New York City Gives 1.1 Million Students Free Pass From School To Join Climate Change Protests

There is an interesting story in the New York Times that the city has decided that any of its 1.1 million public school students will be allowed to skip classes without penalties to join the global youth climate strikes to be held this Friday. As someone who has long advocated for action on climate change and opposes the Trump environmental policies, I am entirely in support of demonstrations. However, the decision raises some concerns over how the New York Public School system chooses which protests to sanction. Would students be permitted next month to attend anti-climate change protests? If not, this authority is being used in a viewpoint discriminatory manner.

The protests are planned to coincide with political leaders who are in NYC for the United Nations Climate Action Summit and a later General Assembly meeting. Some 2400 events are planned from Sept. 20 through Sept. 27.

This is a big deal for environmentalists and I am happy to see students participating. However, from a free speech standpoint, it would seem that the school system has to have an open policy for participation in any protests if it is to be fair to conservative or other students. Otherwise, this policy is just a reflection of the bias of the school officials. I happen to share their view but I am concerned over how students will be treated with an opposing viewpoint.

What do you think?

483 thoughts on “New York City Gives 1.1 Million Students Free Pass From School To Join Climate Change Protests”

    1. David Benson,
      The study is weakly presented. Twenty-eight countries, only one from northern Africa and none from Latin or South America were surveyed. If the 28 countries, only 30,000 people were surveyed. Yet, one of the bullets notes “Almost 90% of the world believes climate change is real”. They asked 30,000 out of over 6 billion people, most of those being surveyed in developed countries. Not very representative of a ‘worldwide’ view.

      While I am not disputing the concerns about the environment overall, I am perturbed by this so-called study and/or science journalism.

    2. Think of the DMHO spoof that so many people fell for becaue surveys are based on presentation and what people have heard though not necessarily true. I think this survey is near meaningless. What would be more interesting would be to interview the people that were surveyed and see why they felt the way they do.

      DMHO was shown to be extremely dangerous but it is actually dihydromonoxide or water.

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you are a party-pooper. I am sure it is true IRL.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you did nothing to help the situation.

  1. Query: will the “urban youths’ who mugged this Hasidic man in NYC be attending the Climate Change demo?

    perhaps it would aid in controlling world overpopulation if mandatory sterilization of violent crime perpetrators were enacted? I think this might pass constitutional muster under that one case, Buck V Bell? was it? quite easily

    1. Mr Kurtz — Sociologists attempt to explain this. About all I know is that it is much more likely in large cities.

      I am under the impression that looong jail sentences reduces recidivism.


      1. sure David, humans evolved in small bands, and megalopolises bring out the beast inside which preys on the Other.

        If there’s an ideal size to a human community, it would not likely be counted in the millions.
        but things are as they are

  2. What do you think?

    NYC students should change their plans and conduct a climate science science sit in.

    Marching in protest, living a pious life-style to lessen your carbon foot print, pretending to end humanities complete reliance on fossil fuels with the magical-pixie dust of solar/wind while being taxed to mitigate the affects of climate change are wasteful acts of folly that only serve to empower hucksters that are bamboozling scientifically illiterate people who in-turn willing clamor for their own servitude and lower standards of living.

    Climate change on planet Earth is an unmitigated fact.

    Earth’s climate is naturally variable with a host of natural mechanisms (eg solar variability, albedo effect, Earth’s elliptical orbit around Sun, cosmic-ray bombardment, vulcanism, etc) acting as levers of change.

    This change has been occurring for billions of years without humans.

    So-called anthropogenic climate change would have us believe that since the beginning of the industrial revolution (1850’s) humanities CO2 emissions (humanity emits <10% of CO2 present in the atmosphere) are forcing climate change. (HaHa)

    CO2 is a trace, inert, atmospheric gas that is present at levels roughly 400 ppm in volume. CO2 is a prerequisite for life on planet Earth – without it our little green friends on land and in the oceans would not be able to complete the chemical process we call photosynthesis and provide O2 as a waste gas for us to breath.

    When CO2 is used in greenhouse agriculture it's use lessens crop grow time and increases crop yield – CO2 is planet food not a harmful pollutant.

    When people get together at sporting events and concerts in arenas CO2 concentrations easily exceed 2,500ppm without deleterious effect.

    On board US navy fast attack submarines CO2 levels can exceed 10,000ppm without deleterious effect.

    OSHA's confined work space safe work procedures allows for CO2 levels up to 5,000ppm without deleterious effect.

    It takes CO2 levels in excess of 100,000 ppm before potentially causing death.

    Students need to be in school not out on the street being used as useful idiots on parade in support of specious claims of human driven climate change that only serves to further an agenda that will impoverish their standards of living and cede personal choice to anonymous persons/entities.

    1. Personagrata, you should post from National Geographic. See if they back up your specious claims.

  3. Hill,
    “We’re supposed to think it’s all a hoax because Obama bought a beachfront estate.”

    That is a misrepresentation of the argument by going to a non-existent polar opposite. Bringing up Obama’s beachfront estate does not mean climate change is in question; it’s urgency is. If in 12 years the world is coming to an end, or the sea level is going to rise by 20 feet in the near future, why would they buy a beach-front property?

    Obviously, the mainstream rhetoric about climate change is not to be taken seriously if the Obamas are not taking it seriously. So, what should we take seriously? Determining what is legit versus what is politicized is a challenge. Then, to rationally and calmly sort out the already difficult to ascertain details is another challenge.

    Are the conversations of Ocasio-Cortez par for the course on Capitol Hill? Is the rhetoric of Al Gore how our duly elected officials talk about environmental concerns?

    I did look up his property, by the way. It is 3m or 10 ft above sea level. A New York Post article links to the listing at Then an address elevation-finder noted that elevation.

    “You see in the rightwing media bubble, liberals must take an oath of poverty.”

    No one has asserted such a thing. People do not like the condescension and hypocrisy of liberals gnashing their teeth about the proximal dire consequences of climate change, but who then live in enormous houses and fly about in private jets. They ought to walk their talk and not live outsized carbon footprint lives. Buying their way to carbon neutrality is cheating.

    “”Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” she [Ocasio-Cortez] said.”

    This is the type of climate change talk that people hear coming from activists and the government, and sometimes even academia. I cannot take her seriously. Also, the numbers are all over the place: the world is going to end in 12 years, sea levels are going to rise 30″ in 100 years, sea levels are going to rise 10 feet in 100 years, or, as Al Gore asserted, 20 feet in the near future. Also, silly comments like those professed on the global climate change strike website that they’re going to ‘demand an end to the age of fossil fuels and climate justice for everyone’ make it difficult to take ‘activists’ concerns seriously.

    What are people to make of this? That, apparently, no one has any idea what they’re talking about? Most folks barely read the news, let alone academic papers. I, too, am remiss, despite all my wide-ranging reading–I have not carefully read sufficient climate change research.

    What I have read still seems to overlook the complexity of it, choosing to reduce the target ‘fix’ to ‘reducing emissions’. Companies can either voluntarily institute emissions controls or governments can write laws requiring them.

    What then of the economic cost, what with concerns about recession? So companies institute emissions controls, will that actually do much or is that like putting a filter on a cigarette? Are emissions really the main culprit? How do factors like pesticides, herbicides and CAFOs factor in? Wetland destruction? How would individual car purchases be affected? Processed food packaging?

    1. Rose, your comments are all over the map here. It isn’t clear if you recognize Climate Change or not. But you seem to parrot all the viewpoints I mentioned in my comment.

      ‘Yes’, you seem to think that liberals must be squeaky clean in their climate footprint in order to recognize the science of Climate Change. But the science is there whether someone is squeaky clean or not.

      But you imply that by denying Climate Change, people are free to pollute all they want without any guilt. Again, the logic escapes me. Perhaps if I watch Fox New for 10 years, I might get where you’re coming from.

      I noticed your comments yesterday were generally ‘What Abouts’. At one point you sought to blur the lines between Climate Change and Plastic Waste. Plastic Waste ‘is’ a very serious issue. But it’s a different issue than Climate Change. I’m sure you understand that. Still you wanted to blur them into one broad issue.

      1. peter elaborates on the logical fallacy of ad hominem argument. one might say that is always the defense of hypocrites. and yet the point stands., a truth is true whether a liar speaks it or not.

        However valid the reply, with his perpetually insulting and scolding tone, Peter does not endear himself to his interlocutors.

        1. Kurtz, like many liberals I’m out of patience with Climate Deniers. All these ‘What Abouts’ and cynical, twisted arguments have worn me down. This particular column by Turley garnered more cynicism than ever.

          Recent surveys suggest that an increasing number of Republicans secretly believe Climate Change is real. But acknowledging Climate Change is like a bridge-too far-for anyone steeped in Libertarian thought. And that includes you, Rose and Paul.

          1. Peter you reveal that you did not read my comments. Its ok i admit I made a lot of them.

            I made it crystal clear I acknowledge that a) there is a global warming trend and b) there is a man caused factor, among others

            that’s probably sufficient to take me out of the “climate denier” category not that i care to win your approval!

            I am not subscribin however to any faith based belief in ambiguities like “emissions are the dominant cause” of global warming. That’s too vague for me to ascribe to at all. And I doubt they are sure of any such thing whatever that is precisely supposed to mean in the first place

            I also doubt how much “cutting emissions” is possible and if it is impossible to the degree necessary then the focus ought to just be on ADAPTATION which actually presents possible areas of political agreement

            but you guys seem intent on scolding people rather than advancing possible solutions to what i personally believe is going to be probably on the more extreme side of what is projected, in a bad way.

            oh. And I Fully reject any counterproductive feelgood schemes designed only to enrich bureaucrats and speculators like “Green new deal” or “broad based carbon tax” whatever those things are supposed to mean.

            1. Kurtz, the subtext of your comment here is: ‘There’s no point in taking any action at all’.

              Then you wonder why I have lost patience.

              1. Like I said you didnt read, Because you’re not patient.

                Let me introduce you to the subject of ADAPTATION


                mitigation is stuff like carbon tax or whatever. i am not following Democrat dogma on that, sorry. moving on now:

                adaptation is what is to be done to address unavoidable climate change in terms of engineering for example

                read about it here, educate yourself, and quit scolding people because you’re impatient


                there are thousands of papers like this out there, I just picked one that addresses the topic an compares “national adapatation strategies”

                1. Kurtz, you are abiding in senseless dualism. Adaptation and mitigation are both smart strategies and pursuing one does not in any way require or suggest ignoring the other.

                  Why the fixation?

                  1. it’s not senseless dualism anon. all resources are finite. there is a tradeoff.

                    I am not against lowering carbon emissions per se. It’s great to have more efficient and clean energy come online. But the issue is what is being done to plan for adaptation, in my opinion not enough

                    this is colored by my outlook that the projections are probably erring on the conservative side due to what they call “scientific reticence.” some scientists are saying that cascading catastrophic effects will occur within the context framed by paris accords even if they are achieved.

                    hence, time to plan for bad outcomes. and now, not once it’s too late.

                    popular treatments of the topic are generally focused on mitigation and do not probe adaptation hardly at all. initially the subject was a bunch of schoolkids protesting so I just thought I might pitch my idea for what people should actually insert into the conversation which might be timely and relevant and often ignored

                    1. Mitigation and adaptation as strategies don;t somehow double up on resources. Viewed properly and done smartly they are two sensible and complementary paths, not duplications..

              2. Hill,
                “the subtext of your comment here is: ‘There’s no point in taking any action at all’.”

                What did Kurtz say that made you come to that conclusion?

