Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Somebody once said 'follow the money' and with more green money sloshing around USA climate politics than oil money, Counsel for Oregon's legislature did just that. This is what came out of it.
A Bloomberg-Funded Climate Lawyer in the DOJ is Not Entirely Legal
https://freebeacon.com/issues/oregon-legislatures-...
A Bloomberg-Funded Climate Lawyer in the DOJ is Not Entirely Legal
https://freebeacon.com/issues/oregon-legislatures-...
Link said:
A "special assistant attorney general" who has been working for Oregon's Department of Justice, yet whose salary was being paid by Michael Bloomberg using a pass-through agency, is working in circumstances partially or completely contrary to Oregon law, according to an analysis by the office of legal counsel that serves the Oregon State Legislature.
Horner's investigation found similar arrangements in AG offices in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, and New York, and shows that the attorneys were hired to focus on climate change issues.
While the effort has many layers, in general it begins with Bloomberg's funding of a specialty school within New York University's School of Law, the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center
The Center's website states that part of their mission is to work "with interested attorneys general to identify and hire NYU Law Fellows who serve as special assistant attorneys general in state attorney general offices, focusing on clean energy, climate and environmental matters."
Oregon law gives the attorney general wide latitude in hiring assistant attorneys, but the law also states that, "each assistant shall receive the salary fixed by the Attorney General, payable as other state salaries are paid."
Paid-for green tentacles worming across the USA on the QT, distorting legislature; open and transparent greenism at work. Horner's investigation found similar arrangements in AG offices in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, and New York, and shows that the attorneys were hired to focus on climate change issues.
While the effort has many layers, in general it begins with Bloomberg's funding of a specialty school within New York University's School of Law, the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center
The Center's website states that part of their mission is to work "with interested attorneys general to identify and hire NYU Law Fellows who serve as special assistant attorneys general in state attorney general offices, focusing on clean energy, climate and environmental matters."
Oregon law gives the attorney general wide latitude in hiring assistant attorneys, but the law also states that, "each assistant shall receive the salary fixed by the Attorney General, payable as other state salaries are paid."
wc98 said:
DocJock said:
durbster said:
Einion Yrth said:
Good. Now take that last small step and don't take anyone else's word for it either.
Where do you suggest we get our information from?The objective physical evidence (declining polar ice extent, glacier retreat, permafrost melting etc.)? That supports AGW.
All known temperature data records? They all support AGW.
You don't have to take anyone's word for it. There's plenty of evidence out there.
But that raises two obvious questions:
1) How is an increase of CO2 not causing warming, when it's a known greenhouse gas?
2) What is driving the warming trend? It looks like all the best alternative explanations have been explored and don't add up.
durbster said:
wc98 said:
DocJock said:
durbster said:
Einion Yrth said:
Good. Now take that last small step and don't take anyone else's word for it either.
Where do you suggest we get our information from?The objective physical evidence (declining polar ice extent, glacier retreat, permafrost melting etc.)? That supports AGW.
All known temperature data records? They all support AGW.
You don't have to take anyone's word for it. There's plenty of evidence out there.
But that raises two obvious questions:
1) How is an increase of CO2 not causing warming, when it's a known greenhouse gas?
2) What is driving the warming trend? It looks like all the best alternative explanations have been explored and don't add up.
Tim Ball sums it up in political way more suited for this thread ie. politics................
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-...
Odds on that Durbs will just jump all over the author and not even read it.
"...matches almost exactly what would be expected..."?
Really? Expected as predicted by models? Models which only include a few of the forcings which affect the climate? What about the ones which are omitted or, as the IPCC admit are at "a low level of scientific understanding".
The only way the models 'match' the data is that they indicate an upward trend in global temperature, but consistently overestimate it in their projections, despite the raw data beingcorrupted corrected. Imagine how far out they would be if they included ALL of the forcings? 
Really? Expected as predicted by models? Models which only include a few of the forcings which affect the climate? What about the ones which are omitted or, as the IPCC admit are at "a low level of scientific understanding".
The only way the models 'match' the data is that they indicate an upward trend in global temperature, but consistently overestimate it in their projections, despite the raw data being
DocJock said:
"...matches almost exactly what would be expected..."?
Really? Expected as predicted by models? Models which only include a few of the forcings which affect the climate? What about the ones which are omitted or, as the IPCC admit are at "a low level of scientific understanding".
The only way the models 'match' the data is that they indicate an upward trend in global temperature, but consistently overestimate it in their projections, despite the raw data beingcorrupted corrected. Imagine how far out they would be if they included ALL of the forcings?
If you had a model that included all the forcings, it would take longer that the planet has existed to do one iteration. Not much use then, thus the logical outcome is that NO model will ever be ‘correct’Really? Expected as predicted by models? Models which only include a few of the forcings which affect the climate? What about the ones which are omitted or, as the IPCC admit are at "a low level of scientific understanding".
The only way the models 'match' the data is that they indicate an upward trend in global temperature, but consistently overestimate it in their projections, despite the raw data being
robinessex said:
DocJock said:
"...matches almost exactly what would be expected..."?
