Everything Climate Change

[Gonzz]

I love Tucker Carlson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You must be a retired white male because that is their main audience.

[Uncle_Si]

Bold: I am sorry but I am not familiar with this claim. Can you provide any published claim of Nye saying this of himself? Near as I can ascertain he has always been more of an "educator" on various/general science related projects incl. the tv shows directed at kids (you mentioned) and PBS. Maybe FOX put a caption on that screen grab which called him that...they tend to do that like with the guy who sold himself to them as ex-CIA and turned out to be a fake.

Bill Nye is a communicator and with the denial that's going on on the subject I believe he feels a need to get on these shows and deny the deniers the podium without rebuttal. He is also ceo of the Planetary Society (whatever that is). You must know that most scientists would rather not get into such public debating which have a political edge to it. Simply put while they know the science intimately they have a problem communicating it especially to a Inhofe type and many in TV land. So in steps a Nye.

I said he's been portrayed as a Climate expert, I never said he claimed to be a Climate expert. It's more a comment on the media than Bill Nye.

You're looking for an arguement where there isn't one.

[Miekenstien]

You must be a retired white male because that is their main audience.

he is a gay black jew. just loves freedom

edit add: personally i don't like tucker. i think his interviews aren't really interviews but him trying to get someone to say something and focusing on some semantic argument. he is funny though

[Bendit]

I said he's been portrayed as a Climate expert, I never said he claimed to be a Climate expert. It's more a comment on the media than Bill Nye.

You're looking for an arguement where there isn't one.

No argument being sought. Glad you clarified.

ps...did you check official job #s? Like clockwork Trumpy claimed it was all about him. lol.

[Odin]

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf


Whoops

[Apollo]

You must be a retired white male because that is their main audience.

Besides your own bias, what else do you have to support that incorrect claim?

[Apollo]

edit add: personally i don't like tucker. i think his interviews aren't really interviews but him trying to get someone to say something and focusing on some semantic argument. he is funny though

I find him hilarious to watch. Its only every now and then that he doesn't rip the guest a new one. He's one of the top dogs on air when it comes to debating.

[Miekenstien]

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf


Whoops

great study. this will have to be attacked with the tried and tested "but if it were right wouldn't it be best to keep hampering ourselves industrially and over taxing ourselves because reasons."

i think this is a good example of having the conclusion first and making sure the data meets its requirements.

[Miekenstien]

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf


Whoops

p.25, 26 are particularly telling, as this is when the church of global warming really started to shape itself.
http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/bill-ny...ng-extra-kids/

[Bendit]

great study. this will have to be attacked with the tried and tested "but if it were right wouldn't it be best to keep hampering ourselves industrially and over taxing ourselves because reasons."

i think this is a good example of having the conclusion first and making sure the data meets its requirements.

Questions: Was this white paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? If not, why not? Who funded this study?

I am of course unqualified to comment on the science disputes here and so rely on rebuttals from individuals whose science these individuals are attacking. To that end, here is an article disputing claims in the paper.

As we well know, climate myths are like zombies that never seem to die. It’s only a matter of time before they rise from the dead and threaten to eat our brains. And so here we go again – American conservatives are denying the very existence of global warming.

Working backwards from a politically-motivated conclusion

The claim is based on what can charitably be described as a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The Endangerment Finding concluded that the scientific research clearly shows that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare via climate change impacts, and therefore according to the US Supreme Court, the EPA must regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. Conservatives who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo and oppose all climate policies have urged the Trump administration to go after the Endangerment Finding.

Both papers are rife with flaws because they start from a desired conclusion – that the science underpinning Endangerment Finding is somehow wrong – and work backwards trying to support it. In this paper, the contrarians try to undermine the accuracy of the global surface temperature record, which has been validated time and time again. They don’t bother trying to hide their bias – the paper refers to “Climate Alarmists” and speaks of invalidating the Endangerment Finding.

The errors in the white paper
The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming

[Miekenstien]

Questions: Was this white paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? If not, why not? Who funded this study?

I am of course unqualified to comment on the science disputes here and so rely on rebuttals from individuals whose science these individuals are attacking. To that end, here is an article disputing claims in the paper.







https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming

question: did you read it? did i not call it would be attacked?

[Odin]

question: did you read it? did i not call it would be attacked?

Obviously not read.

The response by The Guardian is classic as well and it makes me question if they read it either.

Clearly they are banking on the closed mind individuals who make up the majority of their readership having already throw science away for consensus fanatic religion.

[Bendit]

question: did you read it? did i not call it would be attacked?

No I did not. Beyond a certain point a few years ago it became a total waste of time.

Now, was this paper peer reviewed in a science journal of repute? I promise to read it when it does and has value.

Clearly Sec. Pruitt of EPA endorses this. And Sen. Inhofe too. Has Canada responded with alarm?

Why does no one want to answer the critiques of the paper in the Guardian piece? I am sure there shall be more responses revealing more kabuki efforts around the measurements.

Until you proponents of such papers stop using taxation and the economy imperative as arguments against what is nearly becoming an existential problem for the planet I am afraid such responses will continue.

[Bendit]

Obviously not read.

The response by The Guardian is classic as well and it makes me question if they read it either.

Clearly they are banking on the closed mind individuals who make up the majority of their readership having already throw science away for consensus fanatic religion.

What is classic is your response. You have been on this forum but a day and have no appetite clearly to convince those opposed at least by answering the clear critique in the Guardian piece nor my single q ...re the peer review. Has the Heritage Foundation not published this paper?

[Nilanka]

No I did not. Beyond a certain point a few years ago it became a total waste of time.

Now, was this paper peer reviewed in a science journal of repute? I promise to read it when it does and has value.

Clearly Sec. Pruitt of EPA endorses this. And Sen. Inhofe too. Has Canada responded with alarm?

Why does no one want to answer the critiques of the paper in the Guardian piece? I am sure there shall be more responses revealing more kabuki efforts around the measurements.

Until you proponents of such papers stop using taxation and the economy imperative as arguments against what is nearly becoming an existential problem for the planet I am afraid such responses will continue.

There isn't a single credible publication/journal running this "report". But I'm sure David Avacado Wolfe and Gwenyth Paltrow have shared it