Climate Change Terrorism

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby Jim » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:48 am

Haruo wrote:
Jim wrote:The suggestion, of course, is designed to wipe out the evil white race

Of course.

A new grammatical construct known as an echo for emphasis!
Jim
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby KeithE » Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:03 am

Update from Roy Spencer's blog

While I will agree with what Spencer says that this incident was probably not a random shooting, he omits the real possibility that these shots were fired by a RW “fake news” generator. Sort of Counter-Eco-Terrorism. Not saying it was, but there is a real possibility that the gunshots came from RW sickos, who are much more likely to use firearms than LW protesters. I note that Roy Spencer was the first to write about this story (not surprisingly, he worked in that building) but it was followed within a few hours by WUWT and BreitBart and other RW websites, before the police story and legitimate news sources reported on the story.

Maybe we will learn the truth some day since Roy Spencer reported yesterday that the investigation is ongoing. From Roy's blog.
John Christy met with the chief of police at UAH today, and I’m happy to report that, contrary to initial reports, the investigation into the seven shots fired into our building has not been dropped. UAH has also coordinated with other law enforcement, which is good.

I’d like to thank everyone who made the effort to spread the word about this event, which I consider a probable ecoterrorism attack. Rush Limbaugh also covered it, which I’m sure helped as well.

We have been asked to not make public any details of what they have learned so far. (So, please, don’t ask.)

What might surprise readers here is that our “reputation” (John Christy and me) has always been more widely known on a national and international level, than a local level. We think that local law enforcement personnel were probably not aware that scientists could be the potential targets of radicals… if that’s indeed what has happened.

I doubt we will learn much that we can divulge in the coming days and weeks. But the good news is that law enforcement is working on it. That’s all I wanted…for it not to be ignored.


Roy has always been the "Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show".
https://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/06/roy-spencer-and-all-this-time-we-thought-you-were-a-scientist-weird/
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8021
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby Tim Bonney » Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:53 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
.
.
.
.


So why are none of these references from the news media or law enforcement?? The sources look pretty suspect David.
Tim Bonney

First UMC, Indianola - http://indfumc.org (My charge starting July 1, 2017)
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5446
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby Sandy » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:19 pm

As do all the sources used by climate change denialists.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby KeithE » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:30 pm

My sense of the perpetrator’s purpose

40% Climate Skeptic/Fake News to cast a poor light on climate protesters
40% Climate Protester of Christy/Spencer’s climate denialism.
20% Random Shooting

Roughly speaking.

But regardless of this outcome, my sense of the threat of the Global Warming/Climate Change Issue

100% for the Alarmist side
0% for the Skeptic side
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8021
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby David Flick » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:38 pm

KeithE wrote:Update from Roy Spencer's blog

While I will agree with what Spencer says that this incident was probably not a random shooting, he omits the real possibility that these shots were fired by a RW “fake news” generator. Sort of Counter-Eco-Terrorism. Not saying it was, but there is a real possibility that the gunshots came from RW sickos, who are much more likely to use firearms than LW protesters. I note that Roy Spencer was the first to write about this story (not surprisingly, he worked in that building) but it was followed within a few hours by WUWT and BreitBart and other RW websites, before the police story and legitimate news sources reported on the story.

    Keith, you're clueless. The wild notion that "RW sickos" fired shots at the building where John Christy and Roy Spencer have offices is just plain stupid. Ludricrous. Your thinking abilities have gone unhinged. You've been listening to Sandy and too many of those loony alarmists who are grasping for invisible straws.
Maybe we will learn the truth some day since Roy Spencer reported yesterday that the investigation is ongoing. From Roy's blog.
John Christy met with the chief of police at UAH today, and I’m happy to report that, contrary to initial reports, the investigation into the seven shots fired into our building has not been dropped. UAH has also coordinated with other law enforcement, which is good.

I’d like to thank everyone who made the effort to spread the word about this event, which I consider a probable ecoterrorism attack. Rush Limbaugh also covered it, which I’m sure helped as well.

We have been asked to not make public any details of what they have learned so far. (So, please, don’t ask.)

What might surprise readers here is that our “reputation” (John Christy and me) has always been more widely known on a national and international level, than a local level. We think that local law enforcement personnel were probably not aware that scientists could be the potential targets of radicals… if that’s indeed what has happened.

I doubt we will learn much that we can divulge in the coming days and weeks. But the good news is that law enforcement is working on it. That’s all I wanted…for it not to be ignored.