            2. Kurtz, a carbon tax is exactly what it says and aims to encourage carbon free energy usage. It is supported by conservative/GOP economists and is in use in many countries around the globe.

              1. I’m aware that it has its advocates many of whom are wise and reasonable people.

                Nonetheless for my part I do not support it. Partly because I think probably it is already past the tipping point and change will be more extreme than anticipated. Big diversionary mitigation efforts will subtract time and energy from adaptation efforts.

                To put it differently, I think we are past ounces of prevention on this and need to focus on readying pounds of cure.

          2. Hill,
            Setting aside the debate on the need to do anything regarding the climate; what would be wrong with for example the state of California going full-tilt Green New Deal and based on their results, implement it nationwide? That’s right. It doesn’t make any sense, because if the entire country isn’t on board, then the people of California will have suffered in vain. Guess what, it also doesn’t make sense if the entire planet isn’t on board either; especially countries like China and India.

            1. Olly, China is going all out for solar power. They are now the world’s leader. China knows the pollution in its cities is unsustainable.

              Converting to clean energies shouldn’t be thought of as a net-negative. For every loser there will be a winner. Billions in new wealth can be created. But for years Republicans have resisted new infrastructure projects. Such projects would get in the way of tax cuts which Republicans feel are more important.

              1. Converting to clean energies shouldn’t be thought of as a net-negative. For every loser there will be a winner. Billions in new wealth can be created.

                Ever heard of the Broken Window Fallacy?

                In summary, even if breaking the window were to increase production in the short run, the act cannot maximize true economic well-being in the long run simply because it will always be better to not break the window and spend resources making valuable new stuff than it is to break the window and spend those same resources replacing something that already existed.

                1. Olly, I don’t know what you think we’d be ‘breaking’. Oil and gas are old and very dirty technologies. Even if Climate Change weren’t an issue, oil and coal still create toxic waste. What’s more, oil has a tendency to spill from tankers and ruptured pipelines. The mining of coal creates a toxic ash that leeches into streams.

                  There is really no logical reason to stick with either of these sources. The power industry has already been phasing out coal in favor of natural gas. And autos could go completely electric in the not-so-distant future when Charles Koch is dead.

                    1. Peter, Koch may be advocating for his thing but he is not stopping electric vehicles from doing there thing. Do you think he is out there unscrewing all the plugs people plug into when on the road? He advocates his beliefs much like the electric cars advocate theirs. Apparently for you to be happy only one side that you agree with should be able to advocate. You must hate free speech and competition.

                      You welcome a Chinese style government.

                  1. There is really no logical reason to stick with either of these sources. The power industry has already been phasing out coal in favor of natural gas.

                    Because your mind isn’t wired for logical thinking doesn’t mean there is no logical reason. In your world, logical reasons are what you might discover as a consequence of your emotional thinking.

                    If you want to discover the logical reasons before you take your leap of faith, make a list of everything that will happen if you turned off oil and coal tomorrow. If you are an honest person, the list will be lengthy and astronomically expensive.

                    1. Olly, we’re not going to ‘turn it off tomorrow’. But phasing out coal and oil over the next 10 years is a certainly a worthy objective. Coal, one should note, is already on its way out.

                      Olly, it’s ridiculous the way you condescend to me with these red herring arguments. Apparently you fancy yourself as a pragmatic figure. In reality you’re just another Trumper enforcing rightwing talking points.

                    2. Hill,
                      You said, There is really no logical reason to stick with either of these sources. My turn it off tomorrow point was to try to get you to think logically. If successful, you’d prove your own assertion false, but finally connect with that left-half of your brain. That’s a win-win proposition. Sorry brother, but I regret to inform you that connection ain’t ever going to happen.

                    3. ” Coal, one should note, is already on its way out.”

                      Coal has been on its way out for years and in that time interval has gotten cleaner.

                      This movement away from coal occurred way before this latest obsession with climate change became so crazy and before carbon credits would have been the cause for such movement away from coal. Why is that so? What caused the change?

              2. China is starting many nuclear reactors. and its still running tons of coal.
                meanwhile the US has started few new reactors and killed off some that were started. little progress.

                Meanwhile, solar solar solar. Why are you guys are fixiated on solar. which is actually the most expensive energy replacement technology? Is it because Barry’s buds liked it? Just askin

                gas hydro and nuclear are the most cost effective. solar is even more expensive than wind. solar, it’s the worst, the least efficient, in case you were wondering


                there are other reasons why fools prefer solar and wind over nukes and gas and hydro. habitat loss spooks them on hydro, gas “sounds bad” regardless of the facts, and nuclear energy is waaay to spooky

                that’s my summary of what i have heard from the average joe on this topic and I have wasted plenty of time talking to people about it.

                building safe nuclear capacity is key but the outlook is grim


                1. “Obama said, “We supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades.” He is right that it’s been that long since a new nuclear reactor has been licensed. However, because it takes so long to construct nuclear power plants, the most recent plant actually opened in 1996.

                  The experts we spoke with, both those who support nuclear power and those who oppose it, said that Obama’s statement was largely accurate, given that the last time a nuclear reactor received federal approval was 1978. And, his administration has so far supported the recent approval of new reactors in Georgia with $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees.

                  We rate Obama’s statement Mostly True.”


                    1. I am serious. See the brookings institute study. That’s the facts. Solar is the weakest alternative not the best. It should get zero subsidies and all that jive.

                    2. Solar is probably a waste in my neck of the woods, being one of the cloudiest locales in the nation. Ugh. Gray skies are a drag.

                2. Kurtz, I googled your claim that solar is the ‘most expensive power source’. Either you are lying or your information is old. All the entries that popped up on Google indicate that the costs of solar are falling even without subsidies. According to this article from USA Today, solar and wind are becoming very affordable.

                  Kurtz, I’m not sure we can trust any claims you make. Anon and I recall that week you kept asserting that the N Y Times wasn’t covering the Hong Kong protests. That was a blatant lie.


                  1. I don’t seek your trust. And your google skills were not needed either, not for that one. I gave you a citation and a link to support for my assertion which was a study from Brookings Institution. All you needed to do was go read the chart.

                    You ignored it. Go find it and look it up. If you can debunk Brookings go ahead. Find the link in my posts, it’s there. If you just google brookings and energy you will get too much information.

                    Don’t change the subject

              3. Ha — he said

                “Converting to clean energies shouldn’t be thought of as a net-negative. For every loser there will be a winner. Billions in new wealth can be created.”

                i said more than once, rewarding speculators is not the objective here. and this guy calls me a liberterian! I am no such thing but you sure sound like one. Are you dialing in from “Galt’s Gulch?”

                he said

                “But for years Republicans have resisted new infrastructure projects.”

                wrong, the Donald campaigned on one, may still get passed even late in his term.

                “Such projects would get in the way of tax cuts which Republicans feel are more important.”

                He knows how Republicans “feel”
                sounds like Natch and some of her projections of insight into other people’s minds.

                certainly there is a budget and a big public debt and ongoing deficit and it is very complicated. but they never miss a chance to oversimplify thus to demonize their adversaries.

                1. Kurtz, that last Republican tax cut surged the deficit and benefitted only the very rich. So who are you trying to kid?? Even if Trump wanted infrastructure, Mitch McConnell doesn’t.

                  1. According to Peter spending has nothing to do with the deficit.

                    The tax cut on corporations had nothing to do with the increase in GDP?

                    Highest number of jobs ever. The Food Stamp President must be quite disappointed.

                    1. Alan, what are you babbling about???? Again, your mental state is becoming a source of speculation. It seems you always chime in with something twisted or irrelevant.

                      You might do well to focus more on sound arguments and less on nasty insults. For you the nasty insults become a path to nowhere. Nowhere do you ever make sense.

                    2. Peters response doesn’t discuss the situation rather makes crazy sstatements.

                      I wonder what is wrong with assuming that spending increases deficits. I guess that statement and the others went against his faith based religion..

                  2. The GOP killed what was left of Trump’s BS on “infrastructure” promise.

                    With the Wall, “great medical”, a balanced budget (“easy), and a “middle class tax cut” in 2018, this guy promises anything and delivers on nothing except that old GOP standby, budget busting tax cuts for the rich. But the true believers here are still in line.

                  3. clearly you guys arent into this. it’s just a game, every day knock down trump over X subject. Trump is barely on the horizon of any of the things I have been talking about

                    I am interested in climate change and renewable energies. you can get in on the conversation and it’s nuances or go back to the old point scoring BS on some other thread.

                    I had another post about fusion research breakthroughs and the filter ate it. Maybe too many links. It doesn’t matter, clearly if I bring up something complicated, it will just get broken down into an antitrump repartee

                    did you know T Boone Pickens was a big sustainable energy investor? Yeah the Republican and oil man

                    Life is complicated and people are not just caricatures!


            2. Of course the entire world – except us – is on board. That’s what the Paris Agreement is.

              1. It’s a virtue-signaling agreement without teeth. Note these statements:

                – The achievement by a party of its NDCs is not a legally binding obligation.

                – There are no penalties for noncompliance.

                – The issue of which provisions to make binding was a central concern for many countries, in particular the United States, which wanted an agreement the president could accept without seeking congressional approval.

                – Because the agreement does not include binding emission targets, or binding financial commitments beyond those contained in the UNFCCC, and can be implemented on the basis of existing law, President Obama chose to approve it by executive action.

                – While this does not appear to legally preclude a party from reducing the ambition of its NDC, such a step would be seen by most countries as deviating from the spirit of the Paris Agreement.

                Here’s a shocker: Delegates adopted rules and procedures on mitigation, transparency, adaptation, finance, periodic stocktakes, and other Paris provisions. But they were unable to agree on rules for Article 6, which provides for voluntary cooperation among parties in implementing their NDCs, including through the use of market-based approaches.

                  1. I would start by examining the mechanism of enforcement. There is none without the establishment of a global entity capable of applying economic force, which would ultimately require military force. That would just be another form of imperialism and we should have learned by now, that model is a disaster. This is of course something the geniuses knew from the get go. So if they knew that, then ask yourself what’s the motive?

                    1. And once you figure out the real motive, then you should begin to question all the “data” being used to coerce countries (and their people) towards this unfeasible agreement.

                    2. Olly, that’s not an answer. You’re dodging the question of what you would do or suggest. No one ha suggested a police force. The Accord is entirely voluntary. Do you want a police force?

                      PS The “data” is produced by thousands of scientists around the world. Who’s running that conspiracy?

                    3. You asked: How would you start genius?

                      I answered: I would start by examining the mechanism of enforcement.

                      To which you replied: Olly, that’s not an answer. You’re dodging the question of what you would do or suggest.

                      LOL! You’re not stupid or lacking reading comprehension skills. In other words, you’re not Hill. That is a direct response to the question that was asked. It just happened to be an inconvenient answer for which you know is a problem. If the accord is entirely voluntary, then each country will do what is in their national interests.

                      So you must ask yourself if this is such an existential threat, why aren’t countries doing this anyway? Is it lack of “scientific data”? Is it conflicting “scientific data”? Is it resources? Is it poverty? Is it lack of information? Is it poor leadership? Is it cultural? Is it the concentration of wealth? What is the root obstacle?

                      My guess is we do not share the same worldview. I believe everything flows from the individual and their natural rights. When I consider government action on anything, whether it’s my local, county, state or national government, I always ask if the action provides more or less security of my life, liberty and property. I will always consider who will accumulate power, what that power can do and most importantly, who will financially benefit. I’m a charitable person, but I do not give away my charity without knowing it will benefit the intended entity.

