Mad Mike

TNG was good but DS9 sucked. Just a soap opera in space.

The form the of any new Star Trek is not as important as good writing. Give me some edgy thought provoking stories

Science says that we can clean up coal and oil usage while promoting clean energy and STILL meet or needs.

OK. Here's a question for the board... 

If Republican leaders are not selling out our nation's (and the world's) future to big oil and coal, how come they are not listening to their own constituents?

A National Survey of Republicans and Republican-­‐Leaning Independents on Energy and Climate Change | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

More highlights and a full report in PDF form after the link. 

 

By a margin of 2 to 1, respondents say America should take action to reduce our fossil fuel use.

 

Only one third of respondents agree with the Republican Party’s position on climate change, while about half agree with the party’s position on how to meet America’s energy needs.

 

A large majority of respondents say their elected representatives are unresponsive to their views about climate change.

I love to bike when I can. I bought a nice bike for myself last christmas but had to put it away for the summer. I just cant take the heat and humidity down here. Weather has been great lately but now my knees are shot. Still I'll have to get back into the grove with some short rides. 

The funny thing though... I have permanent spinal cord damage that cut off the nerves to my calf in my left leg. Meaning I cant push off with my toes to balance at all. So when I ride, I have to make sure that when I stop, I do it so I can put my right foot down and get on and off on that side. If I don't I tend to just fall over like the character on the tricycle on Laugh-In. LOL

and a request for additional funds

Yeah, thats right.... Scientists all over the world, NASA, and the US military are all in it for the money. But the Koch Brothers, oil and coal companies are denying climate change out of the goodness of their freedom loving hearts. [/sarc]

Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change - NYTimes.com

 

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.

The report lays out a road map to show how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic military planning situations to a rethinking of the movement of supplies.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking Monday at a meeting of defense ministers in Peru, highlighted the report’s findings and the global security threats of climate change.

It's funny how the op demonizes R's and says it's big money that is keeping us burning that big bad coal and other pollutants, but is oblivious to the blatant money and power grab by the other side. The epa has it's fingers in everything, and has tremendous power, blocking plants/projects by it's "enemies" while at the same time having the power to grant their "friends" anything under the sun.

 

Coal is too dirty and scary. Nukes are too evil. Where the hell are we supposed to get our electricity from? Unicorn farts and fairy piss?

Wind is expensive and not very viable, plus it's an eyesore and costs a fortune to get the turbines up and running. Solar has the same problem as wind, if it's not sunny then you lose a good portion of your power generation ability, plus it takes up acres and acres of space, plus is expensive as well.

 

Some are making millions/billions off this ****, but it sure as hell ain't Mr. and Mrs American.. no we're funding it like everything else in this country, it ALL gets dumped on the middle class.

 

I'm not about paying more for power and gas just to satisfy some libs ideals of lining their pockets and their cronies pockets, while emptying mine.

WTF are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to claim that NASA and the EPA is warning us about climate change for the money? Really? How about these guys?....

Four-Star Warning: Generals Dub Climate Change a Security Risk - NBC News.com

 

A new report from a panel of former Pentagon leaders calls climate change a direct threat to national security and the U.S. economy, as extreme weather stands to stretch troops thin, spark unrest in unstable regions, and unravel global networks of trade and resources.

The authors –- 16 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals who compose the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board (MAB) -- blame a warming planet for, in part, aggravating tensions among some nations.

Their study, released Tuesday night, dubs climate change “a catalyst for conflict” against a backdrop of increasingly decentralized power structures around the world.

Robert Rubin: How ignoring climate change could sink the U.S. economy - The Washington Post

 

I recently participated in a bipartisan effort to measure the economic risks of unchecked climate change in the United States. We commissioned an independent analysis, led by a highly respected group of economists and climate scientists, and our inaugural report, “Risky Business,” was released in June. The report’s conclusions demonstrated the significant harm that climate change is causing now and that will almost certainly be far more severe in the future — to the agricultural, energy and coastal-property sectors, as well as to public health and labor productivity more generally.

By 2050, for example, between $48 billion and $68 billion worth of current property in Louisiana and Florida is likely to be at risk of flooding because it will be below sea level. And that’s just a baseline estimate; there are other scenarios that could be catastrophic.

If you are going to make the claim that the people warning us about climate change are in it for the money, perhaps you can show us all the money trail? 

So when Congressman Larry Bucshon says:

 

 

Of all the climatologists whose careers depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles? Yes, I could read that, but I don’t believe it.

