Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not

waldo · March 6, 2011

Excellent find.

O.K. I'll supply the commentary for those who haven't read the article. The gist of the article is that since 1871 there has not been an increase in extreme weather events. As a society we're better off with "risk management" or "risk mitigation" rather than spending trillions trying to hold Kink Canute's fingers in the dike. It's far more intelligent for Heathrow to have snowplows and rock salt on hand than to spend trillions in a futile effort to prevent a blizzard that almost definitely would have happened even if we were still living in caves.

yes! Excellent find... an opinion piece, one that spouts the well known WSJ party-line that denies AGW. Certainly, we've had no shortage of threads that show irrefutable evidence of increased intensity... and frequency... of extreme weather events attributed to climate change - with, uhhh... you know... real studies cited and quoted from! In any case, one might like to read the actual response of the scientists involved in the Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project to that link provided ala the lukinWay™... the project the opinion writer/piece misinterpreted and misinformed on:

While we appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work, we found that the resulting opinion piece "The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder" (Feb. 10) does not accurately reflect our views.
As for the statement that the Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project, which is a synthesis of weather observations going back to 1871, shows "little evidence of an intensifying weather trend": We did not look at weather specifically, but we did analyze three weather and climate-related patterns that drive weather, including the North Atlantic Oscillation. And while it is true that we did not see trends in the strength of these three patterns, severe weather is driven by many other factors.

The lack of a trend in these patterns cannot be used to state that our work shows no trend in weather. Many researchers have found evidence of trends in storminess and extreme temperature and precipitation in other weather data over shorter periods.

Finally, the article notes that the findings are "contrary to what models predict." But models project forward, while our analysis looked back at historical observations. We see no conflict between the 100-year-projection of changes in weather extremes resulting from additional carbon dioxide and the fact that our look back at three indicators showed no historical trend.

Thank you for this opportunity to clear up any inadvertent misunderstandings about our work, which can be found at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full

Gilbert P. Compo

Research Scientist - University of Colorado at Boulder

Jeffrey S. Whitaker

Meteorologist - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Prashant D. Sardeshmukh

Senior Research Scientist - University of Colorado at Boulder

He's the master of multi-color nested quotes.

still smarting, hey jbg? :lol: btw... thanks for your most illuminating summation of the lukinWay™ dropped link... after all, lukin doesn't have the wherewithal to do anything but blindly drop links without any summation/commentary. Someone has to do it... good on ya, for stepping up!!! Even if you faceplanted :lol:

(on edit: supplied missing linkee)

Edited March 6, 2011 by waldo

Shady · March 6, 2011

- Environmental Protection Agency -$1.6B

- Office of Science -$1.1B ; the U.S.' single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences

- National Institute of Health -$1.1B ; the U.S.' major medical research agency

- Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899M

- Center for Disease Control -$755M

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration -$379M

- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -$336M

- Food and Drug Administration -$220M

- National Institute of Standards and Technology -$186M

- Nuclear Energy -$169M

- National Science Foundation -$139M

- Food Safety and Inspection Service -$53M

- Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49M

- Energy Information Administration -$34M

- Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies -$30M

- Fossil Energy Research -$31M

- U.S. Geological Survey -$27M

- Clean Coal Technology -$18M

- Strategic Petroleum Reserve -$15M

Good for them. Look at all the redundancy. All of those groups/programs/bureaucracies could essentially all fall under 3 categories. And much of their budgets saw temporary increases due to Obama's trillion dollar stimulus experiement. In which he wants to now lock those levels of spending in as permanent. Talk about a war on science, your post is a war on science, math, and commons sense! :lol:

waldo · March 6, 2011

Good for them. Look at all the redundancy. All of those groups/programs/bureaucracies could essentially all fall under 3 categories. And much of their budgets saw temporary increases due to Obama's trillion dollar stimulus experiement. In which he wants to now lock those levels of spending in as permanent. Talk about a war on science, your post is a war on science, math, and commons sense!

ah, yes... a perfect vehicle for... the Professor! Don't hesitate to qualify and quantify your stated redundancy... or the 3 category summary organization... or the "Obama" stimulus money expenditures these Republican "war on science" cuts are remedying. Let's read some of that Professorial common sense!!! :lol:

Shady · March 6, 2011

ah, yes... a perfect vehicle for... the Professor! Don't hesitate to qualify and quantify your stated redundancy... or the 3 category summary organization... or the "Obama" stimulus money expenditures these Republican "war on science" cuts are remedying. Let's read some of that Professorial common sense!!!

