Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

Why regulate if its not necessary?
Do you just like regulation?
That fits the meme – this isn’t about the environment, it’s about governments grabbing more power.


Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Jim D

0
0

It was an airing of grievances and the usual conspiracy ideation about an organized suppression effort. Of course, he won’t mention Lamar Smith’s witch-hunt or the way climate science has been suppressed in the recent past in Canada and Australia and by the Bush administration through various methods of defunding and muzzling, and continues today with Republican efforts at defunding inconvenient things like NASA satellite programs that attempt to point satellites at Earth.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by beththeserf

0
0

Hmph – In first verse omit ‘as predicted’ to better scan.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

Tripp, do you know what corals eat?

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by michael hart (@michael97087462)

0
0

“I was shocked that Happer basically said that more CO2 is good. Do scientists and posters here really agree with that?”

Yes, I do agree. Photosynthetic (i.e. green) life forms benefit from increased CO2. These life forms form the base of the pyramid that supports life on this planet.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Jim D

0
0

These reductions did not just happen, because the most profit-making path would have been business as usual. Same with CO2. These were regulations with a purpose. Same with CO2.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Pierre-Normand Houle

0
0

Is the video or audio of the hearing archived somewhere? I can’t find a link anywhere. The Capitolhearings.org homepage has an audio icon labelled “listen” next to the hearing title, but it links to a live feed that is silent. I can’t find it on c-span either.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Mark Silbert

0
0

Tony, I’m glad you are keeping an open mind about Steyn.

I spent most of today watching the hearings and didn’t have time to read the submissions. I just finished reading Steyn’s written testimony. IMHO it was a work of art.

Of the “scientists”, I think Judith did the best, but Happer was a real sleeper. Christy was lost in the roundoff. Titely came across (to me) as the Mann tool he was. He was a stand-in for Mann who was probably invited but declined because he’s a punk.


Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

Oh yeah, I forgot.

The coral thing is hooey.

You don’t have to look past the Wiki page to understand this:
“corals first appeared in the Cambrian period,[27] some 542 million years ago”

Temperatures have been significantly warmer in the past, even with the +2C or so from the Eemian, much less the 8 to 10 C from coral evolutionary history:

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Mark Silbert

0
0

One of your best! Is this a Rap?

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Tripp Funderburk

0
0

Yes, I go out to reefs and restore them with nursery-raised coral.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Don Monfort

0
0

We get your point, yimmy. All problems real or imagined can be solved by regulations. Very convincing. You can stop lecturing us now.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

These reductions did not just happen, because the most profit-making path would have been business as usual. Same with CO2. These were regulations with a purpose. Same with CO2.

CO2 is a benefit, at least in the near term.
CO2 forcing rates are already declining.
That means global warming is declining.
There’s no need to regulate the compound that means more life on the planet.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by ristvan

0
0

JimD, you do know that Smith is going off histle blowers? And that there are independent confirmatory means (see my guest posts/ comments)?
Please keep digging your hole deeper.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Don Monfort

0
0

Wait till The Donald takes over, yimmy. Will you be moving to Canada?


Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Tripp Funderburk

0
0

I assert the coral died for a lot of reasons. One of the main reasons is hotter oceans due to climate change. The correlation between high ocean temperature and coral bleaching is undeniable. Higher temps also cause more coral disease. It is not a joke or an assertion. It is a fact that climate change is causing coral reefs to bleach and die. And they cannot adapt to the the rapid changes due to human caused climate change. So, climate denial seems wrong to me. I work in the Florida Keys and we have done work in Curacao, Bonaire, Jamaica, and Mustique.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Tripp Funderburk

0
0

Yes, they eat plankton, but get 90% of their food from their symbiotic algae. That symbiotic algae gets expelled when it gets too hot, so the corals bleach and starve. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by beththeserf

0
0

MS, could be, or American swing. )

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

I assert the coral died for a lot of reasons. One of the main reasons is hotter oceans due to climate change. The correlation between high ocean temperature and coral bleaching is undeniable.

You can assert all you want but evidence is what resonates.

Here’s the wiki timeline of corals:

Here’s the proxy record of temperatures:

The corals that are around today appear to be the scleractinian.
They go back 220 million years when estimated global temperatures were much higher, yet millions of years of these temperatures did not extinguish the coral. Like all long lived species, natural selection leaves them with genes to tolerate a range of conditions.

Consequently, I believe the coral thing is hooey.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Tripp Funderburk

0
0

It is only about 8 degrees between ice ages, which rotate over about 100,000 years. We just increased temperatures 1 degree celsius in about 140 years. You can do the math right?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images