You believe him right?

Rep. Larry Bucshon: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2014 | OpenSecrets

Top three contributors:

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

 

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's tohide the decline."

"Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998).

 

 The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem...

The rest of your post is just as flawed. But using an article from over 20 years ago is just over the top moronic.

The superhuman ****-ups of Christopher Booker | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

 

Much of his journalism consists of the reckless endangerment of the public. In a long series of articles he has falsely claimed that the danger from white asbestos is insignificant. To support his contention that innocent parents are being harassed by over-zealous officials, he relayed a partisan account which served to minimise and dismiss the serious injuries inflicted on a small baby [see paragraph 185 onwards]. The judge pointed out Booker's "significant factual errors and omissions". And he went on to say: "All of this underlines the dangers inherent in journalists relying on partisan and invariably tendentious reporting by family members and their supporters rather than being present in court to hear the evidence which the court itself hears."

 

He has published scores of articles insisting that global warming isn't caused by humans, and suggesting that we can carry on burning fossil fuels without regard for the climate. Even when the people he cites as his sources (the health and safety executive in the case of asbestos) try to correct him, he keeps repeating the myth.

The only people that need to be sued are those who falsify and/or manipulate climatic data to fit a predetermined result based on politics not science and the IPCC for the inaccuracy of their climate models.

When you find such people feel free. But the claims you are referencing have been debunked 1000 times over.

Meanwhile...

Google Chairman: ALEC Is Lying About Climate Change And Funding Them Was A Mistake | ThinkProgress

 

Google’s controversial decision to fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was a “mistake,” company chairman Eric Schmidt admitted on Monday, saying the group is spreading harmful lies about global warming and “making the world a much worse place.”

 

In an interview on NPR’s Diane Rehm show, Schmidt said the free-market lobbying group’santi-climate and anti-clean energy positions are harmful to future generations, and a bad investment idea for the company.

“Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place,” Schmidt said. “And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

"a report from the New Climate Economy Project and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both found that cutting greenhouse gases may actually lead to faster economic growth"

idiots leave out that is faster economic growth elsewhere and that it will be with your dollars  

 

your prices must naturally rise.......oh and I hear walking is good for ya

Snark doesn't win debates. It just makes you look bad.

Denying Climate Change 'Will Cost Us Billions Of Dollars,' U.S. Budget Director Warns | ThinkProgress

 

 

Two recent studies back up Donovan’s fiscally-driven push to act on climate change: a report from the New Climate Economy Project and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both found that cutting greenhouse gases may actually lead to faster economic growth, and the IMF noted that the co-benefits of cutting carbon emissions — which will come largely in the form of improvements to public health, such as decreased asthma and other respiratory illnesses and attacks — will help drive down medical costs.

Congressman: Don't Trust Climate Scientists, They're In It For The Money | ThinkProgress

 

But the real treat of Bucshon’s testimony was not his climate denial, rather it was his assertion that he doesn’t believe any of the peer-reviewed literature put forth by climate scientists. The admission came after Bucshon asked whether it was true that the EPA’s regulations for coal plants would have no impact on reducing global temperatures.

Bucshon:

 Is it true that this rule has no effect on the global temperature change?

Holdren:

 Can I take that? I’d like to respond to that.

 

Bucshon:

 There’s public comment out there that that question has been asked and answered saying no.

Holdren:

 You should look at the scientific literature [interrupted] rather than the public comments …

Bucshon:

 

Of all the climatologists whose careers depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles? Yes, I could read that, but I don’t believe it.

And his funding?.....

Rep. Larry Bucshon: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2014 | OpenSecrets

 

 

Top 5 Contributors, 2013 - 2014, Campaign Cmte

Contributor Total Indivs PACs Murray Energy $19,700 $9,700 $10,000 Koch Enterprises $14,000 $14,000 $0 Peabody Energy $12,250 $10,250 $2,000

(this is 1-3)

And the #2 contributor by industry...

Top 20 Industries contributing to Campaign Cmte Member Rank   District Rank   Industry   Total   Indivs   PACs   1 6 Health Professionals $109,750 $7,250 $102,500 2 2 Mining $81,250 $57,250 $24,000

 

 

 

This Legendary Accounting Firm Just Ran the Numbers on Climate Change | Mother Jones

 

With every year that passes, we're getting further away from averting a human-caused climate disaster. That's the key message in this year's "Low Carbon Economy Index," a report released by the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The report highlights an "unmistakable trend": The world's major economies are increasingly failing to do what's needed to to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. That was the target agreed to by countries attending the United Nations' 2009 climate summit; it represents an effort to avoid some of the most disastrous consequences of runaway warming, including food security threats, coastal inundation, extreme weather events, ecosystem shifts, and widespread species extinction.

