Trump’s executive order issued Tuesday doesn’t just knock over the centerpiece of Obama administration’s efforts to prevent the worst effects of climate change, the Clean Power Plan. It also includes a list of disastrous concessions that the fossil fuel industry and its front groups have worked for years to win.
It orders the Interior Department to end a moratorium on new coal mine leasing on federal land; directs agencies to reconsider rules limiting emissions from hydraulic fracturing; kills guidance requiring climate change be considered in environmental reviews for infrastructure projects; and calls for a re-calculating of the social cost of carbon, which puts a dollar value on what greenhouse gas emissions cost society. Trump’s order also demands federal agencies rethink any policy that stands in the way of energy development and cancels other Obama-era climate efforts such as his Climate Action Plan.
Fully dismantling the Clean Power Plan and writing a new rule will take years, and be rife with legal and regulatory roadblocks. Still, the order is the biggest Trump giveaway yet to an industry eager to postpone a day of reckoning on climate change.
It follows the State Department’s approval last week of a key permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which had been denied by the Obama administration over concerns about climate change. The week before that, Trump asked Congress to cut the EPA by nearly a third and also ordered a rollback of Obama’s fuel efficiency rules for vehicles. Thanks to another reversal from Trump, the Dakota Access Pipeline is now filled with oil and ready to run, according to court papers filed yesterday.
Trump has consistently hired climate deniers, energy company employees, and advocates of environmental deregulation for key positions. Next, he is expected to appoint three friends of the industry to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the panel that approves natural gas pipelines.
As White House budget director Mick Mulvaney put it, “Regarding the question as to climate change, I think the president was fairly straightforward – we’re not spending money on that anymore. We consider that to be a waste of your money.”
Trump’s policies do ensure, however, that money will be spent on climate-change-inducing energy infrastructure. With each order Trump signs, the physical landscape of his presidency comes into sharper focus.
A strip mine in Utah, two oil pipelines in the Dakotas, coal plants across the U.S., and a liquid natural gas export facility in Oregon: these are some of the fossil fuel projects that Trump’s actions will help build, revive, or preserve.
Meanwhile, scientists look warily toward melting glaciers in Alaska, waters lapping further ashore of the Gulf Coast, and worsening drought and famine in Somalia and Yemen where the U.S. has deployed drones and troops.
Photo: Andrew Burton/Getty Images
Trump doesn’t deserve sole credit for the era he’s ushering in. Tuesday’s order is a culmination of a generation’s worth of work by the fossil fuel industry to keep the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
It was in 1998 that Environmental Protection Agency lawyers first asserted that the agency could put limits on greenhouse gas emissions, as long as it established that they harmed human health and the environment. It would be another nine years before the Supreme Court backed up the EPA lawyers. And it wasn’t until 2009 that the agency finally announced that climate-warming gases did indeed cause harm.
The fossil fuel industry was alert the whole time, fortifying a massive anti-science infrastructure of front groups, fringe scientists, and sympathetic politicians put in place to protect fossil fuel profits from collapsing. Even as it seemed that public sentiment was shifting against climate deniers, and Republican politicians and companies started to hedge their statements — admitting that climate change is happening, but misleadingly claiming that we don’t know how much of it is the fault of humans — they kept up their assault on regulation.
Obama’s Clean Power Plan was a lightning rod. The 2014 proposal would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030, from 2005 levels. It would achieve this by setting carbon emission reduction goals for every state in the contiguous United States, which would force some plants to switch from coal to natural gas or renewable sources. Last year, the Supreme Court halted implementation of the plan while states argued against it in federal court. Litigation to kill the plan was led by attorneys general with close ties to the fossil fuel industry, like new EPA head Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma.
The coal industry, already suffering as cheap gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing forced coal plants to close, expected to take the biggest hit. As the director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, Bruce Nilles, put it, “For coal mining companies the likes of Peabody, and [Murray Energy CEO] Bob Murray, who have been losing their shirts, this is a fight to the death.”
Trump’s order grants floundering coal giants a gasping wish — and it’s a boon to the entire fossil fuel industry, removing obstacles for a series of energy projects across the country.
Photo: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg News/Getty Images
North Dakota provides a useful vantage point from which to observe what will happen if all goes according to Trump’s plans. The state was assigned one of the highest emissions reduction goals in the country — 45 percent. It gets about three quarters of its energy from the state’s large reserves of lignite, or “brown,” coal, considered the most polluting variety. Over time, Trump policies would leave North Dakota’s landscape with more coal plants and coal mines and fewer wind turbines, not to mention the Dakota Access Pipeline. Oil obtained via hydraulic fracturing from the state’s Bakken fields has now entered the Dakota Access line, crossing the Missouri River. The river’s waters were the focus of a massive resistance encampment against the pipeline, led by members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and forcibly shut down at the end of February.
Meanwhile, in North Dakota’s neighboring states, Montana and South Dakota, the revived Keystone XL pipeline would send carbon-intensive bitumen from Canada’s tar sands across the border to southern refineries. That project also faces massive pushback from tribes, property owners, and environmental groups.
In Utah, Alton Coal Development’s Coal Hollow mine will move forward now that the moratorium on coal leasing on federal land is being lifted. The proposed strip mine expansion, located a few miles from Bryce Canyon National Park, would produce 2 million tons of coal annually, worth an estimated 4.8 million tons of carbon dioxide if sold and burned. Alton has claimed that the portion of the mine already operating on private land would have to shut down if it is not allowed to expand onto public land, and two counties in Utah sued the Interior Department for stalling the mine. Area residents and wildlife conservationists have objected to the project for years, arguing that it threatens natural and cultural resources in the area, including the park.
Though framed as a jobs program, lifting the moratorium is another giveaway to the industry. It was put in place because reports have indicated the current leasing program allows coal-mining companies to pay less than market prices to access and sell a public resource. The Obama Administration began a review of the leasing program to figure out where it was failing taxpayers, and the Department of Interior demanded that new leases wait until the results came in. The moratorium was most threatening to coal companies not because it prevented mining from moving forward — in fact the current market for coal supports hardly any new leases — but because it threatened to force companies to pay more money in royalties to the U.S. government.
The Obama administration’s review also promised to examine the environmental costs of coal mining, potentially incorporating the social cost of carbon into those royalty calculations. The new executive order eliminates that concern.
On Oregon’s Pacific coast, a plan for a liquid natural gas export facility known as Jordan Cove could rise from the dead, as Trump prepares to appoint three new members to the five-member Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which approves natural gas projects. According to reports, the appointees will likely include Robert Powelson, a member of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and a pusher of policies friendly to fracking companies; Kevin McIntyre, head of the energy practice at Jones Day, a big law firm that represents energy companies, and Neil Chatterjee, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s advisor and his right-hand man in fighting the Clean Power Plan.
