Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

[birdman]

I see a megaphone making noise.

This was a Rorschach Test, wasn't it?

Whoops, I used a normally distributed randomization function to generate data then overlayed that with a second normally distributed randomization function with a normally distributed randomized increasing trend and accidentally ended up drawing a picture of Lectro yelling at everyone about climate change.

 

[Tobacco Road]

You are a ridiculous buffoon. Without fossil fuel technologies you would not have a pot to piss in. All of modernity as you know it. And stop with the peak oil bs. It is bad as the CO2 mythology

I’m glad you were not advising President Lincoln.

 

[BaseballBoomhauer]

Thoughts on the Green New Deal, Lectro? Seems up your alley!

 

[Lectro]

Thoughts on the Green New Deal, Lectro? Seems up your alley!

Non starter

 

[sailordeac]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...hats-wrong-with-progressive-environmentalism/

Before we dig into the text, let me put my cards on the table. I believe that mankind negatively influences the climate (though the precise extent of that influence is debatable), that it is in our interests to prudently reduce carbon emissions — while also seeking economic development at home and abroad — and that sober-minded cost-benefit analyses of proposed environmental policies are often lost in the avalanche of alarmist rhetoric. Like many Americans, I’d call myself “climate-concerned.”

And as a climate-concerned American, I find much of the most alarmist rhetoric around climate change facially unconvincing. Instead, it often looks as if the climate argument is pretext for justifying a host of other progressive policies, including progressive policies that have only the most attenuated relationship (if any relationship at all) to climate change. There are a few sure-fire tells — does the progressive climate-change policy inexplicably go after nuclear power? Does it move into condemnations of racism and sexism? Does it advocate redistributive economic policies?

Nobody has to be a progressive to be concerned about the environment. Nobody has to be a progressive to respond to climate change. Any proposal that conditions response to climate change on the adoption of the full progressive platform is not only doomed to fail, but raises the question of whether the declared climate emergency is more pretext than crisis. There’s a need for a serious discussion about our climate. The Green New Deal is not serious.

 

[BaseballBoomhauer]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...hats-wrong-with-progressive-environmentalism/

The issue here is that taking action to alleviate climate change requires an economy-wide transformation to a low-carbon economy. GHGs are everywhere, and the idea of transforming an economy is of course controversial and breeds inaction due to the scale.

So, I understand the National Review argument, but I think it's simplistic. A policy to reduce GHGs won't be popular and even supportable in a democratic society unless it leaves the society better off. I, and many others, believe that no matter what, the transformation would leave us better off. But that's a long-term and seemingly ambiguous goal. So what's the selling point? Good policy needs to show that individuals will be left better off immediately, through better jobs, better health, etc. As you transform an economy to one that is low or zero-carbon, are those other goals considered necessary for a prosperous and happy society? I would argue yes, they are.

I do look at some of the GND Resolution with a questionable face, because there are a lot of things that are just tossed in for good progressive measure. But it's also meant to be a starting point. This resolution is the beginning of a long, democratic negotiation, so you have to shoot your shot I guess. What can you toss to get the core of your agenda passed? How are you developing policy that keeps broad support and maintains cohesion across your base?

I also think the basic premise of the NR article is kind of silly. If you wanted to sneak through a bunch of progressive policies, why the FUCK would you use climate change action as your vehicle? It's not like it has a big core of support. Wouldn't you use universal healthcare or voting rights, and then sneak in some climate action?

For example, this quote:

There are a few sure-fire tells — does the progressive climate-change policy inexplicably go after nuclear power? Does it move into condemnations of racism and sexism? Does it advocate redistributive economic policies?

Going after nuclear power is not inexplicable. Nuclear is an environmental nightmare in different ways. Nor is inclusion of racism or redistributive economic policies separate from climate action. Low-income communities and communities of color are the hardest hit by the effects of climate change, and they have the least responsibility for it. Asking them to pay for action at a scale that is beyond their contribution to the problem and beyond the percentage that more guilty communities would, or continues to put them at a disadvantage, is both morally wrong and politically stupid.

 

[sailordeac]

Let's just take one of the points of the NR article: tactics. If you wish to accomplish something, you are usually more effective if you concentrate on your central goal, rather than diluting it in different ways and with unnecessary baggage. You will, at the very least, encounter fewer obstacles by concentrating your energies on a single goal.

In this particular case, the presentation has left little doubt that environmental concerns are being used as a cover of a SJW agenda, which is a good way to achieve neither.

 

[BaseballBoomhauer]

Let's just take one of the points of the NR article: tactics. If you wish to accomplish something, you are usually more effective if you concentrate on your central goal, rather than diluting it in different ways and with unnecessary baggage. You will, at the very least, encounter fewer obstacles by concentrating your energies on a single goal.

In this particular case, the presentation has left little doubt that environmental concerns are being used as a cover of a SJW agenda, which is a good way to achieve neither.

And what I'm saying is that the central goal is inextricable from some of the seemingly ancillary ones, for example justice and health. I would argue that in this case, you would encounter MORE obstacles if you DIDN'T include those, because of the nature of the solution and the past and future impacts on specific communities.

Right to unionize? Guaranteed family leave? Those are probably your trade offs. But again, this is a resolution, it is inherently aspirational.

 

[Lectro]

Fact is plain..the New Green Deal is just what it claims. It is the taking of Green from some and giving said Green to others.

In the political climate today - from Bolsinaro to Salvini to Orban to Trump..to the forces emerging among the Yellow Vests in France and the Brexiteers..the forces of individual freedom have swung back (Hegelian) against the collectivist forces and their love affair with expanding bureacracy.

Just as concerns the current zeitgeist.. the New Green Deal looks grand to the youthful progressive but remains outside the Overton Window in today’s policy making climate.Howard Schultz made the point and he is correct.

 

[DeacKillsaDevil]

If we ban cars and trucks, how does one get fruits and vegetables from farms to the cities? By magic carpet?

If we ban the airplane, how does one get to Hawaii? Even Hirono is wondering

I wonder if the people who wrote this have ever been outside of a city to visit rural America.

 

[sailordeac]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/carbon-taxes-lessons-from-canada/

On your side of the fence, the Climate Leadership Council’s plan — recently backed by 27 Nobel Prize–winning economists and other economic luminaries — calls for a nationwide tax starting at $40 a ton on carbon dioxide emissions, on efficiency grounds. (All figures in U.S. dollars.) It vows that “the majority of American families . . . will benefit financially by receiving more in ‘carbon dividends’ than they pay in increased energy prices.” A tax that pays you sure sounds appealing! But a word of caution: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Up here in Canada, we’ve been burned by the same promise.

Back in 2008, the province of British Columbia similarly proposed a carbon tax in the interests of economic efficiency and as a way to reduce greenhouse gases. The government promised that “every dollar raised will be returned to the people of B.C. in the form of lower taxes.” And for the first few years, it was true to its word. Tax revenue from the carbon tax was used to lower personal and corporate income-tax rates — and economists everywhere lauded the concept. A joint study by Duke University and the University of Ottawa declared B.C.’s plan to be “textbook policy.” Then politics happened.

After a few years, the B.C. government discovered that tiny annual cuts to personal and corporate tax rates weren’t as politically rewarding as originally thought. So, it switched to spending its carbon-tax revenues on higher-profile subsidy programs like film- and television-production tax credits. By 2013, the program ceased to be revenue neutral. And following a change in government in 2017, all carbon-tax revenue is now funneled straight into general revenues. B.C. taxpayers are thus the victims of a decade-long betrayal. Having agreed to a carbon tax based on the promise of strict revenue neutrality, they find that their so-called textbook carbon tax has become just another garden-variety government tax grab. Then again, maybe your Congress is more trustworthy than our parliaments . . .

 

[Lectro]

“4th hottest year on record” .. Gavin Schmidt,reknowned climate hustler and media charlatan is at it again..

Unfortunately for Schmidt,people like Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl are watching

Once again,Motl has called out Schmidt for his obfuscations — uncovering NASA’s own “38% sure it is accurate” part of this latest ruse.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2015/01/...renceFrame+(Lubos+Motl's+reference+frame)&m=1

 

[Lectro]

Sorry Connor..but climate hustlers,swindlers and their swath of rubes have been called out too many times. Too many scandals (from the egregious East Anglia emails to constant fudging of data and outright omission of facts)

Those who are not suckers any longer have seen enough this global charade to transfer wealth.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

“The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.”

Dr Motl is one of the leading “Fact Checkers” of Climate Alarmism.

 

[birdman]

Should I try to educate you on statistics and probability again?

The method takes all the data we have from ever year and uses a Bayesian analysis to assign a posterior probability that each year was the warmest year. Every year initially has an equal probability and after the data are assessed the posterior probabilities are derived.

So if you have 120 years of data, initially each has a 0.83% chance of being the warmest year and after the analysis the probability piles up on a 2005, 2010, and 2014. Those three years together carry 78% of the probability and 2014 carries nearly twice as much as the next closest year. That leaves 22% to be divided up between the other 117 years of data, 4% goes to 1998, so really it’s 18% divided amongst 116 years. That means that on average there is a 0.115% chance that any given year other than 2014, 2010, 2005, and 1998 was the warmest year. And for just 2014, on average there is a 0.43% chance that any single year was warmer than 2014. This string theory physicist should know better, but maybe that’s why he published it in a blog instead of some sort of scientific journal.

 

[Gooner]

If we ban cars and trucks, how does one get fruits and vegetables from farms to the cities? By magic carpet?

If we ban the airplane, how does one get to Hawaii? Even Hirono is wondering

I wonder if the people who wrote this have ever been outside of a city to visit rural America.

Who is suggesting banning airplanes is part of the GND other than right-wing nut jobs like Tucker Carlson?

 

[BaseballBoomhauer]

If we ban cars and trucks, how does one get fruits and vegetables from farms to the cities? By magic carpet?

If we ban the airplane, how does one get to Hawaii? Even Hirono is wondering

I wonder if the people who wrote this have ever been outside of a city to visit rural America.

"Ban" is the wrong word, and quite frankly it's an editorial by you. The better word is "discourage", or even better, if we encourage something better.

If we discourage internal combustion cars and trucks, we'll encourage electric vehicles.

If we encourage more efficient airplane models, we'll get to Hawaii more efficiently, with less fuel and cleaner fuel, and we'll take fewer unnecessary trips by encouraging virtual meetings.

If we're afraid to try, how will we get better?

I grew up in rural America. I know we can do better.

 

[Lectro]

Scientists call out the fraud,Gavin Schmidt. On Nasa’s quiet admission that there was actually a 38% chance 2014 was the hottest year.

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures’ – ‘I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject’

Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘NASA's Gavin Schmidt knew about this fact. That didn't prevent them from pushing virtually all mainstream media to publish the lie – in the very title – that NASA was declaring 2014 was the warmest year'

Steven Goddard responds to Gavin Schmidt’s reporting 2014 as the “hottest on record” saying “I am 97% sure that even NASA’s 38% is BS”. He continues:

“Gavin quietly says that there is a 62% chance that 2014 was not the warmest year on record, but he had to give his boss a talking point for the State of the Union address this week.

So Gavin simply fabricated warm temperatures across huge areas like Greenland, where he had no actual thermometer data in December.Gavin showed much of western Greenland 1-2C above normal, when it was actually 2C below normal. It doesn’t take a lot of that sort of cheating to get temperatures up 0.02 globally.”

Visit Steven Goddard at Real Science and learn that NASA erased much of Artic temp records through the 40’s-50’s to hide the warming occurring at that time.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/nasa-erasing-the-arctic-past/

 

[Lectro]

Tony Heller thrown in as proof there is no real interest in debate - talking past the other

 

[Lectro]

Excerpts from peer criticisms of Gavin Schmidt

“Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he said he was “appalled” by Schmidt’s “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”
“Roger Pielke, Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!” Tennekes wrote on January 29, 2009. Tennekes, is an scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is also featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims “Gavin Schmidt is not the only meteorologist with an inadequate grasp of the role of the oceans in the climate system. In my weblog of June 24, 2008, I addressed the limited perception that at least one other climate modeler appears to have,” Tennekes wrote. “From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future,” Tennekes added.

 

[Lectro]

More..the brilliant young Shaviv chimes in

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has also been critical. “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point ‘has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org,’” Shaviv’s website reported. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org,” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.”