“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Saturday, June 03, 2017

The Holy Church of Sinners, Carbon Dioxide and the Immaculate Conception of Climate Change

Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"

An intelligent presentation on the science and pseudoscience of carbon dioxide

53 comments:

  1. Conservation is a good thing. No one gets hurt or poorer using resources sensibly and responsibly. Practicing conservation is within everyone's grasp. Conservation is rational.

    Religion is not rational. None of it is. It is based on faith, fear, wishful thinking, loathing and the threat of consequences.

    Science is based on intelligent and honest observation. It is rational, based on skeptical observation and precision in thought, logic, skepticism, challenge and careful observation.

    Where is global warming/climate change?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong-o about this-o:

      Religion is not rational. None of it is. It is based on faith, fear, wishful thinking, loathing and the threat of consequences.

      It is based on experience.

      Those lacking the experience turn to the other items mentioned.

      See: all the authors I've mentioned over the years.

      I'm off to bed....

      Cheers !

      Delete
    2. Based upon Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson's past experiences ...

      bobal Mon Sep 01, 05:20:00 PM EDT

      Rat's a gentleman.

      With his own way of thinking about things.
      ...

      While with Rat, you are always eager to hear what he has to say.


      That is what the "Draft Dodger" thought, then.
      Now, he no longer remembers what he thought, then.

      His window of memory, it has closed, for the duration.







      Delete
  2. .

    Science is based on intelligent and honest observation. It is rational, based on skeptical observation and precision in thought, logic, skepticism, challenge and careful observation.


    The principles of science are as you describe them. The practice of science not so much especially when it comes to highly complex, theoretical issues like climate or why and how the universe is held together. Here, it shares some of the same negative human instincts and prejudices as any other 'job', or career if you like; pride, vanity, ambition, conformity, consensus bias, jealousy, hubris.

    .

    ReplyDelete

  3. President Trump signed an order keeping the American Embassy in Tel Aviv rather than moving it to Jerusalem as he promised during last year's campaign, aides said Thursday, disappointing many Israel supporters

    Mr Trump puts "America First" and it is disappointing many Israel supporters , who do not put "America First".

    That Mr Trump LIED on the campaign trail, well, that is par for Mr Trump.

    Stay the Course !

    ReplyDelete

  4. ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — The White House and a Russian state-owned bank have very different explanations for why the bank’s chief executive and Jared Kushner held a secret meeting during the presidential transition in December.

    The bank maintained this week that the session was held as part of a new business strategy and was conducted with Kushner in his role as the head of his family’s real estate business. The White House says the meeting was unrelated to business and was one of many diplomatic encounters the soon-to-be presidential adviser was holding ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration.

    The contradiction is deepening confusion over Kushner’s interactions with the Russians as the president’s son-in-law emerges as a key figure in the FBI’s investigation into potential coordination between Moscow and the Trump team.


    The bank is under US sanctions, if Mr Kushner was 'talking business", he was committing a crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Maybe not as egregious a crime as was committed by Lt Gen Flynn, but ....

      Delete

  5. Still no comment upon Goldman Sucks paying the Socialists of Venezuela to make Venezuelan oil a vital US National Interest.

    The Socialist took $300 million USD of that money, and bought guns and bullets to 'put down' the democratic forces aligned against the Socialists.

    Democracy in Venezuela, not in the US National Interest, not any more.
    Having the Socialists pay the interest on their massive debt to Goldman Sucks ...
    The US will go to any extreme to protect those oil exports.

    Venezuelan opposition condemns Goldman for $2.8 billion bond deal


    The New York-based investment bank came under fire from Venezuelan politicians and protesters in New York opposed to Maduro, who said the deal provided the cash-strapped government hundreds of millions of dollars in badly-needed hard currency. The deal, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, made Goldman complicit in alleged human rights abuses under the government, they said.

    "As hard as it may try, Goldman Sachs ... cannot put lipstick on this pig of a deal for Venezuelans," the head of the opposition-led congress Julio Borges said.


