From "Here are the eight Trump Cabinet picks Democrats plan to target" (in WaPo).
And what about getting Merrick Garland onto the Supreme Court? Here's "Hacking democratic rules isn't good government," by Megan McArdle:
[T]here will be a nanosecond gap between when the outgoing senators leave office, and the new ones are sworn in. During that gap, there will be more Democrats left than Republicans. So the idea is to call that smaller body into session, vote on the nomination, and voila! -- a new Supreme Court justice. Alternatively, President Obama could use that gap to make a recess appointment....But Democrats will say that Republicans stole the nomination from Obama who was legitimately elected President and still President when the vacancy occurred.
The idea behind the nanosecond nomination seems to be that there are two discrete Senates, the old and the new, with a definite gap between them; yet that somehow, though neither the old nor the new Senate exists, there are senators, who can hold a vote on something -- a sort of quantum Senate that pops into and out of existence depending on the needs of the Democratic Party....
Even if these moves could work, they wouldn’t work... When procedural hacks work, it’s because they’re too boring for readers to understand, or care, and therefore take place well outside of the media spotlight. This, by contrast, is pretty easy to understand, and what most voters will understand is that Democrats are trying to do an end run around the results of a legitimate election...
I agree that the question hangs not on the technical and boring procedural question — if it did, you'd go read this now — but on whether it feels wrong to people. I think we've already perceived that the American people did not feel too uncomfortable with holding the Scalia seat open until after the election. The NYT tried to portray it as a great outrage, but it didn't stick. A tricky maneuver tomorrow would gobsmack America. And that's why it won't happen. If it does, it will be the Democrats proclaiming that these are not normal times and they can do abnormal things.
Why would you do that just as you were going out of power? The other party gets to swan in looking like the adults who have finally arrived (and then to take whatever power they like).
पोस्ट्स
२२७ टिप्पण्या:
227 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»"a sort of quantum Senate that pops into and out of existence depending on the needs of the Democratic Party...."
It is true that, on average, Democrat senators are very small.
No, it's a virtual state that pops into and out of existence.
No, it's a virtual state that pops into and out of existence.
"yet that somehow, though neither the old nor the new Senate exists, there are senators, who can hold a vote on something "
This is completely illogical. I didn't read the 108 page link but it seems apparent to me that if there is no Senate, there are no senators.
"Why would you do that just as you were going out of power?"
You can't very well do it *after* you've gone out of power, now can you?
It's not symmetric. Repubs tend to go along with Democrats. They're on the same side.
Rich people take a long time to confirm because money.
I'm always amused when Democrats express their concerns about wealthy individuals who choose to serve in government positions.
They never seem to be equally concerned when Democrats become wealthy BECAUSE they serve in government positions.
Any agency that goes without a leader for a month is disbanded, would be a nice rule.
Besides which, a matched pair of Democratic and Republican senators whould pop into existence together.
It is true that, on average, Democrat senators are very small.
By IQ, yes.
the question hangs ... on whether it feels wrong to people
Here in New Jersey, we normal people have learned from the state Democrats' persistent refusal to hold any hearings on any of Governor Christie's nominations to the state supreme court.
Below are excerpts (emphasis added) of an article from March 2016.
[quote]
The leader of New Jersey’s Senate declared yesterday that there will be no confirmation hearing for a Superior Court judge Gov. Chris Christie has nominated for a second time to fill a longstanding opening on the state Supreme Court.
That decision by Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) means a bruising six-year conflict with Christie over the makeup of the state’s highest court will continue through early 2018, when Christie’s tenure will come to an end. ....
At the heart of the feud in New Jersey is a long held but unwritten tradition that the seven seats on the state Supreme Court are divided nearly equally among Democrats and Republicans. ....
[David] Bauman, a Republican, had already been picked by Christie for a Supreme Court seat in December 2012, but he never received a hearing in the Senate as Democrats maintained his confirmation would upset the high court’s tradition that no party hold a more than one-seat majority. ....
Christie said during a State House news conference held Monday to announce the latest nomination of Bauman that just as Democrats in Washington are now scolding Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for saying they won’t hold a hearing if President Obama nominates someone for Scalia’s U.S. Supreme Court seat, the Democrats in Trenton are doing the exact same thing to him. ....
[unquote]
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/16/03/01/sweeney-stands-firm-no-hearing-on-governor-s-supreme-court-nominee/
Having seen what's involved the economic vetting of Executive appointees it will definitely be a cause for delay.
That said what shouldn't happen is Democrats trying to disqualify these very wealthy appointments for potential conflict of interest reasons. It is a slippery slope that ends in justifying disqualification because a candidate has an interest bearing checking account.
We shouldn't only allow those with few assets to participate. That's a big part of the problem.
The SEC and private sector use ethical guidelines that boil down to full asset disclosure and either recusal or scrutiny of decisions in light of those disclosures. They can work here as well.
"They never seem to be equally concerned when Democrats become wealthy BECAUSE they serve in government positions."
Yes.
The Democrats refused to hold hearings on Bush nominees in 2001. Finally, after 9/11, they began to let him staff his administration.
He did establish a bad precedent by leaving Clinton DoJ appointees in place. When Gonzales attempted to throw out the worst dozen two years later, the Democrats raised hell. Trump needs to fire all Democrat political appointees on January 21. Better to shut down offices than leave Obama appointees in place where they can sabotage his plns.
I'd assume Garland would decline the nomination if it were offered that way, but who knows. Maybe the guy's an asshole.
Why would you do that just as you were going out of power?
Because they are hysterical children who have never learned to be good losers. (they aren't particularly good winner either)
The other party gets to swan in looking like the adults who have finally arrived (and then to take whatever power they like).
Except for the MSM incessantly calling the Republicans evil and extreme.....
Judge people by the content of their character (e.g. principles), not the "color of their skin" (e.g. ethnicity, capital).
I don't think this current crop of Democrats have a good sense of what's good for the country. Just their interests.
it's going to be and interesting 18 days.
Here's excerpts from another article about the lesson that New Jersey's Democrats have been teaching us during Chris Christie's governorship:
[quote]
State Senate President Stephen Sweeney said Tuesday that he will not grant a confirmation hearing to Gov. Chris Christie's latest nominee to the state Supreme Court -- the newest standoff in an old feud between New Jersey's top leaders that has suddenly been reignited.
On Monday, Christie made the surprise announcement that he is re-nominating state Superior Court Judge David Bauman of Monmouth County for the seventh and final seat on New Jersey's highest court -- a seat that has been vacant for six years. ...
Sweeney ... said in a tersely worded statement Tuesday that "the only way" he will consider a Christie nominee is "if the governor preserves judicial independence by submitting a Democrat for the court." ...
The feud dates back to 2010, Christie's first year in office. After the governor refused to re-nominate Justice John Wallace to the Supreme Court, Sweeney has insisted the vacancy be filled by a Democrat.
Since then, Christie ousted another justice and Sweeney led efforts to block four of the governor's nominees. ....
Christie said the nomination comes as Democrats call for Republican leaders of the U.S. Senate to give a hearing to whomever President Obama nominates to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
"I hope and trust, given how vocal Democrats have been about Washington, D.C., and the problems down there, that they will allow New Jersey to set an example," Christie said.
[unquote]
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/sweeney_slaps_christie_over_nj_supreme_court_nomin.html
De-certify the Democratic Party today and escort them all out of the building. You can find cause if you put your mind to it.
In roleplaying games such as Dungeons and Dragons, that sort of thing is called "rules lawyering"—which is not considered to be praise.
There's no way Putin would let this happen. He will hack the vote if they try.
Somehow the personal wealth of John Fucking Kerry never mattered.
'If they want to get confirmed by Inauguration Day, that timeline doesn’t work,' the aide said. 'Obviously if you’re worth billions, it takes a lot longer.'