To curtail climate change, individual countries have made a variety of pledges to reduce their share of emissions, but taken together, those promises simply aren't enough. According to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, "the gap between what we are doing and what we need to do has again grown, for the sixth year running." The report adds that at current rates, we're headed towards 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit of warming by the end of the century—twice the agreed upon rate. Here's a breakdown of the paper's major findings.

Direct link to the study: ‎www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/low-carbon-economy-index-2014.pdf

I dislike many of their tactics but greenpeace is capable of doing some quality research.

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine | Greenpeace

 

 

Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they've made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It's timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they're up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires' destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.

This article is all about the links and sources. For example here, the FOIA was used to document this deniers funding. The interesting thing to me is that he received large grants from NASA, who many accuse of being part of a giant left wing conspiracy to destroy America by destroying our freedom. (Honestly, I've had people tell me that) The truth is that NASA is willing to listen to the opinions of people like him on their specific area of expertise, but with far more information from a greater variety of experts, and without being funded by Big Oil & Coal, they have come to a different overall conclusion.

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal | Greenpeace

And about his claimed areas of expertise....

 

 

Get funding from big coal, become expert in Mercury?

In May 2011, an op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), co-authored by Willie Soon and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’s Paul Driessen.  Entitled “The Myth of Killer Mercury,” the piece attacked the EPA’s proposed rules for limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. 

Dr. Soon’s WSJ byline stated: "Mr. Soon, a natural scientist at Harvard, is an expert on mercury and public health issues."

Greenpeace asked both Harvard University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) to verify this newfound area of expertise expressed by Dr Soon. Dr Charles Al****, the Director of the CfA, stated in an email that Dr. Soon was employed an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO), which is apparently housed within the CfA, along with the the Harvard College Observatory. Dr. Al**** said in a letter "I cannot comment on Dr Soon’s expertise regarding mercury and public health issues."

Nonetheless, Willie Soon has no affiliation with Harvard University except sharing a building with Harvard students and staff on Harvard’s campus.

As the Wall St. Journal op-ed was re-posted across the web on right wing blogs and think tank websites, Dr. Soon’s byline mysteriously started to morph, turning into: "Willie Soon is a natural scientist who has studied mercury and public health issues for eight years." Yet there is no record of any such public health studying or publishing in peer reviewed journals in his most recent bio and CV, written six years ago.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/

 

The result is based on data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on board of the Japanese satellite “GCOM-W1″. “The winter maximum has been a record for on the second consecutive year” said Walt Meier, a meteorologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. However, he stressed that it is by no means a rapid growth: The now measured maximum extent is only 3.6 percent above the average maximum extent of 1981 to 2010. “This year, the ice edge extends therefore only 35 kilometres further out to sea than in an average year,” Meier said.

Moreover, the mere extent of sea ice does not necessarily say something about the volume of the ice, because that also depends on the thickness of the frozen layer. And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent – and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica.

New Theory for Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing

 

a new study has pinpointed another culprit: melting ice shelves. As ice shelves that ring the southernmost continent disintegrate in warming temperatures, the fresh water that flows from them accumulates in a cool

and fresh surface layer on top of the ocean. This cool layer then shields the surface ocean from the warmer, deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves.

The study "shows that global warming can cause regional cooling, and that's quite counterintuitive," said study leader Richard Bintanja, of theRoyal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. (See a map of the impact of global warming worldwide.)

"Most people think if you warm the whole system, it will warm everywhere," he said.

Also counterintuitively, a colder Antarctica may contribute to a rise in sea levels. Colder temperatures mean less snow on the ice sheets, which makes more water stay in the ocean, he pointed out.

the funny thing about Global warming is they do more to hurt themselves than anything. First its global warming then its global climate change, then we have an exceptionally cold winter. People in general don't care about the science behind it, they use their personal observation and that tells them that things are getting colder rather than hotter. Then you see reports that there is more ice in the antarctic and more ice at the north pole then combine that with idiots like Al Gore who predicted doom and gloom and that just strengthens the average person's aversion to global warming.

Watch 27 years of 'old' Arctic ice melt away in seconds | Environment | theguardian.com

Limbaugh: 'Polar vortex' is made up, yet still proof the ice caps aren't melting | PunditFact

Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again

could you clarify EXACTLY what the current scientific consensus is????

I hear a lot of bantering, not enough specifics

Climate Change and Global Warming: Vital Signs of the Planet

Ouch! Texas Judge Slams Right-winger for Wasting His Time | TFN Insider

 

 

In his lengthy list of “Findings of Fact,” Judge Dietz rips into wild and unsubstantiated claims that the head of the right-wing, corporate-funded Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast, made when he testified in the case last year. The Heartland Institute argues, among other things, that the overwhelming scientific evidence on the growing threat of global climate change is wrong. It also supports voucher schemes that take funding from neighborhood public schools to subsidize tuition at private and religious schools instead.

From the findings of fact:

 

 

Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.

A message about the Koch brothers from the father of capitalism:

 

“The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ... ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined ... with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men ... who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public” 

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Volume 1 of 2

Koch Brothers Threaten to Sue Over New Petcoke Ordinance - Toxic Waste Land - Curbed Chicago

what do you know....

Donations to House Speaker John Boehner questioned by Federal Election Commission | cleveland.com

 

Letters the Federal Election Committee sent Monday toFriends of John Boehnerindicated that donors including coal, energy, and gambling interests, exceeded contribution limits to Boehner's committee by more than $150,000.

Among the groups that were allegedly overgenerous to Boehner were Coalpac and Minepac, which represent the mining industry, as well as political committees representing the Exelon, Constellation and Luminant power companies, and the Ceasars and Penn National gambling enterprises.

Rep. John Boehner: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2014 | OpenSecrets

I also chimed in, explaining why "all of above" is basically a way to avoid acknowledging that fossil fuels have long term costs that are not being paid right now.

Subsidies that we currently have for fossil fuels need to stop. Government needs to take action and begin the drive to factor in long term costs of fossil fuels.

GOP uses two approaches to fight this

1) deflect the conversation with "all of the above"

2) if the conversation starts, engage in fear and tax mongering

One common argument given by republicans is that the government has no business subsidizing alternative fuels but the truth is that they area expecting alternative fuels to beat the cost of traditional fuels that are subsidized already through massive tax breaks.

‎

www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/downloads/TCS_ETR_Report.pdf

 

According to their financial statements, 20 of the largest oil and gas companies reported a total of $133.3 billion in U.S. pre-tax income from 2009 through 2013. These companies reported total federal income taxes during this period of $32.1 billion, giving them a federal effective tax rate (ETR) of 24.0 percent. Special provisions in the U.S. tax code allowed these companies to defer payment of more than half of this tax bill. This group of companies actually paid $15.6 billion in income taxes to the federal government during the last five years, equal to 11.7 percent of their U.S. pre-tax income. This measure, the amount of U.S. income tax paid regularly every tax period (i.e. not deferred), is known as the “current” tax rate.

 

Four of the companies in this study – ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, and Chevron – account for 84 percent of all the income and paid 85 percent of all the taxes for the entire group. These four had an ETR of 24.4 percent and a current ETR of only

 

13.3 percent. The smaller firms paid an even smaller share of their tax liability on a current basis. When the top four

companies and those with losses are excluded from the analysis, the remaining companies reported a 28.9 percent ETR on U.S. income, but only a 3.7 percent current rate. They deferred over 87 percent of their tax liability. 

GOP blocks tax hikes for oil companies - USATODAY.com

 

The massive tax measure marked a sharp turn from longtime congressional support of the oil industry to promoting alternative energy development and moving toward energy sources that would help deal with the growing concerns over global warming.

 

But Republicans complained that it was too harsh on the oil industry and could lead to oil companies reducing investments in new oil refineries and production. They also said that it could lead to higher prices for consumers.

"When you put a tax on a business it gets passed on to consumers," argued Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz. "Instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill is going to add to the cost of gasoline."

A little history....

Svante Arrhenius - Biographical

Svante Arrhenius : Feature Articles

And a jr high school level science experiment anyone can perform....

Meanwhile...

Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years - The Washington Post

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

And how's this for Irony....

Delaware Oil Refinery's Sudden Worrying About Sea Level Rise Goes Viral! | Delaware Way

Climate Change Is So Bad Even Oil Companies Are Bracing for it Now