Trump Wants to Speed Infrastructure Projects by Dropping Climate Impact Assessment

By | January 9, 2020

  • January 9, 2020 at 10:59 am
    Jon says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 19

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • January 9, 2020 at 1:27 pm
      Floodguy says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 22
      Thumb down 22

      Typical leftist responses. They have no facts to present, just what they parrot from the likes of morons such as Rachel Maddow. We could have 0 carbon emissions and it would still not negate what China and India spew out. But wait, you can still emit all you want if you are willing to buy carbon credits from the likes of Al Gore. Go back to the basement Jon and work on getting a life.

    • January 9, 2020 at 1:36 pm
      Agency says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 16
      Thumb down 12

      If you want to make an argument, put forth the facts and present what truth anyone is hiding. Did you know that President Obama purchased a home on a property that “climate scientist” projected to be underwater in the foreseeable future. Who would pay over 10 million dollars for a property they thought would eventually deplete? In 2006, Al Gore stated we will be at the point of no return in 10 years, his predictions did not even come close to happening. Lastly since things have not happened ad falsely predicted and as the lies continue to mount, climate scientist are finally admitting that things may not be that bad:
      https://nationalpost.com/news/world/climate-scientists-now-say-worst-case-and-best-case-scenarios-may-never-happen

      Okay Jon, where are you facts???

      • January 9, 2020 at 4:25 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 6

        Here’s a fact, the website you linked has a right-wing bias!

        https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-post/

        Here’s another, did you actually read that article? Quote from it:

        “The new finding contrasts with a similar study, also published in the influential journal.
        “It all suggests that scientists have plenty more work to do in figuring out a better estimate of the climate sensitivity. Their best answer will be watched for closely when it arrives in the form of the next report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, currently expected in 2021.”

        They talk about this being one particular study that removed roughly 60% of the variability from prior studies. If it’s correct. Another study just published evidence to the contrary. They’re studies, not fact.

        Maybe you should do some actual research best the headlines? Because right now it looks like you just want to argue the right-wing arguments and not actually read. Maybe try reading?

        • January 9, 2020 at 7:26 pm
          Agency says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 12
          Thumb down 2

          I am not interested in “right wing” anything or politics, I am interested in the truth. I have seen so many lies and missed predictions from the climate crowd that it’s hard to trust them anymore as they have a poor track record. Again why would a President who preached the “dangers” of climate change buy a home in an area that is projected to be underwater? Do you ignore this for political convenience?

          Furthermore you state:

          “It all suggests that scientists have plenty more work to do in figuring out a better estimate of the climate sensitivity.”

          Well why was Al Gore so certain back 10 years ago? Why did they fabricate the numbers several times? Is it because reality did not serve their narrative? I am not going to waste my time accusing you of “left wing” anything, I am just going to cause you of being totally misinformed on this issue.

          • January 9, 2020 at 9:19 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 7

            Can you provide evidence of your claim that they have “fabricated numbers several times”?

          • January 9, 2020 at 11:08 pm
            Outhouse of Representatives says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 3

            Goo – gul it.

          • January 10, 2020 at 8:18 am
            Outhouse of Representatives says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 4

            The key point of this article is the ‘cascade effect’ of bias via censoring of key qualifiers of research.

            https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding

            There is certainly ‘cascading’ of the bias in climate science research funded by a government entity. Once a story is released with important details omitted or intentionally censored, the ‘result’ is disseminated via the internet before the bias is detected and corrected. Thereafter, it is too late to unwind the error and restore the qualifiers.

            Example: a simple one-way regression analysis shows a ‘fairly high correlation’ between CO2 levels caused by human activity and global temperatures over many decades. The qualifier lost in the cascade is that temperatures on Earth are affected by dozens of factors, not CO2 alone. That is known to all scientists or ‘legitimate thinkers’, but not to the general public.

            But those who WANT to believe in Man-caused climate change will ignore the details they know should be considered and accept that the downstream re-publishings without the details are valid and credible, or wrongly assume that the other factors are irrelevant.