                    4. Olly, as already pointed out to you, there are no “mechanisms of enforcement”. What are you going to examine.

                      Do you want some?

                      As to why don’t countries behave if this is an existential threat. Really, you don’t know?

                      Try short term self interest, domestic pressures, and in one case, an ignorant f… who pretends there’s no problem.

                      That every nation in the world agreed to the problem and established voluntary goals – while not ideal, or effective enough to solve the problem – is an accomplishment to be built on, not discarded and every man (country) for themselves. That will absolutely not solve it.

                    5. PS Olly – Your “individual rights” beliefs are based on false assumptions about human societies and is useless for solving problems involving billions of people. You may not like that, but reality doesn’t care. There are billions of people and on some problems, like this one, they mostly have to act together whether they like it or not, or no more people.

                    6. Your “individual rights” beliefs are based on false assumptions about human societies

                      Really? Then are these following assumptions from you true or false?

                      Try short term self interest, domestic pressures, and in one case, an ignorant f… who pretends there’s no problem.

                      My beliefs are congruent with the founder’s “assumptions” about human society, human nature, rights and the purpose for government. Prove where those assumptions are false?

                      There are billions of people and on some problems, like this one, they mostly have to act together whether they like it or not, or no more people.

                      No they don’t. They don’t have to act in what you believe should be their own self-interest or anyone else’s. It’s called free will. They can be standing knee deep in water or in an arid wasteland and they still don’t have to act the way you want them to act; even if that means no more people.

                      As you say, You may not like that, but reality doesn’t care.

                    7. Olly, you express a faithfulness to your rigid philosophy as a greater value than solving critical problems challenging the advancement and even survival of fellow humans, including our progeny. Call me crazy, but I don’t share your confidence in either of our philosophy’s being worthy of martyring the future of humanity.

                    8. you express a faithfulness to your rigid philosophy as a greater value than solving critical problems challenging the advancement and even survival of fellow humans, including our progeny.

                      Thank you, it is, but your either/or fallacy will not work. First of all, what can be a greater philosophy to commit yourself to than the equal security of every person’s God-given natural rights? Everything else is subordinate to that. Secondly, no philosophy has been a greater threat to civilization than the one that denies (usually by force) the equal security of rights for some noble cause.

                      I have taken an oath to defend life, liberty and property for the individual. If you truly believe in your philosophy, you would sacrifice any life, liberty and property for the collective. This means philosophically that I am already your ally and you are potentially my enemy. I like my chances.

      2. Hill,
        I haven’t had a TV for over 10 years. Your assumptions do not help your position one bit.

        “But you imply that by denying Climate Change, people are free to pollute all they want without any guilt.”

        What did I write that gave you that idea? I said no such thing.

        I have said in the past that I do think there is something amiss with the environment on many levels. I hesitate at times to use the phrase climate change because of the hysterical rhetoric that accompanies it far too often.

        “At one point you sought to blur the lines between Climate Change and Plastic Waste. Plastic Waste ‘is’ a very serious issue. But it’s a different issue than Climate Change.”

        Not really. They are heavily intertwined. Dealing with one would benefit the other.

        1. Rose, you nailed the issue a few weeks ago when you admitted that Libertarian ideals of small government and low taxes would fall by the wayside if this country really prepared for Climate Change. And that explains why Republicans are loath to acknowledge Climate Change.

          For more than 40 years low taxes and small government have been the pillars of conservative thinking. But those ideals have always been a pipe dream more than anything. A super power nation of 320 million people is not likely to function on a Calvin Coolidge-size government. But reality was never that important to the small government folks.

          So after 40 years of thinking in Calvin Coolidge terms, conservatives can’t possibly imagine big infrastructure projects. ‘Too much government’! That explains why every Trumper on this thread seeks to ridicule and distort the Climate Change issue. Recognizing Climate Change would mean goodbye to Libertarian ideals.

          1. Hill,
            “Libertarian ideals of small government and low taxes would fall by the wayside if this country really prepared for Climate Change.”

            I do not see them as contradictory. The way some people want to enact change is in opposition to small government, but it doesn’t have to be. There can be a happy medium.

            I think you need an adversary because you seem to think people are ridiculing and distorting the issue at hand.when they are not. In what way has anyone distorted or ridiculed concerns about the environment?

    2. Prairie, do your homeowrk. I’m not your tutor. You are complaining that it’s all so complicated but then people are giving too simple answers. OK, it is complicated. That’s why people with PhD in the subject matter should be listened to, not talk show radio hosts. Your unwillingness to deal with it won’t make it go away. You don’t seem like a flake, so you already know that.

      1. Anon1,
        I do do my homework. I do try to read extensively from various points of view to try to understand the broader picture. I am reading the Paris Accords.

        I am not complaining that it is complicated; it is an observation that is overlooked in mainstream discourse. It seems to be simplified to ‘reduce emissions’.

        If a PhD has tunnel vision, that is not helpful and can happen, so it should be guarded against. ‘Even the wise do not know all ends.’ For instance, Bjorn Lomborg has very different ideas on what might be beneficial to dealing with climate change. He is an outsider, it seems, to the main climate change thesis. There are other researchers, not focused on industrial emissions, who should be playing a greater role in the conversation, too.

        I do not listen to talk radio show hosts just like I do not watch TV. I read paper and online news and journal articles. I have not moved into books at present because I have other books I’m currently reading. What I have read, however, indicates the Climate Change focus is rather narrow and focused on industry and its emissions. Why such a narrow focus? I do not think there is a ‘heart’ to environmental problems. Climate is a system that requires a systems approach.

        “Your unwillingness to deal with it won’t make it go away.”

        I do not understand how you have come to the conclusion that I am or have been unwilling to confront environmental problems. What led you to this conclusion?

        1. I am reading the Paris Accords.

          Dear Prairie Rose,

          The Paris Accords are a political document.

          In order to learn about Earth sciences/climate you need to read a scienfitic document.

          Give the following link a click it just may broaden your prospective in regard to Earth’s climate.

          1. Personanongrata,
            Thank you for the link. I do prefer journal articles.

            “The Paris Accords are a political document.”

            That definitely seems to be the case. Nevertheless, I figured I ought to read it so I’d have a broad picture of what the issues, perspectives, actions, and politics are on the issue.

      1. i have no problem with the black lady spouting her negative opinion of asian nail spa workers.

        But, having known some asian nail spa workers, and bosses, personally, it so happens that we have talked business in depth. I will tell the world and this black lady what they think of a lot of their black lady customers. That they are cheap and don’t leave worse tips than white customers. Oh, not every single person fits the type, but there’s a type cast based on facts, and that’s the type.

        See now a white person like a waitress would be very loathe to say such a thing. (although I have heard essentially the same thing). Whites loathe to say it, especially being trained that the “historical persecutions” and “economic impact of discrimination” will be used by black customers to justify being cheap. This is all hearsay of course.

        But in Asians, you have a people who are untroubled by the white-American “legacy of discrimination” having been racially victim to it as well. And yet not pulling that race card out at every turn! And in spa workers, often the “poverty” thing is a joke because some of them have come from places where poverty is rather more severe than what anybody has seen in America. So their sympathies may be less with the usual excuses.




    In a normal world an argument like this would be considered convoluted. But in the Trump era this talking point is a slam-dunk of a debate-ender. The idea seems to be that Climate Change is a hoax because a liberal ex-president bought a beachfront estate.

    The estate in question was listed for $15 million. But Obama may have talked-it-down. One presumes, however, that Obama was smart enough to ask about flooding and erosion. After all, hurricanes are not unheard of in New England.

    Yet in the life of this ‘What About?’, Obama never asked if this estate is vulnerable to rising tides. That thought didn’t cross his mind. ‘Because Obama knows Climate Change is a hoax!’ Or so one would think based on right-wing media.

    Never mind that Greenland is melting. Never mind that the Arctic is now navigable during the summer months. Never mind that global temperatures keep hitting new highs. We’re supposed to think it’s all a hoax because Obama bought a beachfront estate.

    You see in the rightwing media bubble, liberals must take an oath of poverty. ‘Any liberal who gets rich is just a hypocrite. By raising taxes and promoting socialist values, liberals hassle businessmen. Therefore liberals should live like Buddhist monks. They can wear only robes and sandals while owning no consumer goods!’

    These rules are, of course, arbitrary nonsense. But supporters of Donald Trump take these rules quite seriously. It’s a state of mind where ‘What Abouts’ matter more than logic. ‘If one accepts the science of Climate Change, they must live in an abbey and sleep on wooden pillows. Otherwise they’re hypocrites and Climate Change is fake!’

    The link below features a long shot photograph of the beachfront estate in question. One can see the mansion is set back from the shoreline, on higher ground, and buffered by woodlands. So claims that the mansion is ‘doomed’ by rising seas is based on only cynicism. It hinges on the premise that Obama is foolhardy or corrupt.

      1. Paul, what are you referring to??? Sounds like another ‘What About?’

        This time something supposedly uttered by AOC casts further doubt on Climate Change. Though Paul can’t even tell us what context his twisted logic is coming from. It’s just something AOC said.

          1. Paul, where have you been? ..’Phoenix’..??

            Miami experiences low-level street flooding on a regular basis. Google the topic and you’ll see a ‘flood’ of news stories going back several years. Miami sits low on pourous rock which allows the sea to just rise up into streets on even sunny days. Apparently this issue has become increasingly common.

            Parts of Virginia and Maryland have begun to see low-level flooding on a regular basis. So the issue isn’t limited to Miami.



              Late last night Paul commented with:

              “Peter – I am only using AOC’s math for oceans expanding”.

              Realistically random readers would have no clue of what Paul was referring to. So why was Paul so vague?

              Paul’s comment reflects the influence of rightwing media on consumers within that bubble. Conservatives like Paul are exposed to stories that play constantly within said bubble. Therefore Paul assumes that everyone has seen these stories and should know exactly what he is referring to.

              One can see these vague references on the comment threads of this blog every single day; conservatives who presume that some vague reference should suffice as a talking point. Like everyone should know what that reference means, however vague it might be.

              These vague references illustrate how rightwing media dumbs-people-down.

              1. To ignorant people like Peter the only thing that can possibly cause flooding is global warming created by man.

                According to Peter the only cause of global warming or cooling is man. It can’t possibly be nature. The little ice age must have been caused by man and the ice age must have been caused by man. All the cyclical changes between have to be caused by man as well even if man didn’t exist throughout all the cycles.

                The recent flooding can’t possibly have to do with where the moon was located at the time. According to him the moon has no effect on tides.

                According to Peter concrete absorbs water as quickly as dirt so the sewer system and all the concrete can have nothing to do with flooding.

                According to Peter there is no landfill along the florida coast so if one builds a home landfill cannot be part of the problem in some areas.

                Peter’s mind is focused in only one direction and he can only attribute what occurs to man made global warming. He says mother nature has nothing to do with any of these things.

                1. Well, we got the “ignorant” in there.
                  The “stupid” and the “liar” part of Allan’s “debate” can not be far behind.

                  1. Dr. Death, Peter is ignorant about these things and you can see it in what he writes. Are you in competition with him?

                2. Allan’s argument is with 97% of climate scientists and every major scientific organization in the world. What Peter thinks is irrelevant.

                  1. Anon, You do realize that these scientists you cull out of the vast pool of scientists only agree on certain parts and have a lot more doubt than you do about what they believe which is quite different than what you think they believe.

                    Let’s start with AOC’s ideas where the earth will “die” in 12 or so years. Are there 97% in agreement? Of course not. In fact none of them probably agree except if they are pushing something.

                    If I light a fire am I increasing global warming. I think so and that fire is man made. In that context I agree with your 97%. In fact I will agree there is warming since the little ice age. But does that mean man is the main producer of any global warming we see today and nature has nothing to do with any warming we may have seen?

                    Why don’t you provide one sentence that encompasses the belief of all of these 97%. You won’t and you can’t because your lack of knowledge prevents you from doing so and that lack of knowledge is evident to anyone on the blog no matter which side of the climate change argument they take.

                    1. Allan continues to pretend that political people are who his disagreement is with. His disagreement is with the 97% of climate scientists and every major scientific organization in the world, which have all as official policy statements confirmed the existence and threat of AGW.

                      All his nonsense about stuff he knows nothing about is irrelevant.

                    2. Anon, I am waiting for you to tell us in one sentence (or two) what all the climate scientists agree on. If you think they don’t have disagreements with the IPCC report then no one can help you. We all agree that climate change exists. We all agree that since the little ice age the earth has warmed slightly. We all agree that climate is cyclical. We all agree that to some extent man may be causing global warming.

                      They do not agree on the numbers or the signifcance and they don’t agree on the solutions.

                    3. Alan, AOC isn’t saying the ‘earth will die in 12 years’. She’s saying our ability to prepare for Climate Change is about that long. That’s a rapidly closing window.

                      Because of Republican obstruction, and the emphasis conservatives place on tax cuts, our preparedness has been mindlessly stymied. 12 years from now we could reach a point where natural disasters overwhelm our ability to clean up and rebuild.

                      Consider the damage inflicted by Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Then imagine two storms like that hitting in the same season. That should give you an idea of AOC really means. And you might understand that already. But Trump supporters feel a strong need to hopelessly distort this issue.

                    4. “Alan, AOC isn’t saying the ‘earth will die in 12 years’. She’s saying our ability to prepare for Climate Change is about that long. That’s a rapidly closing window.”

                      Let’s use your words here. That means if we don’t do what is needed within 12 years the earth will “die” at a later date.

                      Is that what you think?
                      What is it that must be done within 12 years?

                      Let’s have an intelligent discussion of this.

                    5. Peter Hill – you do realize that even NOAA has said that hurricanes are not affected by climate change.

                    6. “Hill, other than her constituents, who GAF what AOC thinks about AGW?”

                      That is one of the few comments I agree with that Anon has made.

                    7. Anon, I think you’re saying that AOC should not matter in this debate. Yet conservatives like Alan seek to make AOC the face of Climate Change.

                      Conservatives like Alan feel that because AOC is an ethnic Puerto Rican from New York City, with socialist leanings, she is the perfect face to pin on Climate Change. That way Alan can portray the whole issue as one that interests only ‘liberal flakes’.

                      And that’s all we’ve seen from Republicans these last 20 years: ‘An aggressive effort to ridicule and distort the entire issue of Climate Change’.

                    8. “Yet conservatives like Alan seek to make AOC the face of Climate Change.”

                      The left has made her one of the faces of climate change and other things. Just listen to the candidates at the debate and from Obama’s days they have all moved to the left where AOC resides. I can’t help it if Pelosi can’t control her or Nadler or Omar.

                      I can’t figure out where her being Puerto Rican has anything to do with the discussion unless you are trying once again to play the race card which is what seems to be the left’s top card unless it is rape that never happened.

                      I don’t think the science of climate change has much to do with political leanings except when the left wants to control others which is what the carbon tax does. The billionaires fly their private jets all over the world while they want mothers to give up the SUV when she is picking up her own children and a bunch of others. I guess you feel that some of the kids could be put in the trunk. Why do you hate mothers and children so much?

                      I don’t ridicule climate change. I ridicule those that misuse science and misunderstand that there is more than one variable. I ridicule those that wish only to accept climate scientists that believe what they believe.

                      Peter, you have everything wrong.

                    9. Peter – AOC has made herself the face of climate change. She is practically orgasmic when she talks about it.

                3. Alan, you’re more interested in insulting me than making any sense. And that’s been a pattern with you lately. You desperately want to put liberals down, but your faculties are declining. So what we get are increasingly disjointed comments that portray you as a crackpot.

                  1. Peter, if you don’t want to look ignorant don’t make statements that are not true or provide a reasonable argument to the comments that make you look ignoarant.

                    Instead you assume all those on the right are ignorant because they watch Fox News. Doesn’t that sound stupid? Then you complain when someone feeds back the insults you have been throwing out.

                    Everyone believes in climate change. Don’t try to infer that the flooding in Miami must be caused by man made global warming when there are so many variables that exist. That is what makes you sound ignorant.

                4. It’s obvious that the immediate cause of all global warming to any extent at all is solar activity. Like duh.

                  We also understand that solar activity varies. It is a big ball of hydrogen, helium, and nuclear fusion reactions, blowing up wildly. There are mass coronal ejections which can affect Earth with ion radiation and disrupt telecom. and have. Also it is unlikely but theoretically possible that a sufficiently bad MCE could not only disrupt all telecommmunications but actually fry the Earth like a marshmallow in a campfire.

                  We also know there is sunspot activity. there is a solar cycle. It is long observed and relates to cycles of warming or cooling on Earth. We may be headed into a warming cycle. There seems to be some agreement that we are.

                  I asked before what is the causal relationship, if we assume that both the solar cycle and man made emissions are both causal agents. Climate change dogma says that emissions are “Dominant” cause. That is a vague word.. I think they do not know precisely or perhaps have any clear sense of it at all. But most scientists appear to agree on that.

                  Observe however that there seems to be more certainty in the existence of a warming trend, than there is in the explanations for it. THat is enough for me as a human being to reasonably invest my attention not in the whys which are beyond me anyhow and invest more in the “what to dos if it is unavoidable”

                  particularly since there is a range of literature on this and some of it suggests that we have already reached a tipping point that will lead to polar ice melt and methane gas release from tundra and deep ice. these would be bad, and according to some models they are inevitable. If so then things like “Carbon tax” may be whistling past the graveyard

                  Hence I advocate focusing less on mitgation schemes and focusing more on what to do in terms of ADAPTATION

                  I can’t seem to advance this discussion much here on this blog. I get the worst treatment from the usual assortment of liberals who don’t like it that I dare to mention solar activity at all.

                  For these people it’s akin to religion. Deny the faith, face the tongs! The fact and detail oriented questions of what to do, are just boring for them, and like peter said they’re tired of all the cynics who disbelieve!

                  1. “I can’t seem to advance this discussion much here on this blog. I get the worst treatment from the usual assortment of liberals who don’t like it that I dare to mention solar activity at all.”

                    Kurtz, we don’t always agree but we can discuss and accept the fact that none of us have all the information. These faith based climate alarmists do not think. Maybe it is because thinking requires energy and they don’t want their thinking to contribute to global warming.

                    I’m in the midst of an argument that has continued an obsessive length of time with a person that doesn’t know very much about what he talks about nor can he focus to permit a dialogue with his postings.

                    Some wonder why I continue to discuss these things with him. I bring in a bit of light that he likes to cover up with a whole bunch of rhetoric that doesn’t pertain to the conversation. I shouldn’t exclude Fido from that discussion but now I generally don’t answer the Brainless Wonder’s yapping because that is all she is capable of. That and maybe making men run away from her because of her personality.

                    I look at what is being written here. Some intelligent things written by climate agnostics and those that require more than faith to destroy the standard of living of families. I hear nothing from the climate warriors of value because they don’t answer the basic questions like solar activity. Instead they blame everything on global warming that hasn’t been proven to be out of line from the normal climate cycles and if one looks and thinks warming occurred then it is quite minimal.

                    When I see the graph of CO2 increases I don’t see a direct change with temperature that can accurately be tied into CO2. I have to deal with lies from people like Michael Mann who doesn’t release his data. I hear little about nuclear energy from these people. No one brought up energy from the sea, but solar panels is widely embraced even though solar energy has to be backed up with other sources of energy, has a large carbon foot print, destroys trees, eventually becomes rubbish etc. No one even looks at adaptation that you have intelligently brought to the blog. We are left with a bunch of ignorant people to discuss this type of problem with. I am thinking it isn’t worth it.

                    Our soutions might actually be doing more harm than good. If man made global warming actually exists then our present actions seem like placing a bandaid onto an abcess just to cover it up and make us feel good.

                    I’m a climate agostic that recognizes pollution is a big problem and the solutions to pollution might also satisfy the climate change theorists but that is not what the ignorati are looking at. They are looking toward their leaders who are looking for power more than anything else.

                    1. Allan was a key participant who ran up one thread to over 800 comments.
                      He is working to equal or top that in the “other discussion” where he continues to double down indefensible positions.
                      It is not a coincidence that he was instrumental in the earlier comments marathon ( with another who comments infrequently).
                      And is a primary participant in his current shot at the record of over 800 comments.
                      The common factor in both threads is the “Allan is always right” mentality.

                    2. “Allan was a key participant who ran up one thread to over 800 comments.”

                      I don’t bother with such numbers but if you say that is the number then it must be but most of my recent postings have been to you and I don’t even answer all your petty ignorant comments and I don’t answer many of Fido’s (AKA Brainless Wonder) who yaps at your feet so you must be contributing a great deal to that number without learning a thing.

                    3. me
                      Since Allan brought up “obsessive length”, I tracked down the thread with 828 comments. The common “thread” in that
                      case, and the current one he mentioned, is Allan as a key participant in both.
                      Good luck to him in topping his previous personal “best” of getting past the 828 comment mark.

                    4. “Since Allan brought up “obsessive length”,

                      No, that is your doing as you have been obseessed with posting numbers and furious that someone might write a reply so whatever number you are really concerned about is generated by your postings and I didn’t even respond to all of yours. Take note how you add to the garbage with this latest post of yours. Take note how when you responded to most posts it was with garbage rather than thought.

                      The 826 comments you talk about reached that height because dhliii and I were discussiong something of substance which we were both interested in. The difference between discussing something with dhlii and you is that dhlii has a brain somethng you lack.

                    5. Allan actually is the one who brought up the issue of ” obsessive length” of comments on another thread, so bringing that up was not ” my doing”.
                      When .an ill-informed person like Allan makes baseless accusations about “. multiple failures” in the medical care of the victim of a tragic accident, his position is apt to draw responses.
                      He got plenty, he repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance, be ignored anything presented to him that challenged his extremely weak defense of his position, called relevant and covent responses “stupid, or ignorant, lies”, then whined about “ad hominen” attacks on him, etc.
                      He may or may not ultimately tie or top the previous 826 comment record by repeating the same BS that he has been spouting from the start of his accusation about “multiple failures”, and I credit his ability to post inane
                      filler and ignore any and all evidence presented to him that he does not want to hear.
                      That takes a “special” kind of arrogant blowhard to show that kind of determination to trumpet “I am always right regardless of the facts”.

                    6. “Allan actually is the one who brought up the issue of ” obsessive length” of comments on another thread, so bringing that up was not ” my doing”.”

                      I don’t know that that is true and based on your lies and quoting things out of context why should anyone believe you. It’s too unimportant to check the records but I keep hearing that statement from you over and over again. If you wish you are not misquoting or lying perhaps a citation is in order but I laugh at your silliness.