The commission, called FERC, was already notorious for approving nearly every natural gas project submitted for consideration. Jordan Cove was a rare exception: FERC rejected the proposal a year ago, stating that the company behind it, Veresen, had failed to line up buyers in Asia and that the proposed pipeline that would supply the facility, the Pacific Connector, was not in the public interest. If approved, the project would export gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing and would require the construction of a power plant that would become one of the state’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Ninety percent of the property owners along the pipeline route had refused offers from Veresen and its partner in pipeline building, Williams.
Trump issued an executive order in January that would expedite approvals for “high priority” infrastructure projects. And earlier this month Veresen CEO Don Althoff told Bloomberg, “the White House is going to work with us on getting through the permitting process quickly and efficiently. The message to us was hurry up – get going.”
Jody McCaffree has been fighting the Jordan Cove project for years, and her words could be echoed by any number of environmental activists grappling with Trump’s orders.
“Here we are twelve years later still having to volunteer incredible amounts of our time and energy saying the same things over and over again in these various permitting processes. This is time we will never get back,” she told The Intercept. However, she added, “We must fight on.”
Photo: Ric Tapia/AP
Alongside Trump’s map of dirty energy, something else has emerged as well: a new geography of resistance. Legislation recently proposed in Massachusetts aims to get the state to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035, and California’s Senate leader Kevin de León introduced a similar bill last month. “California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future,” he said in a statement after Trump’s election. The state has also pledged to maintain its strict vehicle emissions standards in opposition to Trump’s rollback of the federal standards.
Meanwhile, climate and environmental advocates are preparing to stand in the way of Trump via lawsuits and demonstrations. Organizers involved in resisting the Dakota Access pipeline have moved their fight to new spaces, starting a camp in Iowa branded as a “progressive think tank and resistance to the Trump administration.” Camps built to protest the Diamond Pipeline were recently established in Oklahoma. And the renewed fight against the Keystone XL will be infused with energy from Dakota Access veterans.
Ponca Nation member Mekasi Camp Horinek has fought all three pipelines. “I want to say thank you to the president for all the bad decisions that he’s making — for the bad cabinet appointments that he’s made and for awakening a sleeping giant. People that have never stood up for themselves, people that have never had their voices heard, that have never put their bodies on the line are now outraged,” he told The Intercept shortly after Trump signed his order reviving Keystone XL.
“I would like to say thank you to President Trump for his bigotry, for his sexism, for bringing all of us in this nation together to stand up and unite.”
Top photo: An aerial photograph shows the Peabody Energy Corp. Wild Boar coal mine in Lynnville, Ind. on April 5, 2016.
Industry leaders and their lackeys in government are the ultimate fools, in addition to being totally immoral. They think that money and business are more important than the environment. (Actually, most Americans think that, but in not to the extent that the people who make a fortune by destroying the environment do.) Wait til they have to drink, eat, and breathe their money because it’s all that’s left.
Great isn’t it? All that pipe sitting there w/ rust in it.
I’m tired ‘climate debating.’ So, here’s what should happen:
A computer only understands addition, subtraction, multiplication, division; therefore, it will be and should be easy enough for the average high school graduate or GED holder to understand climate change modeling.
Climate scientists and climate modelers you need to:
— spell out in a language that we can all easily understand how / what you are adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing in your computer to arrive at man-made climate change.
— skip the description or derivation of the PDEs and go straight to ea term in the equations saying what they are, and how they are weighted, and why.
Then us laymen laywomen can judge your work and have a substantive conversation on this topic.
Do it yesterday!
There are three layers to science:
-Primary research
-Secondary research (reviews, texts, and compendia)
-Translation and education (Public school, Scientific American, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, etc.)
It is not the failing of the primary researchers that has reduced your grasp of the science, of the technical equations, numerical analyses, statistics, hypotheses, assumptions, and collection methods. Nor is there any shortage of approachable text to help clarify primary literature, although it is difficult. Furthermore, I do not think that the translators and educators have been anything short of unequivocal in their representation of primary literature’s findings. So I think the three layers of science are doing just fine, thanks. “You can lead a horse to water…”
I work eighty hours a week digesting, analyzing, interpreting, approaching, and consulting data. I put my findings, tabulated as clearly and completely as is humanly possible, in (predominantly) open-access literature where others can repeat my processes and adjust accordingly. You think I should spend an extra forty walking your lazy ass through the process?
Wasn’t asking for myself, but a friend who was embarrassed (name rhymes w/ Sal Vadore gave a Ted talk recently).
I can top that and raise 20 hours! I’m a janitor and work 100 hrs per week. So sorry I just don’t have the time to look at these eqns; but if American idealism has any basis in reality I’m the sovereign, so it’s up to us (the janitors) to decide whether we want to be carbon taxed for this and I have to decide, is this bullshit or not… not relying on anything anyone tells me.
I’m thinking right now you’re just a tool user; you buy the hammer but don’t know anything about how it’s made or what it really is because you don’t understand.
If you could Dr. Joey, please give us a term by term explanation of the k-omega turbulence model. Remember if you can’t explain it in a simple manner.. you don’t understand.
Just 20 hours of your time plz.
I once wrote a opinion article on you concern http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/19116/title/Of-Sharing-and-Humility-in-Science/. Joey is busy, but someone in his field has explaining to do to non-scientist to secure funding. If we as scientist do not share with the public we all lose the magic and inspiration. The internet usually has something that translates the science. It still takes thought and time. Understanding even controversy in science is rewarding but not easy.
Apparently all climate scientists are “Joey”; they have a problem w/ being transpicuous . Was it Hansford that didn’t want to release his data because he didn’t want folks punching holes in it…
So we end up in a cafeteria food fight slinging stupidity at ea other.
Gross algebraic simplifications solved on coarse grids, well of course there will be something wrong. But at least then we can discuss the math rather than: you’re just a denier, no I’m not, you’re just dishonest.
Noone is going to capture all the influences, all the sources and sinks.. the more people are aware, the better the models might become. A layperson may think of a source or sink noone has yet.
Give em access!
Then after we talk about it then we chuck it in the trash can because industrialization (industrial use of carbon) is tied to war… and aint noone give that up.
Science is not as precise as many think, two honest and gifted scientist can have opposite opinions reviewing the same data . My area of research is cancer immunotherapy. Billions have been spent on “the war on cancer” and some good progress made for some cancers but the major cancers once they metastasize have low cure rate of between about 5% to 15% and this has change little in decades of vast capital outlay. Still few planning and paid or funded by the current system want something new. There is a good and understandable book on this “The Truth In Small Doses” by Clifton Leaf. Science can be slow to change or produce change. Activists can increases funding but may not change progress. Progress in cancer treatment may be coming but it will be expensive and glacial, unless something very unusual to business as usual happens? Same is true for global warming.