          • January 10, 2020 at 11:11 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 6

            Once again Polar (no surprises) you’re drawing wild conclusions with a LACK OF EVIDENCE. Your article talks about the idea of a cascade effect of bias as a theory, not a fact. It does not mention any specific cases. You’re trying to connect dots that aren’t there because you lack actual evidence.

            Those who WANT to believe that man-made climate change isn’t a thing will draw wild conclusions when there is no evidence to support their side, just like you just did. As you always do. Post another conspiracy theory site and tell me it’s fact, or try to convince us 91% of americans are more concerned about terrorism than global warming LOL. The fact that you even tried to pass that statistic off as fact is laughable, did you actually believe it yourself? Are you truly that gullible?

          • January 10, 2020 at 11:32 am
            Outhouse of Representatives says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 4

            Jon; you’re making a fool of yourself with your opinionated rants. Al Gore is the most famous fool, and others are following his idiotic idea to control the population by charging them for carbon credits, which DO NOT mitigate anything. But CC’s do enrich those in government positions who collect those credit dollars.

          • January 10, 2020 at 12:56 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 6

            LOL you just posted AGAIN about how you believe BOTs were downvoting your posts because you can’t fathom that people just don’t like you. I think I’m doing pretty okay by comparison to you polar :)

        • January 15, 2020 at 6:52 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          First, removal of 60% of variability doesn’t mean much unless you quantify the initial / base variance.

          Example: “this fuel additive increased gas mileage in my vehicle by 25%!!!!….. from 4 mpg to 5 mpg.”

          Second, the prior studies could be / most likely are* ‘crap’.

          * – likely are because they were conducted by self-proclaimed ‘Climate Scientists’

  • January 9, 2020 at 11:02 am
    Outhouse of Representatives says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 12

    This is certainly good news. Reviews of environmental impacts are often done by the drafters of the project plans, although not to the extent done by the EPA. Projects are rarely presented for consideration if the drafters know they won’t pass environmental regulations / rules. So, these job-creating, publicly beneficial projects will be fast-tracked.

    EPA reviews can be streamlined because they are overly burdensome due to bureaucracy rather than compliance.

  • January 9, 2020 at 11:07 am
    Outhouse of Representatives says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 11

    These are two key points in the article which did not catch the eye of the poster above:

    “For projects requiring detailed environmental impact assessments, the rule would limit the review period to two years and the length of the report.

    According to CEQ, the average length of a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement is currently 600 pages and takes 4.5 years to conclude. U.S. federal agencies prepare approximately 170 such assessments per year. ”

    Government inertia is perfectly exemplified by the above facts/ details. Trump is getting things done to improve the quality of life for US citizens.

    • January 9, 2020 at 11:34 am
      Jon says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 17

      Hey polar! On the last climate change post you posted a discredited conspiracy site and claimed the information they reported was fact! (It wasn’t!) Prove any of your statements. Except you won’t, because you lie and then try straw man tactics or goalposy shifting, or you call any reputable news source socialist while posting things from the tin foil hay sector. Go back to Reddit where you belong with that kind of trolling.

    • January 9, 2020 at 11:35 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 20
      Thumb down 10

      I bet you it would take a lot less than 4.5 years if the EPA wasn’t so significantly under-staffed.

    • January 9, 2020 at 10:24 pm
      Outhouse of Representatives says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 3

      To the contrary, the EPA is over-staffed. They should not be doing everything they do, and they should do the remainder more efficiently. Wasteful bureaucracy is perfectly exemplified by the EPA. The reason the EPA has perpetuated bureaucracy is that they weren’t challenged on the necessity of their procedures… until Trump called them out.

