APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a helpful persuasion tactic from EPA head honcho Gina McCarthy:

EPA Boss: 'Climate Deniers' Not Normal Humans

That's guaranteed to persuade "normal humans" with doubts.

She should bottle it and sell it. She would make a killing.

Between McCarthy and the Pope, what more could anyone want to market an Apocalypse?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

So she thinks she's "normal"--and the President too?

Maybe she thinks Norman Bates is "normal." Nope, not her and not the Pres. Why? They're elitists. The "normal" people are under their feet.

People are "normal" because Big Brother is watching them. The "normal" people are the adjusted people. They are saved. By their secular God.

--Brant

my God is the God of reality is reality

not Rand and not Objectivism and not any reality distorting buffer

should there be a Church of Reality?--sure, so all the realists can get together socially and find decent mates for their suns sons and daughters

am I kidding?

https://youtu.be/DItgw1mU9Us

[Peter]

should there be a Church of Reality?--

I always thought the Scientologists stole a good name. They stole it because there are few religions as cockamamie as theirs. Other than utilizing tech the Scientologists know no science.

[Selene]

Thankfully the Court made it's second decent decision of this SCOTUS term...

Supreme Court Blocks Obama’s Limits on Power Plants

In three environmental regulation cases, the court found the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by failing to undertake a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to set limits on emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants.

[william.scherk]

Thankfully the Court made it's second decent decision of this SCOTUS term...

Supreme Court Blocks Obama’s Limits on Power Plants

In three environmental regulation cases, the court found the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by failing to undertake a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to set limits on emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants.

Adam's excerpt derives from today's edition of the New York Times (I cite the international edition, Adam may have read a blog or news aggregator republication).

A couple of elaborations on the decision in the story, with links added to the decision:

The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, does not strike down the rule, but it means the E.P.A. will have to review and rewrite it, taking costs into consideration. Industries will be expected to comply with the current rule until a revised one is issued.

“The E.P.A. will have to do more homework on costs,” said Sean Donahue, who represents environmental and public health groups that signed on to the agency’s case. “But I’m very confident that the final rule will be up and running and finally approved without a great deal of trouble. This is a disappointment. It’s a bump in the road, but I don’t think by any means it’s the end of this program.”

-- for those interested in other decisions handed down by the court, but not yet publicized widely, I recommend SCOTUSblog, which today has articles on decisions regarding ACCA, Lethal Injection, Gerrymandering, Texas Abortion, and more ...

[Selene]

Bill:

I would appreciate it that you do not speculate as to where I obtained something. If I can provide a link and I have the time I will.

This comes from my personal access to the NY Times and if I post that link, I am never sure whether folks can open it. Therefore, I effectively am imparting the information.

The link to the case had not been posted on Scotusblog at that time on my quick check.

A...

[william.scherk]

Bill:

I would appreciate it that you do not speculate as to where I obtained something. If I can provide a link and I have the time I will.

Duly noted. But you will have to suck it up, sunshine. If you cannot or will not for whatever whoopee give a link, you can at least give a note, eg, from today's New York Times. If you are too pressed for time, what can I say. It is a feeble, feeble excuse. If it is because you think other readers will be faced with a paywalled article, it still does not exempt you from clearly referencing the quotes you publish.

The simplest reason I twit you about your inconsistent citation habits is that readers may not know from where you have taken a quote, and so cannot attempt to read the full context of whatever you find notable for your readers. Without taking time to search for the fragment, of course.

To take it out of the realm of personality and pique, just think of your readers as yourself faced with a no quote citation. You have yourself twitted other posters for their lack of links -- so you should be able to understand why readers of your own unattributed quotes deserve the same basic courtesy that you demand from them when roles are reversed ...

-- I certainly did not expect you to link to anything at SCOTUSBlog. I added mention to add to the flow of information, and highlight the other decisions that may be of interest.

Edited June 30, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Bill:

I would appreciate it that you do not speculate as to where I obtained something. If I can provide a link and I have the time I will.

Duly noted. But you will have to suck it up, sunshine. If you cannot or will not for whatever whoopee give a link, you can at least give a note, eg, from today's New York Times.

-- I certainly did not expect you to link to anything at SCOTUSBlog. I added mention to add to the flow of information, and highlight the other decisions that may be of interest.

Fair enough, I agree on these.

[BaalChatzaf]

should there be a Church of Reality?--

I always thought the Scientologists stole a good name. They stole it because there are few religions as cockamamie as theirs. Other than utilizing tech the Scientologists know no science.

the Mormon Religion runs a close second in the cockamamie Olympics.

[moralist]

Forget Global Warming kiddies... it's game on for Global Cooling!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

The weather here is typical of a global cooling pattern for some time now...

...progressively longer and colder Winters in the higher US latitudes with record breaking drought in the lower US latitudes.

Greg

[Selene]

Forget Global Warming kiddies... it's game on for Global Cooling!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

The weather here is typical of a global cooling pattern for some time now...

...progressively longer and colder Winters in the higher US latitudes with record breaking drought in the lower US latitudes.

Greg

Got ya by 11 minutes!

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14590&page=1#entry233955

[Brant Gaede]

It was global cooling 40 years ago. You're 40 years late.

--Brant

my grandfather--or his daughters--posited both at the end of his last book (AGW or AGC)

[moralist]

It was global cooling 40 years ago. You're 40 years late.

--Brant

my grandfather--or his daughters--posited both at the end of his last book (AGW or AGC)

I'm right on time.

Solar activity is flat lining.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

It was global cooling 40 years ago. You're 40 years late.

--Brant

my grandfather--or his daughters--posited both at the end of his last book (AGW or AGC)

I'm right on time.

Solar activity is flat lining.

Greg

There is a sunspot cycle that has been going on for 5 billion years. There is no reason to believe it wont go on for at least a billion more, at least until the hydrogen is consumed and the sun starts fusing its helium. BTW that is the beginning of the End for life on Earth. Once Helium becomes the primary fuel, the Sun will burn much hotter and the oceans will evaporate. Life will only be able to subsist into the under-the-surface water impounds. Long before the Sun becomes a Red Giant Earth will be baked dry.

[Brant Gaede]

It was global cooling 40 years ago. You're 40 years late.

--Brant

my grandfather--or his daughters--posited both at the end of his last book (AGW or AGC)

I'm right on time.

Solar activity is flat lining.

Greg

There is a sunspot cycle that has been going on for 5 billion years. There is no reason to believe it wont go on for at least a billion more, at least until the hydrogen is consumed and the sun starts fusing its helium. BTW that is the beginning of the End for life on Earth. Once Helium becomes the primary fuel, the Sun will burn much hotter and the oceans will evaporate. Life will only be able to subsist into the under-the-surface water impounds. Long before the Sun becomes a Red Giant Earth will be baked dry.

This is why I decided to become a live-for-today hedonist.

--Brant

just now, thanks to you

[Peter]

Thanks to all for those links I will put some blurbs from an article I saw today, at the end. This is why we need to really learn how to create man made global warming as a weapon against sun activity and gamma ray cooling. Regions like the Pacific and southwest regions of the United States MUST begin putting public funds into building dams, lakes, and water pipes because cooling means more ice, less atmospheric water, and therefore less rain. Coal waste and other dust scattered by planes over ice fields is one way to put more water into the atmosphere (I saw a Russian article about using that in Siberia thirty years ago) but what would that also do? Baazinga! It would cloud the earth's atmosphere reflecting some sunlight much like a volcano does. What's a sentient being to do? Peter

Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in just 15 years, scientists say By Doug G. Ware | Updated July 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM

LLANDUDNO, Wales, July 11 (UPI) -- Solar scientists, armed with the best data yet regarding the activities of the sun, say the Earth is headed for a "mini ice age" in just 15 years -- something that hasn't happened for three centuries. Professor Valentina Zharkova, of the University of Northumbria, presented the findings at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales this week, Britain's Independent reported Saturday. Researchers, saying they understand solar cycles better than ever, predict that the sun's normal activity will decrease by 60 percent around 2030 -- triggering the "mini ice age" that could last for a decade. The last time the Earth was hit by such a lull in solar activity happened 300 years ago, during the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715.

