The Environment Thread

[Mark F]

The article shows this... about Trump's appointee through in his own words:
 

Quote

 

Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

 

 

 

Trump's appointee actually admits that his work is without merit, worthless, but useful to his "client" .

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Mark F

[pigseye]

4 hours ago, Mark F said:

The article shows this... about Trump's appointee through in his own words:
 

Trump's appointee actually admits that his work is without merit, worthless, but useful to his "client" .

 

That might be how the article framed it but he was referring to being being able to get an independent panel to agree with the results.

We seen this recently in the Resplandy Ocean Heat Content study that was 'peer reviewed' and published because the results fit the narrative. It took the deniers about 5 minutes to expose the errors in the study and the results had to be changed, yet almost nobody reported on the revised findings. It's sad but true, it's not about the science, it's about the message. 

[Mark F]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

That might be how the article framed

You didn't read it did you? You often seem to not read articles at all, but still respond, with things you just make up.

It's not "framed"

It's a direct quote of an email that your man sent to his "client".

 

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Mark F

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

13 minutes ago, pigseye said:

That might be how the article framed it but he was referring to being being able to get an independent panel to agree with the results.

That is not framing it- it's a quote. One that is very clear in it's context.

 

15 minutes ago, pigseye said:

We seen this recently in the Resplandy Ocean Heat Content study that was 'peer reviewed' and published because the results fit the narrative. It took the deniers about 5 minutes to expose the errors in the study and the results had to be changed, yet almost nobody reported on the revised findings. It's sad but true, it's not about the science, it's about the message. 

That's kind of what happens in peer review and the scientific process- it's a moving target, you are always correcting errors as new data comes up. just because some data is wrong doesn't mean you through out ALL the research. 

[Mark F]

Quote

 

March 5, 2019

Dear Mr. President:

We write to you as former US national security leaders to offer our support to our uniformed military, civilian national security professionals, and members of the scientific community, who across the past four Administrations have found that climate change is a threat to US national security.

Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts. In this context, we are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change. This includes second-guessing the scientific sources used to assess the threat, such as the rigorously peer-reviewed National Climate Assessment, and applying that to national security policy.  Imposing a political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments that depend on them, will erode our national security.

 

Signed by these members of the environmental wacko cult of climate change hoaxers:

Hon. Ray Mabus
Former Secretary of the Navy

Vice Admiral Richard Truly, USN (Ret)
Former Administrator of NASA

General Gordon R. Sullivan, US Army (Ret)
Former Chief of Staff of the US Army

Admiral Paul Zukunft, USCG (Ret)
Former Commandant of the Coast Guard

Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, USN (Ret)
Former Commander, US Pacific Command

General Stanley McChrystal, USA (Ret)
Former Commander, US and International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan

Admiral James Stavridis, USN (Ret)
Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe

Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, USA (Ret)
Former Deputy National Security Advisor to the President of the United States

Nancy Soderberg
Former Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

Tom Hicks
Former Acting Under Secretary of the Navy and Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy for Management

Hon. Sharon Burke
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy

Hon. John Conger
Former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment

Hon. David Goldwyn
Former Assistant Secretary of Energy and Special Envoy for International Energy Affairs

Eric Rosenbach
Former Chief of Staff, Department of Defense, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Security

Hon. Miranda AA Ballentine
Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, Environment, and Energy)

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret)
Former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment

Leon Fuerth
Former National Security Adviser to the Vice President of the United States

Hon. Alice Hill
Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Resilience Policy, National Security Council

Dr. Geoffrey Kemp
Former Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

Major General Randy Manner, USA (Ret)
Former Acting Vice Chief, National Guard Bureau

General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.)
Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command

General Ron Keys, USAF (Ret)
Former Commander, Air Combat Command

Lieutenant General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret)
Former Chief of Staff, US Central Command

Vice Admiral Philip Cullom, USN (Ret)
Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet Readiness and Logistics

Lieutenant General Kenneth E. Eickmann, USAF (Ret)
Former Commander, Aeronautical Systems Center, Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command

Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Ret)
Former Deputy Commander, US Strategic Command

Vice Admiral Robert C. Parker, USCG (Ret)
Commander, Coast Guard Atlantic Area

Lieutenant General Norm Seip, USAF (Ret)
Former Commander, 12th Air Force

Hon. Sherri Goodman
Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security)

Hon. Richard Morningstar
Former Ambassador to the European Union

Greg Treverton
Former Chair, National Intelligence Council

Major General Richard T. Devereaux, USAF (Ret)
Former Director, Operational Planning, Policy and Strategy, Headquarters U.S. Air Force

Major General Jerry Harrison, USA (Ret)
Former Chief, Office of Legislative Liaison, Army Staff

Rear Admiral Sinclair M. Harris, USN (Ret)
Former Commander, United States Fourth Fleet

Rear Admiral Leendert R. Hering USN (Ret)
Former Commander, Navy Region Southwest

Rear Admiral Michael G. Mathis, USN (Ret)
Chief Engineer to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition)

Rear Admiral Fernandez L. Ponds, USN (Ret)
Commander, Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) 3

Major General Jeff Phillips, USA (Ret)
Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association

Rear Admiral Kevin Slates, USN (Ret)
Former Director of Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, U.S. Navy

Rear Admiral Michael Smith, USN (Ret)
Former Commander, Carrier Strike Group 3

Rear Admiral David W. Titley, USN (Ret)
Former Oceanographer & Navigator, US Navy

Rear Admiral Jonathan White, USN (Ret)
Former Oceanographer & Navigator, US Navy

Joe Bryan
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy)

Captain James C. Goudreau, SC, USN (Ret)
Former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy)

Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret)
Former Deputy United States Military Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Military Committee

Brigadier General Steven Anderson, USA (Ret)
Former Director, Operations and Logistics Readiness, Headquarters, Department of the Army

Brigadier General Joseph R. Barnes, USA (Ret)
Former Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Army

Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, USA (Ret)
Former Commander, Special Operations Command-Africa

Brigadier General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret)
Former Commanding General Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island

Brigadier General Robert Felderman, USA (Ret)
Former Deputy Director of Plans, Policy and Strategy, United States Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command

Brigadier General Gerald E. Galloway, USA (Ret)
Former Dean of the Academic Board, US Military Academy, West Point

Brigadier General Carlos Martinez, USAF (Ret)
Former Mobilization Assistant, Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer
Office of the Secretary of the Air Force,

Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, USA (Ret)
Former Commanding General, Southeast Regional Medical Command

Joan VanDervort
Former Deputy Director, Ranges, Sea, and Airspace, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness)

Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret)
Former Chief of Staff to the US Secretary of State

Commander David Slayton, USN (Ret)
Executive Director, the Arctic Security Initiative, the Hoover Institution

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Mark F

[pigseye]

18 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

That's kind of what happens in peer review and the scientific process- it's a moving target, you are always correcting errors as new data comes up. just because some data is wrong doesn't mean you through out ALL the research. 

lol, maybe in the world of climate pseudo-science but not in the real peer review process. It has nothing to do with new data coming in, it's about ensuring that the work you have done and the conclusions you reached are verifiable. The peer review process completely failed to it's job in the Resplandy case because the reviewers were totally biased and only cared about the results, not the method and actually math. 

[Mark F]

20 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

That's kind of what happens in peer review and the scientific process- it's a moving target, you are always correcting errors as new data comes up. just because some data is wrong doesn't mean you through out ALL the research. 

I am not going to check any of his material any more, it is without exception worthless. Either does not say what he represents, or is from a crank.  Complete waste of time.

It's imossible to know if this person actually believes his/her nonsense, or is just having a good time stirring up ****.

No reputable person, institution, agency, scientist, business, government, in the world, doubts the science.

Even the oil giants acknowledge the truth.

