- Yssup Rider
- 11-27-2014, 11:25 PM
SNICK!
- matchingmole
- 11-28-2014, 12:35 AM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-record-heat/
Not going to have much global warming this time of year north of equator....
Not going to have much global warming this time of year north of equator....
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-28-2014, 02:25 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 11-28-2014, 08:44 AM
Glad to see you had something to keep you company at 3:25 am on a family holiday. From the sad and frustrated tone of your nocturnal editions, you probably should have been chatting with an online shrink!
- Whirlaway
- 11-28-2014, 09:31 AM
And what were you doing at 1.30 am AssUp The Loser? Trolling the Internet? You certainly weren't spending quality time with the family. Why are you such a pathetic hypocrite?
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-28-2014, 09:47 AM
Glad to see you had something to keep you company at 3:25 am on a family holiday. From the sad and frustrated tone of your nocturnal editions, you probably should have been chatting with an online shrink! Originally Posted by Yssup RiderActually, I got up to eliminate some waste from my system, and that always makes me think of you, AssupLiar.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 11-30-2014, 04:54 PM
Take Your Pick of Lies About Ozone, Methane or Mercury... http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/67944
By Alan Caruba November 30, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |
Take Your Pick of Lies About Ozone, Methane or Mercury
Is it surprising that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?
There is currently a piece of legislation under consideration by Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act, to force the EPA to disclose its scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.
This is what Nicolas Loris of The Heritage Foundation had to say regarding the mercury air and toxics rule that the EPA claims would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. “The two studies that represent the scientific foundation for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus should be public property.”
In addition to claims about carbon dioxide as a dreaded “greenhouse” gas, methane is also getting the attention of those opposed to “fracking”, a technique that has provided access to both natural gas and oil. James M. Taylor, a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, noted in January that “Natural gas has high methane content, but the methane is converted to energy when natural gas is burnt.” Citing U.S. Energy Information Administration data, Taylor noted “The ongoing decline in methane emissions supplements ongoing declines in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.” Since 2000 both are down between 6% AND 9%.
By Alan Caruba November 30, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |
Take Your Pick of Lies About Ozone, Methane or Mercury
Is it surprising that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?
There is currently a piece of legislation under consideration by Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act, to force the EPA to disclose its scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.
This is what Nicolas Loris of The Heritage Foundation had to say regarding the mercury air and toxics rule that the EPA claims would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. “The two studies that represent the scientific foundation for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus should be public property.”
In addition to claims about carbon dioxide as a dreaded “greenhouse” gas, methane is also getting the attention of those opposed to “fracking”, a technique that has provided access to both natural gas and oil. James M. Taylor, a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, noted in January that “Natural gas has high methane content, but the methane is converted to energy when natural gas is burnt.” Citing U.S. Energy Information Administration data, Taylor noted “The ongoing decline in methane emissions supplements ongoing declines in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.” Since 2000 both are down between 6% AND 9%.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 11-30-2014, 05:01 PM
The Gruberization of environmental policies... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/2...ntal-policies/
Accumulation of fraudulent EPA regulations impacts energy, economy, jobs, families and health
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Call it the Gruberization of America’s energy and environmental policies.
Former White House medical consultant Jonathan Gruber pocketed millions of taxpayer dollars before infamously explaining how ObamaCare was enacted. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “It was really, really critical to getting the bill passed.” At least one key provision was a “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
The Barack Obama/Gina McCarthy Environmental Protection Agency is likewise exploiting its lack of transparency and most Americans’ lack of scientific understanding. EPA bureaucrats and their hired scientists, pressure groups and PR flacks are getting rich and powerful by implementing costly, punitive, dictatorial regulations “for our own good,” and pretending to be honest and publicly spirited.
EPA’s latest regulatory onslaught is its “Clean Power Plan.” The agency claims the CPP will control or prevent “dangerous manmade climate change,” by reducing carbon dioxide and “encouraging” greater use of renewable energy. In reality, as even EPA acknowledges, no commercial-scale technology exists that can remove CO2 from power plant emission streams. The real goal is forcing coal-fired power plants to reduce their operations significantly or (better still) shut down entirely.