'Cause, God knows, the Democrats were all up in Obama's grill when he nominated Penny Pritzker to Commerce. It's about the principle, ya know!
It's amazing what craven, lying, hypocritical bastards the Dems can be when it suits their purpose.
The "how in the hell are they worth more than me and I have insider info" statement.
Kerry married his, his is easy to follow.
It is " end quote," not "unquote."
Why would you do that just as you were going out of power? The other party gets to swan in looking like the adults who have finally arrived (and then to take whatever power they like).
Now you know why I call them the "Dumbocrats."
"The 'unprecedented' personal wealth of Trump’s nominees warrants the delays"
Trump has been hearing almost the exact same words from building inspectors and permit committee members soliciting bribes for most of his life. I doubt it will faze him.
The Obama Party is lying every time they are moving their lips. Otherwise, they would not bother to spread any statements. We all know about that.
The hard part is watching Renegade Rinos "in Trump's own Party" destroying reality by crafting big lies and smirking.
I think there is zero chance of the "Quantum Senate" route- the time required to seat the interim Senate is simply too long to call it in and hold a vote without violating basically every single rule the Senate sets for itself.
However, Obama making a recess appointment isn't completely unworkable. This was brought up immediately following the election, and at the time I thought it about 100% that Obama wouldn't do it, but Obama's actions the last couple of weeks have made me adjust this probability up to about 25%. As for losing the seat on the D.C. circuit, Obama could simply appoint someone other than Garland. The idea isn't any crazier than some of the actions Obama has taken in the last week or so.
"Somehow the personal wealth of John Fucking Kerry never mattered."
Kerry's only conflict of interest would have been if a wealthy widow had business before the Department of State.
George Washington theoretically was our richest president ever.
(Theoretically because this includes a valuation of his speculative land holdings, which he did not really have that much control over. But just the Mt. Vernon plantation, which he definitely did own and very competently developed and ran, was worth a bundle, though he was always cash poor.)
John Adams was a well-to-do Massachustts farmer in addition to being a lawyer.
The next three presidents, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, all were Virginia plantation owners and definitely had "conflicts of interests" in their conduct of office, especially where slavery was concerned.
"Why would you do that just as you were going out of power?" Because you can. Because you don't care about rules or procedural niceties. Because power. But in this case, much as they'd like to screw the system one more time, they can't.
@YoungHegelian, what's interesting is that Penny Pritzker is just about the only female cabinet-level appointee who didn't have a scandal associated with her tenure in office. Kathleen Sebelius and the Obamacare rollout. Katherine Archuleta and the OPM data breach. Hillary Clinton and the Email server plus Libya. Loretta Lynch meeting Bill Clinton to negotiate what Comey would say about Hillary's mishandling classified data (or to talk about their respective grandchildren [snort]). Gina McCarthy covering up the EPA's release of toxic heavy metals into the Animas River. Samantha Power's vote to abstain on the recent UN vote slamming Israeli settlements in West Jerusalem and the West Bank. Janet Napolitano. Shall I go on?
Democrats have a problem in not understanding the incongruity of "screwing the system" when they are the system.
@traditionalguy, perhaps it's time for John Cornyn (Majority Whip) to earn his keep.
The richer a person already is the less they need wealth. It is the temptation to become rich that snares men.
There is a delay in voting for a nominee and, if memory serves, the FIRST thing Congress does is seat the new class. If they try a "Recess" appointment, it simply requires two gavels to undo it within seconds.
THERE IS NO NANOSECOND GAP. I'm so sick of politically illiterate f***tards trying to get cute with rules that don't f***ing exist.
The President is required to take an oath *before* assuming office. (Article 2, Section 1.)
The Constitution does not require that the Senators take their oath *prior* to assuming their office; rather, it simply states that they shall be required to be bound by oath. (Article VI.) It doesn't say anything about when that happens.
But what it DOES say is:
"The terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."
There is no f***ing "nanosecond." When the terms of the first ones end, that's the EXACT MOMENT when the terms of the newcomers begins.
Being a good loser is guy rules.
Based on Michael Lopez's comment at 12:13pm, I guess this idea of a nanosecond recess appointment is just more fake news from a few MSM outets.
These people are so rich, they may not be interested in graft. And then where would that leave us?
You want a real shooting civil war? Go there. It will be rejected by the American people.
Soap Box. Ballot Box. Ammo Box. November 8th entrained the process at the second level. It will not work out well for you if you push it to the third.
Biden rule. Look it up.
These people are so rich, they may not be interested in graft. And then where would that leave us?
OR, they could buy their own scientists as if they were lawyers, and pay them to cherry-pick the data that helps them exchange regulation for crony capitalism.
I never realized how completely conservatives have gone in rejecting the idea of financial incentives. I guess they believe the already-rich simply don't want to make money. Which is why wealthy CEOs go from a salary to ownership stakes in the companies they run. They don't profit at all from that!
Some people never get rich enough, and some people cannot stand seeing other people get rich.
"OR, they could buy their own scientists as if they were lawyers, and pay them to cherry-pick the data that helps them exchange regulation for crony capitalism. "
And bypass the Clinton Foundation?
I don't know about "unprecedented." Our last two Secs of State were Clinton and Kerry, neither of whom is exactly hurting for cash. I don't know how Tillerson compares, but we're talking distinctions w/o differences here.
Face it, both parties are plutocracies, and have been for some time. Biden is the only person in either party that doesn't seem to be rich.
"pay them to cherry-pick the data"
Just another day in the CAGW circus..
I fear for NASA though. Their Outreach to Islam mission is bound to suffer.
Not just an endrun around one legitimate presidential election, but an endrun around 52 legitimate senatorial elections.
All the republicans did was to apply the exact Rules that Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid had previously advocated for any late-term SCOTUS vacancy.
This was handled precisely as Biden, Schumer and Reid had suggested.
So no, there was no outrage.
Soe people feel that if other people have more than they do, it must be because they somehow cheated.
The thought that these other people may just have been more talented and worked more intelligently than themselves, is intolerable.
What it makes you want to do is to shoot all of the lawyers.
So let's say that the Dems try to gavel in their version of the Senate. If they have time to nominate and approve Garland, how would this "Session" end? When the Democrats go into recess? And do you think Chuck Schumer, having a Democratic Senate that ends when he recesses--do you think he would recess? Of course not. So in effect, The Democrat plan is to usurp the election.
Otherwise known as "Treason."
--Vance
"Advice and consent of the Senate" means that if the President nominates someone unacceptable to the Senate, that's just too bad. If Obama wants to appoint a Supreme Court Justice he needs someone acceptable to the Senate. There are any number of conservative jurists who would be.
But Democrats will say that Republicans stole the nomination from Obama who was legitimately elected President and still President when the vacancy occurred.
There's nothing in the Constitution establishing the exact procedure for rejection of a nominee; any means the Senate uses to confirm or reject a nominee is up to the Senate. Obama made a nomination, and his nominee was, as on objective matter, very clearly rejected by the sitting Senate. Obama wasn't cheated of anything by the Senate. Obama could have attempted a new nomination more acceptable to the Senate, and lost that opportunity solely because of his own personal stubbornness in refusing to try to nominate a more acceptable candidate.
"Rhythm and Balls":
Agreed. Fortunately those other scientists - the pure of heart who agree with your conclusions - are not motivated by profit, such as grant money. Of that we can be sure.
Nor would government bureaucrats be incentivized by the accumulation of power. It is only the profit motive that matters. And greed is always a problem with the other side.
Right?
Obama thought Clinton would win, or lose within the margin of fraud. He let Garland dangle because of his own poor political instincts.
Apparently Teddy Roosevelt appointed like 160 people in 1905 during an instantaneous inter-session recess of the Senate, much to the dismay of the Senate who raked him over the coals... but the appointments stood?
Did the Supreme Court close the door on that in its NLRB decision that Ms. Althouse cites? Reading it, it does not seem clear whether Roosevelts inter-session appointments would remain valid. It holds that ten days for an intra-session appointment power is needed, but it isn't very clear about intersession appointments?
If so, then trust Obama to handicap Trump by this kind of petty move.
--Vance
"A tricky maneuver tomorrow would gobsmack America."
Your use of gobsmack in your post, garnered much mirth in my household:)
Once the Left Borked Judge Robert Bork (Court of Appeals, DC Circuit - confirmed by Unanimous Consent in 1982), they forever broke the system for nominations and appointments to the Supreme Court. So, now, it's mostly just about political power and ordinary politics.
And since the Left is out of political power, f%@@ 'em.
Vance --
Obama could try it based on that precedent, and then let the courts fight it out.
Except, well, it's trivial to solve. Congress adjourns sine die the moment after Obama's out of office, and the appointments end. Trump then calls Congress back into session under Article II, Section 3, perhaps making his own replacement recess appointments first.
In the Teddy Roosevelt case, that wouldn't work because TR was still President, so ending his recess appointments wouldn't have stopped him from re-making them before calling Congress back into session. But Obama can't fill the vacancies after he's no longer President.
Agreed. Fortunately those other scientists - the pure of heart who agree with your conclusions - are not motivated by profit, such as grant money. Of that we can be sure.
Nor would government bureaucrats be incentivized by the accumulation of power. It is only the profit motive that matters. And greed is always a problem with the other side.
The idea that fossil fuels industries who can buy off the 3% of scientists they can manage to corrupt are less incentivized to bias the data than conventional grant foundations without those lucrative conflicting interests as their core mission is so idiotic that you'd have to have a mental allergy to opposing viewpoints to believe it.
Republicanism has simply devolved into nothing more than a mantra that denies the concept of conflicts of interests - at least when applied to itself. It has no principle left any longer other than the idea that whatever funds its projects is morally and socially right and good. Only other parties foundations need policing. Which is why Clinton would have beaten any other Republican who hadn't lied like Trump did to say he'd "drain the swamp."
We will now watch as the Twitterer-in-Chief censors and purges and screens the communications of the EPA with more gusto than the oil-rich Bush administration did.
Agreed. Fortunately those other scientists - the pure of heart who agree with your conclusions - are not motivated by profit, such as grant money. Of that we can be sure.
Nor would government bureaucrats be incentivized by the accumulation of power. It is only the profit motive that matters. And greed is always a problem with the other side.
There you go with you and your bureaucrats. And yet, nothing to say about why scientists themselves - a bit less corruptible and interested in power than politicians - can only manage to muster 3% support for your "equally corrupt" oil cartel lobby.
The idea that scientists are less motivated by simply being shown to be right than lobbyists are by getting their industries moolah is hilarious.
Why would you do that just as you were going out of power?
Check in down further south with some people who did.
Trump can just order the career civil servants to do his bidding while he waits for Senate confirmation. If they balk, then fire them and tell the next one up what to do.
Tell the DEA to start arresting marijuana dispensary workers in California and closing down their businesses. Lot of
levers to pull.
By all means let us continue to hire people with little real world experience to tell us how to live our lives, run our businesses, think. Academics! Bureaucrats! Just the ticket. And to think that some businessman who has run a global company dealing with dozens of foreign laws and leaders and negotiating thousands of deals is better suited as a diplomat than someone who has studied foreign affairs and worked her career in government is absurd. And all these people who are rich already and who could give less of a shit about making money from government work clearly must have something up their sleeves. We want poor inexperienced people at the helm. Look, hire people who have been near government through marriage as our diplomats. That is the way to quick approvals.
But Obama can't fill the vacancies after he's no longer President.
That's racist!
I will say it again,
WTF was Tom Price doing trading HC stocks while on the ways and means health panel and pushing legislation affecting the companies?
Was he in violation of the STOCK Act, or not?
If not I have no problem supporting him.
At a minimum he was guilty of being stupid though.
A quantum Senate fits nicely with our anti-matter President.
If they do that, what's to prevent a new 11 member SCOTUS?
"Rhythm and Balls":
Pick an option. Either people are motivated by money, power, prestige and so forth in relatively equal measure - on average - or not.
Imagining the people who agree with you are somehow less greedy is stupid. Don't be stupid.
WTF was Tom Price doing trading HC stocks while on the ways and means health panel?
I'm sure we will find out in the hearings. This is pretty common and, while I don't like the conflict of interest risk, it is something he knows about, not necessarily inside info.
The Republicans did not categorically hold the Scalia seat open until after the election. Had Obama nominated a conservative justice, he or she would have been approved by the Senate in an instant. Advise and consent, baby! -- or as they say these days, yes means yes and no means no.
OK. Let's say you have 100 senators in an air-tight Capitol and a 10,000-liter tank of cyanide gas attached to a mechanism to detect the alpha decay of a single polonium atom. When the mechanism detects the alpha particle the valve on the tank of cyanide is blown off by a small charge of TNT. Now, do the Senators have a quorum?
(reposted due to stupid typo.)
No one wants to write about Marbury v Madison?
There you go with you and your bureaucrats. And yet, nothing to say about why scientists themselves - a bit less corruptible and interested in power than politicians - can only manage to muster 3% support for your "equally corrupt" oil cartel lobby.
Uhhuh. Hows Michael Mann's lawsuit coming?
Ann, considering your constant attention and emphasis on 'language', I'm a bit disappointed to see you so easily and apparently happily using a word like 'gobsmack'. The centre cannot hold?
Pick an option. Either people are motivated by money, power, prestige and so forth in relatively equal measure - on average - or not.
They are not. Those are different things, anyway. Scientists are some of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people in society; however they are not compensated financially in a way that corresponds to that achievement. But they have different motivation: The motivation of being proved increasingly right in their findings over time. Reputational loss/gain is much more important to them than it is to you. Because we need people who are interested in putting forth workable understandings of how the observable universe works - and that is their motivation. It is not yours or the fossil fuel shills' motivation.
Similarly, many lawyers will receive a fee regardless of the outcome of a case. However, fear of reputational loss motivates them to do what they can to be on the side of the winning argument at trial. No one wants to hire a lawyer with a greater record of losing than his competitor.
People who never took a science course, let alone set foot in a lab, don't seem to understand the idea of being motivated by discovering the most functional understanding of a field of study explaining the workings of the world. And when they're anonymous on the internet, they have little interest in avoiding reputational loss. Same thing with your pundits, who are not penalized by a wrong forecast as there is entertainment value in their speculation, regardless of how ridiculous or solid or prescient it is.
Some people are more motivated by avoiding social sanction or loss of freedom/income, and try harder not to break the law. Criminals largely have a lower threshold for avoiding that social sanction and loss of freedom/income.
Politicians are motivated by attaining and maintaining office, and gain disproportionately by being better financed in their campaigns - especially the vast, mediocre majority of them. Thus, they need lobbyists to tell them what to think. Less mediocre politicians might actually appeal to the needs of the people directly - 70% of whom understand the perils of climate change and avoiding its explanations. But it is rare to overcome the campaign financing/lobbying issues to appeal this directly to a stated priority of the electorate.
Imagining the people who agree with you are somehow less greedy is stupid. Don't be stupid.
What's stupid is imagining that everyone is equally motivated by the same things. That's definitely stupid, as it is so demonstrably false. We are not yet a society of money-grubbing rat clones. Some people have values that are apparently not only dissimilar to yours, but not comprehensible to you.
Ladies and Gentlemen, as a case example of someone with a high threshold against reputational loss, I present you with the semi-pseudonymous internet flame-warrior "Rusty" - who has never been interested in understanding an unresolved problem in science, never researched or investigated that problem, never performed an experiment to resolve the lack of understanding, never published a peer-reviewed article demonstrating his findings on the matter, and will never be remembered as anyone who produced so much as a scintilla of knowledge to contribute to the depth or breadth of human understanding about the world.