      • January 10, 2020 at 8:21 am
        Outhouse of Representatives says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 3

        Read this for an explanation of bias in funding, followed and perpetuated by calls for MORE FUNDING like Rosenblatt did, above:

        https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding

        • January 10, 2020 at 8:34 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 5

          Yogi – a quick search found NOTHING in your talking about the “epa” or even the partial word “enviro”. Your link does NOTHING to support your argument that the EPA is overfunded and understaffed. Please try to stay on-topic. Just because there is SOME part of the gov’t that is overpaid does not prove the EPA is too.

          This is like saying “Tom Brady is underpaid”, you posting a link showing QB’s are the highest paid position in the league and claiming that proves Brady is overpaid in spite of the reality of his specific contract.

          Please try to keep your arguments on-topic … here, it’s the EPA. Your link says NOTHING about the EPA. Please try again.

          • January 10, 2020 at 9:28 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            That should’ve been “overstaffed and overfunded”, obviously.

          • January 15, 2020 at 6:55 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Do something more than a quick search on biased Goo-gul. Try another search engine for enlightenment on any political subject.

        • January 10, 2020 at 8:41 am
          Outhouse of Representatives says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 7

          It is the opinion of liberals that the EPA is understaffed. THEY are responsible for defending that position. I am not responsible for my OPINION, that is being supported by POTUS as a result of his election, that THE SWAMP is too large and needs to be drained, not filled to larger levels.

          Troll!

          • January 10, 2020 at 9:28 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 6

            Me: “I think the EPA is understaffed”

            Polar: “I think the EPA is overstaffed and overfunded”

            Polar: “Here’s a link to support my argument”

            Me: “Your link does not discuss the EPA”

            Polar: Yeah, well, I don’t HAVE to defend my position anyway even though that’s what I was trying to do. Let me deflect and make a PERSONAL ATTACK for good measure.

            I am a troll for pointing out your link doesn’t support your argument that you were trying prove? That is not trolling. That is called debating. Words matter.

          • January 10, 2020 at 11:39 am
            Outhouse of Representatives says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 6

            Perpetuation of a need for more money for an agenda crosses all types of government agencies; e.g. EPA. The article I posted is VERY PERTINENT to the issue despite not discussing the EPA directly.

            I don’t care what you think about the EPAs need for more staff. The powers that be are downsizing government and regulatory overreach, and the people who that elected the POTUS support it. I do not have to prove anything to you, and won’t put in any effort to do so because it won’t change your agenda.

          • January 10, 2020 at 11:49 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 6

            Yeah Polar, I already said I understood that’s the type of justification you’re using to “prove” the EPA is overfunded. But like I already said…

            This argument is faulty in the same as if I said “Tom Brady is underpaid” then you posted a link showing QB’s are the highest paid position in the league, then you claiming that since QB’s are highly paid somehow proves Brady is overpaid while you completely ignore how much Brady’s contract is actually worth on its own.

            So once again you’re deflecting from the fact that your link says NOTHING about the EPA.

            I “look forward” to your future ghosting of this conversation or more personal attacks.

          • January 10, 2020 at 11:52 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 5

            Also…

            Polar: “I don’t care what you think about the EPAs need for more staff.”

            Pro Tip – if you do not care about someone’s argument, don’t claim it’s wrong then try to prove your counter-argument with a bogus link.

        • January 15, 2020 at 7:56 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          More, from WSJ, for those who subscribe….

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/getting-closer-to-shovel-ready-11578958143?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

          LOL!

  • January 9, 2020 at 1:25 pm
    Barry Rabkin says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 11

    Count me in the group that Trump is right on this issue.

    And yes, I want fewer restrictions on businesses than more restrictions. I’d give the greenies 1 year to demonstrate why on an economic basis the business initiative shouldn’t be done.

  • January 9, 2020 at 1:34 pm
    AppleCiderRadio says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 3

    And in this same issue, Insurance Journal reports that the number of weather disasters of $1 billion or more has doubled. From the article: ” There were 119 billion-dollar weather disasters in the last decade, reaching a cost of $800 billion. That’s about double the number that occurred from 2000 to 2009.”
    So there’s climate change directly affecting your wallet and the economy.
    https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/01/09/554031.htm

    • January 12, 2020 at 1:09 pm
      JaxAgent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 1

      I don’t suppose that the increase has anything to do with inflationary factors ? Nah, that couldn’t be the case.