It’s funny to me that the left is fanatically worried about future generations when it comes to the environment, but couldn’t care in the least when it comes to the national debt. I love nature and hate seeing it defiled, but I have to admit that I am getting great joy out of watching the shrieking and hand-wringing by progressives over this issue.
maybe because the “national debt” is a fake issue. i’m glad you get great joy out of risking civilization, and the only worry you have is if we pay ourselves back someday, would that be before or after the resource/immigration wars. way to prioritize bucky.
The inquisition has arrived! That didn’t take long.
it’s not an inquisiton dumbass. i notice you didn’t try to make an argument.
Don’t enjoy too much pleasure over this. Yes, the left can be annoying, but the right has completely lost their minds on this topic and DO NOT care what happens to the environment decades from now. As long as they can benefit in the present, who cares right?? Trump supporters; for example, most are not paying attention to this. They have gone back to their regular lives now that their master is in office. This simpleton executive order will cause future problems.
it’s not decades from now, it’s already happening. old liberty joe is very annoyed to hear about science for some reason. maybe he’s a “scientist” like tony.
I’m sure that to an extent you are correct, but it looks to me like the left are the ones losing their minds. I want to find a way for environmental sustainability to be a reality, but it will be impossible to have a constructive debate on that issue as long as the left has this fanatical, religious-like devotion to radical environmentalism. Just look at pretzelattack’s comments. I dared to question the dogmas established by the magisterium, so he harasses and insults me. If it was up to him, he’d probably lock me in the stocks with a sign that says “heretic.” That kind of attitude is entirely nonconducive to finding a solution, yet it is the standard tactic by the left. If the right doesn’t care and the left is only hurting their own cause, then God help us all.
still no arguments. i won’t hold my breath. do you dare to question the moon landing, too? if you make stupid assertions, you may well be called on them. it’s not questioning if you just throw a bunch of vapid talking points out. if you have a problem with the science, try to narrow it down. so far you haven’t even mentioned one.
I don’t need to make an argument; you’re making for me, oh High Inquisitor Pretzelattack. I’m not here to argue about whether or not climate change is happening–you’ll notice that not once have I claimed it isn’t or that we shouldn’t be doing something about it. I’m here to point out the lunacy of the left on this issue, but it turns out I didn’t need to because all anyone needs to do it read your comments to see it. So thank you for that.
no, so far you’re here to claim that somehow pointing out that global warming is happening is “lunacy” from the “left”. if you have an actual claim to make, feel free to do so! is all science “leftist”?
You would destroy the very same environment on which you and your grandchildren depend to survive because you want to hurt “the other team” right now–because they’re so annoying to you. You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face–and seemingly proud of yourself for it.
Who cares about the right and the left? Who cares about your political team and your political enemies? What if sound policymaking has nothing to do with your feelings–indeed, has nothing to do with you personally at all?
There seem to be no adults left in this country.
Yeah, my kids are only going to grow up with asthma, cancer, and other preventable illnesses stemming from pollution and rising temperatures, so who cares, right? As long as we pay down the national debt that keeps being inflated by endless wars and massive spying apparatuses. Our children are paying the price for our folly. maybe YOU don’t care about the future, but our kids will. Don’t expect them to be grateful because we left them a planet that is becoming uninhabitable.
The businesses (oil, pipelines, coal, etc) benefiting from destroying the planet don’t do a darn thing to pay off our national debt (aka “fake issue”) due to their tax loopholes and possible future tax “reforms” that will enable them to pay even less in government revenue. So, not only will middle and low income citizens STILL be saddled with the burden of paying off the debt (along with all the so-called important budget cuts to arts, pbs, and the likes) we will now suffer from all the negative effects of more man-mad pollution that will increase due to the erasing of environmental protections.
Yeah, this deal is no win for the world and only a win for the CEOs and stockholders. Congratulations.
I honestly don’t know what any of you are going on about. Every one of you are arguing against points I didn’t make and against positions I never claimed to hold, so if you expect me to argue back you will be disappointed. I’m not some corporation-loving Republican if that’s what you thought. But by all means keep angrily screeching into the wind. It’s amusing, if nothing else.
Trump with way to the right republican policy has so far blown healthcare and is straying into dangerous environmental ground. The swing voters that elected him will turn on a dime, at this rate even the nomination of his own party in 2020 is unsure. The swing voter said good bye to Bush and Clinton dynasties and the Obama bookmark, and will surely give Trump a nice send off in 2020 and perhaps a major message earlier in 2018.
The field has been opened by Trump, who may get no points for style or substance but has cleared out the past and provided a path for a moderate progressive independent in 2020. Republican and democrats have placed their own same-rule big money payoff pox on both their houses. America still has a center that wants Constitutional and moderate rule and policy that neither party has provided. A policy that stewards US to new frontiers and opportunities. The greed of wealth maintenance and expansion on one side and needs of the other classes not really represented by either party must be balanced with individual effort and responsibility. Some winner for many swing voters might be: (1) some form of single payer Medicare as an alternative competition for insurance to keep cost down. (2) generous but controlled immigration; (3) More “green” America, that turns the current consumption economy more conservation oriented, people want green and market forces with some legislation and tax breaks could move green inventions to market (oil company nightmare, friend of climate change fears both real and imagined. Yes, some folks overstate real data and a good case. This should include infrastructure restoration for both rural and urban areas. (4) Leave controversial issues like gun control, and abortion as is for one administration they create much heat with little light. (5) Make education a center piece of the new America, both institutional and especially self-education. If you cannot teach and renew yourself you will lose any educational edge. (6) A lot less war and secret surveillance, a rebirth of Constitutional law and responsibility of our elected officials to We the people. (6) Review every case of every nonviolent crime for rehabilitation. If we grant you a break and you screw up again you can “kiss the baby.” This is not the play book of hard right or left, look where that has taken us, marching in place while moneyed special interests pull the stings.
Good post, lots of good ideas.
I hope that both parties suffer greatly and a new third party that focuses on the future (meaning green energy, education, and universal human rights) can arise that appeals to the moderates from both sides.
Amen
The picture there looks like the sort of penny-wise-pound-foolish attitude that seems to pervade all of industry and government. I mean think about it — you have all the pipe for hundreds of miles in pipeline, neatly stacked up, and … you can’t even be bothered to so much as lay a tarp over it? In fifty years, maybe twenty, people will be saying that the pipeline is old and corroded and something has to be done about it, but the one time it would have been really easy to keep it out of the weather they don’t. And it’s that way with everything — people park their well-sealed $5000 sedan locked safely in a garage, but you see countless $100,000+ pieces of earth moving equipment left to sit over the winter at state game lands and on other public and private property without anything to keep snow and ice from working its way into the cabin and wiring, let alone to keep vandals and thieves away from it. Their attitude seems to be that well, it’s all insured, and only the next few months’ bottom line matters. How they treat the environment is just an extension of that.
That is quarterly capitalism in a nutshell. The owning class just cares about immediate profits and not about long term and sustainability.
