More Global Warmist lying sacks of shit

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth,

This post, and two immediately following contain clear personal attacks on another member. Your account is being suspended for 24 hours.

[Robert_S]

Shouldn't there be a link?

And I definitely trolled him.

[pErvinalia]

He's referring to his mod note, and your and my posts. It was a preemptive strike against us.

[JimC]

No, most people living willingly under collectivism are just Marxist useful idiots.

How do I advance from Marxist useful idiot to full blown Marxist, as Seth seems to know what they look like maybe he could give me some advice?

Suggest that some form of universal health care might, just possibly, be a good thing...

That should tip you over the edge into full-blown Stalinism...

[Seth]

Seth,

This post, and two immediately following contain clear personal attacks on another member. Your account is being suspended for 24 hours.

Meh. Go fuck yourself, I didn't even notice. Been too busy making money with UBER and Lyft. I'm liking it a lot. Get to meet some HAWT chicks...

[macdoc]

for you amusement...the outrage of the denier guild...

UESDAY, JUN 3, 2014 4:19 PM UTC
Keep peeing in the pool?! Climate deniers lose their minds after new EPA rules
The 7 most ridiculous responses from the fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute to new proposed emissions standards
BRAD FRIEDMAN
Share

TOPICS: EPA, EMISSIONS, CLIMATE CHANGE, DENIERS, CLIMATE DENIERS, EDITOR'S PICKS, THE RIGHT, CLEAN AIR ACT, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, BUSINESS NEWS, POLITICS NEWS

Keep peeing in the pool?! Climate deniers lose their minds after new EPA rules
(Credit: Zurijeta via Shutterstock)
This post originally appeared on The BRAD BLOG.
As we noted last night, the global warming deniers were sure to start firing on all carbon-emitting pistons this week in response to the Obama EPA’s landmark announcement todayof proposed new rules to decrease harmful, climate-destabilizing CO2 pollution from existing dirty power plants, as per the U.S. Supreme Court-mandated enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

The deniers haven’t disappointed.

The following quotes come from a press release sent out this morning from the fossil fuel industry-funded “Heartland Institute,” which pretends to offer science-based arguments in support of their “mission…to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

In fact, the group serves as little more than a mouthpiece for Big Carbon and the modern Republican Party which, largely thanks to Citizens United in 2010, now eschews the use of actual science in the public sphere.

Despite their ironic “non-profit” status — enjoying government subsidies for promoting “free-market solutions” — the Heartland Institute is also little more than an arm of the Republican Party. In one of the responses to today’s announcement, the Heartland Institute President argues that “Republicans in the House and Senate are right to oppose EPA’s new global warming rules,” and “Voters will do well to remember who was on their side during the coming political battles.”

In another response, the “non-partisan” group says that challenging the Obama EPA’s proposed policy could be great for the GOP. “If done intelligently,” Heartland’s Science Director(!) Jay Lehr writes, the challenge “could cost [Obama's] party the Senate in the November elections and dramatically increase the Republican majority in the House of Representatives – which will enable the Republicans to stymie any further legislative action by the president for the remainder of his term.”

Now that’s some good Science Directing! And some good non-partisanship! Of course, this is also the same group that purchased billboards comparing those who believe in science to “The Unabomber” and Charles Manson, so it’s not as though anybody would take these folks seriously, right? Wrong. They are consistently featured and quoted by theoretically legitimate mainstream media outlets in coverage of the pretend “global warming debate”.

Here then, in no particular order, are the top 7 most amusing responses from the Heartland Institute’s “experts”, as released this morning in response to today’s EPA announcement:

“This is Obamacare for the environment: guaranteed to raise costs, reduce choices, and destroy an existing industry. By the time EPA is finished, millions of Americans will be freezing in the dark.” – Joseph Bast, President, The Heartland Institute
Well, Republicans were completely wrong about the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), and now, wisely, are quickly abandoning their attacks on it in advance of the 2014 election, so why not double-down and call conservative, flexible, market-based, state-controlled regulations to curb emissions “Obamacare for the environment”?! Sure. That should work!

As to “Americans freezing in the dark”, thanks to the EPA, we’ll keep that in mind next time we hear how climate scientists are “alarmists” for producing peer-reviewed, independently verifiable science.

“It could be the greatest miscalculation of his presidency if, in fact, cooler minds in the opposition can mount a sensible campaign to educate the public as to why he is wrong and how the economic impacts will be absolutely disastrous in the immediate future. If done intelligently, this draconian action by the president could cost his party the Senate in the November elections and dramatically increase the Republican majority in the House of Representatives – which will enable the Republicans to stymie any further legislative action by the president for the remainder of his term.” – Jay Lehr, Science Director, The Heartland Institute
Who knew “Science Directing” was so similar to Political Consulting?! Oh, that’s right. The folks who claim that climate science is “junk science” and that is has been “politicized” do so all the time. For profit.

“Carbon dioxide is essential to plant growth – more carbon dioxide makes for a greener planet … CO2 emissions boost the economy and don’t hurt the planet – in fact they most likely benefit the biosphere.” – S.T. Karnick, Director of Research, The Heartland Institute
Karnick must have a different idea of “research” than most folks. In any event, water is also “essential,” particularly for the “benefit” of human beings. So the more of it the better, right? Therefore, Karnick may want to drink several gallons of it within the next 15 minutes, just to be safe, and then “research” what happens to him! What could possibly go wrong?!

“t appears the entire debate is now political, not about the bad science.” – John Coleman, Meteorologist, Policy Advisor, Environment, The Heartland Institute
Right. As we noted last week, it’s about the politics of “the handful of folks who profit off of the oil, coal and gas extraction industries, and the personal pain theywould like to avoid in cutting into a single cent of the most profitable industry the world has ever known.”

Other than that, the only “bad science” seems to be the laughable, easily-debunkedpretend “science” that the Heartland Institute publishes on behalf of the sociopathic fossil fuel industry and the Republican Party they now own.

“Lives will be lost as people forgo heating and air conditioning in times of extreme cold or heat. All this loss for naught.” – James H. Rust, Professor of nuclear engineering (ret.), Georgia Tech, Policy Advisor, The Heartland Institute
Apparently, Mr. Rust’s alarmism about “lives lost” due to a pretend lack of heating and A/C is fine. The actual evidence of lives lost due to the already occurring direct and indirect effects of global warming should be completely ignored.

“Simply put, the new Environmental Protection Agency regulations to require further reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by coal-fired plants that produce 40 percent of the nation’s electricity – down 10 percent since President Obama took office in 2009 – have no basis in science or truth. … These regulations will also affect other industries and business sectors that emit CO2, causing costs to rise. … The president’s animus toward coal-fired energy defies any rational explanation.” – Alan Caruba, Founder, The National Anxiety Center, Policy Advisor, The Heartland Institute
The “no basis in science or truth” charge seems to be straight out of the Obi-Wan Kenobi “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for” Jedi Mind Trick school of politics. If you say there is “no basis in science or truth” often enough — despite all the decades and decades of independently verifiable climate science and truth available out there on this issue — perhaps someone will believe you…at least if they are under a Jedi Master’s use of The Force.

And, finally, our favorite:

“Thanks to the Obama administration’s EPA and the new regulations released today, America is poised to become the ‘no pee’ section of the global swimming pool … Just because we declare that we won’t pee in the pool, won’t stop the others. … We’ll be stuck in our little no-pee section with a crippled economy while the rest of the world will be frolicking in unfettered growth.” – Marita Noon, Executive Director, Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy
This response is very helpful. What she seems to be saying here is that everyone should always pee in the swimming pool unless and until it can be proven that everyone else has also stopped doing so. In the meantime, it’s best for everyone to keep peeing in the swimming pool as much as possible.[/quote]

Smart stuff. No wonder the vast majority of Americans reject the alternate reality being presented by the desperate dead-enders and fossil-fueled clowns like the folks at the Heartland Institute.

Investigative journalist and broadcaster Brad Friedman is the creator and publisher of The BRAD Blog. He has contributed to Mother Jones, The Guardian, Truthout, Huffington Post, The Trial Lawyer magazine and Editor & Publisher.

[pErvinalia]

Idiots.

[rainbow]

Seth hates Polar Bears because they are black.

[Ian]

One of the most commonly cited articles by the so-called skeptics. With more time and evidence, its author had a huge case of the mind changies.

My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong

It's time for deniers of human-caused global warming to stop using an old magazine story as ammunition against the consensus of today's climate scientists.
By: Peter Gwynne, Guest Columnist

(Inside Science) – "The central fact is that, after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." – Newsweek: April 28, 1975

That's an excerpt from a story I wrote about climate science that appeared almost 40 years ago. Titled "The Cooling World," it was remarkably popular; in fact it might be the only decades-old magazine story about science ever carried onto the set of a late-night TV talk show. Now, as the author of that story, after decades of scientific advances, let me say this: while the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete. Our climate is warming -- not cooling, as the original story suggested.

Etc... http://www.insidescience.org/content/my ... wrong/1640

Or, as a great man once said, "Yes, I changed my mind. That's what I do when the information in front of me changes. What do you do?"

[pErvinalia]

They got to him..

[JimC]

Not so loud!

The Black Helicopters have ears...

[macdoc]

June 4, 2014, 4:17 PM
What states are warming the fastest?

WASHINGTON -- The United States is warming fastest at two of its corners, in the Northeast and the Southwest, an analysis of federal temperature records shows.

Northeastern states - led by Maine and Vermont - have gotten the hottest in the last 30 years in annual temperature, gaining 2.5 degrees on average. But Southwestern states have heated up the most in the hottest months: The average New Mexico summer is 3.4 degrees warmer now than in 1984; in Texas, the dog days are 2.8 degrees hotter.

The contiguous United States' annual average temperature has warmed by 1.2 degrees since 1984, with summers getting 1.6 degrees hotter. But that doesn't really tell you how hot it's gotten for most Americans. While man-made greenhouse gases warm the world as a whole, weather is supremely local. Some areas have gotten hotter than others because of atmospheric factors and randomness, climate scientists say.

"In the United States, it isn't warming equally," said Kelly Redmond, climatologist at the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno, Nevada. "Be careful about extrapolating from your own backyard to the globe."

For example, while people in the East and Midwest were complaining about a cold winter this year, Redmond's Nevada and neighboring California were having some of their warmest winter months ever.

To determine what parts of the country have warmed the most, The Associated Press analyzed National Climatic Data Center temperature trends in the lower 48 states, 192 cities and 344 smaller regions within the states. Climate scientists suggested 1984 as a starting date because 30 years is a commonly used time period and 1984, which had an average temperature, is not a cherry-picked year to skew a trend either way. The trend was calculated by the NCDC using the least squares regression method, which is a standard statistical tool.

All but one of the lower 48 states have warmed since 1984. North Dakota is the lone outlier, and cooled slightly. Ten states - Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Mexico, Connecticut and New York - have gotten at least 2 degrees warmer in the past 30 years.

Since 1984, 92 percent of the more than 500 cities and smaller regions within states have warmed and nearly two-thirds of them have warmed by at least a degree. The regions that have warmed the most have been New York's St. Lawrence Valley, northeastern Vermont, northern Maine, the northeastern plains of New Mexico and western Vermont, all of which have warmed by more than 2.5 degrees.

Cities - where data is a tad more suspect because they are based on a single weather station and readings can be affected by urban heating and development - see the greatest variation. Carson City, Nevada, and Boise, Idaho, are the cities that have seen the most warming - both year-round and in summer - since 1984. Both cities' average annual temperatures have jumped more than 4 degrees in just 30 years, while Dickinson, North Dakota, has dropped the most, a bit more than 2 degrees.

The Southwest warming, especially in the summer, seems to be driven by dryness, because when there is little water the air and ground warm up faster, said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock.

"Heat and drought are a vicious cycle that has been hitting the Southwest hard in recent years," Hayhoe said.

And in the Northeast, the temperatures are pushed up by milder winters and warm water in the North Atlantic, said Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. And less snow on the ground over the winter often means warmer temperatures, said Alan Betts, a climate scientist at Atmospheric Research in Pittsford, Vermont.

The Southeast and Northwest were among the places that warmed the least. In the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic, industrial sulfur particle pollutants from coal burning may be reflecting sunlight, thus countering heating caused by coal's carbon dioxide emissions, said Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/northeast-s ... ing-spots/