Really? Expected as predicted by models? Models which only include a few of the forcings which affect the climate? What about the ones which are omitted or, as the IPCC admit are at "a low level of scientific understanding".
The only way the models 'match' the data is that they indicate an upward trend in global temperature, but consistently overestimate it in their projections, despite the raw data beingcorrupted corrected. Imagine how far out they would be if they included ALL of the forcings?
If you had a model that included all the forcings, it would take longer that the planet has existed to do one iteration. Not much use then, thus the logical outcome is that NO model will ever be ‘correct’Really? Expected as predicted by models? Models which only include a few of the forcings which affect the climate? What about the ones which are omitted or, as the IPCC admit are at "a low level of scientific understanding".
The only way the models 'match' the data is that they indicate an upward trend in global temperature, but consistently overestimate it in their projections, despite the raw data being
DocJock said:
"...matches almost exactly what would be expected..."?
Really? Expected as predicted by models? Models which only include a few of the forcings which affect the climate? What about the ones which are omitted or, as the IPCC admit are at "a low level of scientific understanding".
The only way the models 'match' the data is that they indicate an upward trend in global temperature, but consistently overestimate it in their projections, despite the raw data beingcorrupted corrected. Imagine how far out they would be if they included ALL of the forcings?
The model projections have been within 10% of observations, which, for a system so massive and complex, I think is incredibly impressive.Really? Expected as predicted by models? Models which only include a few of the forcings which affect the climate? What about the ones which are omitted or, as the IPCC admit are at "a low level of scientific understanding".
The only way the models 'match' the data is that they indicate an upward trend in global temperature, but consistently overestimate it in their projections, despite the raw data being
But why are you fixated by climate models? They're just a tool to guess what's going to happen, that's all. The models aren't to endorse the theory, they're for aiding a solution.
When I said, "matches almost exactly what would be expected," I was referring primarily to the physics involved, not just climate models. If temperature doesn't rise with additional CO2, it raises huge questions of our understanding of physics.
I'm not fixated by models. I am not the one using their projections to formulate international policies which massively affect the taxpayer.
It is the politicians and people in the CC field who are fixated with their (inaccurate) models.
Re CO2. Nobody disputes it's effect as a greenhouse gas. What some dispute is the size of it's effect and also whether all of the effect from omitted forcing agents are being attributed to the bogeyman, CO2.
It is the politicians and people in the CC field who are fixated with their (inaccurate) models.
Re CO2. Nobody disputes it's effect as a greenhouse gas. What some dispute is the size of it's effect and also whether all of the effect from omitted forcing agents are being attributed to the bogeyman, CO2.
DocJock said:
I'm not fixated by models. I am not the one using their projections to formulate international policies which massively affect the taxpayer.
It is the politicians and people in the CC field who are fixated with their (inaccurate) models.
Re CO2. Nobody disputes it's effect as a greenhouse gas. What some dispute is the size of it's effect and also whether all of the effect from omitted forcing agents are being attributed to the bogeyman, CO2.
Back to the begining then. Does it actually matter if we get a wee bit warmer?It is the politicians and people in the CC field who are fixated with their (inaccurate) models.
Re CO2. Nobody disputes it's effect as a greenhouse gas. What some dispute is the size of it's effect and also whether all of the effect from omitted forcing agents are being attributed to the bogeyman, CO2.
turbobloke said:
Paid-for green tentacles worming across the USA on the QT, distorting legislature; open and transparent greenism at work.
Prof Dessler said:
Climate skeptics and those opposed to action on climate change make trashing climate scientists a key part of their arguments. They routinely claim that scientists are (pick your favorite): communists, socialists, fascists, Nazis, ivory-tower liberal elitists, corrupt sycophants feasting at the teat of government research funding, evil masterminds, manufacturing data to push their hidden agenda, or incompetent and sloppy scientists who don't understand any physics.
Cultist playbook 101. DocJock said:
Re CO2. Nobody disputes it's effect as a greenhouse gas
I wouldn't count on that 
DocJock said:
I'm not fixated by models. I am not the one using their projections to formulate international policies which massively affect the taxpayer.
It is the politicians and people in the CC field who are fixated with their (inaccurate) models.
Models are used in various forms to determine all sorts of policy. What's the alternative? It is the politicians and people in the CC field who are fixated with their (inaccurate) models.
DocJock said:
What some dispute is the size of it's effect and also whether all of the effect from omitted forcing agents are being attributed to the bogeyman, CO2.
"Some" dispute every scientific theory, but until they come up with a better explanation with even stronger evidence, all they're doing is refusing to accept what is scientifically proven. I'm pretty sure all the various forcings have been explored and considered - what do you think is missing?
jjlynn27 said:
turbobloke said:
Paid-for green tentacles worming across the USA on the QT, distorting legislature; open and transparent greenism at work.
Prof Dessler said:
Climate skeptics and those opposed to action on climate change make trashing climate scientists a key part of their arguments. They routinely claim that scientists are (pick your favorite): communists, socialists, fascists, Nazis, ivory-tower liberal elitists, corrupt sycophants feasting at the teat of government research funding, evil masterminds, manufacturing data to push their hidden agenda, or incompetent and sloppy scientists who don't understand any physics.