Yes, we need a new conservation across the board game plan. This would include basic maintenance of humanity and environment. The roof of shelter, good nutrition and at least a vision for a better life. A TALL order that would require humanity to rethink its game plan over generations. The old plan over population and mass consumption just fails at some point and lets the four horsemen sort it out. In the past as our population has increased this has cost hundreds of millions of lives, in future billions for doing business as usual. We as a species are repeatedly winning only to later lose the game of life. We need to replace “penny-wise-pound-foolish attitude that seems to pervade all of industry and government.” Conservation of human, environmental resources is the answer but no one in power is asking the question or questioning their “unsound” methods.
The internet is the sum total of humanity’s wisdom is at your fingertips, yet you use it to further your own biases and broadcast them to others.
The end goal is to bury these pipes in the ground without so much as a tarp around them. It follows that smart engineers being paid by big oil to design this pipe to carry Gaia’s sacred blood to some hellscape refinery in Louisiana where a bound demon consumes it like a fine wine paired with the cancer-striken firstborn children of the proletariat while vomiting back out stock dividends in a satanic, planet-destroying ritual were expected to get as much oil to market as possible, leak free. These engineers put very advanced paint on the pipe that prohibits rust, and will have a sacrificial anode (non-satanic) for what isn’t painted. Those rusty bands are the bare steel left for the welders to work on, and although the photographer did his best to make TransCanada look like idiots, you can still see the paint which isn’t rusting on the edges of the photograph.
Of course, if you delay construction for half a decade and then go, “well look at all that rust you can’t use that half-decade old pipe”, you get what you wanted, don’t you?
http://blog.transcanada.com/ten-safety-features-of-keystone-xl-you-might-not-know/
Corrosion-Resistant Coating
As with all of TransCanada’s pipelines, safety is at the heart of everything we build. In addition to using high-strength carbon steel, our pipelines are protected with the most advanced, corrosion-resistant fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE) coatings that are designed specifically to meet TransCanada’s safety standards.
Cathodic Protection
During TransCanada’s pipeline operations, a very low-voltage electric current called cathodic protection is applied to the pipe. Cathodic protection connects protected pipeline metal to a more easily corroded piece of metal attached to the pipeline. This type of protection also protects things such as bridges, boats and cars from corrosion and rust. This system undergoes rigorous inspections every year to ensure it is operating effectively.
Mr. Trump appears to be fulfilling the Russian agenda of turning the United States into an energy producing powerhouse. Sitting atop their frozen tundra, the Russians dream their dreams of Siberia as a tropical paradise and concoct their schemes to promote global warming. Even though the world has been alerted to their evil plans, it appears powerless to stop them. Where is Superman?
Your wit continues to impress and amaze.
Who are you?
What do you do for a living?
Is there climate change? Sure. Can man affect the climate? Sure. Is there man-made global warming? The evidence on that one is debatable and deep down, the left knows it. That’s why many refuse to engage with people who disagree, loudly proclaiming that “the science has been settled” and anyone who disagrees is “anti-science” and a “denier” (a choice of words deliberately meant to invoke Holocaust deniers). Folks, when your strategy for winning a debate is shutting up everyone who disagrees by insulting and marginalizing them, YOU are the most unscientific person in the room by default. What’s more, that’s exactly the kind of attitude that gave rise to Trump. Shockingly enough, attacking and silencing people tends to piss them off and make them want to push back. So drop the “denier” slur, and actually engage people who disagree as PEOPLE instead of The Enemy. When the facts are on your side, you don’t need to demean or shut people up to win.
science is not “the left”. science is “debated” in scientific journals, not in comment boards online. the science has come in, and not one major science organization, anywhere, disputes that it is overwhelmingly likely that humans cause it. that’s why people say the science on this is settled. just like gravity, the moon landing, and evolution. the fossil fuel companies, after their own scientists told them that fossil fuel emissions would cause global warming, started a propaganda campaign to shut people up, especially scientists. as you noted, that tends to piss people off. scientists started pushing back some, so then the deniers claimed they were “leftist” and smeared their work and their integrity.
Usa_nazilans; should be kicked out of all climate deals & have sanctions placed upon its shores.
[[[ Still, the order is the biggest Trump giveaway yet to an industry eager to postpone a day of reckoning on climate change. ]]]
THE BIGGEST COMMIE GIVEAWAY YET … TO Al Gore and his henchmen at KPCB.
Climate change is bunk… unless you consider the delta-change factor of the Earth orbit around the sun… You know… that big hot ball of nuclear fire in the sky?
“Climate change”, if any, is NOT caused by humans.
Donnie’s Short Sighted “solutions” to get the US. economy “booming” again (read: fatten the wallets of his upper few buddies who don’t give a damn) will cause more Long Term Problems than these will cure now.
“Another Job well done…”
Thanks Donny !!
PS: Donny, there is a whole industry to be created that combats / can assist countries and companies with state-of-the -art environmental solutions…. Good for the economy and your kids…..
Obama was a bullshitter.
Trump is an asshole.
The Keystone XL was never cancelled. It was postponed
and now the scheme is unfolding as it is
because of Obama’s faking.
Only a Demon would want to perpetuate the destruction of the only environment in which mankind can exist!
Demons and the Demon Possessed want to destroy and kill off mankind and always had a “cruel hatred” for mankind from the beginning!
Demons and the Demon Possessed have infiltrated all goverments, all countries, all major corporations, all political parties and canidates and all hierarchies that rule over mankind all over the whole world.
The ‘New World Order’ (NWO) has come and gone… BEHOLD… The ‘Demonic World Order’ (DWO) is now in place. Infinitely more dangerous and more deadly!
2 Thessolonian 2v1-12
And mankind has become…
2 Timothy 3v1-17
Regards,
A Voice Crying in the Wilderness
It is unremarkable that so many intellectual and debate amateurs come pouring out of the government education system, and yet the low level of discourse still amazes one.
To claim that climate change will destroy the Earth and then claim that anyone who disagrees with you WANTS the Earth destroyed is either so stupid or so dishonest, that it should make us all fear government education far more than climate change.
Nothing like a brainwashed fool calling someone else poorly educated. NO ONE can prove, or even definitively knows, that anthropogenic global warming won’t eventually turn the Earth into something like Venus. Yours is the same idiotic anti-environmental crap that humans can’t destroy the Earth. Really? How do you know that?
Fuck you Greenwald!
Times like this, I want Richard Dawkins to illuminate;
“The evidence for global climate change is overwhelming. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists, along with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and more than 30 professional scientific research societies, agree that climate change is happening because of human actions and that it will be an increasingly serious problem if we don’t stop it. It is reasonable for politicians to debate the best way to solve this problem, but whether it is a problem should not be up for discussion anymore.”
Now for the “Godless Athiest Pseudo” replies.
Heh, heh. Quoting David Shiffman as Dawkins.
That will be good for idiots like Chris.