Scientists say there are magnetic waves in the sun's interior that fluctuate between the body's northern and southern hemispheres, resulting in various solar conditions over a period of 10 to 12 years. Based on that data, researchers say they are now better able to anticipate the sun's activity -- which has led to the Zharkova team's prediction. "Combining both [magnetic] waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent," Zharkova said. If the "mini ice age" does indeed arrive, scientists say it will be accompanied by bitter cold winters -- frigid enough to cause rivers, like the Thames in London, to freeze over.

[moralist]

It was global cooling 40 years ago. You're 40 years late.

--Brant

my grandfather--or his daughters--posited both at the end of his last book (AGW or AGC)

I'm right on time.

Solar activity is flat lining.

Greg

There is a sunspot cycle that has been going on for 5 billion years. There is no reason to believe it wont go on for at least a billion more,

Of course, Bob... so it also means there can be another Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age which is a natural part of Solar cycles.

Greg

[Selene]

There is a sunspot cycle that has been going on for 5 billion years. There is no reason to believe it wont go on for at least a billion more,

Of course, Bob... so it also means there can be another Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age which is a natural part of Solar cycles.

Greg

You mean that my not using plastic bags is not going to change the Sun!!

I am crushed. Now I have to stop giving money to save the "fill-the-blank-non-profit" which will then accelerate the coming global economic crash by throwing all those useless non-profit employees onto unemployment!

No matter what I choose, my life has no meaning...

[Mikee]

Dust to dust...

[moralist]

The lies of the government funded leftist parasites are starting to get really obvious...

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

Greg

[Selene]

I just love these clowns describing this as "weather."

SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) - A freak July cold front brought snow to the Northern Rockies on Monday in a rare weather event that set record-low daytime temperatures across Idaho and could see overnight readings at or near freezing in parts of the region, meteorologists said.

The combination of moisture and cold air from Alaska and Canada was expected to settle over Idaho, Montana and Wyoming through Tuesday in a pattern rarely seen in those states before late August or September, forecasters with the National Weather Service said.

More than an inch of snow was reported on Monday at the renowned ski resort of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and in the mountains of western Montana and central Idaho near Salmon, where local farmers scrambled to cover crops and potentially run sprinklers to prevent frost damage.

I just chuckle and think of the Conestoga wagon personal diaries that have been preserved who talk about the plains blizzards in the Spring and the snow in the mountains of summer!

http://www.lonehand.com/pioneers.htm

A...

[william.scherk]

An interesting post at the always interesting Judith Curry's Climate Etc, by man-made climate-change skeptic Planning Engineer, titled Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics. He explores positions taken by the so-called Skeptical Movement contra 'skeptics' of the so-called consensus ...

... in the following comments, a couple of items that try to sketch the divisions within the breadth of opinion on the fraught issues. The first by PA, and the second by Ian Blanchard (I've kept the Climate Etc formatting to preserve the internal links). Click the underlined date-line to go straight to the discussion:

| June 3, 2015 at 7:38 pm | Reply

Well that’s fine. Skeptics are the religious nuts yada yada.

This in my view is a flawed understanding.

1. The Deniers: this is the mostly conservative elements that the far left likes to tar all skeptics with. Believe that there is little or no CO2 warming.

2. The “True Skeptics”. Don’t know how much CO2 forcing is but believe that the warmers haven’t made their case. Believe there is some warming with the minimum of the IPCC estimates as a ceiling (maximum) to the actual warming.