Perhaps you're unaware of the 57% increase in funding of non-discretionary spending as a result of the 2009 economic stimulus package. A refusal to lock in permanently these elevated spending levels isn't a so-called war on science. It's a war on fiscal irresponsibility. These levels of non-discretionary spending were suppose to be temporary. Your meme is factually incorrect.

waldo · March 6, 2011

Perhaps you're unaware of the 57% increase in funding of non-discretionary spending as a result of the 2009 economic stimulus package. A refusal to lock in permanently these elevated spending levels isn't a so-called war on science. It's a war on fiscal irresponsibility. These levels of non-discretionary spending were suppose to be temporary. Your meme is factually incorrect.

what? So that's a no then, hey? That's a no for you qualifying and quantifying your stated redundancy... or the 3 category summary organization... or the "Obama 2009" stimulus money expenditures these Republican "war on science" cuts are remedying. And I'm quite confused given your reference to non-discretionary (i.e. mandatory) spending... is that really what you meant to say? :lol: On top of that, in regards the proposed 2012 Fiscal Year budget cuts, you're dropping a 4 year old reference - one easily argued to have been influenced by the outgoing wizardry of Dubya. Do you have more?

Shady · March 6, 2011

what? So that's a no then, hey? That's a no for you qualifying and quantifying your stated redundancy... or the 3 category summary organization... or the "Obama 2009" stimulus money expenditures these Republican "war on science" cuts are remedying. And I'm quite confused given your reference to non-discretionary (i.e. mandatory) spending... is that really what you meant to say? On top of that, in regards the proposed 2012 Fiscal Year budget cuts, you're dropping a 4 year old reference - one easily argued to have been influenced by the outgoing wizardry of Dubya. Do you have more?

Your denying is amusing. It's a fact that Obama's increased descretionary spending by over 50% since he took office. And yes, I meant to say descretionary as oppose to non-descretionary spending. Medicare, Social Security, etc cannot be touched. The so-called budget cuts you cited as a so-called war on science is a refusal to lock in elevated stimulus spending levels, that were suppose to be temporary. I'm not sure why you're being so obtuse. It's a fact.

waldo · March 6, 2011

Your denying is amusing. It's a fact that Obama's increased descretionary spending by over 50% since he took office. And yes, I meant to say descretionary as oppose to non-descretionary spending. Medicare, Social Security, etc cannot be touched. The so-called budget cuts you cited as a so-called war on science is a refusal to lock in elevated stimulus spending levels, that were suppose to be temporary. I'm not sure why you're being so obtuse. It's a fact.

how discretionary of you to avoid responding to a challenge to your puffery... your ignoring the challenge for you to, "qualify and quantify your stated redundancy... or the 3 category summary organization". You're also skirting the point on why you're going back to a dated 4 year old 2009 reference in relation to the 2012 Fiscal Year... or why you chose to label it as, in particular, "Obama's stimulus" (so as to avoid any influence the outgoing Bush administration had on those stimulus dollars). Very discretionary, indeed! By the by, there appears to be a rather significant skew in those proposed Republican spending cuts... a rather non-discretionary skew in favour of the Republican "war on science" - hey?

Shady · March 6, 2011

how discretionary of you to avoid responding to a challenge to your puffery... your ignoring the challenge for you to, "qualify and quantify your stated redundancy... or the 3 category summary organization".

Sure. One example would be Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and Energy Information Administration. All of which have overlapping purposes and bureaucracies.

This from a new GAO report:

The report finds that there are 15 agencies involved in food safety, 80 programs involved in economic development and more than 100 involved in surface transportation. There are 10 agencies and 82 programs involved in teacher quality, and more than 20 agencies and about 56 programs involved in financial literacy efforts.
CBS

The GAO says the government could save up to $5.7 billion annually by addressing potentially duplicative policies designed to boost domestic ethanol production.

It's duplicative policy costs such as these, that when reformed and costs cut, produce charlatans like yourself proclaiming "war on science!", "war on science!" :rolleyes:

You're also skirting the point on why you're going back to a dated 4 year old 2009 reference in relation to the 2012 Fiscal Year

Complete nonsense. It's directly related to 2009, and the stimulus spending spree.