                    7. “like Allan makes baseless accusations about “. multiple failures””

                      Unfortunately for your credibility I provided rational proof and explanations for what I said. You loaded the blog with junk, lies and quotes out of context. If you wish I will show you the quote you took from Scientific American that was answering a question not related to the almost 4 hour delay or I can take you back to your biggest complaint that 3 hours and 40 minutes is not almost 4 hours when both were repeatedly mentioned.

                      You are a fool like you were under another alias, you remain a fool and you will continue remaining a fool.

                    8. As an example of a posting I made that had content and you couldn’t respond to, here it is. You now have a chance to take my quotes copy them and show where they are not correct.

                      I am rewriting a response answered quite awhile back but never appeared on the blog.

                      “There are established guidelines dealing with responses to a variety of acute medical issues”

                      If you like the term guidelines that is fine. It is a good term but guidelines coexist with systems that are in place. Systems aren’t necessarily created by medical professionals and even medical guidelines can be altered by non professionals.

                      “Their assessment was that she he had suffered a concussion.”

                      Yes, she suffered a concussion but did she also suffer a bleed?

                      “The question then is “Should a concussion patient with her symptoms be immediately rushed to a distant hospital with a major trauma unit”? I don’t think that the guidelines call for that, at least in most areas.”

                      That is what I call a system failure. The bleed is the real emergency whereas the concussion would be of much less urgency and more run of the mill. Did they know she wasn’t a routine problem? Should critical conditions be handled like routine problems? (I don’t think so.) We have to guess that they recognized this patient was more critical than the vast majority of patients they treat based on a troublesome Glasgow score, a deteriorating mental status, and ‘talk and die’. Did the system appropriately account for the most serious conditions? That is the issue under discussion.

                      A bleed should always be in the back of the minds of medical professionals that recognize the urgency. You seem to believe that the only facility that could relieve the pressure of a bleed is a trauma center. That would mean that Canada had no closer facilities that could both do a CT and a burr hole and then transfer the patient to the trauma hospital buying the patient’s life a little extra time. Have you checked the possible facilities in that area? A closer facility to just drill the burr hole decreases the delay for that type of patient.

                      This problem is not as uncommon as you believe. You should have recognized that when you posted the article on burr holes. They were discussing doing burr holes on the site so the patient wouldn’t die on the way to the hospital or the trauma hospital.

                      Since they didn’t seem to have a system to separate the sickest from the rest I wonder if the system was created based solely on the odds. That is not the way medicine should be practiced. I think their system has already been changed to account for this type of system problem. I think they now use helicopters and that helps correct the failure I have been talking about.

                      This posting of yours seems like an attempt to address the systems involved. It is the best effort to date by you but I think you drew a conclusion and then looked for things that satisfied the conclusion instead of maintaining an open mind drawing conclusions after you had more information.

                      We have to recognize that Canada has a centralized system of medical care and that can lead to certain holes in treatment. The specific hole that occurred here might not occur in a more decentralized medical system. There are advantages and disadvantages and they have to do with the risks and benefits.

                      The risk is loss of life the benefits have to do with preserving resources. Where on the line one places their emphasis is a societal decision.

                    9. 3 responses so far by Allan to .y last ( 12:05 PM ) comment.
                      Maybe he is trying to run up the comments here to take a shot at the 828 comment mark.
                      He is reviving and recycling the same weak points he’s already used to try to back up an untenable position.
                      Just moving to debate to yet another thread and, repeating the same BS he’s been spouting since the start of this argument over a week ago, does not prop up his screwy position.
                      Every one of the riducous points Allan tried to make hAving already been soundly refuted. It became clear early on that trying to convince Dr. Allan “I’m always right regardless if the facts” Blowhard of anything was pointless, given his talent for burying his head the sand.
                      Now he evidently wants to resume the same idiotic game. I can’t say “resume the debate”, because he was never serious about an honest debate.
                      He has not only fallen short o of backing up his comment about ” multiple failures”, he has managed to make himself look like an even bigger fool and blowhard alnig the way.
                      I don’t know how many different threads he intends to use to keep repeating himself, using the same stupid arguments that have already been shot down.

                    10. “3 responses so far by Allan to .y last ( 12:05 PM ) comment.”

                      Anonymous Dr. Death, I realize your comprehension is limited so I broke the post into smaller parts so you wouldn’t get lost. I also reposted a post you never answered to make sure you understood what the discussion was about. We all realize it is easier for you to simply dismiss what was written and correct rather than read, comprehend and reply.

                      You are trying to prove you won without ever firing a shot. What you have done is prove you are a know nothing that can’t respond to anything intellectual. You would be better off counting your toes if you are able to reach the double digit level.

                      I note your entire reply says absolutely nothing which reprents who you are, a nothing.

                    11. dhlii on July 18, 2018 at 11:43 AM
                      Do you have an argument ?

                      You have degenerated to Ad Hominem.
                      That is not argument.

                      Your remarks indicated that you do not know what semantics means.

                      The above is the “something of substance”, in a very long exchange in which Allan Blowhard had a key role.
                      It ended up with 826 comments, which appears to be a record. Dhlii noted Allan’s “substance” in the comment above, taken from that thread.
                      The bulk of the debate about Allan’s bogus claim of “multiple failures” appears in the comments under the recent “Sharpiegate” column.
                      Given Allan’s idea of “substance” and his insistence that he get in the first and last words, there us no point in rehashing the points already made that made Allan’s position look ridiculous. For the few, if any, who are interested in the issue and the argument, it’s already been made.
                      And as noted, it appears elsewhere. If Dr.
                      Allan Blowhard intends recycle his same asinine argument in other threads, I suppose there’s no rule that prevents that.
                      He certainly seems to have a lot of time on his hands, so it should be no problem for a blowhard like him to spread his expertise around to all other areas under discussions, while continuing to repeat the same old idiotic ones he’s already made about the Richardson case.

                    12. “You have degenerated to Ad Hominem. That is not argument.”

                      You started in that vein. You wanted a fight and now you have proven yourself stupid. Take note of the third posting in the last set of three postings. Take note. No ad hominems and no reply to anything of value except your attempt to show yourself a winner. You are a loser and the reason you are so angry is that you know it.

                    13. The complaint about Allan’s use of ad hominens was quoted from a comment dhlii made in the huge 828 thread.
                      Since Allan described that exchange with dhlii, in which Allan posted hundreds of comments, as one of substance, I posted posted the complaint of the other party in that exchange about Allan’s idea of substance and his in his use of ad hominens.
                      I also point out to Allan that when he dodges strong and pertinent challenges to his shaky position by dismissing them as “ignorant, stupid, lies”, etc., he should not be shocked when the insults fly back his way.
                      I’m not inclined to passively let a liar and a fraud like Dr. Allan Blowhard use these tactics without throwing some of his own garbage back in his face.

                    14. Dr. Death, you are a fraud and a liar. I so happen to like dhlii and have defended him on the blog in the past. He is a smart guy. You say I used an ad hominem, maybe yes maybe no, but I note you didn’t quote the passage and a reference http.

                      The last time you took something out of context I found it for myself and proved you a liar quoting the question and the full answer as recorded. If I unduly insulted dhlii I appologize to him. I don’t know if he is on the blog right now but he has been here with a different alias. He’s a smart guy.

                      You on the other hand are a real loser. You lie, cheat and can’t even maintain one stable alias hiding yourself among the alias’s posting as an alias as well. I believe you were upset because you know you sounded stupid so you tried to demean instead of discuss.

                      I wait for you to prove your case, Loser.

                    15. Allan, I agree that they are ignoring adaptation, criticizing me for emphasizing it, and carelessly dismissing the validity of skepticism towards the vague judgment about the “Dominant cause” whatever that means, which is an oversimplification of one of the most complicated and chaotic chemical and physical systems we have tried to explain, global weather.

                      Developing causal models about complex systems is not easy and it is not in any way as simple as part A, the assessment of a global warming trend. that’s not easy, but it’s easier than explaining complex systems.

                      Decades ago I was a flea on the wall at a social meeting in which a former meteorological scientist that worked for the government explained to his listeners the difficulties in forecasting complex systems, and how difficulties in forecasting weather, often were similar to difficulties in forecasting the behavior of financial markets.

                      I don’t remember what else he said but that was the first time I heard the words “Chaos theory” — i looked into it the very next day, and began to learn about about this


                      Now I never learned much in the intervening many decades. This is beyond my educational level and probably my IQ as well. But I understand enough to know that it’s one thing to measure a complex system’s performance in retrospect, and another different thing to explain it– and yet again quite another thing to successfully predict it.

                      that’s part of why I recommend we put more effort into ADAPTATION because it relies mostly on reacting to a trend in ways that are going to be imminently and certainly necessary, whatever the underlying “Reasons” supposedly are.

                      Consider this: let’s say that we put a trillion into “mitigation.” And then we find out, OOPS, it really was the solar cycle, and then climate keeps getting hotter. Then what? What will be left over for Adaptation and will there be enough time left for it? ERRRR HOUSTON WE GOT A PROBLEM

                      Anynow back to systems theory. Even when you are dealing with simple causal mechanisms, there is also an element of randomness or entropy in play in the universe. Flipping coins for example. A simple thing, nearly a 50/50 chance of heads or tails every time– every time– the events are mutually independent– and yet it’s rare to have 20 heads in a row. Like, really really rare! Why? I dont know but I applaud mathematicians and scientists who undertake to understand complex systems and events.

                      This is the deep mystery of the universe in play!

                      It’s rude and childish to reject valid skepticism about predictions about complex chaotic systems like global weather as founded in my Trumpianism or something or whatever. But we see a lot of rude and childish name calling aimed at people who are loathe to accept the dogmatic predictions of climate change. Is insulting people the way to convince? OR to educate?

                      The funny thing Alan, is that there is a wide swath of climate “Doomers” to the Left of the “carbon tax” and “green new deal” crowd who laugh at them and denounce them as “hopium” smokers that are advocating “too litle too late.”— just as I first mentioned early in this thread. This “Climate Doom” contingent actually includes a certain number of scientists too and not just Chicken Littles.

                      I rather suspect the outlook is very dire myself, and the piddling Democrat schemes to enrich themselves via new bureaucracies and taxes will only divert critical resources from whatever useful adaptations could be made.

                    16. “criticizing me for emphasizing it”

                      Kurtz, they aren’t debating you rather they are demeaning you and all others that don’t do not agree with them.. Everyone on the right is criticized for watching Fox News and called stupid for doing so. The insults virtually start in the fist sentence of their comments and continue onward. That is why I find so many of them stupid and they take offense at that comment when it is true because they label people before they even know what the person is talking about.

                      In any sane discussion of climate change you should be applauded for bringing up adaptation for if what they believe is real that is part of the solution. Unfortunately they are not interested in solutions rather they are interested in converts to their faith based religion.

                      You are absolutely correct to bring the chaos theory into play trying to explain how small initial differences can have a tremendous impact. These concepts seem too difficult for those that are so sure of themselves on this blog. I have read some of the scientific literature on the subject and most is at best difficult to understand but one thing I garner is that a lot of the scientists dealing with this subject accept what others tell them without a total understanding of what they are accepting. I think there are a lot more fudge factors involved than we think.

                      For myself I am agnostic but lean toward the belief that climate change for the most part is not man made. Whatever portion is man made I believe likely has a much lesser effect on us than nature does. Look at what happens when a volcano erupts and as powerful as that singular eruption is that is only a fraction of natures input into our lives. If however, a problem exists to create a crisis in the short term I don’t believe the present system is worth squat.

