Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

Jasandjules said:

What is hilarious is the "alarming" word used. It is not a waste of time, not unreasonable, not invalid. No. Alarming. Well it is only alarming if there is info. you want to hide.

I just hope that this leads to prosecutions for fraud etc and this whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

It's good news even at this stage. The turkeys may run around flapping, but Christmas is coming.

More of the same lies ahead, hopefully. If the Trump era manages to unravel Obama's costly posturing aka 'legacy' on climate fairytales, he'll have done the USA and the rest of the world a great favour.

[mybrainhurts]

WUWT said:

Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, called the memo’s demand that Energy officials identify specific employees “alarming.”

“If the Trump administration is already singling out scientists for doing their jobs, the scientific community is right to be worried about what his administration will do in office. What’s next? Trump administration officials holding up lists of ‘known climatologists’ and urging the public to go after them?” Halpern asked.

Well, actually.....YES

[mybrainhurts]

Question is...

Will Durbster & co be allowed into the USA on hols now?

[TheExcession]

chris watton said:

Loved reading this from WUWT, and fits perfectly into this thread:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-...

"The DOE vs. Ugly Reality"

Thanks Chris.

That's a belter which put a yuge smile on my face. It's so nice I've read it twice. It really does look like Trump's team are doing their homework.

I can hardly wait for the responses, Christmas really has finally come early.

[durbster]

mybrainhurts said:

Question is...

Will Durbster & co be allowed into the USA on hols now?

Your infatuation with me is very odd.

[chris watton]

TheExcession said:

Thanks Chris.

That's a belter which put a yuge smile on my face. It's so nice I've read it twice. It really does look like Trump's team are doing their homework.

I can hardly wait for the responses, Christmas really has finally come early.

It must be the best piece I have read (and like you, re-read) on WUWT!

I just hope that once the UK is free from the EU shackles, our own government will also scrutinise how our tax money is spent/frittered away, a lot deeper than it is now. But I won't hold my breath...

The way these climate activists have harassed and threatened those peers who do not share their beliefs truly deserve all that may come to them - what goes around....

Edited by chris watton on Saturday 10th December 16:23

[TheExcession]

durbster said:

mybrainhurts said:

Question is...

Will Durbster & co be allowed into the USA on hols now?

Your infatuation with me is very odd.

Not really, MBH's methodology is well known around these parts, most of us just snigger and have a laugh at it.

So, your thoughts on the information that the Trump team are asking from the DoE?

Good? Sensible? Waste of time?

Have you got any future predictions?

[durbster]

TheExcession said:

Not really, MBH's methodology is well known around these parts, most of us just snigger and have a laugh at it.

So, your thoughts on the information that the Trump team are asking from the DoE?

Good? Sensible? Waste of time?

Have you got any future predictions?

The motive is unclear, so it's difficult to say. If they are just looking at the economics of it, fine. If it's the start of the USA moving from a science and fact-based society to a idealogical one, it's massively worrying.

The question is: do you think Donald Trump or any of his transition team know the first thing about climate change?

I've seen nothing that suggests they know about as much as my dog, which means they are highly likely to be making decisions based on ideology, rather than fact or reality. We can see in this thread and countless others how poorly regarded facts are these days, and the historical precedent for that kind of environment does not make pleasant reading.

[Jasandjules]

durbster said:

The motive is unclear, so it's difficult to say. If they are just looking at the economics of it, fine. If it's the start of the USA moving from a science and fact-based society to a idealogical one, it's massively worrying.

Oh no you have it the wrong way around. It is moving from ideological (belief) to science (no warming).

It is only massively worrying for those who know they are scamming everyone and hugely delightful for those of us that can't wait for this house of cards to fall and the scam to end.

Going further, IF it is real then there will be clear evidence to support it and accordingly you can't be worried.. Right?

[chris watton]

Jasandjules said:

durbster said:

The motive is unclear, so it's difficult to say. If they are just looking at the economics of it, fine. If it's the start of the USA moving from a science and fact-based society to a idealogical one, it's massively worrying.

Oh no you have it the wrong way around. It is moving from ideological (belief) to science (no warming).

It is only massively worrying for those who know they are scamming everyone and hugely delightful for those of us that can't wait for this house of cards to fall and the scam to end.

Going further, IF it is real then there will be clear evidence to support it and accordingly you can't be worried.. Right?

Exactly!

I sincerely hope that what's happening across the pond causes a domino effect in redirecting tax payers' money to more worthy causes.

[anonymous-user]

TheExcession said:

chris watton said:

Loved reading this from WUWT, and fits perfectly into this thread:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-...

"The DOE vs. Ugly Reality"

Thanks Chris.