  • January 9, 2020 at 1:43 pm
    Bandaloop says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 3

    Insurance Journal published an article today indicating that the number of weather related disasters exceeding $1 billion has doubled.
    Sounds like an easily verified metric on the effects of climate change.

    From the article: ” There were 119 billion-dollar weather disasters in the last decade, reaching a cost of $800 billion. That’s about double the number that occurred from 2000 to 2009.”

    Nearly a trillion lost due to weather. Yeah, why would we want to minimize those losses.

    • January 9, 2020 at 7:33 pm
      Common Sense says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 4

      Lots of flaky reporting on this site about Climate. On 12-20-19, report was about half the amount of insured losses due to disasters as the year before. Glad there is some different reports out there than just the hoaxer stories that the sky was falling.

    • January 9, 2020 at 10:57 pm
      Outhouse of Representatives says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 4

      ” Sounds like an easily verified metric on the effects of climate change. ”

      Unfortunately, climate change isn’t the only factor (independent variable) causing an increase in catastrophe events. Further, the climate change factor cannot be measured because the models used to project catastrophe losses do not have an accurate, credible, and responsive measure of climate change. They do, however, measure the concentration of property exposures in geo-zones (e.g. zip code areas), construction costs by type of damaged property, etc., which combined to yield a doubling of claims over $1B per occurrence over a ten year period.

      Increases in numbers (counts) of catastrophes over $1B in insured losses are comparable to increases in amounts of EXCESS claim events. Both inflate (increase) over time in a leveraged manner relative to the inflation of first dollar losses.

      More homes / commercial buildings in urban zones result in large increases in the number and amount of large property insurance claims. Increased concentration of exposures in urban zones yields increased catastrophe claim counts…. of any size, including those over $1B.

      So, a doubling of the number of catastrophes OVER $1B in amount can easily occur as a result of LEVERAGED inflation on LARGE claims (exemplified above by EXCESS claims) over the ten year period used by the author. Two small magnitude claims are used as a simplified example.

      • January 9, 2020 at 11:12 pm
        Outhouse of Representatives says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 4

        Ignore the last paragraph referencing ‘two small claims’, which should have been deleted after I abandoned that example.

    • January 12, 2020 at 1:14 pm
      JaxAgent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 3

      “Sounds like an easily verified metric on the effects of climate change.”
      Inflation – (A $100k loss in 2000 might be $300k in 2019
      Increase construction – far more homes being built in coastal regions than previously
      Tsunamis – climate change – not a chance
      Fires – climate change ? Probably not

      More of the same from the eco-wackos.

      • January 15, 2020 at 8:09 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        This is exactly what I tried to present in my post on 1/9/2020 at 10:57 pm, above. Although, you stated it very succinctly.

      • January 15, 2020 at 8:12 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 3

        re: Wildfires: there are several ‘forest issue’ experts who have stated that the change in forest management procedures due to liberal intervention over the last 4 or 5 decades have contributed to the extra kindling and ignition-prone materials left in forests. THAT is a key factor in the increased frequency and severity of WFs.

  • January 9, 2020 at 1:53 pm
    Andrew says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 1

    I’d prefer they work on the collapsing infrastructure that’s currently in place like interstates and bridges, etc., ad nauseum. I guess the politicians and bureaucrats can’t extract as much money for repair and maintenance projects as they can new oil pipelines.

  • January 9, 2020 at 7:25 pm
    Joseph Totah says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 4

    I am not interested in “right wing” anything or politics, I am interested in the truth. I have seen so many lies and missed predictions from the climate crowd that it’s hard to trust them anymore as they have a poor track record. Again why would a President who preached the “dangers” of climate change buy a home in an area that is projected to be underwater? Do you ignore this for political convenience?

    Furthermore you state:

    “It all suggests that scientists have plenty more work to do in figuring out a better estimate of the climate sensitivity.”

    Well why was Al Gore so certain back 10 years ago? Why did they fabricate the numbers several times? Is it because reality did not serve their narrative? I am not going to waste my time accusing you of “left wing” anything, I am just going to cause you of being totally misinformed on this issue.

  • January 9, 2020 at 7:28 pm
    Strategic Agencies LLC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 2

    Lest sentence should state “..accuse you of being misinformed”

  • January 9, 2020 at 8:39 pm
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    We have only one planet on which to live. If we do not take care of our planet and its life, we will all be dead within the next 100 years.

    • January 9, 2020 at 11:05 pm
      Outhouse of Representatives says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 4

      ” we will all be dead within the next 100 years. ”

      Yes, WE will. Human life expectancy is currently between 70 and 85 years

    • January 10, 2020 at 3:17 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 2

      Yes yes, we all know we should be good stewards to the earth. Carbon itself is not a destroyer of worlds. There is not evidence humans will all be dead in 100 years, this is ludicrous.

      It is a doomsday prediction. The scientists are not saying this.

    • January 15, 2020 at 8:23 am
      Capt Kirkfuffle Federation Bureaucrat & Planetory Explorer says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 4

      Space is another frontier. We should pay Planet Exodus Taxes to our governments to explore space to avoid extinction. I propose we all pay 110% of our income to our governments to expand space exploration, to find a new home planet because Global Climate Change is going to wipe out the human race in a few million years. Worse, Climate Change may wipe out all marijuana plants in a few hundred years, or as soon as ocean waters engulf Obama’s and Gore’s seaside homes!

      • January 15, 2020 at 9:55 pm
        Angry Kyle Jurek, Bernie Bro says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        If the EPA is reduced or eliminated, I’m gonna get angry. Well, angrier.

  • January 10, 2020 at 8:45 am
    Outhouse of Representatives says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 5

    This passage, excerpted from a FoxNews article (instantly dismissed by liberals as ‘biased’), shows the hypocrisy of liberals supporting Climate Change despite proof their projections were wrong…

    ” A spokesperson for the Glacier National Park told CNN that the over decade-old signs were placed after the US Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the existing glaciers at the Montana park would be depleted by 2020 due to climate change projections.

    The USGS, however, told the park in 2017 that it was no longer expecting that the glaciers would disappear by the new decade “due to changes in the forecast model” but weren’t removed until now because “tight maintenance budgets” prevented the removal of the signs.

    The spokesperson told CNN that the signs would be revised and will instead state, “When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking.”

    source:
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-climate-change-glacier-national-park

    LOL at the failed attempt to defend a failed projection, and the subsequent doubling down on the failure!

    • January 10, 2020 at 8:48 am
      Outhouse of Representatives says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 5

      This phrase requires specific comments:

      “due to changes in the forecast model”

      They mis-spelled the word ‘bias’ as ‘changes’. Reminder; ‘bias’ is essentially ‘error’.

    • January 10, 2020 at 9:28 am
      rob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 3

      Reported. that wasn’t nice.

    • January 10, 2020 at 9:31 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 4

      I wonder when people will understand how the scientific method is supposed to work and what a prediction actually means.

      • January 10, 2020 at 12:02 pm
        Outhouse of Representatives says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 4

        So do I.

        • January 10, 2020 at 12:56 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 6

          Please, tell us again about how 91% of americans are more worried about terrorism than climate change LOL you’re a joke as always polar

          • January 15, 2020 at 3:42 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            This will help you understand that post:

            https://wwwtnsurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/01/15/554802.htm

            Cyber incidents rank for the first time as the most important business risk globally, pushing the perennial top peril, business interruption (BI), into second place, according to the ninth Allianz Risk Barometer 2020.

            1. Cyber incidents
            2. Business interruption
            ….
            6. Fire, explosion
            7. Climate change (increasing volatility of weather)
            ….
            10. Macroeconomic developments.