                    1. its also stupid because “plants” eat CO2 so why would a bunch of weeds be harmed by it? plants like global warming, one would suppose

                      they might as well have got a piece of ice and apologized to it, that would have been more symbolic

                  2. Kurtz, my “faith” is in whatever the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on and I base that faith not ancient texts or wishful thinking about an afterlife. I base it on the power of scientific “shamans” who do heal the sick and make people fly.

                    Those shamans overwhelmingly say you’re wrong – yeah, they know about sun spots – so why would I care what an anonymous lawyer on the internet thinks about these highly technical question?

                    As to your highlighting the difference between adaptation and mitigation, you haven’t made a logical argument for choosing only one of those strategies that doesn’t involve choosing your amateur opinion over the consensus of the entire scientific community.

                    And you want to talk about other people’s religion?

                    1. anon1, did you partake of the absurd ritual at union seminary? if not then the mockery is not aimed at you

                      as for your faith in science, yes, science is premised on faiths as well, just like math, there are axioms, a = a and so forth. I explained that before and if you had algebra or philo 101 or perhaps a “history of science” class, perhaps you are familiar with that conversation. the interesting part of that is where science leads into a denial of fundamental axioms through experimentation, as in the famous electron spin experiments that as PBS says, “broke reality”


                      Now that’s interesting stuff in my book. I just love paradigm shifts. Have you read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”? I Recommend it

                      I like talking about all these things, science, religion, philosophy and math, but in my reply to your comments, I would start with that.

                    2. Anon. I am not asking you to agree with me. Think what you like.

                      but you are stuck on me mentioning the sunspots. Seems like you want some confessions to the faith, too!

                      Are you hung up on my acquiescing to a catechism about manmade carbon emissions being the “Dominant cause” of the warming trend. It annoys you that I talk about solar activity.

                      Let’s observe your annoyance about that. It annoys you that I “admit” the proven factual trend of global warming, but don’t “admit” my agreeement to that phrase, “Dominant cause”

                      I don’t say it isn’t. I just said, they havent convinced me that it is. And I also said, I am not sure that they are sure about the complex causal factors, to the degree that I am willing to swear allegiance to that vague phrase “dominant cause”– I am not “admitting” it is the dominant cause. It may be– but I am not convinced.

                      And yes the primary reason is because solar activity is certainly the primary cause of nearly all global heat in the first place, besides whatever bubbles up from the core! Isnt that a simple and obvious fact?

                      And based on that fact, can we say exactly to what extent, core geological heat is causative of warming? Can I get a percentage on that? Is it a tenth a percent, is it one percent, or what? Has that varied over time? Now that’s just one factor and a small one.

                      But yes sunspots indicate the varying cycle of solar radiation which is the PRIMARY CAUSE OF HEAT ON EARTH IN GENERAL. At all geologic timestamps, at every degree of our orbit around the big hot gasball “Sol.”

                      And if that is the primary cause, which varies, then perhaps a good question would be, how much does it vary over the cycle? People should not be called names for asking a relevant and obvious causal question.

                      Also. if CO2 is tiny fraction of the atmospheric composition in the first place, then how can a tiny change in a tiny component, suddenly be dogmatically agreed to be the “DOMINANT” cause? That’s a valid question.

                      For my part, I feel my skepticism about the complex causes are well founded.

                      I don’t have skepticism about the warming trend– I Think that’s now been fully well proven and it’s “not that complicated” as TIA says about other things.

                      but the causal factors– far more complex, and not anywhere near as fleshed out nor “proven” in spite of the “consensus”

                      You see a scientific consensus is not a scientific proof. They are two different things. Back to philosophy and definitions, which matter.

                      I could explain more fully how that is “Dominant” thing is so vague, but I suspect you are not all that concerned about the complex causes, rather, you are interested in this as a political issue. For me, politics is one layer of this onion, not the only layer. I am less “heated up” about the partisan issues than you are. But you’re free to take your own amusement where you do!

                      But if you got me on my difference on these two things, then, my eagerness to spend on ADAPTATION to A KNOWN DANGEROUS TREND, and my reluctance to spend on an LESS KNOWN AND MORE COMPLEX SUPPOSED CAUSAL EXPLANATION, should make sense

                      Now you can mock me all you like. I don’t need to drop names but I have gone over this exact discussion and distinction with a tenured professor who has funding for a climate warming and research project from a major university. He’s in the majority on the whole thing, but he conceded to me there are two different issues here, the trend versus the causation; and likewise there are two different policy implications, mitigation and adaptation.

                      And as I Repeatedly pointed out, yes if you put a lot of energy and resources into one thing, necessarily, you cant put as much energy into the other thing. So you have to make choices of what you support, in politics, and that’s my informed opinion. I welcome to hear yours and other people’s too.

                    3. Kurtz, I don’t feel a need to repeat my position, which I have made clear. While you have related some amusing anecdotes, you are repeating yourself.

                      As to your flipping a coin 20 times heads, that. Is the same odds as specifying that it lands heads, heads, tail, heads, and so on 20 times accurately. The odds on that are 2 to the 20th, just as 4 heads in a row is 2 squared. 2 to the 20th is 1,048,576.

            2. Peter – we do not have a street sewer system so when it rains, it floods. I know water, I know flash floods, I know flood plains (my house is just outside the flood plain).

              1. Yeah, Paul, Phoenix is drier than Miami. Phoenix is also landlocked. Two different situations.

                1. Peter Hill – you do realize that the Salt River cuts through Phoenix. We use it for irrigation.

          2. Hah. She got that 12 coding from her handlers…amatuer. And just about everything else she says…who backed her and the other Squawk Squad nonsense? Dems need some better ppl. I think they’re suffering from a severe case of hynorieghtous, e.g., moral complex, high-horse syndrome.

            1. Wally World – it is hard to be on a high horse when all you have is a chihuahua.

    1. Peter Hill, a rough estimate is that in a mere 10 centuries the waves might begin lapping at the front door. But, alas, few houses last for a thousand years…

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – how long did it take bad engineering to put tidewater in St. Mark’s?


      Michael Mann and a lot of others prove there is a lot of lying and fake news regarding the climate change issue. The mansion demonstrates the hypocricy and elitism of the left.

  5. Neither PCS nor Squeeky Fromm actually know any science.

    For starters, Kepler’s 3 laws of planetary motion. First 2 published in 1596.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – well, I know some science. I majored in science in high school. Admittedly, I was not good at it, except chemistry.

      1. Does that explain why you link to antiscience sites on the Internet?

        You give every appearance of the antiscientist. Did you have terrible teachers?

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. I linked to the university that did the study on the glaciers. Is that anti-science? I just don’t think science is a religion and scientists are priests.

          1. You linked to a site which lied about NCDC scientists.

            Conveniently forgot about that, now didn’t you?

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – not sure I got it.

  6. Certainly is a lot of trash on the Internet. One could, perchance, actually bother to learn some climatology.

    Real Climate has a Start Here page.

  7. If anybody is interested in some REAL science (and REAL law) about AGW, here is some.

    The skinny is, ” The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

    Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”

    Which, is probably while Michael Mann chose to lose a lawsuit rather than turn over his date. He was the “hockey stick” chart guy, by the way.

    “Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case

    Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

    What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

    The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. “Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case” and all the associated mistruths.

      Doesn’t this tell the left that something may be amiss?

      We hear about sea levels changing but I hear little about the change in geography where the Pacific Ocean is getting smaller and the Atlantic Ocean larger. Maybe we should be blaming fracking for this natural ocurrence.

      I wonder what caused the Little Ice Age. Perhaps that was caused by the ravages of Ghengis Kkan.

      Why do we place so much blame on man when nature has infinitesimally more control over our environment than does man? Correllation is not causation.

      1. the bbc says it was volcanic activity. i have heard sunspot activity.

        i think i got the joke. probably the great khan did not cause it, though he was killing off people like so many flies, hence less humans breathing co2 and farting out methane. kind of put a “chill” on global
        population, those heaped up mountains of skulls

        1. You and Allan be sure to keep us posted on your research. No doubt JT’s blog is already considered a leading source of science and there could be a Nobel Prize out there.

          1. Anon, I am not one of those jerks that provides definitive positions based on a paucity of knowledge. I listened to you on the Kavanaugh hearings and noted how easy it is to convince you of things that even when proven false remain true in your mind.

            It’s a waste of time to deal with a person of your nature.

            1. The allegations by Ford and Ramirez against Kavanaugh were not proven false.More importantly he exposed himself as a liar and emotionally unfit.

              1. One cannot prove a negative. Blaisey Ford couldn’t prove her case against Kavanaugh and her own supposed witnesses didn’t testify for her. It has now been reported that in a book on this case Ford’s team threatened Keyser if she didn’t perjure herself and testify for Ford.

                If you have tangible proof present it.

                1. Then don’t claim something you can’t prove as proven.

                  The allegations by Ford and Ramirez against Kavanaugh were not proven false.More importantly he exposed himself as a liar and emotionally unfit.

                  1. “The allegations by Ford and Ramirez against Kavanaugh were not proven false.”
                    They weren’t proven false. They are presumed false and the accusers bear the burden of proving them. Given their extraordinary claims, they would be required to produce extraordinary proofs.

                    1. Unfortunately mespo, Kavanaugh won’t have to defend himself in a court of law, so your legal standards are irrelevant. We’re humans and anyone with normal common sense could tell the man was lying. Maybe not about those specific charges – we”l probably never know – but about who he was and what he did in high school?

                      You kidding me?

                    2. Well said Mespo. Anon doesn’t seem to understand character assassination nor does he understand that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

                      Anon, you said Kavanaugh was guilty. Prove it. All I said was that Kavanaugh was innocent.

                    3. Kavanaugh was guilty of lying about his high school years and who he was. None of his explanations for his and his friends gross and drunken behavior makes any sense. A fool could see that.

                      Whoops! No offense Allan.

                    4. “Whoops! No offense Allan.”

                      How can anyone take offense from an ignorant person who shoots his mouth off without making sense.

                      “Kavanaugh was guilty of lying about his high school years”

                      You must know what the lies were so after making such a comment you have to list the lies and provide us with substantial proof to show what you said was true. I expect your reply will be another dud if you reply at all.uff

                    5. Anon1:

                      ” … so your legal standards are irrelevant.”


                      These are standards of rational argument and decision-making created eons ago by the pillars of Western thought. They were only mapped on to judicial systems later. That you don’t know that is both sad and telling. As to your common sense … well … that’s the reason for standards of proof. It’s neither common nor sensical.

                    6. Well mespo, I’ll try to remember that you refuse to pass judgement on the truthfulness of any fellow human absent courtroom standards proof. Your life must be very difficult and your human interactions stunted, to say the least.

                    7. “Too much work”

                      That proves it. Anon lied from the start. He made accusations that were false without any proof and when asked prove his accusations at the time and he didn’t. Now asked again it is “too much work”.

                      That tells us all we need to know. Anon doesn’t do the requisite “work” to draw any conclusions. He is a waste of time.

                  2. Anon1 – most importantly the allegations by Ford and Ramirez were not proven TRUE. So, the charges fail.

                    1. Anon1 – the Democrats were playing delay the game and the WH put them on the clock. Put up or shut up.

                    2. Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI umpteen times over a period of 28 years, Anon1.