    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-goldman-sachs-idUSKBN18Q1D6

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Venezuelans are furious with Goldman Sachs for buying the country's government bonds last week, which critics say gives a lifeline to an incompetent government that is starving its people.


      Goldman confirmed the purchase Tuesday morning after the Wall Street Journal first reported it.


      http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/30/news/economy/goldman-sachs-venezuela/



      So much for the US having no National Interest in Venezuela.


      Delete


  6. WASHINGTON - While other world leaders have strongly condemned President Donald Trump's decision to abandon the Paris climate accord, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday he won't judge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. World leaders? Right! They are only leaders of their own little domains that have been totally destroyed by blind political correctness.

      Delete

    2. Yeah, I guess that is why Mr Trump went to Italy, to meet with himself, not the G7


      President Trump attends G-7 meetings in Italy
      -May 26, 2017
      President Donald Trump continued his marathon of meetings with world leaders Friday on the fifth stop of his overseas trip in Taormina, Italy, ...

      Delete
    3. "World" leaders who join nifty little clubs so they can use other people's money.

      Delete

    4. That you would characterize the Trump family foreign travel program in such a manner, MOME, disheartening, to be sure.

      That Mr Trump took his wife, daughter and son-in-law on a nifty club vacation, paid i full by US taxpayers, who are already almost $20 trillion in debt, true enough.
      But those folks are integral to his "Management Style" of being the "Big Man" at the meeting of the little club we know as the G7.

      Guess Mr Trump was just "Priming the Pump", buying all that JP4.



      Delete
  7. Where is global warming/climate change?

    It's a religion. An intolerant one at that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Mr Trump, he's a believer.


      President Donald Trump does believe in climate change and that humans have a role in it, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview on "State of the Union."
      "President Trump believes the climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of the equation," Haley said Saturday, answering a central question in the wake of his decision to withdraw the country from the Paris climate accord.

      Trump "knows that it's changing and that the US has to be responsible for it and that's what we're going to do," she continued, adding that withdrawing from the Paris agreement won't change the country's commitment to curbing climate change.

      "Just because the US got out of a club doesn't mean we aren't going to care about the environment,"


      The full interview will air Sunday.



      Now I would never say that Nikki Haley is a liar, would you?

      Delete
  8. John Kerry told me this morning that my grandkids will all have asthma because the US pulled out of his and Obamas kumbaya moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When did Mr Kerry become a "reliable source" ?

      Well, it must be admitted, he flipped and flopped on issues a lot less than has Mr Trump.
      But then, Mr Kerry flipped and flopped on the campaign trail ...

      Mr Trump waited until after he was elected to do his gymnastic routine.

      Delete
  9. .

    Trump says, he pulled out of the Paris Accord because the whole world was laughing at us for being a pat of it.

    Well, it seems some are laughing at us now we pulled out. Putin smiling broadly, says, "Don't worry, be happy." Now, we can blame climate change on the US.

    A new meme? I wouldn't be surprised.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's seems most on the left scoff at what Putin says until he says something they like.

    The left is outraged at Trump for pulling out of Obamas club, and some say he did it only for the win and to honor a campaign promise. If he would have stayed in Obamas club, those same folks would be howling about another failure and another failed campaign promise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pulling out of the Accord is a "nothingburger."
      IMO

      Delete
    2. .

      Might make sense if they really needed another Trump broken promise. However, there are so many of them already this one wouldn't be noticed if it wasn't such a clueless decision.

      .

      Delete
    3. Exactly correct, MOME.

      Mr Trump's policy position on 'Climate Change' is now known

      "President Trump believes the climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of the equation,"
      ...
      "knows that it's changing and that the US has to be responsible for it and that's what we're going to do,"
      ...
      "Just because the US got out of a club doesn't mean we aren't going to care about the environment,"


      The Paris Accords, not really meaningful, the Trump Administrations policy, as stated by Nikki Haley, enlightening.

      The US position is that man-made climate change is real, and the US must shoulder its responsibility for it.

      We'll just have to see if that is reality, backed by Executive Orders and Legislation, or just another piece of "Fake News".