The spending figures for non-defense discretionary spending did show a 24 percent jump -- from $434 billion in 2008 to $537 billion in 2010
PolitiFact

And that doesn't count the discretionary spending portion of stimulus bill. So once again my friend, you're completely wrong. Or just denying facts. I guess it's just all part of the WaldoWay™!

waldo · March 6, 2011

Complete nonsense. It's directly related to 2009, and the stimulus spending spree.
And that doesn't count the discretionary spending portion of stimulus bill. So once again my friend, you're completely wrong. Or just denying facts.

there are Shady facts and then there are actual facts... I didn't challenge your using 2009 in the context of it's supposed reference bearing... I challenged it on your pointed labeling it as the "Obama stimulus"; again, since you selectively (uhhh, with discretion) ignore the Bush admin affect on those stimulus dollars. However, I will now do exactly that; i.e., challenge your use of the 2009 dated 4 year old reference (your stimulus angle), as it might apply to the proposed 2012 fiscal year cuts. It seems quite contradicting to your claim, that the U.S. Congressional Appropriations Committee unveiled the proposed Republican cuts, a list of programs it planned to pare as part of legislation to roll back discretionary federal spending in the 2012 fiscal year's budget to, $35 billion below 2010 levels, without regard to attachment, so-called stimulus, or otherwise. Repeat... 2010 levels... no reference to your puffery concerning your stated emphasis on the 2009 stimulus spending level, the spending you solely tagged as the, "Obama stimulus". Yes... Shady facts and actual facts!

Sure. One example would be Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and Energy Information Administration. All of which have overlapping purposes and bureaucracies.
It's duplicative policy costs such as these, that when reformed and costs cut, produce charlatans like yourself proclaiming "war on science!", "war on science!"

are there efficiencies to be found in government? Wow, imagine that - there might be; there probably are - ya think; duh! However, also recognize the proposed Republican cuts were in no way communicated in terms of, as intended, to reduce said (possible) redundancy... certainly, any such initiatives would need to be done in a logical, ordered, reorganization and restructuring plan; one intended not to disrupt government. Unless Shady, unless you're suggesting the proposed Republican cuts, those you puff up in relation to duplication/overlap, were simply, wildly proposed with abandon outside of any actual logical, ordered, reorganization and restructuring plan... is that what you're suggesting, hey? Ah yes... there are Shady facts... and then there are actual facts! :lol:

Shady · March 6, 2011

there are Shady facts and then there are actual facts... I didn't challenge your using 2009 in the context of it's supposed reference bearing... I challenged it on your pointed labeling it as the "Obama stimulus"; again, since you selectively (uhhh, with discretion) ignore the Bush admin affect on those stimulus dollars. However, I will now do exactly that; i.e., challenge your use of the 2009 dated 4 year old reference (your stimulus angle), as it might apply to the proposed 2012 fiscal year cuts. It seems quite contradicting to your claim, that the U.S. Congressional Appropriations Committee unveiled the proposed Republican cuts, a list of programs it planned to pare as part of legislation to roll back discretionary federal spending in the 2012 fiscal year's budget to, $35 billion below 2010 levels, without regard to attachment, so-called stimulus, or otherwise. Repeat... 2010 levels... no reference to your puffery concerning your stated emphasis on the 2009 stimulus spending level, the spending you solely tagged as the, "Obama stimulus". Yes... Shady facts and actual facts!

are there efficiencies to be found in government? Wow, imagine that - there might be; there probably are - ya think; duh! However, also recognize the proposed Republican cuts were in no way communicated in terms of, as intended, to reduce said (possible) redundancy... certainly, any such initiatives would need to be done in a logical, ordered, reorganization and restructuring plan; one intended not to disrupt government. Unless Shady, unless you're suggesting the proposed Republican cuts, those you puff up in relation to duplication/overlap, were simply, wildly proposed with abandon outside of any actual logical, ordered, reorganization and restructuring plan... is that what you're suggesting, hey? Ah yes... there are Shady facts... and then there are actual facts!

