Per Wesley Mouch? or Obama

Posted by toknowhim 10 years, 6 months ago to History
39 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I heard on the radio yesterday (May 2014) that our federal government released the " National Climate Assessment". This bogus report is authored by the "Federal National Climate Assessment & Development Advisory Committee". I couldn't make this up if I tried! The progressive BS would be hysterical if it was not true.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by TheOldMan 10 years, 6 months ago
    Why do the imbeciles think that the various climates around the world of the last 100 or so years are the "correct" ones? Perhaps those have been an aberration and the Earth is moving to a better climate outlook. Why was the period between about 1400 and 1850 cooler in general than the earlier period? Were the people in the late 1000s burning too much coal? The imbeciles are often going on and on about worshiping Gaia and here they are screaming that they know better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lnxjenn 10 years, 6 months ago
      These "scientists" seem to forget the sun's influence on weather patterns. There has been various activities from Solar Flares and such that have been affecting the weather patterns over the earth's lifespan. If I find the article again about the NASA astrophysicist that had put out a report about the solar activity and the weather patterns, I will post it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 6 months ago
    This sounds like something out of the State Science Institute. It would have come from Dr. Floyd Ferris. Robert Stadler was too much a shut-eye to write something like that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 6 months ago
    Many years ago I was part of a movement that assessed the strange odors in the environment. It was called, the Fresh Air Research Team. They closed us down due to an anachronism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 6 months ago
    it is of no consequence that we are experiencing generally colder weather for a few years now to the Washington dc crowd or the un crowd they just want to end what man has done even though man has made their existence possible. they are simply saying what ever pleases them to get to their game ending aims, the destruction of human civilization as we know it. so be appalled by all of their comments but remember they are driving the train and regardless of how much solid information comes out they will as they have been doing ignore it
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years, 6 months ago
    I love the "climate disruption" - perfectly, describes what is happening, but about which no one is talking. First, there has been no warming in 17 years, sorry Al Gore, but he is getting super rich on carbon credits. HAARP in Alaska heats the ionosphere, it disrupts the jet stream, and changes weather patterns. Yet, no weather hack has the nerve to mention it in public. No one is mentioning there are at least 26 such installations throughout the world doing similar weather tampering. Consider HAMP, which Obama certainly knows about, the jet delivered cloud seeding moves hurricanes, for political gain if needed. All the liberals mention is the supposed human caused CO2 levels - which they don't mention are not really such a bad thing. Control, that is what it is all about. I want Al Gore in a speedo in my back yard, the next time we have an Ohio winter like this past one - I'll call it global warming then.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 10 years, 6 months ago
    Everyday we see that the weather forecasters can’t seem to get the next day’s wether correct. Now we are to believe that they can predict the next 50 years!! This is all about politics and nothing about science.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 6 months ago
    My huband and I travel around the US and occasionally meet some real thinkers. One scientist we spoke to informed us that we are at the end of an ice age, that if temperatures rise to what the earth's "normal" levels are that the oceanic evaporative uptake will be so great that all deserts will disappear and the earth will become a verdant jungle of sorts. Given my heating bill this last winter, this can't happen soon enough for me!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 6 months ago
    Heard a funny joke last night c/o Newsbusted. It goes something like this:

    More and more gradeschool children are coming down with a psychiatric fear of man-caused climate change. Yeah, I'd be afraid to find Al Gore under my bed, too!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by illucio 10 years, 6 months ago
    It´s strange these names, like Obamacare and such. Very much like the great best selling novel, I agree that one can´t put on this charade without a whiplash effect. Who are they trying to fool? First it´s the war on terror and now, this far fetched speech. I admit that Obama´s openning speech, way back when he assumed office for the very first time, moved me. But really, how many times have second terms ended well? Let´s not limit ourselves to US history, but beyond. Power is the most vicious drug of all.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 6 months ago
    Not liking the facts, or the prevailing subject-to-change scientific view on a particular problem is nothing akin to Mouch. Mouch told people what worked for him politically, in the end hardly even pretending to be interested in doing the right thing. He wanted Galt to run the economy, as long as it was still a command economy b/c that's what worked for him. Denying things simply b/c we wish they weren't true is more Mouch than President Obama.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 6 months ago
      you keep saying that and it' s projection. There is no statistical relevance for man made gw. We have given tons of stats tons of references and you ignore all of it. I deny that political bullshit. Show the proof.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 6 months ago
        As I said before, we don't have proof. The evidence just keeps getting stronger though. I see it as time value of money problem in which we get streams of wealth generated now but risk large costs in the future. We can calculate the expected value of those costs (probability * cost of it happens) and then work out their present value. I don't know what the numbers are.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 6 months ago
          I'd suggest a great book by the late Michael Crichton called "State of Fear".