      Delete
    4. I agree. We will all be waiting and seeing on a lot of things.

      Delete
    5. .

      Bull.

      All you have to do is take a look at what Trump has done so far with regard to air and water regulations and what he proposes to do with his budget.

      Try doing a little reading boys. All will become clear.

      .

      Delete
  11. .

    Watched the business shows on Fox this morning.

    The were talking about Trump and the Paris Accords. They had a panel with 6 Trumpkins (moderator included) and one rather meek pro-Accord guy.

    Bullshit and bubblegum. I don't know if Fox hires these people because they have drunk the koolaid or because they are so friggin stupid. No facts, all talking points.

    I would have paid to have been included on the panel.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be the first thing you've ever paid for, it would be historic, hardy har.

      How much would you have offered, one is tempted to ask ?

      Not that one is asking.

      Delete
    2. You don't know anything about global warming or climate change, Quirk. Why on earth should you be on any panel ?

      No one does.

      We don't have any near enough reliable information yet. It's in that sense that the whole thing is a farce.

      You'd just be passing gas with the rest of them.

      Delete
    3. It does have a kind of reality though because The New Yorker has an article "How Climate Change Saved Steve Bannon".

      If it saved Steve's ass it might save yours.

      Delete

    4. Quirk Fri May 05, 07:47:00 PM EDT
      ....

      Damn, Bob, you are the stupidest ass I know.

      Delete
    5. Think of it this way, Quirk:

      You would be like General Jack "ASS D.A. Daughter Abandonment" Hawkins on a panel about military strategy, tactics, and predictions.

      You would make a world class fool of yourself, it would be a real knee-slapper.

      Save your reputation for later.

      Always looking out for you.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  12. Quirk Schedules Cruz Campaign Reunion

    https://apnews.com/af324236747f41a7aa2f0eab36f050a3/Pence-rallying-GOP-base-in-Iowa,-where-some-cool-to-Trump

    ReplyDelete
  13. Meet the Real Jared Kushner

    He’s a lot tougher than he looks.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/25/jared-kushner-russia-fbi-donald-trump-215191

    ReplyDelete

  14. For more than a decade, Fox News has dominated the cable news ratings with a potent mix of center-right daytime news shows and hard-right prime-time opinion shows—a menu devoured by the largely older, red-state Americans who make up the network’s loyal audience. The network finished 2016 as the most-watched channel in all of basic cable, and in the first months of 2017 it shattered its own ratings records, posting the most-watched quarter in cable TV history. Its remarkable run continued through the first week of this May when it bested center-left CNN and left-leaning MSNBC in key metrics every night.

    But Comey’s firing marked a turning point. The previous night, MSNBC had posted a rare win over Fox News in prime-time ratings among viewers age 25–54, the key demographic for advertisers. The night he was sacked, Fox News plummeted to third in that metric, behind both MSNBC and CNN. Its fortunes have continued to flag since then. Last week, for the first time since Bill Clinton was president, Fox News came in last of the big three cable news networks in weekly prime-time ratings for the 25–54 demographic. MSNBC beat it in total prime-time viewership, too.

    What’s behind the sudden shift? An obvious culprit might seem to be the turmoil within Fox News, which has ousted both its chairman and its biggest star in the past year amid sexual harassment scandals that also chased off several other prominent personalities. No doubt that has played a part. Yet the network appeared to be weathering the storm until quite recently, with Tucker Carlson stepping into the slot long occupied by deposed ratings champion Bill O’Reilly and retaining his enormous viewership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies



    1. No, there’s a more straightforward explanation for Fox’s free fall that has been apparent to habitual channel surfers in recent weeks: that at a time when U.S. political news has never been more interesting, Fox News is becoming boring.

      As critical coverage of Trump among the mainstream media and political insiders has reached a crescendo, CNN and especially MSNBC have become appointment viewing for the politically engaged. Each day now seems to bring new plot twists that rival those of any scripted TV drama. Leakers said Trump shared information he shouldn’t have with Russians. A memo surfaced suggesting that he fired Comey because of his frustration with the FBI’s Russia investigation. He reportedly pushed top intelligence officials to refute charges of Russian collusion. And it has made for nothing if not great TV.