                      One thing neither Blasey nor her lawyers nor anyone else has done thus far is demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Blasey have ever met. There are no old Polaroids, no diary entries, no testimony from people securely identified as having been acquainted with them which puts the two of them in the same room at any time. Nor has there been a set of circumstances identified which makes it likely they’ve met. There would have been over 40,000 youths born after 1962 but prior to 1968 then resident in Montgomery County, Maryland. Blasey lived about six miles from the Kavanaughs and eight miles from the Judge family. Her brother wasn’t enrolled at Georgetown Preperatory and Mark Judge’s sister wasn’t enrolled at Holton Arms. (Kavanaugh is an only child). She insisted Christopher Garrett introduced her to Kavanaugh’s circle, but Garrett’s public and sworn statements offer nothing which confirms her claim. That she knew personal details about Mark Judge is irrelevant as he’s published memoirs of his youth.

                      But you’re sure there’s a pony in their somewhere.

              2. Anon1 – Ford was lying threw her teeth and Rameriz cannot remember anything, Personally, I have a tendency to get emotion when I am falsely accused of rape. It is called fighting back. Not one body language specialist who watched the hearings had a problem with Kavanaugh, but they all did with Ford.

                    1. Paul, how do you manage to find so much crap? This explains you an Trump, He wasn’t your first quack BS artist. Here’s the credentials for your body language expert:

                      “I get asked a lot about credentials. There is no ‘Body Language Degree’. As the world is so polarized, I prefer to keep my personal details to a minimum. I am not looking to become famous. With all the threats these days against certain peoples, it is better this way as I have my family to consider and they are my first priority.
                      Those who have followed me for a while, however, will know the proof is in the pudding””



                    2. Anon1 – so, is what Body Language Ghost incorrect? Does she have a certification in Body Language?

                1. Whatever the body language maven says, it would be most amazing were Blasey actually telling the truth. No one’s come up with a verifiable fact which lines up in her favor.

                  It’s impossible to believe that The New York Times as it was run in 1985 would have published such weakly-sourced nonsense gossip about someone. Same deal with the Ramirez allegations and Julia Swetnick’s fantasies.

                  1. The ‘nonsense gossip’ I’m referring to is the latest ‘allegation’.

        2. You got the sarcasm/joke.

          There are people that do not debate. They merely repeat the opinion provided by others. If we remember our Kavanaugh discussions on this blog we will remember how some on this blog were adamant about so many facts that now have been disproven and they still don’t recognize the truth. A book not purportedly to be one to show Kavanaugh in a good light actually provides facts that these jerks continue to deny.

          The Blaisey Ford team even threatened people to lie in Fords favor. That is how far these people are willing to go. That is what Mann did with regard to climate change and he isn’t the only one. Is it any wonder that the same jerks that have little if any training in the sciences can be so adamant about the supposed facts having to do with climate change?

      1. Anon1 – we know because of the Michael Mann email scandal, that he and his crew were in charge of or extorting many peer reviewed journals. Thus, they controlled who was and wasn’t published. At this point, if it is not in a peer reviewed journal, it is going to against climate change. And if it is for climate change, it will be in a peer-reviewed journal.

        Michael Mann and his circle used the term “not peer-reviewed” to deny legitimacy to many, many articles. And the had been the one who had denied them a place in a peer-reviewed journal. It was a vicious academic circle jerk.

        1. Yes Paul, Mann’s tentacles extend from State College Pa around the world and his minions all over the world yield to his wishes. This science BS is such a hoax. Worse than the media!

      2. I read the alleged rebuttal by Ekwurzl, and I am less than impressed. The report I cited is in great detail, whereas the dismissal by Ekwurzl, on behalf of The Union of Concerned Scientist, is laughably short. I suspect that it was written so that the true believers in AGW can have something to wave about to protect their fragile egos from having to consider that they have been made monkeys of by the AGW folks.

        The “rebuttal” is pretty much mis-characterization, and name-calling. To wit: The paper ain’t peer-reviewed; (and neither is the rebuttal); It is embarrassing times 3; it is bogus; the Nat’l Academy of Sciences was established by Abe Lincoln in 1863! So there!”

        “In this report, the focus is on the changes that the three entities actually made to their previously reported historical data.The notion that some adjustments to historical data may have been needed is not challenged here. The basic question addressed is whether or not the current depictions of the trend cycle patterns of GAST data by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are valid in light of other highly credible counter indications.”

        After providing the data changes, they find:

        “As has been clearly shown in Section IVabove, the consequences changes made to previously reported historical versions of GAST data have been to virtually eliminate the previously existing cyclical nature of their previously reported trend cycle patterns. The notion that there was a 1930 and 40s warm period followed by a mid-1970 cool period now gets lost in the noise so to speak. In this section, particularly credible country-specific data will be used to test the validity of the now almost nonexistence of this cyclical pattern in the current versions of GAST2.Clearly, if the historical data adjustments that were made to the GAST data inappropriately removed this cyclical pattern, then all three of the current versions of GAST must be considered invalid. ”

        They then go on to provide information from government sources mostly, that show the cyclical nature that has been covred by the data changes. Figure V10 is really good, and should be a shocker. Here is the money quote, IMHO:

        “Thus, it seems that beyond any doubt, the U.S. data reflected in the Global Average Surface Temperature data calculation should contain the cyclical patterns shown above. In fact, as shown below in Figure V-15, as of 1999, in NOAA data, it did!”

        [go look at V15. It is illuminating.]

        You can sum this up pretty easily – The trend line temps do not agree with actual temperatures.

        I would say the “embarrassing” title should go to the AGW.

        I realize that this report will mean nothing to the True Believers in AGW, This would be about the same if some adjusted out the actual number of hurricanes over the last 100 years to reflect an ever upward trend line of hurricanes per year, while ignoring the fact that there are ups and downs in the number of hurricanes.

        My comment here is for people genuinely interested in understanding what is going on.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. I’m sorry Squeaky. Were you talking to me? I wasn’t listening and I can’t now.

          I have to go wash my ferret.

            1. Squeaky, there isn’t anybody here like that, and if there were I don’t think they would listen to you either.

              1. Anon, Lot’s of people will listen to Squeeky while they watch you wash your ferret. At least when washing your ferret you are silent.

                1. Allan, you can watch squeaky all you want, but she’s an stupid ugly racist who should be banned from this site. If JT was aware of her BS I would fully expect that to happen.

                  Any decent American should denounce her comments.

                  1. “Allan, you can watch squeaky all you want, but she’s an stupid ugly racist who should be banned from this site. ”

                    Anon, Squeeky is a beautiful woman and intelligent person something you will never be. Is she a racist? I don’t think so. I think she speaks her mind and discusses terrible things that stupid people like you have created.

                    Why is there so much violence in our inner cities that have had decades of leftists running them? Why did no one in Baltimore look at the squalid conditions people were forced to live under until Trump made mention of those conditions? Why? Because of stupid people like you that like to virtue signal but otherwise do nothing to relieve racial tensions.

                    You are just interested in the culture of death… leftism and killing unborn black kids.

  8. according to recent report from intergovernmental panel on climate change IPCC

    the worst case scenario, is that there’s about a 1/20 chance of major awful freakin worldwide disaster by 2100

    of course the likelier scenario is that the sea level rises less, but still a lot, and the coastal flooding disaster is only horrific and not quite yet apocalyptic.

    the key thing here is that there is definitely a warming trend, whatever the causal factors. and yeah maybe they are right major emissions cuts would help but don’t hold your breath. totally unlikely that “major” cuts will happen. sorry, who is volunteering for poverty? nobody. this means trouble then whateve the cause

    so if we don’t get nuked or enslaved by a new AI cybernetic demon (to use Elon Musk’s analogy) then there is that yeah sea level rise and a refugee disaster dwarfind all previous refugee disasters manyfold. 80 years out. that means not us per se but our kids and grandkids. this is enough to cause me a lot of grief and anxiety.

    if you don’t find this troubling then maybe take a trip to a massive city in a hot climate near the sea and ask yourself how would these people expect to survive even if they got whacked with a big huge hurricane. I have been in a couple huge coastal cities outside the US and it had me scratching my head many decades ago. part of the reason i live in flyover USA I guess and not some “Tropical paradise”


    Scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than predicted, due to accelerating melting in Greenland and Antarctica.

    The long-held view has been that the world’s seas would rise by a maximum of just under a metre by 2100.

    This new study, based on expert opinions, projects that the real level may be around double that figure.

    This could lead to the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, the authors say.

    Antarctic instability ‘is spreading’
    Thousands of penguin chicks wiped out
    Warning from ‘Antarctica’s last forests’
    The question of sea-level rise was one of the most controversial issues raised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), when it published its fifth assessment report in 2013.

    It said the continued warming of the planet, without major reductions in emissions, would see global waters rising by between 52cm and 98cm by 2100.

    Media captionUN chief: Political will is fading even as the situation worsens, Antonio Guterres said
    Many experts believe this was a very conservative estimate.

    Ice scientists are also concerned that the models currently used to predict the influence of huge ice sheets on sea levels don’t capture all of the uncertainties about how these are now melting.

    Judgement day
    To try to get a clearer picture, some of the leading researchers in the field carried out what is termed a structured expert judgement study, where the scientists make predictions based on their knowledge and understanding of what is happening in Greenland, West and East Antarctica.

    In the researchers’ view, if emissions continue on the current trajectory then the world’s seas would be very likely to rise by between 62cm and 238cm by 2100. This would be in a world that had warmed by around 5C – one of the worst-case scenarios for global warming.

    For 2100, the ice sheet contribution is very likely in the range of 7-178cm but once you add in glaciers and ice caps outside the ice sheets and thermal expansion of the seas, you tip well over two metres,” said lead author Prof Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol.

    he IPCC report in 2013 only considered what is “likely” to happen, which in scientific terms means they looked at 17-83% of the range of possibilities.

    This new study looks at a broader range of results, covering 5-95% of the estimates.

    For expected temperature rises up to 2C, Greenland’s ice sheet remains the single biggest contributor to sea-level rise. However, as temperatures go beyond this, the much larger Antarctic ice sheets start to come into play.

    “When you start to look at these lower likelihood but still plausible values, then the experts believe that there is a small but statistically significant probability that West Antarctica will transition to a very unstable state and parts of East Antarctica will start contributing as well,” said Prof Bamber.

    “But it’s only at these higher probabilities for 5C that we see those type of behaviours kicking in.”

    According to the authors, this scenario would have huge implications for the planet.

    They calculate that the world would lose an area of land equal to 1.79 million square kilometres – equivalent to the size of Libya.

    Much of the land losses would be in important food growing areas such as the delta of the Nile. Large swathes of Bangladesh would be very difficult for people to continue to live in. Major global cities, including London, New York and Shanghai would be under threat.

    “To put this into perspective, the Syrian refugee crisis resulted in about a million refugees coming into Europe,” said Prof Bamber.

    That is about 200 times smaller than the number of people who would be displaced in a 2m sea-level rise.”


    The authors emphasise that there is still time to avoid these type of scenarios, if major cuts in emissions take place over the coming decades. They acknowledge that the chances of hitting the high end of this range are small, around 5%, but they should not be discounted, according to the lead author.

    “If I said to you that there was a one in 20 chance that if you crossed the road you would be squashed you wouldn’t go near it,” said Prof Bamber.

    “Even a 1% probability means that a one in a hundred year flood is something that could happen in your lifetime. I think that a 5% probability, crikey – I think that’s a serious risk.”

    Other experts in the field said that the findings of the expert group were significant.

    “This kind of survey of experts is important, because computer models are not perfect at predicting the future,” said Dr Tamsin Edwards from King’s College London.