          • January 15, 2020 at 9:25 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            So trying to double down on the outdated, incorrect information you tried passing off as fact? LOL you never disappoint on hitting new lows for your party and generation polar

      • January 10, 2020 at 3:26 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 6

        We are aware how science works, and science has been working differently since liberals have pushed climate change. It is the only exception we have made in science, and they say it because of doomsday predictions it is ok to make that exception, they in this case being people like you, not the science community.

        We understand the scientific method very well, there is only so many times you can make false predictions, it can be proven your methodology cannot predict changes, lacks data (literally for oceanic data) before you have to admit that you do not have a doomsday prediction, nor proof of climate change. You don’t. That’s the end of it. But you keep trying to change science, as do most climate change folks, and I’m sorry, you just don’t have the evidence. Literally. I cannot repeat this enough. The most important data for warming is oceanic, since surface temperatures paused. All surface temperatures now include surface ocean, even NASA, for their surface temperatures, and you have to look for the small print, it is not easily readable. Without oceanic included, there is no increase. NOAA compiles that data. NOAA threatened people with jail for sourcing their data, they hide their data, and, it is proven multiple times, they changed their data. Literally, charts had different temperatures, I’ve shown this in the past to confused. I’ve seen youtubers go over it, etc. These changes are not reasonable or scientific method. It’s evidence of corruption pushing an agenda, and when carbon taxes go with it, rather than methods that could actually make change, they link it to a non ending government tax, you know it’s the government wanting a tax revenue beyond reproach. But more over, it’s a fact, we have only had one of the more reliable methods of temperature testing for about the last 25 years. Before then, we had poorer ones, at different depths, and there were 4 types. They combined them, and made estimates for the fact that we also had hundreds of less monitoring locations, or thousands if you count when temp monitoring first started. That equation leaves for like a 7 degrees Celsius margin of error which NOAA themselves acknowledge. There is no data to support their claims. There is no long term science here. When I look at these numbers my jaw drops at how much the liberal media is lying about scientists, only a few that are funded are actively supporting the extreme claims, the rest have openly said consensus studies do not represent what they are saying when asked, all of them, not some, all, said the studies did not reflect their science on the matter, and they asked some 50, I’ve posted this before. Consensus studies are misleading lies, being pushed by a corrupt government. This is old. We understand the science, we understand the system, do you? Or are you just arrogantly trying to say you know numbers and math and everyone else doesn’t listen? It sounds more like the latter Rosenblatt!!! When are you going to listen to the other side?

        • January 10, 2020 at 3:53 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 6

          go back to the proud boys loser LOL you’ve already been called out on this, where do you get the info that “the most important data for warming is oceanic?” That’s just one. You make statements as if they’re fact based on nothing. You’re a walking Rush Limbaugh billboard and just boring. I don’t care to read the rest of your post because your type of trolling is even more insidious than Polar or Agent. They’re just old and have hit the age where they don’t want to learn anything else and the world changing frightens them. You know exactly what you’re doing, and the misinformation you’re spreading. Your extreme narcissism probably hides a shell of self-hate that compels you to do the awful things you do. But either way, I’m just bored by you.

        • January 13, 2020 at 8:54 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 4

          “The most important data for warming is oceanic, since surface temperatures paused. All surface temperatures now include surface ocean, even NASA, for their surface temperatures, and you have to look for the small print, it is not easily readable. Without oceanic included, there is no increase.”

          Here you go again, Bob. You previously argued that surface temperatures are not rising and there’d be no warming without oceanic temp’s.

          I provided multiple links showing surface temp’s are actually increasing FASTER than oceanic temps and asked you to source your argument that there’d be no warming if we only looked at surface temp’s.

          You ghosted that request, and now you’re posting the same (as far as I can tell) inaccurate information once again.

          PLEASE post your links proving that surface temp’s are not rising.

          PLEASE post your links proving that without water temp’s, there’d be no increase in overall temp’s.

          PLEASE post your links proving my source which shows surface temp’s are rising faster than water temp’s is wrong

          Otherwise PLEASE stop posting the same inaccurate information over and over again.

        • January 13, 2020 at 9:00 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 4

          Q: When are you going to listen to the other side?

          A: When they’re able to actually support their argument with real data and start admitting when they’re wrong (like when you wrote that a law said something and refused to cite the (non-existent) language to prove it actually said what you claimed)

        • January 14, 2020 at 10:35 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          Bob with a “post and run” and not responding to the second request to support his argument in spite of the prior evidence provided that refutes his point? Color me surprised (and sarcastic, obviously)

          • January 15, 2020 at 7:22 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            https://epafacts.com/top-4-ways-the-epa-wastes-taxpayer-money/

            Excerpted:

            1. The EPA employs more than 16,000 full-time employees. A slew of them have recently been found to be incompetent or negligent. The latest example comes from the employee who was caught spending his workday watching porn on his taxpayer-issued computer. Because it is so difficult to fire a federal employee, this individual continued to draw his $120,000 paycheck, even after he was caught red-handed.

            2. the EPA still uses paper, at a big cost to taxpayers. As of December of last year, the EPA had a paper inventory of 18.4 million publications, which costs for the taxpayer equal $1.2 million per year,

            ( Comment: the costs above do not reflect the INEFFICIENCIES of paper record retention and access.)

            3. $200,000 in taxpayer grants to Mexico to help its towns go green. Do U.S. taxpayers know that their tax dollars are going to fund environmental initiatives in other countries?

            (Comment: obviously, this is trivial. But it isn’t the ONLY such wasteful grant. Many such grants are given to ‘researchers’ who only need to convince bureaucrats of their merit… so as to justify the bureaucrats high-paying position in the EPA. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE EPA IS SEVERELY OVER-STAFFED. )

            4. ….burdensome regulations, which cost the economy an astounding $350 billion per year. ………. The capital cost of replacing conventional power plants with this technology is projected to be over $2.2 trillion.

            These regulations don’t just cost businesses—they translate into higher prices for all of us.

            [Thanks go to a friend who passed this article along to me in response to Trollsenblatt’s incessant demands that I substantiate my claims. It was not difficult to find if one does not use Goo-gul as a search engine.]

          • January 15, 2020 at 10:58 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Once again, you’re posting false information. epafacts.com is a front group for Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm Berman & Company. It’s not hard to do reserach on the places you’re gathering information from Polar. You’re either blatantly trying to spread misinformation, or woefully ignorant to how the internet and spam works. Your entire post is garbage propaganda.

          • January 15, 2020 at 11:00 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            PS Berman & Co has made quite a reputation for itself as an anti-environment, anti-union, and pro-energy firm. Should you believe the articles published by EPAFacts.com? Based on this analysis, I’d take a long, hard look at the claims made there. Are you going to pretend this isn’t the case, Polar? Or are you just going to ghost the conversation again like the coward you are?

          • January 15, 2020 at 11:28 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            3. $200,000 in taxpayer grants to Mexico to help its towns go green. Do U.S. taxpayers know that their tax dollars are going to fund environmental initiatives in other countries?

            (Comment: obviously, this is trivial. But it isn’t the ONLY such wasteful grant. Many such grants are given to ‘researchers’ who only need to convince bureaucrats of their merit… so as to justify the bureaucrats high-paying position in the EPA. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE EPA IS SEVERELY OVER-STAFFED. )

            This is now THREE times your argument that the EPA is overstaffed is because some other parts of the gov’t have issues.

            I’m just going to dub this the “Tom Brady Argument Fallacy.” Just because most NFL QBs are overpaid does not prove Tom Brady is overpaid.

    • January 10, 2020 at 11:06 am
      Boomers? says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 4

      Saved for legal review (end sarcasm)

  • January 14, 2020 at 8:08 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    Psssst.

    • January 15, 2020 at 12:50 am
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 2

      oh GFD



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*