EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:49 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 ... 90  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:29 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21368
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Interesting study fence sitters.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-crisis/

Quote:
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.


Quote:
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”


Quote:
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.


1.
Quote:
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”


2.
Quote:
Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”


3.
Quote:
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”


4.
Quote:
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”


And, the knuckle dragging cultists to this day insist on the 97 percent BS. Not so cut and dry when you take a closer look is it fence sitters.


Again with the years old information ...errr misinformation?

If you or your source were more than "knuckle draggers" you would know the difference between the attempt at a comparison between a consensus of experts in the field and people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo is not even an apples to oranges event. Perhaps you could get the opinions of protologists on the treatment of cardiac arrest? How about advanced stroke treatments? Their opinion should be just as valid as they are doctors even if they are of a completely different specialty and do not deal directly with strokes or cardiac issues.

Translation: geoscientists and engineers = energy industry workers

From the abstract of the paper: we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:34 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
Poptech is the man.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... s.html?m=1

Quote:
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.


Quote:
Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."


Quote:
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."


Quote:
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."


Quote:
Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."


Quote:
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."


You see fence sitters. Misrepresentation is the cornerstone of the Cultists argument. As usual.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:38 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
Seriously fence sitters do you want to help these people?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01 ... -beheaded/

Quote:
A climate change advocate, believed to be a Greenpeace activist and Guardian contributor, has called for the beheading of so-called “climate change deniers”, arguing the world would be a better place without them. The comments are merely the latest in a long history of warmists advocating the killing of people who question global warming dogma.


You need to know who you're throwing in with before you do so. Do you really want to be associated with this people?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:36 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21368
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Seriously fence sitters do you want to help these people?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01 ... -beheaded/

Quote:
A climate change advocate, believed to be a Greenpeace activist and Guardian contributor, has called for the beheading of so-called “climate change deniers”, arguing the world would be a better place without them. The comments are merely the latest in a long history of warmists advocating the killing of people who question global warming dogma.


You need to know who you're throwing in with before you do so. Do you really want to be associated with this people?


THIS people is more correct as it is a SINGLE person. Such an attack on a huge group based on a single person shows just how weak Milton's position really is.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 8:35 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
Get up to speed fence sitters.

http://junkscience.com/2015/12/sanders- ... s-by-2030/

Quote:
Sanders rolls out climate change plan, wants 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.

Sets goals of creating a 100 percent clean-energy system sustained by wind and solar power but does not specify a timetable for doing so.


Yes, let's completely ignore what's going on in other countries like Germany and double down on stupid.

Quote:
Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change.


This is from a major candidate for the President of the United States. Does that make you feel comfortable fence sitters?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 8:54 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21368
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Get up to speed fence sitters.

http://junkscience.com/2015/12/sanders- ... s-by-2030/

Quote:
Sanders rolls out climate change plan, wants 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.

Sets goals of creating a 100 percent clean-energy system sustained by wind and solar power but does not specify a timetable for doing so.


Yes, let's completely ignore what's going on in other countries like Germany and double down on stupid.



Is that Germany in the present or the Germany from several years ago you have been referencing?

Quote:
Quote:
Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change.


This is from a major candidate for the President of the United States. Does that make you feel comfortable fence sitters?


That would be a political reference rather than a reference to science, right?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:03 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
This is how it begins fence sitters.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/ ... an-beings/

Quote:
Tuesday at a White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the fight on global warming.

McCarthy said, “When I put a report out on acting on climate like we did yesterday that shows how dramatically our world will change if we don’t act, and just the benefits we can deliver if we do. I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers. You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day. It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”


To somehow suggest "deniers" are not "normal." This is the beginning of the classification that deniers are not normal. This is the beginning of the attempt to suggest that "deniers" are somehow sub-human. This is the common technique of how the oppressors legitimize carrying out evil. So many examples in history that this technique is the beginning of oppression. The beginning of tyranny. And, in some cases the beginning of genocide. Think about it fence sitters. And, think about the motivation of those who will defend this to their last.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:13 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21368
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
This is how it begins fence sitters.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/ ... an-beings/

Quote:
Tuesday at a White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the fight on global warming.

McCarthy said, “When I put a report out on acting on climate like we did yesterday that shows how dramatically our world will change if we don’t act, and just the benefits we can deliver if we do. I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers. You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day. It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”


To somehow suggest "deniers" are not "normal." This is the beginning of the classification that deniers are not normal. This is the beginning of the attempt to suggest that "deniers" are somehow sub-human. This is the common technique of how the oppressors legitimize carrying out evil. So many examples in history that this technique is the beginning of oppression. The beginning of tyranny. And, in some cases the beginning of genocide. Think about it fence sitters. And, think about the motivation of those who will defend this to their last.