      Yet Fox News’ prime-time hosts—led by its most prominent remaining personalities, Carlson and Hannity—have presented viewers with an alternate reality in which stories embarrassing to the administration can be waved away as either a figment of the “fake news media” or the product of machinations by leakers and liars embedded in the shadowy anti-Trump “deep state.” By steadfastly pooh-poohing the lies, scandals, outrage, and intrigue that have dominated the first months of Donald Trump’s remarkable presidency, the network is all but sitting out the most fascinating domestic political saga of our time. And increasingly, viewers are changing the channel.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/05/fox_news_refusal_to_cover_trump_s_scandals_makes_for_bad_ratings_and_boring.html

      Delete
    4. .

      Ailes out - Scandal

      O'Reilley out - Scandal

      Kelley out - Tired of Ailes and O'Reilly

      Beck long gone - Mental health break

      Carlson and others - Fired for not giving out

      Greta quits - Fed up

      Jamie Lee quits - Tired of the bullshit

      Fox has some good people on their actual news staff Baeir, Shepard, Wallace, etc.

      Beyond that it's Looney Tunes -

      Carlson

      Hannity

      Fox & Friends

      The Five

      Judge Jeanine

      Napolitano

      All B-list. All nutz.

      It's not surprising Fox ratings are dropping.

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      Oh, I forgot, David Assman, weekend host. He was the host of that business panel talking about Trump and the Paris Accord today. What a dick as were the majority on his panel.

      The panel was parroting Trump's talking points and actually appeared to believe them.

      Per Trump, he pulled out of the Accords because...

      1. The world was laughing at us. No, Donald, the world was not laughing at us. It's been laughing at you. However, now most of the world is deadly serious with the exception of maybe Russia and China, Russia because you are the gift that just keeps giving and China because they are continually striving to improve their position in the world in terms of influence and commercial considerations and you have just provided them a big win on both.

      It's not surprising that you might fear others laughing at you given your overriding insecurity issues but please don't try to transfer your pathologies onto the American people.

      2. The Accords would cost the US money and jobs. Nonsense. It would do the opposite. Renewable energy is a growth business worldwide, here, in the EU, in China and in emerging markets. In the US, Solar energy alone already has 2 1/2 times the jobs that are in the coal industry and last year the solar industry expanded by 25% probably 15 times what the overall economy did. And that's just solar.

      We have the resources to be the renewable energy supplier, components and technology, to the world. Instead, we are ceding that leadership to the Chinese.

      3. We need no stinking accords, look at the progress we have made without them Total hypocrisy. Sure we have been doing good. We've made great progress over the past 15-20 years.
      But can we expect that to continue through the next 8? Not likely.

      Trump has assiduously tried to reverse everything Obama did. He has reversed new fuel economy rules, health and safety regulations, clean water and environmental rules, and especially rules on clean coal production. Not only is Trump not committing to improved air and water quality, he is reversing the progress that has been made.

      You will notice that none of the arguments Trump offered up has anything to do with climate change. Just as none of my responses had anything to do with climate change. The Paris Accords are good for the US independent of any climate control considerations. They are good for cleaner air and water and the overall environment and that translates into they are good for health and safety considerations. If we are able to slow a rise in temperatures so much the better.

      Trump is a luddite. The rest of the world as well as most of America will move on without him. He will simply make it more difficult.

      .


      Delete
  15. When did the definition of “leadership” in America become “the courage and foresight to ignore the United States Constitution”?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448248/trump-paris-convention-constitution

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      I would love to see the Senate vote on the Accords as a treaty. Mainly to see if the GOP has the balls to go on the record supporting Trump in his views.

      That being said the National Review article was the usual partisan pap we can expect from that publication. I scanned it and expect I could find an obvious flaw in the analysis in most of the paragraphs. But just to annoy Doug, I won't. Instead, I'll just point this one out...

      The Paris Convention is a treaty. Under the Constitution, a treaty does not become law binding on the United States unless the president submits it to the Senate, obtains two-thirds approval there, and then ratifies the treaty.