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Mark F

[pigseye]

I just keep up with the science, unlike some who listen to the headlines,

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/high-profile-ocean-warming-paper-get-correction

 

Quote

Scientists behind a major study on ocean warming this month are acknowledging errors in their calculations and say conclusions are not as certain as first reported.

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

I just keep up with the science, unlike some who listen to the headlines,

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/high-profile-ocean-warming-paper-get-correction

Scientists behind a major study on ocean warming this month are acknowledging errors in their calculations and say conclusions are not as certain as first reported.

 

Good, looks like the peer review process is working as intended.

 

Thanks for your contribution.

[pigseye]

52 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Good, looks like the peer review process is working as intended.

 

Thanks for your contribution.

No problem, and a good thing Nic Lewis is around to keep the warmists honest 😉

[Mark F]

Quote

 

Norway's huge sovereign wealth fund is dumping 134 oil and gas stocks.

The Norwegian government announced Friday that the fund, which is worth about $1 trillion, will gradually phase out its investments in exploration and production companies including Chesapeake Energy (CHK) and China's CNOOC (CEO).

But it will continue to invest in oil companies that are developing big renewable energy businesses, such as BP (BP) and Shell (RDSA).

The goal of the divestment is to "reduce the vulnerability of our common wealth to a permanent oil price decline," Norwegian finance minister Siv Jensen said in a statement.

"Today's decision by the oil fund is even more impactful than when they divested from coal in 2015," said Mark Campanale, the CEO of Carbon Tracker, a think tank that studies the impact of climate change on investments.

"[It] shows that while the fund was initially built on revenue from oil and gas, the ministry of finance understands that the future belongs to those who transition away from fossil fuels," he added.

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mark F

[blue_gold_84]

That is massive.

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by blue_gold_84
tweets added

[Mark F]

America's response to World War II   climate change, was the most extraordinary mobilization of an idle economy in the history of the world. During the war  (on climate change) 17 million new civilian jobs were created, industrial productivity increased by 96 percent, and corporate profits after taxes doubled. The government expenditures helped bring about the business recovery that had eluded the  New Deal. (Climate) War needs directly consumed over one-third of the output of industry, but the expanded productivity ensured a remarkable supply of consumer goods to the people as well.

America was the only economy that saw an expansion of consumer goods despite wartime rationing. BY 1944,  2030, as a result of wage increases and overtime pay, real weekly wages before taxes in manufacturing were 50 percent higher than in 1939.  2020. The war also created entire new technologies, industries, and associated human skills.

The war (on climate change) brought full employment and a fairer distribution of income. . Wages increased; so did savings. The war (on climate change)  brought the consolidation of union strength and far-reaching changes in agricultural life. Housing conditions were better than they had been before.

 

WW2 summary updated to reflect new most serious threat.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mark F

[pigseye]

3 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

That is massive.

 

Finally something that actually makes sense and just might get things moving in the right direction. 

[pigseye]

3 hours ago, Mark F said:

America's response to World War II   climate change, was the most extraordinary mobilization of an idle economy in the history of the world. During the war  (on climate change) 17 million new civilian jobs were created, industrial productivity increased by 96 percent, and corporate profits after taxes doubled. The government expenditures helped bring about the business recovery that had eluded the  New Deal. (Climate) War needs directly consumed over one-third of the output of industry, but the expanded productivity ensured a remarkable supply of consumer goods to the people as well.

America was the only economy that saw an expansion of consumer goods despite wartime rationing. BY 1944,  2030, as a result of wage increases and overtime pay, real weekly wages before taxes in manufacturing were 50 percent higher than in 1939.  2020. The war also created entire new technologies, industries, and associated human skills.

The war (on climate change) brought full employment and a fairer distribution of income. . Wages increased; so did savings. The war (on climate change)  brought the consolidation of union strength and far-reaching changes in agricultural life. Housing conditions were better than they had been before.

 

WW2 summary updated to reflect new most serious threat.

Why do you always have to be so dramatic? 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, Mark F said:

America's response to World War II   climate change, was the most extraordinary mobilization of an idle economy in the history of the world. During the war  (on climate change) 17 million new civilian jobs were created, industrial productivity increased by 96 percent, and corporate profits after taxes doubled. The government expenditures helped bring about the business recovery that had eluded the  New Deal. (Climate) War needs directly consumed over one-third of the output of industry, but the expanded productivity ensured a remarkable supply of consumer goods to the people as well.

 America was the only economy that saw an expansion of consumer goods despite wartime rationing. BY 1944,  2030, as a result of wage increases and overtime pay, real weekly wages before taxes in manufacturing were 50 percent higher than in 1939.  2020. The war also created entire new technologies, industries, and associated human skills.

 The war (on climate change) brought full employment and a fairer distribution of income. . Wages increased; so did savings. The war (on climate change)  brought the consolidation of union strength and far-reaching changes in agricultural life. Housing conditions were better than they had been before.

 

WW2 summary updated to reflect new most serious threat.

 

48 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Why do you always have to be so dramatic? 

I thought it was the perfect equivalent. I fail to see him being "so dramatic". 

[Mark F]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

I thought it was the perfect equivalent. I fail to see him being "so dramatic". 

right, the future without drastic action will be at best, horrible. Sadly, All just to save the profits of some oil companies, mid Eastern dictators,  and Putin and his gang.

The oil companies will be out of business in twenty years, but the current CEOS' of them will all be wealthy due to compensation based on this quarter's profit.

The wealthy will be fine, they'll be living as they do now in the third world, behind huge walls, with armed guards. Not much will change for them.

The rest of humanity, more like Darfur. Think migrant problems are bad now? Drop in the bucket compared to tens of millions of desperate people that will be descending upon the wealthy nations.

The "free market" (which with respect to oil, does not exist) will not get this done.

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mark F

[TrueBlue4ever]

3 hours ago, pigseye said:

Why do you always have to be so dramatic? 

[Mark F]

Sea stars, also commonly called starfish, are among the most abundant animals along the U.S. West Coast. But now scientists say an epidemic spurred by warming ocean waters is decimating sunflower sea stars, a critical predator in kelp forests. The sea stars’ collapse could wipe out the shallow water ecosystems that provide a home for seals, sea otters and commercially important fish.

“The epidemic was catastrophic and widespread,” said Drew Harvell, a marine ecologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who led the new research. “Infectious disease is causing endangerment in not just sea stars but also corals and abalone and other species.”

When the researchers modeled sea surface temperatures with the starfishes’ decline, they found the two were related. Sunflower star population crashes coincided with warm sea surface temperature anomalies, the scientists report. The discovery means warmer temperatures enable the disease-driven plunge of sunflower sea stars, the researchers say. The animals’ potential for recovery is uncertain.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/01/30/west-coast-sea-stars-are-dying-out-fast/

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Mark F

[kelownabomberfan]

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.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

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.”

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.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2c7e8a724c7c

[JCon]

I made the mistake of reading that post above. 🙄

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/

 

[Mark F]

10 minutes ago, JCon said:

I made the mistake of reading that post above. 🙄

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/

 

Invariably turns out to be a waste of time. I stopped doing it.

I did read your article though, thanks for that.

[kelownabomberfan]

Just now, Mark F said:

Invariably turns out to be a waste of time. I stopped doing it.

 

LOL - yes, anything that questions an engrained confirmation bias must be a "waste of time".  We fully understand that.

[kelownabomberfan]

On 2019-03-08 at 12:42 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

I thought it was the perfect equivalent.

Maybe ask a WW2 veteran how "perfect" that equivalent is.  I doubt he/she would agree with you.

[kelownabomberfan]

On 2019-03-08 at 3:30 PM, Mark F said:

right, the future without drastic action will be at best, horrible. 

 

I just don't share this sense of sheer hopelessness and doom.  I've seen too many scams come and go, and this is just yet another scam.  This is all about power and control, and nothing to do whatsoever with the environment.