Please stop filibustering. It's a very easy issue. In 2009, Obama passed an OMNIBUS spending bill that greatly increased discretionary spending. He also passed his economic stimulus bill which also had a discretionary spending increase. He now wants to freeze those elevated levels of spending. Republicans disagree, and are seeking to cut those levels, which were suppose to be temporary. It has nothing to do with the verbal diarrhea of a response your last two paragraphs entail. The Democrats didn't even pass a budget for FY 2010, let alone FY 2012. :rolleyes:

waldo · March 6, 2011

Please stop filibustering. It's a very easy issue. In 2009, Obama passed an OMNIBUS spending bill that greatly increased discretionary spending. He also passed his economic stimulus bill which also had a discretionary spending increase. He now wants to freeze those elevated levels of spending. Republicans disagree, and are seeking to cut those levels, which were suppose to be temporary. It has nothing to do with the verbal diarrhea of a response your last two paragraphs entail. The Democrats didn't even pass a budget for FY 2010, let alone FY 2012.

predictable! ShadyPractices pulls out the go-to "filibustering" bluster... look, it's really not that difficult to understand. U.S. government agencies today are generally operating at 2010 spending levels... uhhh... cause budgets are outstanding - hence, wait for it, wait for it... we are discussing the proposed Republican "war on science" spending cuts. Again, particularly in relation to my reference that the House Appropriations Committee has phrased the proposed Republican cuts in the context of 2010 spending, your continued beat-on about 2009 "Obama stimulus spending" is the... verbal diarrhea!

It seems quite contradicting to your claim, that the U.S. Congressional Appropriations Committee unveiled the proposed Republican cuts, a list of programs it planned to pare as part of legislation to roll back discretionary federal spending in the 2012 fiscal year's budget to, $35 billion below

2010 levels, without regard to attachment, so-called stimulus, or otherwise

. Repeat...

2010 levels

... no reference to your puffery concerning your stated emphasis on the 2009 stimulus spending level, the spending you solely tagged as the, "Obama stimulus". Yes... Shady facts and actual facts!

clearly, your ShadyDubiousSources are dated in terms of what the Democrats have presented, particularly in regards your stated "Obama freeze" reference... what the Democrats have most recently presented is a bill that would set discretionary spending at $1.08 trillion - much less than the Obama 2011 budget request. Of course, if we actually were presented with the ShadyDubiousSources.....

jbg · March 7, 2011

predictable! ShadyPractices ******** ShadyDubiousSources*********ShadyDubiousSources.....

For bad jokes, bad puns and personal attacks you sure are the king.

waldo · March 7, 2011

still smarting, hey jbg? btw... thanks for your most illuminating summation of the lukinWay™ dropped link... after all, lukin doesn't have the wherewithal to do anything but blindly drop links without any summation/commentary. Someone has to do it... good on ya, for stepping up!!! Even if you faceplanted
For bad jokes, bad puns and personal attacks you sure are the king.

notwithstanding your opinionated, most subjective, critical eye review on jokes/puns... I have presented no personal attacks. Your quoted references are simply explanatory, descriptive aids. Now, if you had pointed out someone labeling you a constant whiny pissant, that might be construed as more than an opinionated, most subjective, critical eye review on jokes/puns.

GostHacked · March 7, 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12647657

The commission is also set to recommend that some of the 20% reduction can be achieved through buying emission credits from overseas, rather than entirely through cuts at home.
The analysis - leaked in a draft version of the road-map two weeks ago - said the price of carbon should be maintained through "setting aside" some of the allowances to emit that EU nations will receive for the period 2013-2020.

However, the BBC's source said this set-aside would not now be happening.

The door will be left open to adopting a 30% target if there is a new global deal under the UN climate negotiations.

Buying credits does not reduce the amount of emissions, it only allows you to pollute more, but you gotta pay for it.

"The smokestack industries of Europe are wrong when they claim that the only way to meet our targets is through de-industrialisation; investing in new clean energy technologies will actually boost economic activity," she told BBC News.
"They also fail to mention that many of them are handsomely profiting from the sale of spare emissions permits which leave them largely untouched by requirements to reduce emissions."

Edited March 7, 2011 by GostHacked

sunsettommy · April 6, 2011

I mean... really, c'mon wyly... that countering denier letter sent to the U.S. Congress was certainly justified given the unnerving "call to arms" invoked by the earlier letter from scientists who simply asked the U.S. Congress to, "put aside politics, and take a 'fresh look' at climate data". Imagine the trepidation felt by the deniers when they read that initial letter, particularly the following selected extract... oh my... imagine scientists calling for Congressional hearings to understand climate science - actually offering to assist in developing a rational and practical national policy! Just exactly what are the deniers afraid of when they read the following?

I skimmed over this thread.

I wonder why you are against people in examining the information?

Oleg Bach · April 6, 2011

Stop calling it global warming and call it climate destruction...or destruction of the natural world that sustains us. So-called skeptics are always those that are doing well finacially - the poor and miserable of the world are not skeptical about the fact that they are hungry and going to get more so in the future.

sunsettommy · April 6, 2011

Stop calling it global warming and call it climate destruction...or destruction of the natural world that sustains us. So-called skeptics are always those that are doing well finacially - the poor and miserable of the world are not skeptical about the fact that they are hungry and going to get more so in the future.

The usual undefined and illogical,skeptics are well supported financially pablum.

A few million spread over 20 years versus BILLIONS a year for Greenpeace.Or billions a year for the AGW believing scientists.

:rolleyes:

bloodyminded · April 7, 2011

The usual undefined and illogical,skeptics are well supported financially pablum.

A few million spread over 20 years versus BILLIONS a year for Greenpeace.Or billions a year for the AGW believing scientists.

What was Greenpeace's part is navigating climate change theories? What did they have to do with it?

Oleg Bach · April 7, 2011

The usual undefined and illogical,skeptics are well supported financially pablum.

A few million spread over 20 years versus BILLIONS a year for Greenpeace.Or billions a year for the AGW believing scientists.

It is a fact that the climate has change within my life time - and it is not natural or some thousand year cyclical thing. It is most definetly human activity...You do not see such evolution in wheather in less than one human life span....Skeptics are usually people who like the way things are and when they pass from this world they will yell one thing to the next generation "F**k YOU!"

sunsettommy · April 7, 2011

What was Greenpeace's part is navigating climate change theories? What did they have to do with it?

It is pitiful that you do not know what role Greenpeace has had in this area.

They are one of the groups who attack AGW skeptics on what they say about the climate.

They have produced the funding canard in the past against skeptics.Who get a pittance compared to Greenpeace,James Hansen and Al Gore.

Oleg Bach · April 7, 2011

It is pitiful that you do not know what role Greenpeace has had in this area.

They are one of the groups who attack AGW skeptics on what they say about the climate.

They have produced the funding canard in the past against skeptics.Who get a pittance compared to Greenpeace,James Hansen and Al Gore.

Al Gore is a funny guy - kind of like the fellow who sells pain killers out side the burn unit.

sunsettommy · April 7, 2011

It is a fact that the climate has change within my life time - and it is not natural or some thousand year cyclical thing. It is most definetly human activity...You do not see such evolution in wheather in less than one human life span....Skeptics are usually people who like the way things are and when they pass from this world they will yell one thing to the next generation "F**k YOU!"

Of course climate changes.It does it all the time.

The warming trend from 1978-2000 is almost identical from 1920-1940 and from the late 1800's as well.

1860-1880

LINK

1920-1940

LINK

1978-1998

LINK

Since 2001,the warming trend has vanished.

LINK

"Unnatural" warming trend is not showing up.

Edited April 7, 2011 by sunsettommy

Michael Hardner · April 7, 2011

Hi Sunset....

I have nothing against Blogs per se, but when it comes to the science it isn't very convincing to cite blogs to prove anything. Even the best of them have been shown to have an agenda here.

Best to go directly to the climate scientists - and there are skeptics there if that's what you're looking for.

sunsettommy · April 7, 2011

Hi Sunset....

I have nothing against Blogs per se, but when it comes to the science it isn't very convincing to cite blogs to prove anything. Even the best of them have been shown to have an agenda here.

Best to go directly to the climate scientists - and there are skeptics there if that's what you're looking for.

The links I posted are completely based on HADCRUT data.

Oleg Bach · April 7, 2011

Hi Sunset....

I have nothing against Blogs per se, but when it comes to the science it isn't very convincing to cite blogs to prove anything. Even the best of them have been shown to have an agenda here.

Best to go directly to the climate scientists - and there are skeptics there if that's what you're looking for.

I heard a nasty couple who's dog had bitten and injured a child state to a judge "Our breed does not bit childern - you can look that up on the net - your honour...as if what is contained in glowing black and white within the banks of a machine is gosspel...that's plain lunacy. I could write a blog saying that the deseased Liz Taylor rose from the dead and kissed me....this does not take this silly statement and thrust it into the realm of reality and truth! JUST because this fantacy is published.