Will they poop on cop cars, get really stoned, and assault the women?
Comment on Week in review by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
I remember that , willy. this is what nuttticelli was responding to:
” Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many responses were in categories 2 and 3 and were therefore “assumed” to endorse the >50% human contribution plank of the alleged expert consensus.?. I bet they will DENY your request.”
I badgered the clown into giving me the numbers. You do admit that categories 2 and 3 were assumed, without any freaking basis, to endorse the alleged >50% human contribution consensus?
If you look through those discussions some more, I am sure you can find that little dana clearly maintains that the 97% consensus is that humans are causing most, if not all of the warming. You can find him repeating the same story on his little BS guardian blog.
What would be the freaking point of trumpeting a 97% consensus that humans were causing some unspecified amount of warming that could be anything between just above zero and 100%? You are shameless, willyboy.
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
<blockquote>Another thing that sucks is thinking that not knowing everything means we know nothing:</blockquote>Typical straw man. Only to be expected from you and dumbunny.
He (Koonin) says do the <i>"no regrets"</i>.
He says the science is unsure, policy has to be set in that context.
It's only people pursuing extreme agendas who interpret that as <i>"doing nothing"</i>. Sure, if people want to set up policy with very high regrets, they can. He just says they shouldn't use claims of certain science to <strike>justify </strike>rationalize it.
IMO.
↧
Comment on Week in review by cwon14
Another zero fact based diatribe
from Fanboy.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Joshua, blog debates are a completely different thing from live debates on Fox News. I think it was this difference that is critical to Gavin. Blog debates are much more preferable because you can fact-check, look at sources, then respond much more accurately, with supporting referenced information, than when fielding new information live.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
note also willard.. the Budget and Information.
So, is the budget not science?
regardless they refuse to stand behind the budget and the information.
That’s nice, its settled, except when you ask us to stand behind it.
transparent, open, and un accountable. thats how we like our governance.
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
Plan to go full steam ahead with gas now, ease back on coal, focus incentives on appropriate R&D, and remediate later (2040-2080).
It means a moon-shot effort for nuclear power.
Use that big nuclear reactor in the sky. Solar’s coming down exponentially, and can reasonably be expected to continue.
↧
Comment on Week in review by cwon14
Another zero fact based diatribe
from Fanboy.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
wow.. more gems.. read the methane budget.
Now methane is the second most important GHG..
whats the plan? dunno.
Where is the black carbon budget.. arguably as important as c02, easier to control… where’s the budget?
MIA..
Now, how do you calculate an equitable budget for ALL forcings?
hmm.. well you dont. you budget for only c02 and look the other way on methane ( reducing wetlands would be a huge help) and black carbon.
hmm.. looking for your keys where there is light
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
Doesn’t it worry you guys that funding and lobbying on this vast scale, by whatever group, severely compromises the democratic process?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
JimD
the larger problem is that they dont have a REAL budget.
The budget only addresses C02 and ignores black carbon and methane.
You cant compute an equitable budget by ignoring methane and black carbon.
and yes, sensitivity is huge in this budget
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bob
“Koch brothers have funded 44,000 ads this election cycle. http://wapo.st/1wdgW4T”
It is a beginning. Let us hope they have the courage to do 10X that.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
AK
“Plan to go full steam ahead with gas now, ease back on coal, focus incentives on appropriate R&D, and remediate later ”
Agreed. with these additions.
1. big focus on NG, must get China on board and technologically up to speed, 17/19 of their fracking efforts failed. They need help.
2. No new coal..
3. Black carbon control
4. R&D increases
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Im not too keen on democracy. constitutional republics.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bob
Let’s see Ole willy graph Soros. Hmmm
↧
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
> thats how we like our governance.
Like globalcarbonproject.org is governing, now.
It should be possible to find another example of a legal disclaimer somewhere. But where?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
It worries me. I prefer the British system where there is hardly any election budget, and the MPs don’t spend over half their time courting funders and the other half rewarding them with their policies, caring little for the average guy. Take the money out, and then you look to reward your majority constituents to get their votes next time, which is the way democracy should be.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
The point is, only rich people have the speech that counts, not the average joe. Some of those rich people may care more about the average joe, but it is still distorted.
↧
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
> The kock brothers didnt fund the ads. groups did.
The NRA defense. How interesting.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
wow. bad philosopher quoting bad science. ( see the fatlities due to climate change study he cites)
Criminal philosopher
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