Cultist playbook 101. Community projects can slash household bills but the sector has ground to a halt inBritain__ – __in contrast with schemes in Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/2...
Finally some sanity returns.... idle hands do mischief make unfortunately for PH....
durbster said:
The alternative explanation that it's just a massive coincidence that we entered a warming trend that matches almost exactly what would be expected from the exact amount of additional carbon dioxide we have added? Of course it's possible, but it would be an absolutely extraordinary coincidence.
But that raises two obvious questions:
1) How is an increase of CO2 not causing warming, when it's a known greenhouse gas?
2) What is driving the warming trend? It looks like all the best alternative explanations have been explored and don't add up.
re the bold. no they haven't. when we have observed full cycles of amo and pdo then we will have a better idea. re rising co2 levels ,are you saying the increase in atmospheric co2 concentration from 280ppm to just over 400 ppm is all anthropogenic ? if i have picked that up wrong then the small warming is well in line with what is proposed for a warm phase of the amo. this warming also naturally raises co2 levels with a top up of anthropogenic co2.But that raises two obvious questions:
1) How is an increase of CO2 not causing warming, when it's a known greenhouse gas?
2) What is driving the warming trend? It looks like all the best alternative explanations have been explored and don't add up.
what drives the amo ? just one natural cycle that appears to not have had the attention it deserves. for me the mechanism is as follows. artic ice extent grows insulating a greater amount of the atlantic water that ends up in the arctic ocean from radiating heat/energy to space, due to the thinner layer of atmosphere at the pole.this creates a gradual warming of atlantic surface waters that increasingly melt the ice along with varying weather (weather becomes more benign due to warmer regime in northern hemisphere)patterns.
as the ice extent reduces, greater and greater amounts of heat/energy are lost to space that in turn begins the cool phase of the amo.as the cooling increases the ice extent begins to increase and so the process begins again.most below the age of around 50 will be able to see the effects of this as the amo is now heading toward the cool phase. given co2 levels are now at levels that are purported(by some) to overwhelm natural variation the cool phase of the amo should be a good test of that opinion and agw in general.
durbster said:
The model projections have been within 10% of observations, which, for a system so massive and complex, I think is incredibly impressive.
But why are you fixated by climate models? They're just a tool to guess what's going to happen, that's all. The models aren't to endorse the theory, they're for aiding a solution.
When I said, "matches almost exactly what would be expected," I was referring primarily to the physics involved, not just climate models. If temperature doesn't rise with additional CO2, it raises huge questions of our understanding of physics.
that would be fine if the theory stated more co2 causes more warming, but you know that's not the case. the theory states more co2 will lead to changes in other processes that will lead to increased warming. to date those changes don't appear to be happening although some warming has. for me it doesn't matter what the output of climate models is,they will always be a waste of money due to the absolute fact they do not model all earth systems exactly.But why are you fixated by climate models? They're just a tool to guess what's going to happen, that's all. The models aren't to endorse the theory, they're for aiding a solution.
When I said, "matches almost exactly what would be expected," I was referring primarily to the physics involved, not just climate models. If temperature doesn't rise with additional CO2, it raises huge questions of our understanding of physics.
in cfd modeling they get close enough to make educated guesses(most but not all of the time) modeling a far smaller system than climate science is attempting. all the little add ons you see on the surface of commercial jet aircraft wings are due to the fact the modeling didn't come up with the right answer.
Edited by wc98 on Sunday 23 September 15:50
wc98 said:
durbster said:
The model projections have been within 10% of observations, which, for a system so massive and complex, I think is incredibly impressive.
But why are you fixated by climate models? They're just a tool to guess what's going to happen, that's all. The models aren't to endorse the theory, they're for aiding a solution.
When I said, "matches almost exactly what would be expected," I was referring primarily to the physics involved, not just climate models. If temperature doesn't rise with additional CO2, it raises huge questions of our understanding of physics.
that would be fine if the theory stated more co2 causes more warming, but you know that's not the case. the theory states more co2 will lead to changes in other processes that will lead to increased warming. to date those changes don't appear to be happening although some warming has. for me it doesn't matter what the output of climate models is,they will always be a waste of money due to the absolute fact they do not model all earth systems exactly.But why are you fixated by climate models? They're just a tool to guess what's going to happen, that's all. The models aren't to endorse the theory, they're for aiding a solution.
When I said, "matches almost exactly what would be expected," I was referring primarily to the physics involved, not just climate models. If temperature doesn't rise with additional CO2, it raises huge questions of our understanding of physics.
in cfd modeling they get close enough to make educated guesses(most but not all of the time) modeling a far smaller system than climate science is attempting. all the little add ons you see on the surface of commercial jet aircraft wings are due to the fact the modeling didn't come up with the right answer.
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Models are used in various forms to determine all sorts of policy. What's the alternative?
It's called data from the real world not the fudged, imaginary, fantastical and politically motivated excreta that plops from the hairy arse of inept climate models.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff