Michael’s so fortunate that he’s given open access
at Judith’s open – society – salon – so different at
where its ‘down the memery whole with you, yer
capitalist sw-ne.’
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by beththeserf
Line deleted by WordPress had a ‘ cli sci gatekeeper
email address. :)
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by AK
[… T]han defending the incitement to violence agianst climate scientists (as Judith did here in the past).
I notice the perpetrator of that mendacious statement hasn’t responded to righteous demands for a link to evidence. Perhaps because there isn’t any.
It’s quite clear that Michael and Wilbur are among those who haven’t the faintest idea what INTEGRITY is. (For them, along with other alarmists here, it’s just a buzz-word used to stimulate certain reflexes in other people.)
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by AK
An investigation of the IPCC, and its links to major environmental NGO's, is perfectly in order. Plenty of evidence has been documented of deception, collusion, and conspiracy for same. Along with recent evidence of fraud in scientific grants.
OTOH, any investigation of “<i>big fossil and policymakers</i>” should wait till somebody makes some sort of claims to evidence of wrongdoing. Pointing out that people have funded science you don't like, <b>perfectly good science</b> that you don't like because its conclusions question the "certainties" you are <b>falsely</b> claiming to rationalize your ideological agenda, isn't evidence of a crime.
Unless you want to count tendencies towards Lysenkoism on your part.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by KenW
You can bet that if this involved the Koch brothers or Heartland the NYT and the Justice Dept. would be all over this….
Paging JUSTIN GILLIS… The silence is DEAFENING!
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by KenW
ooops, time to clean the servers.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by stevenreincarnated
Jim D, since you are indicating you aren’t a complete partisan, then you can take this opportunity to prove it by demanding an investigation of academic double dipping on behalf of alarmist taxpayers everywhere.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by beththeserf
Fer Obama narcissus rules.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by jim2
THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES. Write that down.
We make a mistake when we try to reason about other cultures from a Western perspective. Our values and traditions do not apply to them.
We make a second mistake when we eschew tribalism in EVERY case. WRT the Middle East, we should have left all the brutal dictators in place. We would have been safer as would our oil supply and the people in our military wouldn’t have died trying to oust them.
We in the Western world have every right to act to preserve our values and traditions, just as the Muslims try to force everyone else to adapt Islam or die.
Time to wake up. human1ty1st.
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by jim2
Expedite the extradition. Send him and his family back to live under that banyan tree he grew up with.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by jim2
ACS, APS, and the rest are co-conspirators in the global warming scam. RICO them also.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Michael
Ah, “righteous demands”.
A highly relevant phrase to keep in mind here.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Rich Van Slooten
After reading this article & threads I am totally shocked. As a MS & BSEE I cannot believe that science, engineering and the environment has stooped so low as to be considered trash. I an still a scientist & engineer, but the sciences related to climate & the environment are fraudulent.
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by matthewrmarler
Danny Thomas: Re: Minnesota. Found this:
Thank you for the link.
That is a story worth following.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by matthewrmarler
curryja and danny thomas, from the linked article: The PUC presided over four hours of discussion yesterday before voting unanimously to refer the matter to the state Office of Administrative Hearings, where an administrative judge will determine whether the federal social cost of carbon values is the best available measure of CO2 externality costs.
An administrative judge?! I am hoping for a jury of peers: registered voters, and taxpayers, and entrepreneurs, and accountants, and others. An administrative judge is merely a part of the government judging another part of the government.
Still, it will be an interesting story to watch.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Jim D
The policy that achieves this is the RCP4.5 type that reduces emissions about 80% by 2100. Stopping deforestation would also be important.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Danny Thomas
Matthew,
I’ve done some looking around and can find little, but did find this testimony. It’s very long, but you may also find this of interest: http://www.ieca-us.com/wp-content/uploads/Anne-Smith-Direct-Testimony-on-the-Social-Cost-of-Carbon-Before-the-Minnesota-Public-Utilities-Commission-%E2%80%93-June-1-2015.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Danny Thomas
Matthew,
Today, from Dr. Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/09/minnesota-hearing-addresses-the-social-cost-of-carbon/
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Vaughan Pratt
Sorry, my mistake in the last bit. I wrote 17.7 where it should be 78.4 (net ocean flux to the atmosphere). Total emissions comes to 78.4+1.0+7.8+1.1+118.7+.1 = 207.1 Gtc (more like it, I shoud have been suspicious and double-checked). Current human emissions are the 7.8+1.1 = 8.9 part of this sum, which represents 8.9/207.1 = 4.3%. Still more than your 3% number, a tad under midway between that and my wrong calculation of 6%.
However I do agree with you that his 48% figure for how much of human emissions have gone into the oceans is way too high. As a very rough approximation, 1/4 into the oceans, 1/4 into the land, with1/2 remaining in the atmosphere.
A lot of recent papers have been pushing for a considerably larger terrestrial sink, and I’m fine with those. Assuming we know the emissions (including land-use changes and Henry’s law for salinity of 35‰) and what’s left in the atmosphere, it’s not unreasonable to assume that the ocean uptake is whatever’s left over. With that approach the main uncertainty is with the terrestrial sink, Which is what all those papers have been trying to assess, typically by sampling atmospheric CO2 and looking at gradients normal to coastlines.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Danny Thomas
Matthew,
From Minnesota Power, Michael Cashin P.E. http://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20150327132729-Cashin,%20Minnesota%20Power.pdf
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
