Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?

[ArcticGranite]

Uncle Buck, Ginja, Stay open to alternative ideas and info. I'm not asking more than that. At times you strike me as Al Gore, the science is settled. It's not. Far from it imo. No disrespect intended. I want to hear opposing views and opinions.

 

[ginjawarrior]

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110926-11-P-0702.pdf

lol having already quoted to you from that link i wont thank you for posting it for me but i must say im struggling to find that sentence in there

"far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s"

go on chuck that phrase in your search and tell me what page it comes from

 

[ArcticGranite]

Here's my thought's so there's no doubt. I think the earth's climate and weather are changing naturally and at the same time, we as man are adding to it. If we stopped ALL fossil fuel emissions and man made green house gas emission it wouldn't amount to a teaspoon from the ocean. We CAN'T change the weather. Mom told me that. To believe otherwise is stupid arrogance, imo. BTW, I also think we should be much better stewards of this earth and as a Hole, stop shitting in our messkits. I do what I can every day to reduce, re-use, recycle.
So- believing what I do, I deduce that there is a politically and not scientifically driven consensus for policy change to curtail CO2 emissions. Why?

 

[UncleBuck]

Uncle Buck, Ginja, Stay open to alternative ideas and info. I'm not asking more than that. At times you strike me as Al Gore, the science is settled. It's not. Far from it imo. No disrespect intended. I want to hear opposing views and opinions.

are you talking about the same john r. christy who found a warming trend and said this? because it kind of defeats the denier view...


"it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[SUP][7]


[/SUP]

 

[UncleBuck]

We CAN'T change the weather. Mom told me that.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Here's my thought's so there's no doubt. I think the earth's climate and weather are changing naturally and at the same time, we as man are adding to it. If we stopped ALL fossil fuel emissions and man made green house gas emission it wouldn't amount to a teaspoon from the ocean. We CAN'T change the weather. Mom told me that. To believe otherwise is stupid arrogance, imo. BTW, I also think we should be much better stewards of this earth and as a Hole, stop shitting in our messkits. I do what I can every day to reduce, re-use, recycle.
So- believing what I do, I deduce that there is a politically and not scientifically driven consensus for policy change to curtail CO2 emissions. Why?

"EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:"

""far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s""
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/...-11-P-0702.pdf

what page did he state that?

 

[ArcticGranite]

lol having already quoted to you from that link i wont thank you for posting it for me but i must say im struggling to find that sentence in there

"far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s"

go on chuck that phrase in your search and tell me what page it comes from

I had to search thru properties of the wuwt article to get that. I quoted it from wuwt. Like you, I don't cotton to reading thru 99 pages.

 

[ArcticGranite]

are you talking about the same john r. christy who found a warming trend and said this? because it kind of defeats the denier view...


"it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[SUP][7]


[/SUP]

IDK, I don't rely on wiki for authority, not that there's anything wrong with that His testimony this summer is what I'm trying to get across. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

 

[ginjawarrior]

I had to search thru properties of the wuwt article to get that. I quoted it from wuwt. Like you, I don't cotton to reading thru 99 pages.

and as i told you from the start WUWT was lying/ misquoted

you then doubled down again and told me how its the IG's own words

you do not have to read the entire document you can simply put those words into the search function on your pdf reader

i can tell you now that they arent there WUWT is lying and has taken you hook line and sinker

 

[ginjawarrior]

I'll stand pat with the EPA Inspector General's quote. The IG acknowledges his own agencies shortcomings in following procedure. Further he's suggested an even more rigorous process. Pretty plain and simple. Maybe you agree with the finding that CO2 is a pollutant?
EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook..."
"However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. "
Regardless, the gem in this article is the Senate Testimony submitted by Dr. Christy.
"Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative
of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate
sensitivity. They rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our
relatively murky field of climate research."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

And I'm the poor consumer of info or believe lies? Bullshit. I read opposing views. I'm open minded like that. Why limit oneself?

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110926-11-P-0702.pdf

go ahead prove to us all how you are actually a good consumer of information and that you never get taken in with lies

 

[UncleBuck]

IDK, I don't rely on wiki for authority, not that there's anything wrong with that His testimony this summer is what I'm trying to get across. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

i relied on wiki only because they posted a direct quote of his, replete with citation, showing that he is a proponent of anthropogenic climate change.

 

[ginjawarrior]

i relied on wiki only because they posted a direct quote of his, replete with citation, showing that he is a proponent of anthropogenic climate change.

the "i dont rely on wiki but will take someones word on a blog as gospel" meme is pretty puzzling to me

 

[abandonconflict]

[h=1]Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?[/h]

Because accepting climate change is not profitable.

 

[UncleBuck]

Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?



Because accepting climate change is not profitable.

ALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGORE

aaaaaa

 

[UncleBuck]

happy new year to everyone.

i've gotta go water some plants now.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?



Because accepting climate change is not profitable.

al gore seems to have done pretty well that way, and so have the carbon credit sellers, and the greenwashers, and the environmental impact study groups, and the sellers of government subsidized solar panels, and the sellers of CFL lightbulbs... looks like the profits only accrue to the proponents of "Climate Change" which makes me wonder what youre selling

 

[ginjawarrior]

Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?



Because accepting climate change is not profitable.

for the baby boomers they would also have to admit their wealth/ legacy was built off damaging the planet

could be a hard thing to do if they believe themselves to be all out nice people

 

[UncleBuck]

al gore...

ALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREAL GOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGO REALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGORE ALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREAL GOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGO REALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGOREALGORE ALGORE

aaaaaa

 

[ginjawarrior]

al gore seems to have done pretty well that way, and so have the carbon credit sellers, and the greenwashers, and the environmental impact study groups, and the sellers of government subsidized solar panels, and the sellers of CFL lightbulbs... looks like the profits only accrue to the proponents of "Climate Change" which makes me wonder what youre selling

lmao so oil companies arent some of the biggest companies in the world and make some of the biggest profits in the world?

"green" next to that is tiny

 

[UncleBuck]

lmao so oil companies arent some of the biggest companies in the world and make some of the biggest profits in the world?

"green" next to that is tiny

but...al gore.