That's a belter which put a yuge smile on my face. It's so nice I've read it twice. It really does look like Trump's team are doing their homework.

I can hardly wait for the responses, Christmas really has finally come early.

This one could be VERY embarrassing.

"73 Can you provide a list of all websites maintained by or contributed to by laboratory staff during work hours for the past three years?"

[durbster]

Jasandjules said:

It is moving from ideological (belief) to science (no warming).

I realise this question is almost certain to be ignored as usual, but nevertheless; where is the science says there is no warming?

If you have none, your statement is clearly false.

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

TheExcession said:

Not really, MBH's methodology is well known around these parts, most of us just snigger and have a laugh at it.

So, your thoughts on the information that the Trump team are asking from the DoE?

Good? Sensible? Waste of time?

Have you got any future predictions?

The motive is unclear, so it's difficult to say. If they are just looking at the economics of it, fine. If it's the start of the USA moving from a science and fact-based society to a idealogical one, it's massively worrying.

The question is: do you think Donald Trump or any of his transition team know the first thing about climate change?

I've seen nothing that suggests they know about as much as my dog, which means they are highly likely to be making decisions based on ideology, rather than fact or reality. We can see in this thread and countless others how poorly regarded facts are these days, and the historical precedent for that kind of environment does not make pleasant reading.

The motive is very clear: show us that you know what you're doing, that you have the authority to do it, that you're disclosing ALL the data, and why you're doing what you're doing.

[Jasandjules]

durbster said:

I realise this question is almost certain to be ignored as usual, but nevertheless; where is the science says there is no warming?

If you have none, your statement is clearly false.

I am also sure you have seen the many posts and information which shows there has been no warming (even when they try to adjust the data is doesn't show it, in fact there have been dips)...

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radioso...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth...

http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05/05/independen...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427823/paris...

Enjoy... Whilst not "science" as such, they are reporting the data.

I am sure others can provide more, I have other things to do right now!

Edited by Jasandjules on Saturday 10th December 20:11

[durbster]

Jasandjules said:

...Whilst not "science" as such...

And therefore proving my point.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Jasandjules said:

...Whilst not "science" as such...

And therefore proving my point.

You're a believer Durbster. No idea why you enjoy being taken for a ride. So trying to show you the error of your ways has been attempted here since Dec 2014. You just switch of when confronted, wait a while, and start up again. Science isn't needed to disproove CC, just sceptiscm, a bit of logic, and some commonsense. And still we don't know of a planet temp rise is bad.

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 10th December 21:21

[Jasandjules]

durbster said:

And therefore proving my point.

They are referencing it. Selective quoting is the habit of those whom you follow, however if you look at ALL the evidence, your eyes will be opened. Unless you don't want to see of course.

[Mr GrimNasty]

durbster said:

Jasandjules said:

It is moving from ideological (belief) to science (no warming).

I realise this question is almost certain to be ignored as usual, but nevertheless; where is the science says there is no warming?

If you have none, your statement is clearly false.

As you know, he means "No dangerous warming that has been caused by man" - in long hand.

The Earth has been on a clearly established warming trend for several hundred years, with a distinctive repeated warming/cooling cycle within the general warming trend.

Most of the recent claimed rapid warming in the surface data is however (natural el nino spikes aside) fictional from unjustifiable data manipulation and/or heinously poor standards of science.

As for the science that says it, well the problem with your position Durbster is that we have to assume several warming cycles are natural, and then with the next that looks identical - the natural contribution failed - and was replaced by a suddenly dangerous man-made forcing, clearly preposterous. There are papers that can however explain all the warming 'spurts' and cooling and hiatus according to sun, ocean cycles and other factors. Now clearly that is more credible.

And then you have leaked emails from Podesta advising Obama, saying things like the climate data doesn't matter and just do whatever it takes to achieve 'our' policy objectives.

You keep protracting a pointless unwinnable argument, this link below really should be the final comment (may be a repost, no matter), because it sums up the situation with true insight, and maybe if you are just honest with yourself, you'll agree it says as much as can be said - people go along with a scam for self preservation, if it stinks it is probably rotten, and in the end it probably just doesn't really matter that much anyway.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-...

[mybrainhurts]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/paramount-t...

Al Gore, milking it again. Poor lad must be down to his last $billion.

[mondeoman]

Mr GrimNasty said:

You keep protracting a pointless unwinnable argument, this link below really should be the final comment (may be a repost, no matter), because it sums up the situation with true insight, and maybe if you are just honest with yourself, you'll agree it says as much as can be said - people go along with a scam for self preservation, if it stinks it is probably rotten, and in the end it probably just doesn't really matter that much anyway.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-...

Some fascinating comments...