But he does know what tribe he's on - and that's to shill for the continued economic dominance of the most powerful energy industries on the planet. So he does what the spokesperson of an oil cartel like OPEC would do: He gets up and defends the organization he wishes he could lead from challenges to the negative externalities it inflicts on us as we face the Sixth Great Extinction.
In his little mind, the biggest threat is knowledge. He fears knowledge. He is frightened of it. All his life people did better than he did based on how much more than him they knew, and he resents, if not them directly, the arena of their skill.
And since a big powerful industry can make money denying their knowledge, he feels vindicated. He's hated knowledge all his life, but thinks money is cool. So he willingly shills as an unpaid lobbyist for them. So great is his love of money over his hatred of knowledge. Just that little psychological and mental inadequacy has so great an effect on what he spends his time, energy and moral imperatives working against.
Go, Rusty! You tell those scientists!
"Rhythm and Balls":
I applaud your ability to stick on stupid.
Being in the side of good, right and true must be easy.
Further, "Rhythm and Balls", I applaud your ability to ignore all the "Green" science and infotainment funded by the Saudis.
Yours is a special form of willful ignorance.
So you have no defense, and admit that you can't prove that reputational loss is somehow as unimportant to scientists as it apparently is to a faceless internet pseudonym like yourself.
As expected. The desperation of your anti-knowledge crusade requires nothing less. But cognitive dissonance of that sort doesn't bother you as cognition only concerns you when people point out how embarrassing your inability to think really is.
Keep up the platitudes and keep elongating the chain of knowledge that you are afraid to acknowledge.
Somehow the Saudis made humans capable of changing their environment or the atmosphere capable of regulating climate. Right. That's a funny one. Are they also responsible for making the earth revolve around the sun? Maybe they invented gravity, as well.
That Saudi deflection is a beauty, though. Right up there with the tweet Sir Donald denies about how AGW was a hoax invented by the Chinese to make American manufacturing uncompetitive.
As his handlers say, he is ushering in the "post-truth" presidency. His ignorance and agenda is as good as anyone's knowledge. And there's no lie he won't make up (and later deny) in order to achieve it.
Being in the side of good, right and true must be easy.
The capacity for self-deception is apparently an inherited trait did your forebears more good than it did mine.
Are there other lies you regularly tell yourself to feel good about your country and the powerful industries that you feel should run not only its regulatory agencies but also its science?
R & B: "There you go with you and your bureaucrats. And yet, nothing to say about why scientists themselves - a bit less corruptible and interested in power than politicians - can only manage to muster 3% support for your "equally corrupt" oil cartel lobby."
***************
There YOU go again. If you had paid a couple of minutes reading the many, many articles demonstrating how utterly BOGUS the "97% consensus" was, you would have at least offered evidence that you have a working set of neurons.
But you didn't.
And so you don't.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, as a theory, has made zero accurate predictions to date. That makes it worthless, except as a tool to increase the scope of government control.
I can see why you prefer it.
R & B: I don'think you EVER set foot in a science lab. I don't think you EVER tried to get funding for your projects.
In fact, I bet you don't even know what the largest component of the Earth's atmosphere is, or what percentage of it is CO2.....
.............................................
Face it: you're ashamed, aren't you.... you had to look everything up, didn't you....didn't match your warmista fantasies, did it.......yet you won't ever admit that you are a Science Fuckwit.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, as a theory, has made zero accurate predictions to date.
You don't know how to get average temperature readings or observe polar ice changes?
You don't know how to measure coral bleaching or sea level rise in Miami Beach, Bangladesh, or the South Pacific?
You don't know how to measure the changing timing of seasonal plant and animal activity?
Ok, so you are empirically inept. You hereby absolve yourself of a conversation involving facts that you are incapable of observing or collecting data on.
Did you want to argue instead with someone who shares your handicap?
Jay Elink said...
R & B: I don'think you EVER set foot in a science lab. I don't think you EVER tried to get funding for your projects.
In fact, I bet you don't even know what the largest component of the Earth's atmosphere is, or what percentage of it is CO2.....
.............................................
Face it: you're ashamed, aren't you.... you had to look everything up, didn't you....didn't match your warmista fantasies, did it.......yet you won't ever admit that you are a Science Fuckwit.
Translation: My name is Jay Elink and I never produced a finding, let alone published one, and I will now exact my feelings of inadequacy over my deficiencies in basic science education and/or research on people who lack my very problematic shortcoming.
AGW denial is a mental defect invented by the Chinese to measure America's inability to excel at math and science.
What other non-truths will the acknowledged "post-truth" president invent? And what purpose will they serve? (I mean, other than to feel better about his intellectual deficiencies?)
What I'm not understanding is why the GOP has to live with the Democrats' plans to delay and obstruct. Schedule one day of hearings on each nominee, let the Democrats grandstand away, and call a vote. It's over.
"Because we need people who are interested in putting forth workable understandings of how the observable universe works - and that is their motivation. It is not yours or the fossil fuel shills' motivation. "
R&B on a rant. McDonalds must be closed or the shift changed.
I normally skip over your rants but you filled the whole thread with horseshit.
Now you can tell me how senile I am. If I am, at least it took me 50 years more than it took you.
Schedule one day of hearings on each nominee, let the Democrats grandstand away, and call a vote. It's over.
Yup. I hope they have the guts. I know Trump does
Politifact is as unbiased a source as you could find, LMMFAO.
When I was doing my fellowship for the American Chemical Society, "Rhythm and Balls", what sort of scientific training were you getting? I genuinely wish to know.
When I was doing my fellowship for the American Chemical Society, "Rhythm and Balls", what sort of scientific training were you getting? I genuinely wish to know.
Hmmm... Maybe not the one that convinced you that atmosphere doesn't regulate climate or that human activity can affect it.
It must get pretty tedious trying to figure out all the sources you reject. You apparently think Exxon Mobil climate science is not biased but Politifact is. You're not a scientist, but you'd be a shitty lawyer - seeing as how easily you engage in what you rail against.
So you're saying what, then? Donald Trump DID blame AGW on the Chinese as a hoax they perpetrated? Or that he DID NOT? Remember, he took both positions. So which is it? Or is this just your shilling along with the "post-truth" president whose handlers admit that it's not so much the truth or falsity of what he says, but how it plays politically.
For those more interested in facts than rants, there is this.
Did everyone notice the non-response to Birlkel's question ?
It looks like an old fart above is having wet nurse titty withdrawal symptoms. He is annoyed that anyone else dares comment and respond to attacks by the empirically challenged. And then again with the anti-McDonalds obsession. Maybe if the new CEO marketed wet-nurse milk to its customers then Dr. Michael Kennedy would approve.
But it's great to expose himself as a class-warfare advocate who can't resist insulting low wage workers as his only attack against commenters whose facts and reason he can't challenge. Apparently this is how Republicans like him will win elections in the future: By pretending to not hate the majority of workers in this country long enough to get in office, and then turn around and show his true colors with all that class hatred. Perhaps they think they will go far with it.
Still no response. Fact free as usual.
Right. An aging, retiring economist - i.e. a practitioner of that "dismal science" whose warnings on avoiding depressions Republicans still reject - that's the sage prophet who will tell the politically fixated all they need to know on the actual science of the matter.
Nope.
Wet-nurse titty withdrawal patient, Kennedy - what are you griping about? Is it Birkel's ad hominem about training? What time period was it, as that's part of his question. Did the ACS endorse Birkel's necessary contention to the effect that climate CAN'T regulate temperature or that humans CAN'T affect it? If not, then what does that matter?
Hell, he even got one of his genius friends above to complain about the inertness of nitrogen in the matter! Ha hahahaha. I didn't know that gases that don't participate in a reaction were important to account for - since it's a great quantity of inert material. Now that's funny. LOOK AT HOW MUCH NITROGEN THERE IS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Lol.
Such is the lack of critical thinking skills among Birkel and Dr. Wet Nurse Kennedy's Republican rank-and-file. Or as they're better known, The Exxon Mobil Shill Brigade.
Take notice that the only "fact" that wet nurse patient Kennedy cares about is the ad hominem related to training.
None of the other facts concerning AGW are things that Birkel is capable of engaging.
Is Birkel saying that the ACS rejects the science of the greenhouse effect, too?
Is that what he's going on to support his political positioning?
The Earth is currently in the middle of an ice age, called the Quaternary, that began 2.5 million years ago. Around 12,000 years ago, the Earth began to warm, and we entered an interglacial, called the Holocene. Both the Quaternary and the Holocene are still active. 200,000 years ago, modern man appeared. For 190,000 years, or 95% of humanity's existence, we wandered around in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Then shortly after the Earth began to warm, man discovered agriculture. This led to surplus, which led to specialization, which led to civilization and history. Not only has all of human history and civilization occurred during global warming, global warming is at least in part the reason history and civilization exist.
Rhythm and Balls": "Maybe not the one that convinced you that atmosphere doesn't regulate climate or that human activity can affect it."
If you cannot understand how foolish and ignorant that sentence is, I cannot help.
The Earth is currently in the middle of an ice age, called the Quaternary, that began 2.5 million years ago. Around 12,000 years ago, the Earth began to warm, and we entered an interglacial, called the Holocene. Both the Quaternary and the Holocene are still active. 200,000 years ago, modern man appeared. For 190,000 years, or 95% of humanity's existence, we wandered around in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Then shortly after the Earth began to warm, man discovered agriculture. This led to surplus, which led to specialization, which led to civilization and history. Not only has all of human history and civilization occurred during global warming, global warming is at least in part the reason history and civilization exist.
Translation: I don't want to sound as stupid as it would imply to deny that CO2/atmosphere regulates climate, so I will divert with this irrelevancy instead. Pretty good Exxon Mobil! Do I get a gold star now? Please, pretty please?
Some natural warming was good for civilization. So let's take it off the charts! Wheeeee!
If you cannot understand how foolish and ignorant that sentence is, I cannot help.
If it's foolish or ignorant, it's only a restatement of the position you must hold in order to wish away any serious response to the AGW issue. The basic science of atmosphere regulating climate and humans changing the atmosphere is sound. So how else do you intend to cast your denialist's doubt over the matter without rejecting those two very basic precepts providing the accepted understanding of what's going on?
Unprecedented wealth? John Kerry. Andrew Mellon.
Try here, even if MadisonMan foolishly rejects what he does not understand:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
"Rhythm and Balls": The basic science of atmosphere regulating climate and humans changing the atmosphere is sound. So how else do you intend to cast your denialist's doubt over the matter without rejecting those two very basic precepts providing the accepted understanding of what's going on?"
I would start by suggesting that what you assume to be true is false. Nobody denies the broadly stated principles. What is denied is the probabilistic mechanisms you suggest. But you are too stupid to understand your own ignorance.
The part I don't understand is why Democrats are in a majority in the quantum Senate. Really I don't see what their argument is.
Nor would I tempt Republicans with this argument. For they being in a majority could pre-arrange "flash-mob recesses" during which a quantum Senate could accept Trump appointees, increase the number of justices, appoint new justices, rearrange all treaties, impeach the IRS Commissioner, move the UN to Boise - all in 12 sets of three femtos and then on Jan 21 move on to new business.
And also I don't understand why Senator Achilles is able to pass Tortoise the Gavel. As I understand it Senator Achilles is able to complete half of the vote and then half of the remaining half and then half of that remaining half but always Tortoise the gavel is ahead. Teddy Roosevelt may not have known this but we do.
Great theoretical paper!
So how does it account for:
1. The greater temperature on Venus than on Mercury? (Or I guess the author rejects the possibility of even being able to make such a measurement...)
2. The tracking of ice core CO2 with temperature - however much he hates the idea of temperature averages being attained? Does he reject the tracking of ice core CO2 with geologic glaciation events/retreat?
3. All that melting ice up there that we're getting now... is that supposed to be another great argument that the global average temperature rises are wrong, or unknowable? Can he at least account for the raised polar temperatures and stomaching a correlation?
Other than that, a lot of fancy numbers, theories and equations in search of a grandiloquent refutation. But tell us how specifically you got to disconnect the melting ice from the inputs? How do you reject the contention that dark ocean water will now retain heat better than the white ice that would have reflected it out? I guess there's no positive feedback there to concern ourselves with, either then?
Exxon scientists predicted CO2 global warming back in 1981. They purposefully avoided working an Asian gas field because of the high CO2. If Exxon believes in AGW, that's good enough for me.
It is “end quote,” not “unquote.”
Unquote exists in English language dictionaries. E.g.:
Dictionary.com:
unquote
—verb (used without object), un·quot·ed, un·quot·ing.
to close a quotation (often used with the word quote, which notes the opening of the quotation): The senator said, quote, I am unalterably opposed to this policy, unquote.
Origin: 1910–15; un-2 + quote
(/Unquote)
CO2 lags Temperature by about 700-years in ice cores. Henry's law. No one believes CO2 initiated any of the interglacials, it just went up after the planet warmed.
I would start by suggesting that what you assume to be true is false. Nobody denies the broadly stated principles. What is denied is the probabilistic mechanisms you suggest. But you are too stupid to understand your own ignorance.
So we have to disbelieve the rising CO2 levels as measured at Mauna Loa and elsewhere, as well as polar sea ice loss? (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/). You claim you are arguing against theories, but you are wrong. You are arguing against basic observations. You seem to say that no evidence will ever be good enough for you to find such theories worth taking seriously.
Are you an opposites man? Maybe you think that if sea ice was increasing then you'd take AGW seriously. It's like you're anti-evidence or something.
Look at the evidence. Account for the weight of it before telling me about the superiority of your anti-theory. Maybe gravity wasn't only not responsible for those falling balls of the Tower of Pisa, but we should even be skeptical about whether the balls fell in the first place. Galileo was the Michael Mann of his day, and the balls he released actually fell upward. The Church (i.e.CATO, etc.) has thus decreed it.
R&B Most of the northern hemisphere Continental glacial retreat occurred before 1920, what caused that?
"Rhythm and Balls":
You seem to imagine the relative rates of increase in temperature between Mars, Earth and Venus was different. As it happens that is foolishly wrong.
It is almost as if the temperature of planets near the Sun are most closely linked to.... solar activity.
Weird!!
Exxon scientists predicted CO2 global warming back in 1981. They purposefully avoided working an Asian gas field because of the high CO2. If Exxon believes in AGW, that's good enough for me.
Howard, how dare you believe this. Our job is to be skeptical that any such thing as evidence even exists. Have you familiarized yourself with the philosophical brain in a box theory proposed by AGW denialists? They want to say that all the data we observe just never happened and it was instead implanted in our brains by a Matrix-like cyborg controlling our virtual reality world. Take the red pill and learn to do the scientific thing of rejecting the possibility that observable data can actually be worked with. They are available from CATO and others. CATO will then demonstrate how reality is an illusion. An illusion invented by scientists.
We think the problem is one of scientific understanding. But the denialists are just philosophical solipsists who have the argument right: Reality is a construct and as such, all data is an illusion.
"Rhythm and Balls":
Global temperatures as measured by satellites have gone down, slightly, since 1998.
That is fact.
WTF are you talking about Mars and Earth and increase? I talked about temperatures right now being higher on Venus than on Mercury? Are you getting confused? Do you know the relative distance to the sun of Mercury vs. Venus?
Did the ACS tell you that astronomy was Scientology?
Were Galileo's rings around Saturn created by undersea earth volcanoes? Or sunspots?
Global temperatures as measured by satellites have gone down, slightly, since 1998.