Your attempt to spin this into a connection for genocide preparation shows just how far from normal some of you really are.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:39 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
More of the same here fence sitters.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/01/09/data ... g1s4G.dpbs

Quote:
The slightly negative linear trend in global temperature measured by RSS satellite (TLT) continues despite the El-Nino-driven warm 2015. This flat trend has held since the end of 1997 and is closing in on two decades – catching a number of scientists by surprise.

The preliminary data from UAH and RSS shows that 2015 was the third warmest year since the measurements began in 1978, and thus did not set a new record. A reanalysis of the global 2m temperature from CFSv2 measured a positive deviation from the mean of 0.27 K, but put the year 2015 only in 6th place:


Quote:
The northern hemisphere in November 2015 saw a total of 36.25 million km² of snow cover. That’s about 2.3 million km² above the WMO 1981-2010 mean. It’s the 7th greatest extent since measurements began in 1966.


Fence sitters what this means is half the time we have been using satellites to measure temperature they have recorded no warming.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:51 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21368
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
More of the same here fence sitters.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/01/09/data ... g1s4G.dpbs

Quote:
The slightly negative linear trend in global temperature measured by RSS satellite (TLT) continues despite the El-Nino-driven warm 2015. This flat trend has held since the end of 1997 and is closing in on two decades – catching a number of scientists by surprise.

The preliminary data from UAH and RSS shows that 2015 was the third warmest year since the measurements began in 1978, and thus did not set a new record. A reanalysis of the global 2m temperature from CFSv2 measured a positive deviation from the mean of 0.27 K, but put the year 2015 only in 6th place:


Quote:
The northern hemisphere in November 2015 saw a total of 36.25 million km² of snow cover. That’s about 2.3 million km² above the WMO 1981-2010 mean. It’s the 7th greatest extent since measurements began in 1966.


Fence sitters what this means is half the time we have been using satellites to measure temperature they have recorded no warming.


Which shows what cherry picking data can do for misleading statements.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:00 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
http://www.thegwpf.com/300-scientists-w ... ming-data/

Quote:
300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data
Date: 29/01/16

Andrew Follett, Daily Caller News Foundation

Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

“In our opinion… NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies like NOAA to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”


Now if 97 percent agree. If the science is settled why hide, tamper, fail to meet standards and guidelines, and refuse to share information?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21368
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
http://www.thegwpf.com/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

Quote:
300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data
Date: 29/01/16

Andrew Follett, Daily Caller News Foundation

Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

In our opinion… NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies like NOAA to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”


Now if 97 percent agree. If the science is settled why hide, tamper, fail to meet standards and guidelines, and refuse to share information?


In their opinion the laws were violated? Would that not be the expertise for someone expert in law in conjunction with experts in the fields of science? Of course not, since the experts are ignored in favor of personal political opinion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:40 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
Image

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
Fence sitters I think we need to revisit this issue.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29504 ... ew-blowout

Quote:
The Environmental Protection Agency employee in charge of work at the Gold King Mine said he was aware of blowout danger at the site ahead of a massive August spill there.

Hays Griswold, the on-scene coordinator, wrote in an October e-mail to other EPA officials that he "personally knew" the mine could be holding back a lot of water.


Quote:
The revelation provides more indications the EPA knew of looming disaster at the mine long before workers accidentally broke through its collapsed opening, which was holding back 3 million gallons of wastewater.

An agency internal review said operators believed water inside the Gold King was not very high because of draining at the site and based on seep levels above its opening. Those factors, officials said, made checking pressure appear unnecessary and hence it was never done.


Griswold's e-mail appears to directly contradict those findings and statements he made to The Denver Post in the days after the disaster when he claimed "nobody expected (the acid water backed up in the mine) to be that high."


You never can get the truth out of these people can you.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:21 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
And more news, weather, and sports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Quote:
WASHINGTON — In a major setback for President Obama’s climate change agenda, the Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups.

But the Supreme Court’s willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices.

The 5-to-4 vote, with the court’s four liberal members dissenting, was unprecedented — the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court.

“It’s a stunning development,” Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former environmental legal counsel to the Obama administration, said in an email. She added that “the order certainly indicates a high degree of initial judicial skepticism from five justices on the court,” and that the ruling would raise serious questions from nations that signed on to the landmark Paris climate change pact in December.


And, this just in.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/02/new- ... y-doa.html

Quote:
It's been only several weeks of the ink drying on the Paris climate treaty agreement and serious t-r-o-u-b-l-e for its worldwide adoption has quickly emerged.

As this article indicates, the New York Times and others are wondering if the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision put the kabosh on the hopes of the fringe, extremist left/green radicals and their companions, the Democrat "progressive" conspiracy-addicts.

One can only hope, but unfortunately the climate change alarmists and doomsday cult will continue their wanton path of destruction regarding freedom of speech, open scientific debate and civil discourse about important policy issues.

The abhorrent fact that greens keep pushing for the criminalization of disagreement with their views suggests that legal barriers to their totalitarian impulses will not stop them.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 ... 90  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group