pigseye

Greens couldn't break the energy monopoly without government deregulation and government wasn't going to do it without the support of the public. So you cook up a doomsday scenario to get the public demanding change then government has to act, which they did, and greens get their foot in the energy door. Tsonis flipped sides because he couldn't stomach the tactics scientists were using to get this done.

I sorta of agree with you except for the "no valid reasons" part, the debate between the two sides has been raging for what 30 years now, with no end in sight. In fact I see more research papers today poking holes in the theory than I used to. As technology changes rapidly I expect to see even more or at least better model projections, some that actually get it right for a change would be nice. Since 2001, not a single model projection got anything right, they all totally over-estimated the warming, only in the last 3 years with the super el ninos have the models been even remotely close. I just saw another new paper today currently in the peer review phase which confirms that the IPCC's 1.85 C for a doubling of CO2 is too high, the value is closer to 1.35C and they wonder why their models have been over-estimating the warming? There's reason people call it psuedo-science.

I will try to keep this as simple as possible for you then. Our current system is a centralized energy monopoly(fossil fuel companies) but this is slowly starting to change with deregulation allowing decentralized starts ups of clean energy alternatives to get into the market, ie you can buy your power from wind farms or put your own solar panels on your roof. This is basically about getting a slice of the biggest economic pie. Of course the far lefties think that some day soon, they will be able to generate their own energy for free, good luck with that.

Just follow the money w-b-f https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-solar/clean-energy-sector-swings-republican-with-u-s-campaign-donations-idUSKBN1I31DZ

http://www.advisen.com/tools/fpnproc/fpns/articles_new_12/P/330183139.html?rid=330183139&list_id=12 Cyber insurance: Black swans and fat tails

You know the answer but I will refresh your memory anyways. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. Back to the funding issue, who is funding all those private jets that landed in Davos recently? You can't be so naive to not see what this all about, can you? A trillion dollar industry making millionaires out people on both sides of the argument, governments and politicians using it as an election issue. It's all about power, literally, and he who controls it controls society. Wake up already.

So you would throw out his entire body of work because he joined the other side? https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/38936282_Anastasios_A_Tsonis I only posted the article because he reminds people of what science is supposed to be, what you can prove or disprove, not what you believe.

• Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/2/the-overblown-and-misleading-issue-of-global-warmi/

I agree with wiki

Dang I really liked Goosen's feistyness, hopefuly his replacement has an edge too.

They got the wrong Dickenson, I love it.

So Trump might get his wall (barring legal challenges) and not have to give up anything in return, not a very good deal for the Democrats. This is make or break for Pelosi, probably time from some new blood in there anyways.

Did Trestman say no thanks? Seems he would be the best choice.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618305030 No cherry picking here.

Pinawa is beautiful, love the golf course there too, take lots of balls with you, lol.

That's too bad, LW is a world class ice fishing spot for big pik.

That is a great time, if you ever get the chance go see Vance at Trail End Camp and have him take you the river to Eagle Nests and fish all the way back, he prepares a shore lunch with the trimmings for you too, just a great get away for the day and very reasonable. The river is very tricky if you don't know how to navigate it, lots of rocks to rip the bottom end off your boat.

Fished LDB back in August, caught our limit of pik and a few crappie on the Lee River too, first time in 20 years fishing there that we caught crappie, the fishery seems to be doing well.

Just wondering how the walleye bite has been, I'm thinking of heading to Lac Du Bone once the cold spell ends. Feel free to report on any other lakes too, thanks.

close but you forgot the most important parts Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that: the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions. Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". Why are contrary opinions being shouted down when the very definition of consensus states that they are necessary for the science to evolve?

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3537/Will-Donald-Trump-be-impeached-in-his-first-term Now you can follow along

You can look up the definition of settled on your own. To quote Michael Soussan of the UN 'truth isn't fact, it's consensus'.

I couldn't agree more, so let's stop insisting that the science is settled and calling people names (deniers, skeptics, warmists etc.) and get back to work on what matters, getting the science right.

That's just part of everyday business in Merica.

Buzzfeed also reported that Mueller had emails to back it up, that's pretty much game over.