Knute, as in Knute Hoffer? That’s pretty funny! Anyway, “The True Believer” is a good book. Daniel J. Flynn (Blue-Collar Intellectuals…) claims Hoffer’s past is a fabrication. I dunno, his book speaks for itself. Lots of true believers following all sorts of kooky things out there. I’m glad I have never followed anything except my own curiosity.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
↧
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by GaryM
Bob,
I was speaking of national politics, not the governments of Virginia and North Carolina. and it hasn’t changed that much at all.
You can click on various years to see the pattern.
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by ristvan
Be of good cheer. COP21 initial objectives: (all researchable)
1. Binding. — not.
2. 2C INDC limit — not.
3. GCF $100b/yr — not.
But one can be sure that the delegates will enjoy themselves at French expense. Most recent estimate is about $190 million for 10 days.
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by catweazle666
Jim D: “A lot of Republicans are denying the science that is accepted generally by everyone else.”
You and your fellow Moonbats do not constitute “everyone else”, Jimbo, not even close.
Here is the 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ Global survey of causes for concern, currently standing at 8,581,907 respondents.
Note that ‘Action on climate change’ comes flat last, 16th of 16 causes for concern.
You might find this interesting too.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
Think on…
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
Bts, you are welcome…from the other serf.
Nothing but peasant in this boy’s genes, unless some ancient landlord asserted his priority without my knowledge.
Iac, did you notice, on the opensecrets page I linked, the % oing to Dems v. Repubs? Very telling. Things aren’t what they seem but the power of shared delusions is astonishing. That works in the Dems favor. Can anyone find the Kochs on that list?
↧
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by jim2
Rud, smart or not, he is still facilitating the consumption of oil. Why isn’t he part of the RICO suit? Just askin’.
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by human1ty1st
Before all that I guess we need to establish exactly who denied exactly what.
Also if I make a donation to an organization/thinktank/political party am I responsible for what they say?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
8 out of the top 10 donors gave more than 93% of their donations to demoncats. 2 out of the top 10 favored repubs but, of those, one, the Realtor’s Assoc. , gave 52% to the repubs. Of course, everyone remembers that Obumbles raised more dough than any candidate in history. Upside down world we live in. George Orwell understood …
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Curious George
Hard data for climate damages: According to The Economist, “a strong Niño in 1997-98 boosted America’s economy by $15 billion”. Worldwide, it killed 21,000 people and caused $36 billion in damages. Maybe Eric Schneiderman, NY Attorney General, will prosecute it.
Draw your own conclusions on the reliability of these numbers. For me, The Economist answered a question I asked here without success: is El Niño weather or climate? It is a “climatic weather phenomenon.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
The price of oil has jumped around a lot lately, but still ended up around $45. Some shale producers, at current labor and service company prices, produce shale oil at $30/bbl.
11/06/15
OIL 44.56
BRENT 47.70
NAT GAS 2.378
RBOB GAS 1.3779
Surely, the price of WTI must come up significantly within the next 6 months!
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by catweazle666
Jim D: “…and the emails belong to NOAA, so they get to decide.”
No they do not.
They belong to the taxpayer, and the representatives of the taxpayer are fully justified in demanding access to them.
Curious that someone such as yourself is so vehement in deny1ng the rights of taxpayers, do you have a problem with democracy?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
FYI, China is the fourth largest oil producer in the world. From the article:
…
By 2020, China—the world’s largest energy consumer—aims to produce 30 billion cubic meters of shale-gas a year, up from the current level of 1.3 billion cubic meters, Chen Weidong, renowned energy expert and research chief at China National Offshore Oil Corp., or Cnooc, said at the International Petroleum Week conference on Wednesday.
That would take fracking output from just 1% of all of China’s gas production to 15% in five years.
“Last year, China drilled 200 new wells [bringing the total to 400], and we’ll add a few hundred a year for sure. No problem,” he said, confirming earlier government goals of reducing heavy dependence on coal, which accounts for about two-thirds of the country’s energy consumption.
The call for spicing up China’s energy mix with cleaner fuels comes as the capital, Beijing, battles with high levels of pollution, evidenced by frequent “orange” smog alerts. In January, pollution reached a level that was 20 times the limit recommended by the World Health Organization, prompting many people to wear masks. There is even a Twitter account called BeijingAir that sends out daily reports on the smog levels—on Wednesday it was “unhealthy for sensitive groups”.
…
China has been planning for the shale-gas revolution since 2012, when the government declared it would start fracking its reserves—the largest in the world—and produce 60 billion to 80 billion cubic meters a year by 2020. However, that goal proved to be too ambitious and it was scaled back to 30 billion cubic meters in 2014 as the drilling conditions turned out to be more difficult than anticipated.
…
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-shale-ambition-23-times-the-output-in-5-years-2015-02-11
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Bob Greene
Gary, you said
““Big tobacco” was targeted because the tobacco companies were big contributors to the Republican Party. Tobacco farmers were given a complete pass because they primarily contributed to democrats.”
The suit was started by a Democrat (Mississippi) during the Clinton (Democrat) administration. Your link proves nothing other than those elected get money and, migosh, some are bought totally for a total of $8,000 from multiple sources. Obviously a big tobacco or big oil payoff.
I like the way history keeps being rewritten.
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by human1ty1st
Tucci for all your unnecessary bile you still havent shown any corruption, its still just a product of your clearly fertile imagination until REAL evidence comes to light.
BTW even elected representatives have to play by the rules, so no, NOAA dont have to simply bend over and take everything from Smith. And that one arm of government is playing politics with another arm doesnt equal fascism, again another product of your fertile imagination.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by catweazle666
nebakhet: “The satellite record is compatible with a linear warming trend in correlation with the increase in CO2”
Really…
Curious, seeing that the relationship between CO2 concentration and warming is logarithmic, not linear.
(Google “logarithmic” if you are unaware of its meaning – which seems likely).
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by PA
1. About the donation.
Sure, that works for me – if you are dumb enough to contribute to idiocy you should ride out of town on the same rail and be tarred and feathered just like they are.
2. About the who denied what. It isn’t a matter of denying things. One side (the eco/regressives) have pushed for a rush to judgment and gotten ahead of the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness
“In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; “a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”[1] “
There is a lot of uncertainty in climate science. Many facts are in a “low confidence”, “no confidence”, or “I’m just guessing” state. The claims of urgency, rising, falling, melting etc. have all proven wrong. The uncertainty has made the consensus look foolish because they literally don’t know what they are talking about.
The case isn’t ripe, it is barely even green.
If this gets dragged into court – the appropriate court action is to tell the global warmers to go off and engage in self-gratification until they get their er… facts together.
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by opluso
Jim D:
Does Exxon change opinions with its contributions? Or does it give dollars to those already holding the “correct” opinions?
In other words, you haven’t established cause-and-effect in your pro-carbon conspiracy. Probably because you couldn’t even if you put out the actual effort.
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Tucci78
Soaked in flop-sweat, <b>human1ty1st</b> squeals: <blockquote><i>...you still havent shown any corruption, its still just a product of your clearly fertile imagination until REAL evidence comes to light.</i></blockquote>
And the demands uttered lawfully by Mr. Smith's committee constitute a proper and diligent search for that <i>"REAL evidence"</i> which you and your <i>sputniki</i> are so desperate to keep in the dark. Tsk. How you squirm!
<blockquote><i>BTW even elected representatives have to play by the rules...</i></blockquote>
You betcha. And <i>the rules</i> are found - in toto - in the U.S. Constitution. Ain't that a kick?
<blockquote><i>... so no, NOAA dont have to simply bend over and take everything from Smith."</i></blockquote>
If the Republicans - a notoriously spineless "go along to get along" bunch of ward heelers - don't pre-emptively surrender, your beloved NOAA charlatans are not only going to be bending over but they'll also be praying for Vaseline.
Perhaps - if they're incarcerated in the general population of some appropriate federal facility - quite literally.
Just as you have dread, I have hope. And however the axe falls, each such public exposure of Obozo's "climate" craptacular is a worthy audiovisual aid in educating the increasingly skeptical American populace about the utter bilge you and your co-conspirators keep trying to peddle in lieu of "science."
Popcorn, anybody?
<blockquote><blockquote><b><i>If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/ or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. </i></b>
<blockquote>— Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Deutsches Reich</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by donmgibson
Hopefully this becomes a public trial of CAGW.
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by rogerknights
“But given the warmunist meme that ‘deniers’ MUST be funded by fossil fuel companies, this was bound to be tried.”
For a list of 20-plus things that would be happening (but aren’t) if climate contrarians were actually well-organized and well-funded, see my WUWT guest-thread, “Notes from Skull Island” at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
