Liberal Forum

Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
 “All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

“600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

https://co2coalition.org/news/two-princ ... on-a-hoax/

@razoo   what say you?

ROG62 » 14 Aug 2023, 3:45 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2023, 3:45 pm

Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
 “All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

“600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

https://co2coalition.org/news/two-princ ... on-a-hoax/

@razoo   what say you?

No rebuttal @razoo  ?
 

ROG62 » 14 Aug 2023, 3:45 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2023, 3:45 pm

Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
 “All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

“600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

https://co2coalition.org/news/two-princ ... on-a-hoax/

@razoo   what say you?

The climate crisis is a scam for the climate elites to cash in.

roadkill » 22 Aug 2023, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Aug 2023, 2:16 pm

The climate crisis is a scam for the climate elites to cash in.

exactly...with Greta as their spokesperson, they're bound to get RICHER....
 

ROG62 » 14 Aug 2023, 3:45 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2023, 3:45 pm

Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
 “All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

“600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

https://co2coalition.org/news/two-princ ... on-a-hoax/

@razoo   what say you?

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015. William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2Coalition.  William Happer, an emeritus professor of physics known for disagreeing with the consensus on climate change, was another CO2 Coalition founder from the Marshall Institute. Happer said the association with climate contrarianism had negatively affected Marshall Institute funding, viz: "Many foundations that would normally have supported defense would not do it because of the Marshall name being associated with climate". The defense activities of the Marshall Institute were moved to the Center for Strategic and International Studies[3][4][5]In its first four years, the CO2 Coalition received over $1 million in contributions from foundations that support conservative causes and from energy industry officials.[4]In 2023, John Clauser joined the board of the CO2 Coalition.[6][7]

ROG62 » 22 Aug 2023, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Aug 2023, 4:12 pm

exactly...with Greta as their spokesperson, they're bound to get RICHER....

I do not believe mankind is NOT capable of intentionally changing the climate. The climate system is too old and we are too small to accomplish it, if we tried.

However, all the real scientists that agree with me are paid by oil companies to agree with me.

I’ve been wrong, about many things.

But it’s hard enough to agree with oil company whores without MAGAS beating up on Greta for her mainstream science beliefs.

If they are right and we are wrong we are selfish bastards who don’t care about our grandkids.

 
 

Bruce » 22 Aug 2023, 4:31 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Aug 2023, 4:31 pm

I do not believe mankind is NOT capable of intentionally changing the climate. The climate system is too old and we are too small to accomplish it, if we tried.

However, all the real scientists that agree with me are paid by oil companies to agree with me.

I’ve been wrong, about many things.

But it’s hard enough to agree with oil company whores without MAGAS beating up on Greta for her mainstream science beliefs.

If they are right and we are wrong we are selfish bastards who don’t care about our grandkids.

8 billion mouths to feed is not small.  Ever mind everyone else who’ve come before during the industrial age. 
 

Pastafarian » 22 Aug 2023, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Aug 2023, 4:48 pm

8 billion mouths to feed is not small.  Ever mind everyone else who’ve come before during the industrial age.

Let’s become fascist authoritarian dictators, and we’ll imprison Greta and all the global warmers.

Now, we are in control.

Our problem is 100% of the $3 a barrel easy oil is owned by rag heads and camel jockeys in **** hole countries in Arabia.

America has lots and lots of $75 oil and no $30 oil at all.

What we need are cheap electro cars running on wind power to conserve oil for our 396 Chevelles.


 

Bruce » 22 Aug 2023, 4:59 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Aug 2023, 4:59 pm

Let’s become fascist authoritarian dictators, and we’ll imprison Greta and all the global warmers.

Now, we are in control.

Our problem is 100% of the $3 a barrel easy oil is owned by rag heads and camel jockeys in **** hole countries in Arabia.

America has lots and lots of $75 oil and no $30 oil at all.

What we need are cheap electro cars running on wind power to conserve oil for our 396 Chevelles.

Agreed. Climate change is a challenge. I think taxing the poor is not the answer nor is taxing Co2 emitters instead incentivize companies for incorporating cleaner measures and options.  Also kelp beds eat massive amounts of Co2 so for sure start raising more kelp farms. Also, use more desert land for solar farms. 
 

ROG62 » 15 Aug 2023, 5:35 am » wrote: ↑

15 Aug 2023, 5:35 am

No rebuttal @razoo  ?

Ill say it for him in case he doesn't show. "But but but Trrump and the GOP..."

Vegas » 22 Aug 2023, 7:59 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Aug 2023, 7:59 pm

Ill say it for him in case he doesn't show. "But but but Trrump and the GOP..."

that's already a given...funny how they all become crickets...