I’m with Trump! Go Trump, go!
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549
“The Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming”
You can’t even comprehend simple facts. Go with Trump! :-)
If science relied upon consensus opinion the earth would have for corners and the earth-centric heavens a fixed amount of stars.
Karl Wrote: “If science relied upon consensus opinion the earth would have for corners and the earth-centric heavens a fixed amount of stars.”
Uh, no.
Uh, yes
Hell no. You and science are not even in the same dimension.
Hell yes. I’m a scientist.
Is trolling a science? I missed that branch of STEM.
Listen deepshit!
I can talk statistics, probability, both theory and applications, data processing, error estimation, sigmas, discuss any graph that anyone in climate science ever published, that you can find.
Just throw it at me.
But when I answer don’t come back and say: but, but, at my favorite site XY journalist says … and I trust him more than you because I like the politics of that web site.
Now fuck off and stop wasting my time unless you really have anything to say but your favorite slogans.
Tony, I picture you laughing over a vat of bubbling Dow Chemical ooze, fashioned something like the ‘Joker’. Why don’t you & Karl go slip off one of those 4 corners then.
Errr… maybe you ought to express yourself in iambic pentameter to mask you own predilection for reductive vulgarity.
if you are a scientist, in 50 words or less please explain why you don’t believe in climate change. Besides, whether it’s a carbon tax credit scheme or is indeed real, weaning ourselves off fossil fuel is better for our air, water and our expensive and dangerous foreign policy of seizing other countries’ resources by force. Nikola Tesla wanted to give the world free energy by harnessing the electricity in the atmosphere. Canada still has their Tesla tower. JP Morgan had the Tesla’s US tower destroyed when he discovered Tesla’s plans to give the world free energy. From Wikipedia
“Wardenclyffe Tower (1901–1917), also known as the Tesla Tower, was an early wireless transmission station designed and built by Nikola Tesla in Shoreham, New York in 1901-1902. Tesla intended to transmit messages, telephony and even facsimile images across the Atlantic to England and to ships at sea based on his theories of using the Earth to conduct the signals. His decision to scale up the facility and add his ideas of wireless power transmission to better compete with Guglielmo Marconi’s radio based telegraph system was met with the project’s primary backer, financier J. P. Morgan, refusing to fund the changes. Additional investment could not be found and the project was abandoned in 1906 and never became operational.”
Really a guy who can talk about statistics, probability, data processing , sigmas, error estimation and not appreciate the inherent redundancy in such a statement must have his head located squarely and stuck in that tubular organ known best as the sigmoid colon. Deepshit indeed!
i can talk aikido, karate, judo, jiu jitsu, kendo and sambo, but that doesn’t make me a fucking martial arts expert. what you can’t do is talk to actual scientists about these subjects, or produce a paper that refutes the science behind global warming.
You couldn’t find science on the Caltech campus with a map. Statistics is taught in junior college, junior.
This comment was utterly false and ahistorical: “If science relied upon consensus opinion the earth would have for corners and the earth-centric heavens a fixed amount of stars.”
Uh, no. Science relies precisely on consensus and new data and discoveries. It is not fixed and never was, and its ability to nimbly move forward and develop a new, more accurate consensus is why it has transformed the planet and our lives.
And there is no refuting the new data or consensus: the planet is gaining more and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity and that warms the planet. The greenhouse effect is as even better established than evolution is in biology.
It was me who originally made that statement.
Ahistorical? So it is your argument that no culture at any time shared the opinion that the earth was flat? Or, that the Earth was the center of the universe? Or, that there were a fixed number of stars in the heavens?
In regard to consensus: Good science relies upon a standardized method of inquiry that is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The intended goal of that method is to devise a workable hypothesis of causation of the phenomena in question. The feasibility of that hypothesis is judged according to its ability to accurately and consistently predict the outcome of experiments designed to mimic said phenomena. It is only by mean of replicating a consistent set of predictable results that a theory is characterized as a workable model of causation. Absent the ability to accurately predict outcomes, a model must be subject to critical review and revision. Regardless of a majority consensus, the failure of a model to accurately mimic and predict the phenomena in question makes it unreliable. I have already given a practical example elsewhere of the way in which consensus opinion has been eroded over a period of several decades in regard to the predicted rate of warming relating to rising levels of atmospheric CO2 – predictions that have been consistently exaggerated in climate models by at least 50%. Thus it can be said that consensus opinion has proven to be unreliable.
so why do you think you know more about the subject than the royal society, or the aaas, mr. scientist sir?
science relies on scientific evidence. the overwhelming evidence has convinced the vast majority of scientists who work in the field that humans are causing global warming with fossil fuel emissions. you will be happy to know that this evidence is not based on the fact that so many scientists are convinced by it, nor based on the fact that every national academy of science is convinced by it; it’s based on over 150 years of science. you had it backwards.
If you had claimed that a majority of climate scientists agree that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to a net rise in global warming you would have no argument from me. However, I am not aware of a scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming. It is a question of degree is it not? If climate model projections consistently overestimate the influence of atmospheric CO2 on the rise of global temperatures, said models can be characterized as faulty, can they not? If the models themselves are faulty then the consensus opinion derived from them must be faulty. As the exaggerated rate of acceleration has been, and is being, used to affect radical political ends that could ultimately cause taxpayers trillions of dollars and result in a radical global change in human behavior, it would seem prudent to move forward with a heightened degree of caution as the lemming drawn band wagon hurtles toward that precipice of change.
It’s not exactly consensus, but preponderance of evidence. For a theory to be accepted as such, it needs a substantial body of evidence. Surveys of scientists and studies of published papers are not a popularity metric. Rather, they are a proxy of preponderance of evidence.
Of course, that sort of heuristic works well today, but it’s not applicable to pre-scientific times.
it’s not a legal standard, and there really isn’t conflicting evidence. there’s no alternative hypothesis to explain the warming. there’s a lot more evidence than just “preponderance”, but all people who aren’t climate scientists can do is point to the conclusions of scientists. there has been a long term propaganda campaign to cast doubt on the science, financed by the fossil fuel companies.
I’m 65 and the thought of dying doesn’t bother me completely, but what does is the fact that everybody won’t also die when I go. Now, with DT’s approach to the environment, I feel I have a good chance of everyone dying around the same time I do, so Thanks Mr. President. You’ve made the thought of dying a lot easier to take.
Great!
Probably a single guaranteed good thing that Trump did.
Get pseudo-scientific crackpots consuming tons of money out of the equation.
As per the title, this is an executive order to deny that climates exist??
It’s about whether weather is or isn’t at high temperatures.
Poor Trump, getting all the blame when it’s corporations that should be protested and damned to hell.
I mean, he’s an idiot, but the corporations are insanely irresponsible with their considerable influence and combined intelligence. Apparently now it’s Trump’s fault that they have no self-discipline or sense of social duty. Weird, that, when Trump couldn’t boil an egg let alone a planet all by himself.
So it’s not an executive order to deny climate?
Had Obama not done so little, so late to address global warming (remember that Barry was the fracker-in-chief for eight years and he was pushing Keystone XL and DAPL until he got pushback), it would have been a lot more difficult for Drumpf to undo everything in one fell swoop. Now we’re looking at having to start over from scratch against monsters who simply do not care that their actions will cause human extinction well before the end of the century, if not before the middle of the century. And it’s our children who shall have to bear the most painful of costs.
The sealed bid process described in that GAO report is interesting. Out of 107 tracts leased, 96 had a single bidder — because the tracts are leased next to existing mines by application. The mines only have to beat a “confidential” estimation of the “fair market price”, which the report says is too low. And… if they don’t, they can just renominate the tract and bid on it again.
Even if I believed “confidential” was a thing, that still sounds like a great process. And yet the funny thing is… the coal miners still went under! I don’t really know what to make of that, except to think that history has gotten out its broom and is sweeping this mess away. It’s hard to hold to a narrative of taxpayers being screwed over by sweetheart deals when they’re on the way out. And yet for so long they did make a lot of money, and screwed over a lot of people in the process. (Also, I bet the “market value” they got from Indian tribal councils is even a lot lower than the government’s…)
I’m sure won’t be the first to openly endorse DonTheCon’s inevitable and (hopefully) violent public ending. For the sake of the world, just make it sooner rather than later. I’m looking at you CIA “Accident Mechanics”; get to work.
PS. Joe is an energy industry obfuscation agent aka fuckwit; CIA please take him out too.
forgive me if I don’t hang around for all the celebratory posts at IT that “at least HRC didn’t get in!”
poor donnie just isn’t appreciated for what he’s done for the republic, amirite?
Thank you Green Party naifs and I-hate-Hillary dead-enders, you’ve helped destroy not only green issues for America and the planet, but the Supreme Court for a generation, labor rights. etc. etc.
All the things you claimed you cared about.
It feels just awful. But we can feel better by doing a big group hug and, as always, blaming Hillary and the Democrats for daring to only by 85% of what we wanted. They had to be 99% or else they were “rank sellouts no better than Trump.”
So this is on THEM, thank God. We can feel righteous about that.
gotta direct your anger somewhere, right?
blame it on the Greens?
You’re Hillaryous
You mean the pointless party of the left that elected Bush and now Trump? My goodness, you’re right. We should thank their brave purity and standing up for real green candidates with zero chance of doing anything but electing Republicans, and thank God we did not elect the 95% green candidate, Clinton.
Very funny.
Bush supported Hillary
“Bush supported Hillary”
So what? Trump supported Sanders against Hillary.
No point in even playing such a child’s game.
actually supporting views you hold can be so inconvenient to the craven aspirations of others. I am so sorry.
Someone’s got to do it, else there’s never a good time, eh?
I think you should be blaming Hillary for Hillary’s loss.
Hillary was the Fracking queen and Obama was the Fracker in chief! Hillary worked together with Rex to export fracking and the technology around the world! Oh my, blaming it on people who don’t want to vote for Hillary is cray cray. You can also blame Biil her husband, that could be a reason she lost. No? She was the most unpopular presidential candidate OF ALL TIME!
You bought this. You traded evil for evil over and over again.
You could have – should have – voted for good over evil.
The Democratic party never had to listen to it’s constituents because they would always vote for the lesser evil.
Down it went. Descending until one day we arrived at warmonger Hillary. TPP Hillary. Bankster owned Hillary. Corrupt Hillary. And a DNC that was corrupt *and* anti-democracy, anti-grassroots in it’s practices.
But you voted *again* for them anyways.
The money behind the DNC and Hillary would rather have had Trump in the White House than Bernie Sanders and that is why the worst candidate was made the Democratic candidate.
Bernie would have had a much better chance than Hillary, but you had supported a corrupt system and enabled it.
You Hillarys enabled this.
Levi, Bernie Sanders is a good man, and he knew that Hillary was nothing liek what you scream. He knew she was a left centrist, not evil incarnate. A whip smart lady whose platform included huge chunks of the Sanders agenda. He had worked with her in crafting a Democratic platform.
And So Bernie Sander endorsed and campaigned for Hillary, because he knew the stakes and did not engage in whining, ideological hatred, blindness, and dishonest character assassination like the Hillary Haters do.
He knew the stakes, he cared about the country above purity tests or hysterical overreaction and refused to be conned by Putin’s attempt to split the left.
Most of his voters supported her, as her supporters would have supported Bernie.
But enough well-meaning but utterly counterproductive leftists supported Jill Stein or just stayed home to elect Trump. And there is no excuse for that. That is on the feckless, occupy left, not Hillary or Bernie.
You’re clueless. The Democratic party is center right, and Clinton is a little to the right of that. There’s nothing left about her.
As to your BS about 85%, it’s more like we oppose 85% of what she stands for (corporate America, more imperialist wars, phony environmentalism, etc.).
And your claim that Trump is destroying green issues is ridiculous. It’s true that the Democrats are not quite as bad as the Republicans on this issue, but they both destroy the environment, the Democrats just do it a little more slowly. If you think that merely admitting that burning fossil fuels causes climate change is actually doing something about it (this is the Democratic position), you are indeed clueless. Obama did go along with the Sierra Club idea to shut down coal-burning power plants by not allowing any new ones, but that alone is totally insufficient compared to what needs to be done. The Green Party has by far the best platform on this issue, though I doubt that even their platform would be enough.
It’s thoroughly disgusting to demand that people vote for the lesser of evils like either of the Clintons instead of voting for someone in whose policies they believe. Your ideas and rants are totally anti-democratic.
And BTW, if you think Clinton is so great, you’re a right wing war monger and you are not on my side. We MIGHT agree on some issues, but probably not on the big ones with the exception of abortion/birth control.
Daring to be no better than the Republican party while mouthing “values” platitudes?
We’re pro-choice, pro LGBTQ, pro-immigration, and what else? They don’t care about the disadvantaged, the poor, the working class, the middle class, the Unions, virtually anybody other than the “entrepreneurs.”
One of my favorite lines from Thomas Frank, Listen Liberal:
“…what these virtue-consumers are doing is purchasing liberalism offsets, an ideological version of the carbon offsets that are sometimes bought by polluters in order to compensate for the smog they churn out.”
When the Clinton/Obama/Schumer/etc. wing of the Democratic party realize that they needed this rude awakening – and let the progressives have their chance – this country will only be better, stronger, and fairer for this utter shame and embarrassment of both establishment parties.
You sound like Agent Orange, blaming everybody but him/herself.
Perhaps you should have put forth a better candidate besides the ONLY candidate that could actually lose to a knucklehead like Trump.
What ya think? Maybe? Possibly?
I’m curious… do ya think the FBI publicly declaring that there was a criminal investigation into Trump~Russia collusion 11 days before the election might have a tiny bit of influence on the vote?
nah…
Some denizens of The Intercept, dedicated to stopping surveillance and abuse by the security apparatus of the state, totally oblivious or uninterested in the FBI committing an act of outrageous interference in our democracy and almost certainly throwing the election to Trump. The most outrageous act of our national security apparatus perhaps ever.
But … HILLARY!
The rest of the left knows better. And blames Comey and Putin both.
roger that!
one hopes Comey has some self respect and will work to offset those actions with some corrective disclosures…
I may be whistling past the graveyard, I fear.
Comey is unique. He is kind of an overgrown boy scout who has this rectitude thing that drives him, but he also has a screw loose and is a Republican who almost certainly hates Hillary. He was actually buffaloed into making the announcement by Giuliani’s henchmen who had scammed Weiner’s laptop into a fake Hillary scandal and demanded Comey re-open the investigation or probably they would leak it and make him look bad. Whatever, he should have slapped them down and refused, but was more worried about the FBI looking bad to the Right. This story really needs to be told. An IG is supposedly working on it.
The flip side of Comey is he will go after Trump like a bulldog. Don’t be surprised if Trump fires him and sets off a constitutional crisis.
I have to say this: This is all on Obama. Obama’s masochistic desire to be bi-partisan lead him to appoint the one honorable — he thought — Republican around to head the FBI. He should have appointed a top Democrat who was not a political shill, but not a one man lynch mob like Comey became.
Obama destroyed his own legacy by appointing a Republican when he could have appointed a Democrat. NEVER trust a Republican NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. Obama I am afraid, made some huge mistakes in his second term.
Hillary was one of the best qualified candidates ever to run for the office and had a dream platform for taking the country in exactly the right direction. And Bernie Sanders endorsed her wholeheartedly and campaigned for her.
Hillary was more than fine. Whatever her faults, they were vanishingly important compared to Trump.
It was too many of the left who sat on their rear ends — just like they did in 2010 and 2014 — or voted for Kamikaze Jill Stein — who voted in Trump. And they deserve infinite contempt for destroying America and the world to salve their unhappiness that the Democratic Party had not picked Bernie.
Calling that the action of spoiled and self-destructive children would be much too kind given the stakes.
My experience so far is that folks who are still doing this “Thanks, so-and-so” thing (whether from the left or the right) are NOT in the fray but just striving to say something relevant while sitting on their asses.
No, I’m pretty sure it’s on you Democrats for putting up such a lousy candidate. I mean, your party’s leaders rigged the primaries and caucuses so you could put up the ONE politician who could possibly lose to a clown shoe like Drumpf. Your party’s leaders collaborated with its lap dogs in the mainstream media to promote the Great Orange Dope to help ensure that he was the nominee. Seems to me those most responsible for putting Drumpf in office are the Democrats. You got what you wanted. Don’t go blaming others because you’re having buyers’ remorse.
Nope. Hillary was fine. And incredibly qualified and full of good ideas and plans for the country. Better than anyone else in the race by orders of magnitude. Her campaign platform was wonderful reading for the left if they bothered, few did. So a few on the left spout the left’s version of Breitbart’s Hillary Hatred. It’s pointless and self-serving and a lie.
Bernie never did that, he supported her all the way.
Bernie Sanders faced no rigged caucuses or primaries whatsoever. None. And never said he did. That was a fake storyline based on zero evidence just “I heard” and “somebody told me” among some Sander supporters. It was a totally false story floated by Putin and Trump to divide the left. Most knew better and voted for Hillary. Enough foolishly bought it and sat it out or voted for Jill Stein to elect Trump.
There was no anti-Sander DNC plots. They just bitched about him staying on the campaign trail going negative long after he had no chance to win. And they were right. I would have been mad if Hillary had done that if Bernie was way ahead. That ain’t no plot.
Putin won. The alt-right won. And the Jill Stein “who gives a sh*t what happens to America as long as we get some TV time” naifs won, by electing Trump, Now they blame Hillary and not their own epic bad judgment. That’s a crock.
You are *still* falling for that “blame Putin” buffoonery?
Still parroting that vacuous “Hillary is the most qualified ever to run” cliche?
What a waste of time you are.
What more needs to be said?
What is buffoonery at this point is denying Putin hacked the election. That ship has sailed. The point of the hacks was to divide the left. and it succeeded just enough to elect Trump.
We can never let that happen again. And continuing to defend Putin is the last thing anyone on the left should be doing. He’s a right wing murdering kleptocrat who literally whacks progressives and attacked our elections.
that ship doesn’t even have a sail, and the hull has gaping holes in it. lots of dumb sailors tho flapping their arms and trying to make it fly. spoiler alert; that won’t work. there’s no evidence. read prior greenwald articles on the intercept on this subject. jesus, you’re marginally preferable to “scientist” tony above, but only just. both of you make these grand pronouncements without any evidence.
Huh ? “Daring to be only by 85% of what we wanted” ?? How about Zero Percent of what we wanted. Anyway, Miss Hillary was right up there sucking on Carlos Slims di*k in support of the Trans-Pecos Pipeline, doh. Ask the folks in Texas.
You just do not seem to get it, neither “Party” is in control – the corporations and Wall Street are.
Ho hum, no matter… either way we are fucked – Dems or Rethugs. And until you realize this fact in life you have bound yourself in chains willing to take a few crumbs thrown out at you which is really dumb, selfish and chicken shit.
Thanks Sheila, for demonstrating my point of the blindness of the Hillary hater and mindless ultra-leftist. Hillary was 0% of what you wanted? Only in your boundlessly uninformed and self destructive world view.
You mean supporting stopping climate change, the Paris Accords, and switching to green energy is not on your agenda?
You mean continuing the enormous progress Obama made with EPA rules and regs is not on your agenda?
You mean appointing a pro-labor, pro-woman, pro-environment Supreme Court justice is not on your agenda?
You mean keeping the Dodd-Frank regulations on Wall Street is not on your agenda?
You mean stopping coal mining on Federal Land is not on your agenda?
Raising the minum wage is not on your agenda.
And on and on and on. All Hillary’s positons. All progressive.
Sorry, by taking a simplistic and mindless all or nothing view of the world you’ve marginalized yourself and helped elect Trump with irrational hate, negativity and lack of constructive effort. And that is pure poison to advancing progressivism, not purity or righteousness.
Oh wow carey you are just so perfect sitting there side by side with Debbie Wasserman drooling your bullshit establishment rhetoric. You are the kind of dip shit that reminds me of the young republicans from back in the 60’s, absolute true believers. You are exactly like them, and it is disgusting. Someone needs to de-program you.
C’mon carey. Break on through for christ sake.
This will make Peabody stockholders feel better but steam-coal is uneconomical in so many ways it will die on its own.
It is far cheaper to build and operate a gas-fired power-plant than a coal-fired plant.