The agency justifies this by deceitfully claiming major health benefits will result from eliminating coal in electricity generation – and deceptively ignoring the harmful effects that its regulations are having on people’s livelihoods, living standards, health and well-being. Its assertion that reducing the USA’s coal-related carbon dioxide emissions will make an iota of difference is just as disingenuous. China, India and other fast-developing nations must keep burning coal to generate electricity and lift people out of poverty, and CO2 plays only a tiny (if any) role in climate change and destructive weather events.
Accumulation of fraudulent EPA regulations impacts energy, economy, jobs, families and health
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Call it the Gruberization of America’s energy and environmental policies.
Former White House medical consultant Jonathan Gruber pocketed millions of taxpayer dollars before infamously explaining how ObamaCare was enacted. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “It was really, really critical to getting the bill passed.” At least one key provision was a “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
The Barack Obama/Gina McCarthy Environmental Protection Agency is likewise exploiting its lack of transparency and most Americans’ lack of scientific understanding. EPA bureaucrats and their hired scientists, pressure groups and PR flacks are getting rich and powerful by implementing costly, punitive, dictatorial regulations “for our own good,” and pretending to be honest and publicly spirited.
EPA’s latest regulatory onslaught is its “Clean Power Plan.” The agency claims the CPP will control or prevent “dangerous manmade climate change,” by reducing carbon dioxide and “encouraging” greater use of renewable energy. In reality, as even EPA acknowledges, no commercial-scale technology exists that can remove CO2 from power plant emission streams. The real goal is forcing coal-fired power plants to reduce their operations significantly or (better still) shut down entirely.
The agency justifies this by deceitfully claiming major health benefits will result from eliminating coal in electricity generation – and deceptively ignoring the harmful effects that its regulations are having on people’s livelihoods, living standards, health and well-being. Its assertion that reducing the USA’s coal-related carbon dioxide emissions will make an iota of difference is just as disingenuous. China, India and other fast-developing nations must keep burning coal to generate electricity and lift people out of poverty, and CO2 plays only a tiny (if any) role in climate change and destructive weather events.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 11-30-2014, 05:04 PM
Watts Up With That?... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/0...n-the-sea-ice/
1960’s satellite imagery of polar ice discovers “enormous holes” in the sea ice
Anthony Watts / September 4, 2014
NSIDC has announced the discovery and recovery of space footage of Earth’s polar icecaps, dating back to 1964.
The recovered photographs have yielded some startling surprises, according to David Gallaher, technical services manager at NSIDC, bold mine:
In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average. “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said. What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said.
“And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record.
1960’s satellite imagery of polar ice discovers “enormous holes” in the sea ice
Anthony Watts / September 4, 2014
NSIDC has announced the discovery and recovery of space footage of Earth’s polar icecaps, dating back to 1964.
The recovered photographs have yielded some startling surprises, according to David Gallaher, technical services manager at NSIDC, bold mine:
In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average. “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said. What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said.
“And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record.
- JD Barleycorn
- 11-30-2014, 10:08 PM
This whole thing is reminiscent of the "ozone holes" in the Antartic. They were discovered in 1947 and somehow it never occurred to anyone that they existed before. The politicians in the science community decided that they had just happened because of man made pollutants. No real research, just a conclusion and then they did the "research" to prove the conclusion. If you look at further photographs at the ozone holes then you can't help but notice how they grow and shrink in a close pattern with solar activity. And you can't help but notice how "it" is centered over a large active volcano. What destroys ozone? Why sunlight, extreme cold, and hydrochloric acid in the atmosphere which could come from volcanic outgases.
- Yssup Rider
- 11-30-2014, 11:05 PM
And what were you doing at 1.30 am AssUp The Loser? Trolling the Internet? You certainly weren't spending quality time with the family. Why are you such a pathetic hypocrite? Originally Posted by WhirlawayPoor whir-LIE-turd.
Can't read a time stamp.
BTW -- what "quality time" do YOU spend with YOUR family at 1:30am, you creepy little man?