket over you, you will be warmer than without one.
You are an energy source. The Earth isn't. False equivalence. The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.
Not from the Earth. From the Sun. Why do you insist on removing the Sun from the system when it's part of the system?
My point is made - you don't even know that anything above absolute zero is an energy source.
Still trying to ignore the Sun, eh?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |