HOUSE APPROVES BILL TO FORCE PUBLIC RELEASE OF EPA SCIENCE

Another classic example of climate denial at work.

You provide no link. So we have no way to judge the validity of your assertion.

But let's assume your claim is true, and there was such a report.

You ignore the fact that there are THOUSANDS of climate studies, all pointing in the same general direction. There will always be variation in the specific predictions. You have chosen to cherry pick a single study that made an erroneous prediction, and pretend it somehow invalidates all climate science.

From the same time frame, here are two studies that report different time frames:

A study that predicted ice-free Arctic by 2040:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061212-arctic-ice.html

A study that predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2070:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070820-global-warming.html

Hell, here's a study from 1979 that predicted the current sea-ice melting:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16022017/arctic-sea-ice-extent-nasa-global-warming-climate-change

The point here is that the broad predictions of climate scientists have proven true. We are setting temperature records every year. Ice is melting at unprecedented rates. We are observing the effects of climate change all over the planet, in all different disciplines and areas.

Regarding the Arctic in particular, cruise ships are now sailing through passages that once were completely blocked by ice:
https://www.usnews.com/news/news/ar...-ship-makes-historic-voyage-in-melting-arctic

So while you focus on a single study to try to claim climate science is bunk, the world is heating and ice is melting exactly as climate scientists have predicted.

 

What headlines? Climate deniers made bullshit claims. The claims were investigated, and found to be without merit. Yet you still want to push the bullshit. Shock!

 

Phil Jones was on the edge of seppuku. Guess he was wrong too.

 

Sure thing. The climategate emails changed the minds of some scientists no matter the protestation of innocence by the backers of the parties involved. Maybe you should attempt to educate yourself for a change.

 

Two predictions 30 years apart. Better make sure you cover all your bases and post a study that predicts global warming will cause an increase in Arctic sea ice. Sound crazy I know, but it won't be the first time warmers have predicted global warming would cause both possible outcomes.

http://www.livescience.com/847-study-global-warming-fueled-2005-hurricanes.html
Global warming is causing more, stronger hurricanes.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/38/15211.full
Global warming creates fewer strong hurricanes.

Which is true? Well it depends on what happens. If there are more hurricanes, climate change is true. If there are less hurricanes, climate change is true.

So you go on making failed predictions and overstating doomsday scenarios. We're going to keep burning fossil fuel until you prove it's a problem, and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

The issue is whether or not the EPA research WE PAY FOR, belongs to us....kinduva "no brainer" unless one is a Warmist; then all empirical, factual data must be "adjusted", before it is cherry picked for publication.

 

When the government helps you buy your house -- by allowing you to deduct your mortgage interest -- does that mean it now owns part of your house? After all, they paid for it...

 

The EPA was used as a political tool by Obama. I remember watching liberal heads explode when Rick Perry ignored Washington's mandates as if the federal government was all powerful

 

Not really a fair comparison since my money is taken and given to the EPA while my tax deductions are government not taking money from me.

 

Nice dodge. Now, point out my "anti-science" perspective, genius.

 

There were thousands of intelligence analysis all pointing to WMD in Iraq too. If you pay people to provide evidence they will find it.

 

Hence ideological tests.

You cant ****ing help yourself can you. On the one hand you know its wrong but on the other you have to defend it.

It must suck to be your conscience.

 

You should have stopped there instead of engaging in argument ny wishful thinking.

 

Most asininely ridiculous non-analogy ever.

My house is not a government agency, nor is it taxpayer funded. I choose whether or not to take a tax cut.

Not paying a tax, is NOT BEING PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT, Comrade, Stalin.

 

Tell me. What ideological test am I applying?

I am only testing for the PRESENCE of ideological bias, and it must be COUPLED with ignorance of the subject matter. I am not testing for a particular ideology. I am not excluding access on the basis of ideology alone.

Thus there are three possible outcomes:
1. Knowledge of subject matter, regardless of ideological bias: Access to the data
2. Ignorance of subject matter, no ideological bias: Potential access to the data
3. Ignorance of subject matter, ideological bias: No access to the data

Result: eliminating the majority of the non-scientific noise, without harming actual scientific inquiry and openness.

 

That's a distinction without a difference.

Let's say you would normally owe $10,000 in taxes at your income level, before deductions and credits.

The government decides it wants to help people buy houses, by giving each of them money. For someone at your income level, that government help would amount to $1,000.

They can do that one of two ways:

1. Tax you $10,000, then cut you a check for $1,000
2. Only collect $9,000 from you in the first place

The effect is the same -- the government just gave you $1,000 you otherwise wouldn't have. It's just more efficient to not bother collecting it in the first place.

So now that the government has given you $1,000 to help pay for your house, does the government now own your house? After all, they helped pay for it.

 

You are wrong. See my post responding to tharock220.

 

bad quote

 

Gosh, welcome to science: you follow the evidence where it leads, and you can sometimes reach different conclusions. You then do further testing to refine the answers. Studies often disagree in the early going. This is a strength of science, not a weakness.

Never mind that your second study doesn't actually say what you claim. It does not claim that global warming creates fewer strong hurricanes: It says global warming may produce fewer strong hurricanes that hit the east coast of the United States, thanks to changes in atmospheric conditions that are more likely to push a storm eastward -- into the Atlantic -- instead of westward toward the coast. It specifically says that studies disagree on whether global warming will increase the frequency of hurricanes.

BTW, while there is disagreement about the effect of climate change on hurricane frequency, there is fairly strong agreement that any given hurricane will likely be stronger than it would have been, thanks to global warming. The reason is quite simple: Warmer water leads to stronger hurricanes, and global warming is warming the oceans.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Your ignorance of, and disdain for, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is noted.

Your insistence on continuing a damaging activity -- for no other reason than somebody told you that you shouldn't -- is what I expect from two-year-olds, not adults.

And you're wrong. The world, thankfully, is following the science. The share of energy produced by renewable resources -- which should be something you support regardless of whether you believe AGW is real -- increases strongly every year. In the United States, there are now 3 times as many people working in solar energy than in coal. Our CO2 emissions are declining -- not quite fast enough, but faster than we once thought possible. The world is moving toward zero-emission energy, and that isn't going to stop.

Heck, even nuclear energy is making a comeback. It's not a perfect energy source, but it's a zero-emission source in terms of greenhouse gases.

Will the changes happen quickly enough to avoid the worst effects of global warming? Sadly, I think that's at best a 50-50 bet. But the world is not going backward. Your ignorant dead-ender bullshit will lose in the long run. I only hope it doesn't cause too much damage in the meantime.

 

It's funny nobody feels this way about NASA. I guess it comes from NASA it's true, and there is no need for any public "scientific data". If indeed they never landed on the moon, that's a massive lie, and would paralyze anything they say going forward. Liberals just need to tell NASA to say whatever message they want to give about "science", and there would be no argument whatsoever.

 

Degrowthers. That's how they roll.

 

Sheila Jackson Lee is probably the only person in Congress who believes United States astronauts planted a flag on Mars.

 

So you are in favor of transparency?

 

What, you can't read? I made my specific comments on the EPA quite clear. If you can't grasp the meaning, then maybe try a more remediable forum.

 

I was wondering if your support of transparency was limited to this or whether it was more general. Like transparency for Trump's tax returns, White House visitor logs and how much the government is spending at Trump properties?

For my part, I see no problem with this transparency - and think it should apply to the other areas as well. How about you?