Yes. Must be what happens when you see things like this: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://www.ibtimes.com/global-warming-melts-polar-ice-record-lows-temperatures-rise-under-climate-change-2449072
Sounds like it's your instrumentation or preferred data source that's off. You violate Occam's razor at every turn and reach for esoteric and more complicated and unnecessary explanations simply to deny away the obvious and rational.
"Rhythm and Balls" :
You are ignorant.
The relative temperature increase on Mars, Earth and Venus is the same. National Geographic a good enough source for you, On that point?
Global temperatures, as measured by satellites, have gone down since 1998. On all three planets, oddly, this is true
Climate Hoax models run their scary results by Assuming that there is a heat trapping effect from trace CO2 molecules at a certain level of the air surrounding earth. So far that assumption has been disproved over and over and over by tests. So it is not a science at all.
Maybe that is why the proponents have to work so hard to cover up the earth is quickly cooling now. The sun spots and the solar storms that are missing are no longer blocking cloud formations. It's Maunder Minimum redux. CO2 would be welcome to save us if it actually could put a glass ceiling in the atmosphere. Too bad, but it does no such thing.
The late 1990s temps rising results were an aberration. The reported warming trends are pure fraud done by changing the past temperature measurements. But the fools forgot to change the satellite temp measurements.
Conclusion: They know they are frauds. Why anyone still defends them is the only mystery.
'They (Exxon) purposefully avoided working an Asian gas field because of the high CO2.'
You do understand that most if not all natural gas fields have CO2 as a part of the produced gas stream. Removal of that from the methane and other hydrocarbons in the stream is one of the most costly parts of natural gas production.
If you can choose between fields with lower CO2 contamination it is less costly to produce. That is why any gas producer would steer toward fields with less CO2, It has nothing to do with global warming and the CO2 produced in natural gas production is simply reinjected into the field to keep the pressure up.
You are ignorant.
The relative temperature increase on Mars, Earth and Venus is the same. National Geographic a good enough source for you, On that point?
Global temperatures, as measured by satellites, have gone down since 1998. On all three planets, oddly, this is true
Notice how the denialist quoted above has now manufactured, after challenge, the idea that I said anything about "increase" in relation to other planets. I simply asked for his explanation of why Venus, a planet further away from the sun than Mercury, has a higher temperature. I even reiterated this at 7:19. Pretty interesting that a guy who rejects all data related to sea ice loss as a metric for temperature fabricates quotes of strange provenance having nothing to do with a very simple question I asked him.
So apparently he defines "ignorant" as, asking a clear question that a supposed challenger willingly fails to understand.
How knowledgeable you must be to invent discussions like that, Birkel. What other irrelevance will you pretend I touched on next? Perhaps something related to Hogans Heroes? Oh well. A completely unrelated line of questioning must somehow be presupposed. Apparently Ziggy Stardust was manning the satellites that he's so in love with. And sea ice never existed. It was manufactured. There were never any eskimos or polar bears, either. The arctic was always a warm pool of water. Birkel knows. He took the red pill. It's all a construct.
Conclusion: They know they are frauds. Why anyone still defends them is the only mystery.
You take many trips to the north pole, I take it? How are your igloos holding up?
Any idiot who denies the overwhelming loss of sea ice should build his permanent residence there. Lawyers and the politicians they become need to stop pretending that the workings of the universe are arbitrated by someone as flimsy as a trial judge.
I answered, you ignorant ass hole. The answer is solar activity.
Try again?
What brilliant idea have you, you ignorant son of a bitch, for either increased or decreased solar activity?
What bromides spill forth?
What has the gaping maw of "Rhythm and Balls" to offer, besides a place to put my baby makers?
A conflict of interest with the welfare economy, legal economy, social justice adventurism, progressive wars, immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises), scientific mysticism, foreign influence peddling, and other schemes. Perhaps, also, class diversity (i.e. institutional racism, sexism), selective exclusion ("="), and denial of human rights to human lives (i.e. Posterity) when we are most vulnerable.
ArtM: Thanks for your schooling. I directly measured CO2 on big rigs when I was a mud logger back in the dark ages. There are many factors in making fields economic, CO2 and sour gas contamination are only significant if the field is marginal.
The Natuna gas field has so much CO2 (it would have been the worlds largest point source), Exxon was worried that simple venting might not be allowed in the future because of the warming impacts.
Worlds Largest CO2 Point Source
And they may want to remedy a number of Obama's violent coups that have placed the world on edge and targeted Russia, presumably for their natural resources a la South Africa, Libya, etc.
You answered a question I didn't ask, as a desperate deflection from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA
And he now proceeds to intensify his desperate vulgarities with lurid, harassing sexual language.
But he can parrot that whole sunspot thing. He thinks it's even responsible for making Venus warmer than Mercury, apparently!
Sunspots, underwater volcanoes. Whatever he can reach for.. when he's not reaching for lurid, harassing sexual language.
Desperate. He can't even figure out what he's saying. His prefrontal cortices have given out. Phineas Gage experienced similar behavioral breakdowns - after that whole spike through the head incident.
Extrapolating from isolated laboratory experiments to assert that anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide have a significant effect on the global system has produced a rich philosophy backing the "green" industry of non-renewable, gray impact technologies exploiting unstable renewable drivers.
R&B The deniers worship scientific dadaism and believe that reason and logic of bourgeois capitalist society are the source of all the problems in the world today. That's why they like Ronnie Reagan so much who solf arms to terrorists on the advice of "Mommie's" astrologer.
Extrapolating from isolated laboratory experiments to assert that anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide have a significant effect on the global system has produced a rich philosophy backing the "green" industry of non-renewable, gray impact technologies exploiting unstable renewable drivers.
So has this, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA
But let's not get bogged down in non-extrapolated real-life data right before your very own lying eyes!
Denying polar ice changes or their meaning or impact truly is the Baghdad Bob moment of the denialism movement.
Svensmark solar/galactic cosmic ray theory has been disproved. The heat flow from volcanos and the earth's interior is insignificant. Land use, deforestation and industrial air pollution are the only other first order climate forcings.
I think the jury's still out on Antarctic ice: this year was a big anomaly. The arctic ice losses keep increasing. Deniers just keep moving the comparison to one year being slightly better than the previous record low. It does go up and down but the trend is down down down.
This is good for Trump's make Russia Great Again project as they are better able to produce arctic oil offshore with the help of Exxon/Mobile, natch.
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Antarctic Peninsula
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.
Credits: Jay Zwally/ Journal of Glaciology
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Some people feel that they can ignore the meaning or impact of the added ice mass on the antarctic continent. These people are called "fools."
How can anyone call themself a believer in science and continue to ignore the intersection between gender, feminism, and glaciology?
Abstract
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368
NASA Study..
The Antarctic thing's been explained, Denialist. It's transient sea ice that's expanding, the permanent land ice is still retreating.
But of course, Exxon Mobil requires its entire army of unpaid shills to pretend their experts and that somehow the obvious can never be really true.
Lewis: The jury is still out on Antarctic ice sheets because the satellite measurements used to model the ice mass are strongly dependent on mantle density. I expect Zwally is right because Antarctic glaciation existed pre-Pliestocene, therefore, one would expect that those ice sheets can tolerate AGW.
This year was a record drop in Antarctic Sea Ice. Measuring ice sheet mass on land is very complex and the Zwally paper is a good example of the evolving science.
So the percentage increase in average temperature across several near-Sun bodies is similar - and decreasing since 1998 - and that means nothing? I want to believe with the fervency that requires no thought. Sadly, I am unable.
HBO? Holy cow, R&B.
OH I know Lewis, it's really amazing. Just think, if they can produce footage of scientists making those measurements there in the flesh, then maybe you can go there and do the measurements yourself, Lewis. Tell us about the conspiracy HBO had to somehow distort all the footage of the measurements taking place, right there, once again - before your very lying eyes.
Also, don't forget to shoot the messenger of YouTube making the clip available. You know what they say, if it's on YouTube then it's false. It never happened. Only Morpheus can tell us what's real and what's not. Everything else is just a simulation. People aren't really allowed to see Antarctica outside of the Matrix.
There Birkel goes again, for his third go-around to pretend that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury - and always has been. Sunspots, without sunspots, whatever. He really is one hell of a cherry-picker, isn't he? So expert at it that he not only avoids the evidence and arguments to cherry pick, he damn well will pick apricots. Hell, just strawman the hell out of everything. It's like someone asked him the time of day, and he answers with, "The temperature in New Delhi is 101 F." Not even in the right galaxy.
Birkel's been shot out of the space station via the capsule into deep space. Ground Control to Major Tom.
What a major retard.
So let me understand this. Being wealthy enough so you can't be bought is enough to disqualify someone who has passed the hardest test in life. Creating something that enough people value to make him or her wealthy. The left again proving they are the party of stupid bullies. It's so much better to put a Lenin or Castro in charge.
Vice, produced by Bill Maher. Info-tainment.
Anyone can call something "Info-tainment". I want to know what data in there was wrong, though.
It's ok. Shoot the messenger. We all know how difficult it is for partisan denialists to actually address the message.
R&B: Don't pick on Birkel... he is actually a she.
Even the IPCC doesn't talk in terms of certainties. The IPCC talks about "confidence levels." Politicians and ideologues talk about the evidence for AGW being "incontrovertible."
People are funny. They act as though "extremely likely" means "certain", unless the question is something that could affect them personally -- like "is this gun loaded?" Politicians and ideologues want to shut down the conversation and give orders to the rest of us. If some group of scientists says "there is a 90% chance that AGW is happening, and a 90% chance that if it is happening, humanity is the cause, and a 90% chance that if AGW is happening, it would be cheaper to deal with it now than a century from now", that leaves a lot of room trying to balance human interests with a possible long term threat to the environment.
Instead we have Bernie Sanders saying Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet. The debate is over, and the scientific jury is in: global climate change is real, it is caused mainly by emissions released from burning fossil fuels and it poses a catastrophic threat to the long-term longevity of our planet. If we do nothing, the planet will heat up five to ten degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.
If you think AGW is the single greatest threat to humanity, look up "Carrington Event." We could take steps now, today, to mitigate the effects of the next Carrington Event. The tech is not mysterious. Basically you isolate power grids and build in redundancy. But doing that wouldn't allow you to put the world economy under the control of politicians.
I guess there's no positive feedback there to concern ourselves with, either then?
Of course not. If Earth's climate was a positive feedback system instead of a negative feedback system, it would have become uninhabitable hundreds of millions of years ago, as a result of positive feedback from any of the previous many much larger changes in temperature (in either direction) clearly recorded the fossil record. In order to believe in positive climate feedback, one has to assume all current geology and astronomy to be lies, like a Young Earth Creationist.
I hope you aren't calling me some kind of AGW denier, R&B. I agree with the IPCC as a best-estimate of the chance that AGW is occurring. The "deniers" are the people who disbelieve the plain language of the 2014 IPCC Synthesis Report -- Summary for Policy Makers -- people like Bernie Sanders.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Of course not. If Earth's climate was a positive feedback system instead of a negative feedback system, it would have become uninhabitable hundreds of millions of years ago, as a result of positive feedback from any of the previous many much larger changes in temperature (in either direction) clearly recorded the fossil record. In order to believe in positive climate feedback, one has to assume all current geology and astronomy to be lies, like a Young Earth Creationist.
Check out the pretzels Steven ties himself into in order to deny that snow reflects out light energy much better than deep water, everyone!
"Rhythm and Balls":
Are you going to pretend that percentage increases, relative increases, are irrelevant? Is that the level of sophistication you claim? Idiot!
R&B: Post a link to a peer reviewed study like Lewis, not a Tee Vee show.
Birkel: What temperature units do you use to compute the percent changes? Kelvin or Fahrenheit?
Sure. Act like petulant children. The voters are going to love that.
Howard: There's no point in responding to Birkel's diversions. He refuses to even understand what keeps Venus much hotter than Mercury in the first place, whatever minor changes he wants to lie about apart from that. He is opposed to atmospheric regulation of climate as a concept, refused to answer the question, and then diverted to this diversionary piffle.
Don't engage him; he's not serious. Or you could choose to do so, if you feel there's something to be gained by someone whose modus operandi requires bad faith.
Howard:
You tell me. Do the math. Show your work.
I am not, and have never been, likely to educate you and yours.
R&B: Post a link to a peer reviewed study like Lewis, not a Tee Vee show.
Data is data, Howard. If you feel distracted by a video of how the data was gathered, then look it up on your own. Here's how:
1. Check out the names of the researchers interviewed.
2. Use "GOOGLE", by plugging in those names into a search of the study described.
If you can do this, you are now well on your way to learning how to do basic research! Congratulations!
I am not, and have never been, likely to educate you and yours.
You can't even educated yourself.
You do run a great disinformation campaign, though. Have you ever considered a job in a Republican administration? They're very pro-business! And you are obviously an experienced propagandist.
Lewis: Bernie is paraphrasing IPCC for the RCP 8.5 scenario using F not C so that part is accurate. The CAGW bs Bernie regurgitates is from Podesta's shill Joe Romm of Climate-Think Progress
You know.....it only takes one idiot fucktard to dispossess me of global warming theory.
R&B: Thanks, that's a weak response, but when it's all you got, I can't blame you. Stick to arguing with Birkel, she's at your emotional level.
So, the peer reviewed paper of two German physicists is nonsense.
The satellite data that covers Venus, Earth and Mars is wrong.
The greed of one side - but not the other - matters.
Those are some convenient conclusions, no doubt.
Once you sloppy dirtcunts realize our goal the entire time was to permanently erase you and yours, and us and ours too, it will be too late.
We are winning, the game almost over, and you non-denialists are still too arrogant to start to play. Say good night unGracies, ignorance and evil have you at your final door. How could you let such stupid people obliterate you, and all memory of you? Smart folks wouldn't have lost to us Hitler-dummies.
You let us get away with another Munich, so it's over. Now cry. CRY!
I find the form that arguments take is sometimes more interesting than their content. The AGW proponents argue from authority. If a person is arguing from authority, you clearly have the right to question the validity of the authority. "It's in the Bible" ain't much of an argument, these days.
Check out this fascinating history of human ideas about paleo climate from the American Institute of Physics: http://history.aip.org/climate/cycles.htm
Lots of false starts, lots of mistakes. all of which were "accepted science" for years.
It's not helpful to compare the climates of Earth and Venus. Venus has been at thermal equilibrium for hundreds of millions of years. There is so much "not happening" with the Venusian climate that its dark side is nearly the same temp as the side that faces the sun. Their is not much wind. The climate on Venus is damn near the same on the poles as it is on the equator.
That deep water is less reflective than ice is true, but the important fact is, it was already true in the past. And, since ice tends to get lost at lower latitudes first, where the incidence of solar radiation is more direct, that fact was, in fact, more important in the past.
Now, the first-order warming from carbon dioxide is a logarithmic process, not a linear one. Which means that the first order warming from a past increase in carbon dioxide from the old baseline by X% is the same as the warming from a future increase in carbon dioxide from the current level by X%.
So, putting that together, if an increase in carbon dioxide by X% in the past produced a temperature increase of Y (partly the first-order warming and partly the albedo-effect warming caused by the first-order warming), then an increase in carbon dioxide by X% in the future should cause a temperature increase of less than Y (because the first-order warming is the same and the albedo-effect warming will be less at higher latitudes).
Which is really easy to figure out if you understand that past geologic evidence already proved climate has to have an overall negative feedback, because then you're proving an existing result, rather than getting caught up in ungrounded speculation on the future.