From 2 years ago. Gas prices have continued to drop.
One wonders why Trump is trying to interfere with the market through his subsidies to coal. One also wonders why he favors the Coal industry over other industries with more people.
Didn’t Soros invest some billions in coal recently ? Deep, deep coal.
Wallstreet thieves love it. Not even a nuclear war matches the destruction that can happen with SUDDEN CLIMATE CHANGE – the larger scale of “sudden infant death syndrome”. The money printing presses for loans to a future of abandoning earth and moving to mars means huge profits. And the thieves of wallstreet are dumb and reckless enough to believe this is doable or reversible.
Science that the climate change cult must deny:
1. It was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now, this is called the Medieval warm period. It was also warmer than it is now 7000 years ago, this is called the Holocene climatic optimum. Guess why they call it optimum ? (hint: it’s not because life on earth died off)
2. There has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise whatsoever during the industrial age according to the tidal gauges. Any claims to the contrary do not use a consistent measuring system
3. There has been no acceleration in the rate of warming in the atmosphere according to the lower satellite troposphere measurements since 1978 when measurements began. Any claims to the contrary do not use a consistent measuring system. Infact the rate of warming in the atmosphere decreased in the last two decades despite human co2 production doubling, this is sometimes called the “pause” or “hiatus” which is a misnomer because we are still in a slight warming trend and have been since the end of the little ice age.
4. The greenhouse effect of co2 is very small and is not in question. It is nowhere near large enough to cause the kind of warming that some predict and the catastrophic warming predictions are not based on it but instead on an entirely theoretical set of “feedback loops”
5. Predictions made by advocates of catastrophic man made global warming theories such as the IPCC have been consistently wrong. Often times wildly wrong. The prediction the IPCC made 30 years ago was that we were supposed to have warmed a full degree by 2020 which did not even come close to coming true.
6. Both warming and co2 are very good for life on earth. Under no circumstances could man made global warming decrease the amount of life. Attempts to lower co2 and warming are an attempt to pick current property values over the environment. The global warming cult are anti-environmentalists
Excellent take and obviously any REAL scientist would have questions, as I do.
ads usually include the sponsor’s name and a nifty logo
Oh, Joe, Joe, Joe,
The planet takes eons to change, but that has nothing to do with your utterly BS argument.
Attempts to raise CO2 and CH4 are merely an attempt to raise corporate cash over humanity.
Why don’t you take a canister of CO2 and lock yourself in a sauna, okay? You’ll be dewy fresh in no time.
What is BS about what I said exactly science denier?
I hope you took an hour or two to type all that horse shit. What a ridiculous waste of time.
Science deniers like yourself must have an extremely low word per minute typing speed
Damn, dude, shut the fuck up. No one’s reading your troll SHIT.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4? F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.
Your claims are laughably false and are the opposite of science
Annnnnnd that’s the end of Joe. Thanks for playin’ bud!
Point #2- Sea level rise
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=365
Your reliance on science denial blog leaves you clueless
Even the IPCC disagrees with you
“No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. ”
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/409.htm
Whether you realize it, or not, Joe, I was largely supporting your argument that there is room for legitimate debate on these issues. However, you have revealed the fact that your own positions are every bit as dogmatic as those you claim to oppose.
Again, I do not subscribe to consensus opinion. Advances in science have very often been driven by radical departures from consensus by a single individual. There is a threefold problem with climate science as I see it:
1. a lack of uniformity in the collection, storage, and transparent replication of source data
2. confirmation bias in the interpretation of climate data (pro and con)
3. the politicization of climate science itself
Further compounding the divide between the pro and con camps is the unwillingness of either side to readily account for anomalous data that, if given the proper weight, would speak more clearly to a pattern of misleading assumptions. A sound scientific hypothesis relies upon the proper collection and interpretation of all data. It is only by means of resolving the differences between actual and projected outcomes that climate scientists can more fully understand the true relationship of an extremely complex and dynamic set of interrelated or interacting elements; It is to this end that valid skepticism is essential.
Point #3 – lower satellite troposphere measurements
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
So you deny the sat measurements…like I said you have to because your theories are garbage and you are a science denier. And you source your claims to a liberal science denier blog
This is the only real measuring system for global temperature. So if you deny this then you have no evidence at all.
Points #s 4-5 – Predictions made by advocates of catastrophic man made global warming theories
I agree. It has become readily apparent that the most ardent “advocates” of catastrophic man made global warming have little tolerance for dissenting opinion or debate – even in light of the fact that model projections have consistently overestimated warming trends. For instance, there are legitimate grounds for push back against the claim that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a 3 degree centigrade rise in atmospheric temperature when properly accounting for the two centuries of equilibrium climate sensitivity that follow (the amount of time required for the oceans to full realize atmospheric changes in CO2 levels). The IPPC estimates with a 66% certainty that a range of atmospheric temperature rise of 1.5 to 4..5 degrees centigrade will be realized from a doubling of CO2; thus, an average mean of 3 degrees centigrade is used in most climate models. However, actual 29th century climate observation suggests a more modest rise in atmospheric temperature of 2 degrees centigrade. The explanation for this discrepancy has largely relied upon the claim that aerosol particle deflection (pollution cooling) was responsible for mitigating the projected the rise of 3 degrees centigrade over a period of two centuries. Yet, the level of mitigation attributed to aerosol particle deflection has been largely debunked to the point in which the most current studies are suggesting that atmospheric pollution is actually contributing to a net rise in atmospheric temperatures.
“However, actual 29th century climate observation suggests…”
Should have read:
“However, actual 20th century climate observation suggests…”
“dammit, Karl!”
now I have to rewrite my post post re-post
looking forward to it…
It’s interesting to read the first point you attempted to make, when I compare it to a report produced from 9 experts in this particular field, and published over 7 years ago in a peer-reviewed academic journal, which explains its methodology in excruciating detail, and concludes the following: “The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1256?variant=full-text&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&oauth-code=57acecc8-6e22-46f1-9526-4569802a88eb
Points 1and 2 are easily dismissed. 3 is subject to interpretation and data bending. 4 I will concede, except there are plenty of examples of “theoretical” feedback loops in obvious play from the smallest cell to the universe as a whole. That the nesting of negative, positive and mixed feedback loops is incompletely understood is absolutely true. 5 is as disingenuous a statement as it gets: the vast majority of predictions have proven to be too conservative, and if a handful were alarmist, so be it. In this case a few rotten apples don’t save the barrel.
And finally as to 6, that is absurd–we are in the midst of an extinction event of extraordinary rapidity and severity. If not warming, then what? Imagine living on an island and watching almost on a daily basis the loss of species that had been thriving for eons before you got there. That island of course is Earth and if you can applaud the stunning collapse of the cryosphere due to “theoretical” feedback loops, I suggest you find a kayak and addle to Venus to see how things have turned out there.