Roy has always been the "Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show".
https://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/06/roy-spencer-and-all-this-time-we-thought-you-were-a-scientist-weird/

    Here we go again. Same old samo wrt to you rants about Rush Limbaugh. Of the manyfold issues about which Limbaugh speaks, he has never, ever been wrong on Global Warming/climate change. Not even once. And that alone sends you AGW alarmists into countless childish conniption fits. Your "Climate Crocker" blogger, Peter Sinclair, is a perfect example of that. :lol:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8374
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby Sandy » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:19 pm

I would disagree. Limbaugh is not a scientist. He's a radio deejay whose got into the business playing plastic discs and telling people the names of the songs they heard. He is a commentator of all subjects, and a master of none, including global warming.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby KeithE » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:43 pm

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:Update from Roy Spencer's blog

While I will agree with what Spencer says that this incident was probably not a random shooting, he omits the real possibility that these shots were fired by a RW “fake news” generator. Sort of Counter-Eco-Terrorism. Not saying it was, but there is a real possibility that the gunshots came from RW sickos, who are much more likely to use firearms than LW protesters. I note that Roy Spencer was the first to write about this story (not surprisingly, he worked in that building) but it was followed within a few hours by WUWT and BreitBart and other RW websites, before the police story and legitimate news sources reported on the story.

    Keith, you're clueless. The wild notion that "RW sickos" fired shots at the building where John Christy and Roy Spencer have offices is just plain stupid. Ludricrous. Your thinking abilities have gone unhinged. You've been listening to Sandy and too many of those loony alarmists who are grasping for invisible straws.
Maybe we will learn the truth some day since Roy Spencer reported yesterday that the investigation is ongoing. From Roy's blog.
John Christy met with the chief of police at UAH today, and I’m happy to report that, contrary to initial reports, the investigation into the seven shots fired into our building has not been dropped. UAH has also coordinated with other law enforcement, which is good.

I’d like to thank everyone who made the effort to spread the word about this event, which I consider a probable ecoterrorism attack. Rush Limbaugh also covered it, which I’m sure helped as well.

We have been asked to not make public any details of what they have learned so far. (So, please, don’t ask.)

What might surprise readers here is that our “reputation” (John Christy and me) has always been more widely known on a national and international level, than a local level. We think that local law enforcement personnel were probably not aware that scientists could be the potential targets of radicals… if that’s indeed what has happened.

I doubt we will learn much that we can divulge in the coming days and weeks. But the good news is that law enforcement is working on it. That’s all I wanted…for it not to be ignored.


Roy has always been the "Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show".
https://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/06/roy-spencer-and-all-this-time-we-thought-you-were-a-scientist-weird/

    Here we go again. Same old samo wrt to you rants about Rush Limbaugh. Of the manyfold issues about which Limbaugh speaks, he has never, ever been wrong on Global Warming/climate change. Not even once. And that alone sends you AGW alarmists into countless childish conniption fits. Your "Climate Crocker" blogger, Peter Sinclair, is a perfect example of that. :lol:


Whatever.

Suggest interested BLfers listen to the embedded video in the last link. It shows the mistake Spencer and Christy made (and admitted to in 2005) that led to the very false conclusion that the earth was cooling since 1995 which was the Christy refrain in Congress until it was uncovered (good DATA does not lie). Now the refrain from Christy (the skeptics spokesman in Congress) is that the warming is really not that bad (counter the proverbial 97% of climate scientists). Spencer occasionally says the rise is just part of some natural cycle (also counter the 97%).

Have I done “countless childish conniption fits”? Really David.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8021
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby JE Pettibone » Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:35 am

Sandy wrote:I would disagree. Limbaugh is not a scientist. He's a radio deejay whose got into the business playing plastic discs and telling people the names of the songs they heard. He is a commentator of all subjects, and a master of none, including global warming.


Ed: Sandy who has suggested that Limbaugh is a scientist. You are tilting at wind mills. Yet Spencer is a real scientist even when he refuses to go along to get along.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby Tim Bonney » Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:42 am

Sandy wrote:As do all the sources used by climate change denialists.


There is no way to tell from a blog post if any of what is said actually happened, no sources sited.
Tim Bonney

First UMC, Indianola - http://indfumc.org (My charge starting July 1, 2017)
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5446
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby Tim Bonney » Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:44 am

Sandy wrote:I would disagree. Limbaugh is not a scientist. He's a radio deejay whose got into the business playing plastic discs and telling people the names of the songs they heard. He is a commentator of all subjects, and a master of none, including global warming.


Being a professional talker doesn't make one a scientist. That goes for all of us preachers here. :wink: It is why I seldom argue about climate change and just choose to go with the consensus of the great majority of the scientific community.
Tim Bonney

First UMC, Indianola - http://indfumc.org (My charge starting July 1, 2017)
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5446
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby KeithE » Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:40 pm

JE Pettibone wrote:
Sandy wrote:I would disagree. Limbaugh is not a scientist. He's a radio deejay whose got into the business playing plastic discs and telling people the names of the songs they heard. He is a commentator of all subjects, and a master of none, including global warming.