      The wording of the paragraph contradicts itself.

      The Paris Convention is a treaty.

      No, it's not. It's a voluntary agreement to work towards some goals.

      a treaty does not become law binding on the United States unless the president submits it to the Senate,

      True, but their is nothing legal, that is, something that can be adjudicated under any laws associated with this agreement. There is nothing in this 'agreement' that is binding on the US. Everything about it is voluntary. The targets were voluntary. The way a country decides to try to achieve those targets is entirely up to the countries involved. And the decisions can be changed, shifted around, dropped, new ones added. All voluntary. Most important, if you don't achieve your targets, nothing happens. Zip. There are no sanctions, no penalties.

      It's like making a personal budget. You set up targets that you want to achieve and you work towards achieving them. When the GOP is not arguing that the agreement is a treaty they are arguing that it is a nothing-burger so why bother. However, only a fool would argue that goals and establishing a path to success in moving towards a target has no value.

      The article points out that it is really the president that ratifies a treaty. The Senate merely approves it before he signs. What the hell is the Senate going to approve on this agreement?

      Face it. Calling the Paris Accords a treaty is merely the last gasp of the Trumpkins trying to rationalize Trump's dumb ass move in rejecting the Accords.

      You want to talk about the Constitution. The same GOP senators who are so jealously guarding their prerogatives when it comes to treaties are the same dicks who willfully abrogated their duty to declare war (or not) even when Obama was begging them to. No way. They didn't even bring it to the floor. This is the same Congress that has been ceding their Constitutional duties to the executive for decades. Why make a decision and accept responsibility for it when you can dump it off on a president who will willingly accept it. Then when things go wrong you simply wash your hands and whine.

      Political? Sure.

      Predictable? Of course.

      They are all dicks.

      .

      Delete
  16. Looks like a terror attack on London Bridge.

    Go to Sky News.

    STOP MOSLEM IMMIGRATION TO USA NOW !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like 3 muzz attack, jumping out of a van and attacking people after running people over.

      Lots of gunfire be Police reported.

      Probably sunni variety, MB variety, is my bet, maybe ISIS, not much known yet.

      Delete
    2. gunfire by Police or the muzz reported

      Delete
    3. Probably sunni variety, MB variety, is my bet,

      Good thing then that Mr Trump sold the sunni Saudi $110 billion in weapons, it sure has secured the Western World from Wahhabi terrorists, not.

      Lighting up the "Orb", just another reality TV showstopper ....

      Delete

    4. Type of folk you were rooting for when they were sending missiles into Israel from Gaza, General Jack ASS D.A. Daughter Abandonment Hawkins.

      Delete
  17. It just can't get better than this ...

    Mattis praises China's efforts on North Korea, dials up pressure on South China Sea
    Reuters -

    SINGAPORE -The United States is encouraged by China's efforts to restrain North Korea but Washington will not accept Beijing's militarization of islands in the South China Sea ..

    Bob Fri Jun 02, 07:03:00 AM EDT

    And Trump's a fool if he thinks the Chinese are going to solve the problem of North Korea for him.


    Guess that means Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson believes that U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is fool, as well.

    "Draft Dodger" Peterson, always demeaning his betters.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Mr Trump had not emboldened those Wahhabi, by both signing that arms deal with the Sauds, then bombing anti-Islamic State forces in Syria ...

      Mr Trump has certainly given the Wahhabi terrorists a "Green Light".


      Delete
  18. Move on, Jack "Daughter Abandonment" Hawkins.

    There's a big terror attack going on....

    Everyone will be breathless waiting to hear you passing gas about that, D. A. Hawkins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Mr Trump had not emboldened those Wahhabi, by both signing that arms deal with the Sauds, then bombing anti-Islamic State forces in Syria ...

      Mr Trump has certainly given the Wahhabi terrorists a "Green Light".

      Delete
    2. And they are certainly taking advantage of the weakness Mr Trump showed, kow towing to those Saudis.

      Doing their bidding in Syria.

      Delete