3. Global warmers and pseudo-skeptics. Believe the actual forcing and future CO2 levels are within the range of the IPCC estimates.

4. CAGW (Cult of anthropomorphic global warming).

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”

These folks have drank the Kool Aid and believe disaster is coming. CAGW is a modernized version of a satanic cult – they are evil and don’t have the best interests of humanity at heart. The statements from the fringe groups like Earth First that 99% of the population is surplus suggest that some of the more radical CAGW elements could benefit from intense psychotherapy or involuntary confinement in a controlled setting.

• 
  
  | June 5, 2015 at 9:54 am |
  
  

  PA
  Largely agree with your classes above – would divide your third class between lukewarmers and warmers though, so getting as follows:

• 1 – Deniers: CO2 does not cause any change in tempertture

  2 – Skeptic: CO2 has an effect, but sensitivity is somewhere in the range 0-1.2 deg C (i.e. negative or neutral feedback)

  3 – Lukewarmer: CO2 has a warming effect and feedback is weakly to moderately positive. Sensitivity is probably within the lower part of the IPCC range.

  4 – Warmers: CO2 has a warming effect with moderate to strongly positive feedbacks. Warming likely to be around the mid-point of the IPCC range

  5 – Catastrophists: CO2 warming with very strong feedbacks leading to rapid warming in or above the upper portion of the IPCC range.

• Of course, only some of those classes tell you anything about anticipated impacts and mitigation v adaptation. Obviously, for deniers there is no action necessary and for catastrophists we’re doomed pretty much regardless of what we do (warming in the pipeline arguments). The other three groups should be able to talk to each other and make progress. Unfortunately, there are too many straw men to fight past…

-- to the topic of the post, the APS has still not issued its revised climate-change statement. Greg will be amused/disgusted at the laborious bureaucratic procedure that will soon spit out a few paragraphs -- or even nothing. See the linked APS statement webpage for the full horror.

For those who haven't followed the windy road or the 'draft' ... it represents the last semi-private whirl of the dervishes before the deliberations became hidden in the APS matrix:

(more discussion of the draft at Climate Etc):

On Climate Change:

Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

On Climate Science:

As summarized in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there continues to be significant progress in climate science. In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever. Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain to our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.

On Climate Action:

The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases, as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.

[william.scherk]

The lengthy internal process is over at the American Physical Society. The 'new' climate change statement is pretty short, so I will include it in its entirety. I have been watching the APS page at the first link to show the statement, but of course, the first page doesn't link to the second, which went up in the 'statements' section of their website on the 15th.

STATEMENT ON EARTH'S CHANGING CLIMATE
(Adopted by Council on November 14, 2015)
On Climate Change:

Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

On Climate Science:

As summarized in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there continues to be significant progress in climate science. In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more compelling than ever. Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.

On Climate Action:

The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.

[BaalChatzaf]

The lengthy internal process is over at the American Physical Society. The 'new' climate change statement is pretty short, so I will include it in its entirety. I have been watching the APS page at the first link to show the statement, but of course, the first page doesn't link to the second, which went up in the 'statements' section of their website on the 15th.

collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.

"Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science."

Let us hear it for climate science (which is, in fact, thermodynamics). Climate Science the proper antidote for the nonsense of bogousity that the IPCC has been dolling out.

I good starting point is dumping the flawed "greenhouse" analogy. Greenhouses work because they are inclosed with glass the prevent proper convection. That is way the air in the greenhouses gets hot. If the ceiling barrier are removed the hot air rise and the greenhouse cools off.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-29928-5_5#page-1

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/shattering-greenhouse-effect.html

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

The fascinating "behavior" of these fanatics of climate change is how repressive they are to any contrary arguments.

You know, kinda like the way some folks who are "pro-choice" get when discussing when "life," not self awareness/consciousness begins...

A...