OMG! This is still going on ! I flew to Phoenix and missed the second half of the Rose Bowl Game and you people are still counting angels on the head of the pin ?
R&B you are hopeless. Feel free to chastise me if I ever respond to anything you post
Oh I have plenty of hope - to not become a smug, complacent, self-satisfied wet-nursed shithole like you, Michael KKK. I'm plenty hopeful about that. Now go dream of Mammay and leave me alone. You can stop pretending you had any interest in any discussion here other than to throw spitwads, which is all you're capable of anyway.
This the reality of the AGW warriors:
http://wonkette.com/413811/this-is-literally-thomas-friedmans-house
Thomas Friedman cleared acres of land in Maryland to build a frikkin' McMansion. Friedman married his money -- his wife is heiress to a fortune made by financing suburban shopping malls.
Friedman thinks that it was okay to build this monstrosity because he bought carbon credits. I bet he is a dick about recycling and using CFL and LED lighting!
That deep water is less reflective than ice is true, but the important fact is, it was already true in the past.
So why don't you go ahead and spend four paragraphs pretending that the increase of the former over the latter somehow won't lead to less light energy reflected - an additional input into warming. Oh wait, you did just that! Bravo! Congratulations on the incoherence. You used fancy math to say that 2 + 2 = -1.
How any of you manage to retain jobs beggars belief.
Science has to be recreatable, not an algorithm, now as to the subject at hand, I recall Rubin was so rich and conflicted, he was placed in a non confirmation role, before moved to treasury. The bailout was as much about his Mexican his interests as it was about Mexico's he selected Ken lay to head thehouston natural gas merger that was enron, subsequently as the head if vitibank sold the subprime junk abroad like a trial leafer
This the reality of the AGW warriors:
http://wonkette.com/413811/this-is-literally-thomas-friedmans-house
Thomas Friedman cleared acres of land in Maryland to build a frikkin' McMansion. Friedman married his money -- his wife is heiress to a fortune made by financing suburban shopping malls.
Friedman thinks that it was okay to build this monstrosity because he bought carbon credits. I bet he is a dick about recycling and using CFL and LED lighting!
I suppose the lack of personal virtue here somehow in any way changes the science of the issue.
Easily. Distracted. Easily. Distracted. Easily. Distracted.
I only hope and pray that one day I will be able to afford to use as much fossil fuel energy as Thomas Friedman. He thinks that cars should be more expensive, BTW. Can't have the hoi polloi exercising the privileges of the elite! If they can't afford the carbon credits, they can fucking walk! Or better yet, stay home! And keep that thermostat set to 68, worker! Warmth and comfort is for the rich!
You go do what you want, Lewis. Just don't pretend that you have any virtue at all. Pretend that the shortcomings of others is your best excuse for advocating your own negative contribution.
Lewis Wetzel:
Decrying the relative changes in temperature on three bodies in the same solar system is silly. Be serious. If those temperatures appear to move in relative synchronicity, shall we deny our observations?
Correlation is not causation, speciallynin a field that makes the piltdown man seem like a disinterested piece of scholarship.
Getting back to the subject at hand, warren Christopher's senior partnership at o melveny and meyers was not without its conflicts, now William perrys tenure at hambrecht and quist
R&B wrote: I suppose the lack of personal virtue here somehow in any way changes the science of the issue.
From a PR point of view, it is important. Since real men of science can't seem to convey the message, people listen to the carnival barkers like Friedman and Gore. Get a better messenger.
I shouldn't have written"listen to." Better: From a PR point of view, it is important. Since real men of science can't seem to convey the message, people hear the carnival barkers like Friedman and Gore. Get a better messenger.
Drain the swamp! Ohhhhh hahahahaha!
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — House Republicans, overriding their top leaders, voted on Monday to significantly curtail the power of an independent ethics office set up in 2008 in the aftermath of corruption scandals that sent three members of Congress to jail.
"The move to effectively kill the Office of Congressional Ethics was not made public until late Monday, when Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced that the House Republican Conference had approved the change. There was no advance notice or debate on the measure.
The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, where emboldened Republicans are ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The House Republicans’ move would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries."
"Just don't pretend that you have any virtue at all."
I never claimed to have any virtue at all, R&B. Maybe you could take a class in rhetoric?
What temperature is the Earth *supposed* to be at?
What temperature is it supposed to be at 100 years from now? 1000?
Well, the above discussion leaves me in a quandary. My thermostat really is set to 68 (Fahrenheit) and I am pretty rigorous about recycling. These things really do make sense, especially recycling aluminum. Wife and I are careful to put out only plastic #1 (PETE) and #2 (HDPE) because if other plastics get included by accident it can screw up a whole batch that is being reused.
OTOH I'm not certain that we are actually seeing true warming since the AGW alarmists decline to share their raw data with the rest of us, nor do they seem willing to share their models and methods with folks who are properly skeptical. The Democrats have a touching faith in unvalidated mathematical models, like the one that predicted Hillary Clinton would carry Michigan by five percentage points. Let me repeat for the readers who slept through middle school science class. You use models to make predictions. If reality doesn't match the model then the model is broken, the theory is false, it's time to give up and start over.
The giveaway is when people start asking whether I "believe in" anthropogenic global warming. To me that's something like being asked by an evangelical Christian whether I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Uh, no. But I digress.
Getting back to anthropogenic global warming, I would be surprised if mankind did not have an impact on climate. We are building large cities with tons of asphalt creating huge heat islands, and in large areas of the world mankind used slash and burn agriculture, which pumps CO2 into the air while removing trees that absorb CO2. That's where the 97% figure comes from; everyone who has thought about climate realizes that mankind is having an impact. That doesn't mean we agree that the science is settled or that models like Michael Mann's hockey stick have any validity. In fact we know that his model is invalid because it ignores the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age. We know, as s matter of historical record that somewhere around a thousand years ago, and for something like four centuries thereafter, it was warm enough in Greenland to survive using medieval farming technology. Anyone teading this want to try that today? No burning fossil fuel of any sort for heat. You can burn turf and dried animal droppings, and huddle up with other people and/or animals for heat in winter. So if you think it is warmer now than then, I challenge you to try it.
Meanwhile (another case of the science not being settled) Russian limited scientists are predicting a lengthy cooling period based on sunspot data. Could they be right? Don't know. The Little Ice Age correlated with a lull in sunspot activity (the Maunder Minimum) but correlation is not causation. We shall see.
But one thing is obvious -- anyone who thinks that there is a fierce urgency to do anything but monitor the data and refine the models until they have real predictive value needs to take a deep breath and learn more about real science.
Russian climate scientists. Screw Apple autocorrect.
Big Mike wrote: But one thing is obvious -- anyone who thinks that there is a fierce urgency to do anything but monitor the data and refine the models until they have real predictive value needs to take a deep breath and learn more about real science.
But exactly how else are we to prevent cis-gendered families of five from driving their SUV's to churches on Sunday's?
Rhythm and Balls said...
I suppose the lack of personal virtue here somehow in any way changes the science of the issue.
No, it just highlights the true goals of the AGW movement. The people at the top that are pushing it know it is bunk and act like it is bunk, but they have enough idiots convinced to keep it alive and pretend there is an excuse to put a massive unelected bureaucracy in control of all petroleum use.
If you people were serious you would be pushing for more nuclear power. But you are too busy being suckers making Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens Billionaires.
BM: Mann's hockey stick is a temperature reconstruction, not a model. It has nothing to do with making the case that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Hockey Stick in Context
The physics behind CO2 greenhouse effect is solid, repeatable science. You should go beyond click-bait peddlers like instapundit for your opinions.
CO2 Greenhouse
The raw temperature data was indeed adjusted. If it was not adjusted, it would show a greater temperature rise. These guys were the leading sceptics back in 2009 and they verified the global temperature record.
Global Temperature Change Since 1850
Believing the Russian prediction of cooling is exactly like believing in the second coming of Christ.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा