The EPA fires most of its scientists and advisory boards

[Renae]

Global warming is truly the most importance issue facing our generation.

Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.

 

[chuckiechan]

Hey, who needs scientists when you have Fox News and Breitbart?

Welcome to the post-truth presidency.

EPA dismisses half of key board’s scientific advisers; Interior suspends more than 200 advisory panels - The Washington Post

Who's going to regulate my bird bath?

 

[Moot]

Or the Government Scientist who create a climate model that does not model the climate, but say it is good enough to
create regulation.

Surely, there's other evidence of climate change than just one climate model.

 

[sear]

Who's going to regulate my bird bath?

You're asking for a nom de plume?

 

[Mac77]

Surely, there's other evidence of climate change than just one climate model.

Climate change?

Yes natural climate change exists

The climate has always changed and always will

The liberal lie in dispute is alleged man-made-global-warming-diaster climate change.

 

[Moot]

Climate change?

Yes natural climate change exists

The climate has always changed and always will

The liberal lie in dispute is alleged man-made-global-warming-diaster climate change.

Actually, it's not in dispute with the abundance of observable evidence in the real world.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[ataraxia]

Now if you could just connect the cigarette smoking to global warming you would run the table.

Sure. Most of the "scientists" and PR firms now questioning the legitimacy of global warming and keeping the public confused are actually the exact same guys who the tobacco industry hired to question the tobacco/cancer link- yes the same link they had known about for years before anyone else.

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American

Black ball. Corner pocket.

 

[ataraxia]

Most of the libs squawking about this change know nothing about the people on those boards

And neither do I

But I think its safe to assume all the "advisors" are being paid generously to parrot the liberal wacko point of view and give it their official seal of approval

97% of all scientists, scientific societies, academies, and organizations in the entire planet? Including formal statements from even the scientists working for Exxon?

What's next? That global roundness is a liberal hoax too?

 

[longview]

Surely, there's other evidence of climate change than just one climate model.

The climate is changing, and has been for over 200 years. The evidence is movement in the plant hardiness zones.
The question is, what amount of that change is of Human origin, and what will happen in the future?
Adding CO2 will indeed cause some warming, but the models predict additional warming of between .3 and 3.3C
above the CO2 warming, that is very subjective, and whose uncertainty is defined by the enormous range.

 

[holbritter]

I don't think it's such a bad idea to have a few people from the industry field on the board. It will add a knowledge of impact any regulations have, and encourage new ideas that are satisfactory to both sides.

 

[chuckiechan]

97% of all scientists, scientific societies, academies, and organizations in the entire planet? Including formal statements from even the scientists working for Exxon?

What's next? That global roundness is a liberal hoax too?

So what do you want to change the weather to? And what about the changes in one area creating disadvantaging changes in another? Like more moderate weather in the USA, but smaller rice crops in Asia.

And why are you only planning to turn the CO2 "dial" - or are their other "goals"? Like more or less nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere?

 

[Mac77]

Actually, it's not in dispute with the abundance of observable evidence in the real world.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Nice try, but all of your conclusions are based on computer models written by the same liberal climate scientists who are predisposed to blame it on humans

 

[Mac77]

97% of all scientists, scientific societies, academies, and organizations in the entire planet? Including formal statements from even the scientists working for Exxon?

What's next? That global roundness is a liberal hoax too?

The number of open-minded climate scientests in the world is practically zero

They all have a vested professional and financial reason to promote the man-made-global-warming-diaster hoax.

 

[ocean515]

Scientists are not bureaucrats. Their agenda is truth. If political agendas are based on ideas clearly counter to it, it is their ethical duty to speak out against it. If the politicians and ignorant mobs want to burn them alive at the stake for it, then it won't be the first time.

Of course they are bureaucrats, just as they are scientists. They don't speak to truth, they speak to objective and then attempt to apply whatever science they think is required to support that mandate.

Tell me where the mandate came from for the EPA to embark on it's "Environmental Justice" initiative?

Your burn at the stake narrative is rather pathetic.

Nobody is attempting to burn them at the stake. Your hyperbole may get legs tingling among those in your bubble, but they don't move the needle among the rational majority.

 

[ataraxia]

So what do you want to change the weather to?

Less CO2 emissions. It's not that complicated..

And what about the changes in one area creating disadvantaging changes in another? Like more moderate weather in the USA, but smaller rice crops in Asia.

It will eventually impact us all. Signicantly.

And why are you only planning to turn the CO2 "dial" - or are their other "goals"? Like more or less nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere?

CO2 is the most important factor to get a handle on.

 

[ataraxia]

Of course they are bureaucrats, just as they are scientists. They don't speak to truth, they speak to objective and then attempt to apply whatever science they think is required to support that mandate.

There is a system of checks and balances in the scientific community called peer review. This often means that rival scientific groups, often in direct competition and not very friendly, have to approve your papers before they are published in these reputable journals. And then the findings have to be replicated and confirmed by others.

The findings have been confirmed and replicated not just by scientific groups in this country, but all over the world, from Japan Germany to Australia.

I don't think you're clear on how the scientific process works.

There is nothing rational about being closed to mountains of evidence and data no matter what.

 

[ocean515]

Less CO2 emissions. It's not that complicated..



It will eventually impact us all. Signicantly.



CO2 is the most important factor to get a handle on.

CO2. Are you aware the Earth figured that out long ago? It created means to deal with CO2.

Do you know how much CO2 was released when lighting cause forest fires ran unabated over millions of acres of forest, before man was there to try and stop them? Didn't wipe out the Earth then, did it?

Forest fires may produce as much CO2 as half of all fossil fuels burned « JoNova

Isn't it interesting this fact is never discussed by the "scientists" fronting the Climate Change transfer of wealth program?

 

[ataraxia]

The climate is changing, and has been for over 200 years. The evidence is movement in the plant hardiness zones.
The question is, what amount of that change is of Human origin, and what will happen in the future?
Adding CO2 will indeed cause some warming, but the models predict additional warming of between .3 and 3.3C
above the CO2 warming, that is very subjective, and whose uncertainty is defined by the enormous range.

There no uncertainty at this point.

"How confident are scientists that Earth will warm further significantly over the coming century?
Very confident. If emissions continue on their present trajectory, without either technological or regulatory abatement, then warming of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would be expected by the end of the 21st century."
-National Academy of Sciences

 

[ocean515]

There is a system of checks and balances in the scientific community called peer review. This often means that rival scientific groups, often in direct competition and not very friendly, have to approve your papers before they are published in these reputable journals. And then the findings have to be replicated and confirmed by others.

The findings have been confirmed and replicated not just by scientific groups in this country, but all over the world, from Japan Germany to Australia.

I don't think you're clear on how the scientific process works.

There is nothing rational about being closed to mountains of evidence and data no matter what.

Why do you ignore the multitude of paper written on the fraud that is occurring with peer reviews? It's been going on for years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/#5d43e8927993

And please point me to any effort the EPA has undertaken that has undergone any type of objective peer review.

 

[ataraxia]

CO2. Are you aware the Earth figured that out long ago? It created means to deal with CO2.

Do you know how much CO2 was released when lighting cause forest fires ran unabated over millions of acres of forest, before man was there to try and stop them? Didn't wipe out the Earth then, did it?

Forest fires may produce as much CO2 as half of all fossil fuels burned « JoNova

Isn't it interesting this fact is never discussed by the "scientists" fronting the Climate Change transfer of wealth program?

It is discussed. This is what they have to say about it:

"Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago…. If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale...

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization."
-National Academy of Sciences

 

[Cigar]

I don't care, my waist go's into the Mississippi and flows south.

 

[ataraxia]

Why do you ignore the multitude of paper written on the fraud that is occurring with peer reviews? It's been going on for years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/#5d43e8927993

And please point me to any effort the EPA has undertaken that has undergone any type of objective peer review.

The EPA has, at least to date, been making it to decisions based on scientific data coming from Academic studies, peer reviewed articles, and from scientists around the world over the last few decades.

 

[ocean515]

It is discussed. This is what they have to say about it:

Well, if it's discussed, you didn't provide any evidence of it.

But by all means, establish a questionable and ever-changing plan that demands the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and also requires every human being living on the planet to live under rules set by unknown people.

Oh, and attack anyone who raises a red flag over the above facts while trying to roll it out.

It's amazing anyone can't understand why such a plan would be questioned.

 

[ataraxia]

Why do you ignore the multitude of paper written on the fraud that is occurring with peer reviews? It's been going on for years.
.

There were some initially. No more. There is now firm consensus. You might as well question gravity.

 

[ataraxia]

Well, if it's discussed, you didn't provide any evidence of it.

I have giving you formal statements put out by the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the most elite scientific organization on the planet. I can give you text book references as well if you like. Or from other national and international organizations.