          See Crichton was looking for the next great novel and thought - what could be better than an apocalyptic fiction? If' you've never read his books ("Jurassic Park", "Sphere", etc.), he's an assiduous researcher. So he started looking into the science behind man-made climate change to use the facts to supplement his book's premise. Then a funny thing happened. As he did more and more research, the answers he kept getting were exactly the opposite of what his story revolved around!

          To his credit, he completely rewrote the book.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 6 months ago
            Nice call, blarman. In State of Fear, there is about a 10-page section near page 500 of the paperback version in which a professor traces the big push of the environmentalist movement to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Certain words like catastrophe started appearing with approximately tenfold higher frequency.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Wanderer 10 years, 6 months ago
          Circuit;

          I recall asking you if you've heard of Milankovitch Cycles, Henry's rule, and solar activity cycles. You replied you hadn't taken any climate classes. I let it pass at the time because if you're a student you might not have time to chase things on which you're not being tested. However, learning to do your own research is an important life skill, and trusting others rather than yourself is a formula for an unsatisfying life. Once again, read about climate history, Milankovitch Cycles, Henry's rule, and solar forcing, then come back and contribute something more than an echo of what you hear in the popular media. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied greatly over the eons, as have the size of the ice caps and the earth's surface temperature. These variations were happening long before the industrial age and will continue long after the hydrocarbon age.

          Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the fact that, after years of refusing to release the raw data he used to produce the hockey stick graph, Michael Mann finally said he'd "lost it". So far no one else has been able to reproduce the hockey stick using accepted temperature and CO2 values. It appears most of anthropogenic global warming is based on an accidental or intentional fiction, the evidence for which has been conveniently "lost"..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Your_Name_Goes_Here 10 years, 6 months ago
          The evidence keeps getting stronger? What about the "pause" in warming that their dear models don't correctly predict?

          Cyclical variations in weather patterns have been going on longer than man has walked this earth. Man has very little to do with it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 6 months ago
          CO2 is innocent!

          1. Of CO2 in the atmosphere, human activities produce 3%, nature 97%.
          Suggested homework-
          Search the alarmist sources and sites to confirm or otherwise.

          2. The residence time of CO2 is 5 to 7 years.
          It is then taken up by natural processes by plants, oceans and soils.
          The IPCC use a residence time of 100 years in their reports and in calculations.
          Suggested homework-
          See if you can be the first to find any data to support the IPCC.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 6 months ago
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 6 months ago
            The link says that the subtle changes associated with climate change will not cause more heat related deaths. That rings true to me. There is some distribution of temperature associated with weather. It's the outliers that cause problems. This is why 8 inches of snow can shut down DC but not Milwaukee. If DC started getting more snow storms on a regular basis, it would be incorrect to calculate the lost productivity due to increased snow, using the assumption DC could never deal with snow.

            The article doesn't go into it, but it touches on gov't/media reports confusing weather with climate. I frequently hear a particular weather event associated with climate change. I asked a weather scientist about this two years ago when we were in the middle of a warm spell that lasted over 12 months. "Is this climate change?" I asked. She said this is _weather_, not climate change. We had months of way above average temperatures long ago. You can't detect climate change just looking at one region over a year or two.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Wanderer 10 years, 6 months ago
      Circuit;

      What does your remark imply about Obama? He certainly denies things he knows to be true. You're saying it's not due to wishful thinking. So, for what reason does he deny things he knows to be true?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 6 months ago
        I think your question is why do politicians lie. I have an intuitive understanding why. They're trying to get a majority to support them. Most people including me don't pay that much attention to the details, so little soundbites and headlines matter. Lying helps get the soundbites and headlines.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo