|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 9, 2016 22:12:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 9, 2016 22:56:32 GMT
If they want to start a legal war, then I guess they are going to start it. But they forget, there are lots of stones under the rocks of AGW proponents as well. This could get very very interesting. And, to be blunt, won't deter me from expressing my opinion. IF I was CEI I would data dump the whole lot on that Attn General. NOT sorted or anything. Hand him a couple of portable hard drives and say have at it gents!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 10, 2016 2:00:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 10, 2016 11:36:47 GMT
If they want to start a legal war, then I guess they are going to start it. But they forget, there are lots of stones under the rocks of AGW proponents as well. This could get very very interesting. And, to be blunt, won't deter me from expressing my opinion. IF I was CEI I would data dump the whole lot on that Attn General. NOT sorted or anything. Hand him a couple of portable hard drives and say have at it gents! I'll send them the entire leaked emails and files from Climategates I and II to include.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 11, 2016 1:08:15 GMT
www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/Don’t be fooled by the post-Paris fanfare: The climate change movement faces big trouble ahead. The UN’s climate summit in Paris at the end of 2015 concluded with a bang. The world’s governments promised sweeping cuts in carbon emissions. Rich countries promised to help poor ones with $100 billion per year in climate assistance. President Obama quickly declared the agreement “the best chance we have to save the one planet we’ve got.” The consensus quickly jelled that this was a major, historic achievement. Then came the fizzle: The agreement is non-binding. Secretary of State John Kerry asserted on NBC’s Meet the Press that compliance would be enforced through the “powerful weapon” of public shaming, apparently implying a policy of verbal confrontation toward states that fall short. The Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg, a prominent critic of the top-down international conference approach to climate change, called the Paris agreement the “costliest in history” if implemented. According to Lomborg, the agreement would “reduce temperatures by 2100 by just 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit)…. This is simply cynical political theater, meant to convince us that our leaders are taking serious action…a phenomenally expensive but almost empty gesture.” NASA scientist Jim Hansen, one of the earliest proponents of the idea that global warming is manmade, slammed the deal as “half-assed and half-baked,” a “fake,” and a “fraud.”
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 11, 2016 12:58:01 GMT
www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/Don’t be fooled by the post-Paris fanfare: The climate change movement faces big trouble ahead. The UN’s climate summit in Paris at the end of 2015 concluded with a bang. The world’s governments promised sweeping cuts in carbon emissions. Rich countries promised to help poor ones with $100 billion per year in climate assistance. President Obama quickly declared the agreement “the best chance we have to save the one planet we’ve got.” The consensus quickly jelled that this was a major, historic achievement. Then came the fizzle: The agreement is non-binding. Secretary of State John Kerry asserted on NBC’s Meet the Press that compliance would be enforced through the “powerful weapon” of public shaming, apparently implying a policy of verbal confrontation toward states that fall short. The Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg, a prominent critic of the top-down international conference approach to climate change, called the Paris agreement the “costliest in history” if implemented. According to Lomborg, the agreement would “reduce temperatures by 2100 by just 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit)…. This is simply cynical political theater, meant to convince us that our leaders are taking serious action…a phenomenally expensive but almost empty gesture.” NASA scientist Jim Hansen, one of the earliest proponents of the idea that global warming is manmade, slammed the deal as “half-assed and half-baked,” a “fake,” and a “fraud.” “half-assed and half-baked,” a “fake,” and a “fraud.” Coming from one who should know...that's high praise indeed. A VERY GOOD article however.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 16, 2016 16:33:00 GMT
Ready to pay more??? www.nature.com/news/sugar-tax-could-sweeten-a-market-failure-1.19646?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20160331&spMailingID=51037895&spUserID=NDc3NTg0ODg4MTUS1&spJobID=883880186&spReportId=ODgzODgwMTg2S0Health campaigners and political observers got a surprise in the United Kingdom's latest budget. This month, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced a sugar tax in the form of a levy on sugary-drinks manufacturers. Related stories Honey trap Nutrition: Dominions of fizz Climate change: Beef farming brings on warming More related stories This is a bold and welcome move from a Conservative government that has often been criticized for not standing up to industry. It demonstrates that officials and policymakers have heeded advice and now recognize that sugar is a public-health problem that needs legislative control. The tax has potential implications not just for public health and the global soft-drinks industry, but also for the ability of all governments to act on market failures in food.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 8, 2016 2:08:12 GMT
DISASTER AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE (oops ... I meant model) climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/Fast facts The Paris Agreement calls for limiting the increase in global temperature by the end of this century to no more than 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. A recent study projects the following impact of a 2-degree rise compared to a rise of 1.5 degrees: Heat-wave duration, rainstorm intensity and sea-level rise would increase by roughly a third (and sea level is likely to continue rising long after air temperature is stabilized). There would be a disproportionately greater impact on certain basic crops. Tropical coral reefs would be wiped out. The Mediterranean area’s reduction in fresh water would double. Sayonara World! NASA says ... Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 8, 2016 5:12:24 GMT
I feel very alarmed by this!!!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 13, 2016 1:32:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 13, 2016 3:37:29 GMT
Where will that lead? What do they intend to achieve (apart from the obvious)?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 13, 2016 10:38:11 GMT
Where will that lead? What do they intend to achieve (apart from the obvious)? It will lead to an action against the 'Climate Science' community based on the kind of evidence of their malfeasance and bad science. If they are lucky they will only be censured. If Theo is correct and the world temperatures drop considerably then they may want to consider dropping out of sight completely. As it is the TTP, TTIP and CEAT trade agreements are just Trojan horses to put COP21 agreements as law of the land for all states party to the 'trade' agreements. The EPA type restrictions would be enforced by a trsaty 'tribunal' that because it was a treaty would be superior to Congress. These treaties are supported by Paul Ryan as they have the word 'trade' in their title and like all good congressmen he never reads what he votes for. So the plan is that Paris COP21 will be enforced trans Pacific and trans Atlantic using the treaties. This was the reason for Obama et al getting so wound up about Brexit, they do not want UK forming some looser real trade agreements that do not have these same 'Green Gauleiter' clauses. Considering the giggling between Cameron and Obama at the recent NATO talks I think some kind of fix is in, watch the new Prime Minister May and how she takes to the treaties; expect some statement to the effect that a Brexit UK will still be party to the TTIP or some such.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 4, 2016 4:14:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 4, 2016 4:20:37 GMT
I have tried to grow coffee not to seriously. it grows but does not thrive, we need an extra 5C. When those shares fall to a few cents, buy them because there will be coffee in 64 years.
Idiots, how do they run a company, seriously. That saying, stupid or lying.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 10, 2016 23:23:21 GMT
|
|