    “Here they took the eight most accurate of 22 experts on Antarctica and Greenland and combined their judgements about the future. The ice sheets are losing ice at increasing rates, and we can’t rule out high values of sea level rise, though it’s also important to note they’re unlikely – especially as we are starting to put policies in place to avoid such a high level of warming.”

    The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.




    Donald Trump seeks to roll-back auto emissions standards set during the Obama years. There seems to be no logical reason for Trump to embark on this course other than pure spite. However California and 13 other state resolved to stick with the Obama standards. And much to Trump’s chagrin, four major automakers signed agreements with California to observe the stricter standards.

    This infuriated Trump so much that he has literally turned the EPA ‘against’ California. Trump intends to have the EPA officially revoke California’s longstanding authority to set state vehicle emissions standards. Here The Washington Post provides some background on how California obtained that special authority. Interestingly, then Governor Reagan championed California’s right to determine said standards.

    Smog in Los Angeles had become crippling at times throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. As scientists focused on motor vehicle exhausts as a key culprit in air pollution, state officials worked to develop the nation’s first vehicle emissions standards in 1966.

    The following year, the state’s new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, established the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to undertake a statewide effort to address widespread air pollution.

    As it crafted landmark clean air legislation for the country, Congress granted California special status, saying the state could request a “waiver” to require stricter tailpipe standards if it provided a compelling reason such regulations were needed. The auto industry, then as now, expressed concern over the idea of having to meet different standards in different states, but California eventually prevailed.

    “It was very controversial, and it was very close,” David Vogel, a professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley, who has written about the state’s environmental history, told The Post last year. “But every California legislator in Washington uniformly supported the waiver request. Every official in the state, from Reagan on down, wanted California to be able to address its very bad pollution.”

    Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed that right in the years since. And in 1977, lawmakers said other states could legally adopt California’s stricter car emissions standards.

    Over time, emissions control strategies first adopted by California — catalytic converters, nitrous oxide regulations and “check engine” systems, to name a few — have become standard across the country.

    Over the decades, the EPA has repeatedly approved waivers for California under the Clean Air Act. The state has applied for and received more than 130 waivers over the past 50 years, according to CARB.

    Edited from: “Trump Administration To Revoke California’s Power To Set Stricter Auto Emissions Standards”.

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Peter, an automobile is a manufactured product which is assembled from parts from various places and then shipped various places, quite generally across jurisdictional lines. It’s actually an area where some measure of federal intervention is quite legitimate.

      1. Tabby, tell me what reason Trump has, other than pure spite, to roll-back emissions standards. And one should note the auto-makers never sought the rollback.

        1. it is arguably quite unfair to let California to set the agenda for the other 49 states
          in law school we called this a “dormant commerce clause” type issue

          another thing. the auto industry does have to pay for higher environmental standards. they do not ask for it because of many possible reasons, one obvious one is that they want to sell cars to all the environmentalists in the suburbs who like SUVs and so they just clam up and don’t stick their necks out. but it costs profits, there is no doubt. that’s ok by me, I am not against harsher CAFE standards, indeed i favor them. but it would be better for the US to set those not allow California to pretend to be the first among equals

          on a different point, California has some cities that are not really tenable if global warming accelerates. LA comes to mind as an obvious candidate for depopulation. Imagine all the CO2 that could be saved if Hollywood wasn’t intent on having fun in the sun year round and A/C on demand. Let Hollywood lead the way since they talk so much, and move to Seattle! Big savings on a/c bills could be had. Any volunteers, hint hint?

          here’s another thought. clean water. hows it going with increasing the population, including with huge numbers of new immigrants? has LA got a good source of clean water or does it have to come from faaaar away? how much energy does it take to maintain the water supply infrastructure per resident of LA compared to….. Moscow, or New York? Let’s take a look

          sustainability: New York city and LA talk a great game, but don’t deliver

          here’s another interesting thing. some cities have a lot smaller “carbon footprint” like Cairo and Jakarta. Maybe it’s actually detrimental to global warming, to migrate people from those more carbon efficient cities to more consumption oriented cities of North America?

          1. Kurtz, California has had this authority for more than 50 years. The courts have always supported it. So I don’t know what you’re babbling about.

            1. yeah you don’t get it even though I gave you a link to a definition of “Dormant commerce clause” which is the legal conversation this precisely relates to, the subject of hundreds of cases over decades about what localities and cities and states can do to regulate commerce when the Feds have not.

              i cast you a pearl and like a swine you thought it was a pebble

              1. Kurtz, it doesn’t matter. We know this is spite on the part of Donald Trump.

                Because Trump and the Republicans deny Climate Change, they can’t let America’s largest state recognize the issue. It makes them look aggressively ignorant. Which they are!

                So Trump has to save face by turning the EPA against its mission. Thereby perverting the EPA as a trusted body. That’s what Trump does, every day; ‘perverts our institutions’.

                1. As ever, Peter, there are benefits, costs, and trade-offs in any course of action. Trump indubitably understands this. You do not.

                  1. Tabby, this argument that Trump will bring down the cost of SUV’s is devoid of any reasoning. We don’t need cheaper SUV’s. Even if SUV’s ran on flashlight batteries, they’re still a nuisance because they take up so much space.

                    1. Peter, That is because you hate children and therefore don’t have to load up your car with your own children and their friends..

                      What you wish to do is to make life miserable for caring mothers that bring peace and harmony to our lives.

            2. Dearest,

              homosexual acts were considered for centuries by US Courts as being illegal, aka anti-sodomy laws.

              You of all people should relish that being overturned though we know you havent gotten laid by any Grindr subscribers in years but thats on you

              – Bob and Jim

              “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity … every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision. … If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?”
              Excerpt from the dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

              1. who are you talking to? did anybody say anything about gay stuff at all?
                we were talking commerce clause and federal CAFE regulations

                leave it up to a couple of gay dudes to “inject” a totally irrelevant subject into a serious discussion. did anybody ever tell you guys “this isn’t all about you!”

                1. Kurtz, I believe their remark was directed to Peter and they were making a point about laws remaining forever.

                2. Mr. K:

                  Unfortunately, some people are obsessed by their rear ends, and the alternative uses to which they can be put. I think maybe it has something to do with severe toilet-training at an early age. Whatevah, it is all they think about.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

          2. Ideally the command-and-control regulations would be replaced with excises on emissions or a tradeable permit scheme. California could put a state excise on top of the federal excises, which should induce changes in the consumption mix in California.

            1. i found something out the other day. a driver’s license in China is expensive and difficult to obtain.

              here’s another thing. tourists can’t drive cars. in theory, they can get a “temporary permit” but it’s a huge hassle and good luck actually landing one. needless to say, the Chinese don’t issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants! LOL. man, you don’t want to be caught being and illegal immigrant in China! aint no red carpet there, in the US, certain states are notorious for that.

              they also force old junky cars off the road sooner.

              imagine how much safer and better our country would be if every imbecile was not empowered to drive drunk and run people over with a license and tool about in run down beaters.

              I guess wanting America to rise to the level of the Chicoms on simple stuff is too much to expect.

      2. Please cite the U.S. Constitution wherein Congress is provided the power to regulate anything and everything, wherein the absolute constitutional right to private property is simultaneously denied making the Constitution a preposterous and self-contradictory document. Please cite the U.S. Constitution wherein the enumerated power to regulate anything beyond money and commerce among the several States, etc., is enumerated. Article 1, Section 8 provides Congress the power merely to regulate money and commerce, deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to regulate anything else.

        1. george,

          I will give you the short answer from law school. actually you gave your own answer. the commerce clause.

          which according to FDR’s court in Wickard V Fillburn, can mean anything remotely related to commerce at all even growing and eating your own corn out of your own garden.

          crazy, i know, but that’s the answer

        2. “Please cite the U.S. Constitution wherein Congress is provided the power to regulate anything and everything, wherein the absolute constitutional right to private property is simultaneously denied making the Constitution a preposterous and self-contradictory document.”
          “The Congress shall have power …

          To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes ….”

          The right to own property isn’t now nor has it ever been absolute. In fact, it’s circumscribed in the document by the power of eminent domain. (” … nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”)

          The document isn’t “self-contradictory”; it’s complicated and not absolute. The only ever-correct answer to any legal question is” “It depends.”

    1. An excerpt:

      “This Roman influence was crucial, because a very different path presented itself at the time the Founders were designing the United States. The French Revolution took a different course than its American counterpart. It did not simply seek to rebalance power but rather to eradicate all existing power bases. The revolutionaries overthrew everything: the monarchy, the church, the nobility, property rights and most of the other things that had held the French people together for centuries. The result was total anarchy fueled by bloody purges of whoever happened to be on the wrong side of the revolution, which was constantly changing in the 1790s.

      The situation ended not with a stable republic but with a strongman, General Napoleon Bonaparte. The bloodshed of his regime stood in stark contrast to the reign of the former general leading the United States in the 1790s: George Washington stepped aside from the presidency in 1797, personifying self-sacrifice and a peaceful transfer of power.”

      1. Mespo, thanks for the article and the specific quote. One cannot repeat the differences between the American and French revolutions enough. The left seems not to have learned that important lesson.

      1. Too much of the climate change debate is politicized, especially this rally, which advocates for the passage of the Green New Deal.

          1. Green New Deal is a bunch of bureaucratic schemes that will have zero net effect.

            A lot of climate activists already think we’re past the point of no return

            If that is true? Then only ADAPTATION is worth doing.

            ADAPTATION is something both parties could agree upon but why the Left is stuck on the “Green New Deal” is very simple. They want to make jobs up in government which their cronies can take, and fund them with a “Carbon tax” which is a vain exercise that will have little if any real impact. Even as it is paid for by consumers


            so the Green New Deal is actually a sick joke not only to the climate deniers but also the climate doomers as well. It will go nowhere and it only dissipates energy that could be directed to useful engineering and infrastructure projects which actually will help the public, even if the problem does not materialize!

            1. am I doomer? by temperament, YES

              will it come from climate change? who knows.

              the biggest threat to climate change is actually NUCLEAR WAR
              and that is a lot more likely an outcome than global warming from CO2
              but oh, that will warm things up a lot! For a little while at least
              then yeah rapid cooling, “nuclear winter” and massive crop failure leads to dieoff–

              then the depopulation crazies will have their ardent wish!

              and maybe in 100 years a firmly powerful AGI artificial general intelligence cybernetic godling will decide we all need to be sterilized anyhow

              the way I see it, Doom is usually the most likely outcome, not just for us all in the form of death, but for humanity as a whole. Sorry! I don’t believe in progress.

          2. Hill,
            Your type of response is an unhelpful swing to a non-existent polar opposite.

            I did not say ‘do nothing’.

            This rally and the Green New Deal are not actually helpful; they are sweeping and ideologically-driven. The students’ day would be better spent examining the waste and pollution in their own lives or at their schools. Then they could work with their families, teachers, and administrators to effect change.

            What kind of waste of plastic and packaging happens over their schools’ lunch hour?

            How many kids, teachers, or administrators get driven or drive to school who could walk or bike or carpool?

            Do their schools recycle (is it worth it overall)?

            So many pragmatic possibilities to effect change in their own spheres and instead they are being allowed, perhaps encouraged to go chant and march and feel like they have done something, when they haven’t, really, done the hard work of communication, compromise, and weighing options and discerning potential drawbacks.

            Take a day to address the problems in their own homes and schools rather than demand other people do it.

Comments are closed.