Ed: Sandy who has suggested that Limbaugh is a scientist. You are tilting at wind mills. Yet Spencer is a real scientist even when he refuses to go along to get along.

Spencer refuses to get along because of what I'll start calling “The Attitude” of Trump/Limbaugh/O’Reilly/Ailes/Ryan all of which think they know what ails (no pun intended) the US economically - namely laissez-faire economics without regulations of very risky schemes and environmental practices. Despite what deregulation did in 2008, they believe that just letting big business get away with hoarding more money in their bank accounts and those of their CEOs/top execs. Any environmental or financial regulations that they believe may interfere with this gravy train just have to be stopped (they claim). They despise “liberals" who are working for the common good though government means.

Spencer is probably not a great recipient of that gravy train but he is one of many that has bought into "The Attitude" as can be seen in his book Fundanomics (a novela, no facts there) and that drives his assessment of the DATA his instrument collects which shows the same increase in temperature as Jim Hansen’s GISS data (whose assessment is quite different).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8021
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby David Flick » Mon May 01, 2017 3:32 am

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8374
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby Sandy » Mon May 01, 2017 8:12 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Sandy wrote:I would disagree. Limbaugh is not a scientist. He's a radio deejay whose got into the business playing plastic discs and telling people the names of the songs they heard. He is a commentator of all subjects, and a master of none, including global warming.


Being a professional talker doesn't make one a scientist. That goes for all of us preachers here. :wink: It is why I seldom argue about climate change and just choose to go with the consensus of the great majority of the scientific community.


Exactly. You can pretty much draw the line between genuine scientists, and those who have been paid by corporate dollars to twist science for the benefit of those who profit by avoiding taking care of the environment. A blog isn't a scientific source, any more than any word spoken by Limbaugh is true in any sense of that term.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby JE Pettibone » Mon May 01, 2017 8:30 am

Sandy wrote:
Timothy Bonney wrote:
Sandy wrote:I would disagree. Limbaugh is not a scientist. He's a radio deejay whose got into the business playing plastic discs and telling people the names of the songs they heard. He is a commentator of all subjects, and a master of none, including global warming.


Being a professional talker doesn't make one a scientist. That goes for all of us preachers here. :wink: It is why I seldom argue about climate change and just choose to go with the consensus of the great majority of the scientific community.


Exactly. You can pretty much draw the line between genuine scientists, and those who have been paid by corporate dollars to twist science for the benefit of those who profit by avoiding taking care of the environment. A blog isn't a scientific source, any more than any word spoken by Limbaugh is true in any sense of that term.


Ed: Sandy, are you suggesting that none of the 97%ers are paid by corporate dollars to twist science for the benefit of those who profit by hyping man made global warming and promoting questionable ways of taking care of the environment.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby KeithE » Mon May 01, 2017 8:37 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
.
.
.
.

This is just another manifestation of "The Attitude”. Got to hand it to David, he is relentless, but wrong in his overzealotry.

Serious studies over the last 13 years show anywhere between 91 and 100% of climate scientists believe in Anthropocentric Global Warming.

And here is an academic paper that summarizes those studies. Here is the abstract:

Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.


And here is its conclusion:

We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology. This is supported by multiple independent studies despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature or of citation networks. Tol (2016) obtains lower consensus estimates through a flawed methodology, for example by conflating non-expert and expert views, and/or making unsupported assumptions about sources that do not specifically state a position about the consensus view.

An accurate understanding of scientific consensus, and the ability to recognize attempts to undermine it, are important for public climate literacy. Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support (Ding et al 2011, McCright et al 2013, van der Linden et al 2015). However, many in the public, particularly in the US, still believe scientists disagree to a large extent about AGW (Leiserowitz et al 2015), and many political leaders, again particularly in the US, insist that this is so. Leiserowitz et al (2015) found that only 12% of the US public accurately estimate the consensus at 91%–100%. Further, Plutzer et al 2016 found that only 30% of middle-school and 45% of high-school science teachers were aware that the scientific consensus is above 80%, with 31% of teachers who teach climate change presenting contradictory messages that emphasize both the consensus and the minority position.

Misinformation about climate change has been observed to reduce climate literacy levels (McCright et al 2016, Ranney and Clark 2016), and manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change is one of the most effective means of reducing acceptance of climate change and support for mitigation policies (Oreskes 2010, van der Linden et al 2016). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the most common argument used in contrarian op-eds about climate change from 2007 to 2010 was that there is no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming (Elsasser and Dunlap 2012, Oreskes and Conway 2011). The generation of climate misinformation persists, with arguments against climate science increasing relative to policy arguments in publications by conservative organisations (Boussalis and Coan 2016).

Consequently, it is important that scientists communicate the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW to the public (Maibach et al 2014, Cook and Jacobs 2014). Explaining the 97% consensus has been observed to increase acceptance of climate change (Lewandowsky et al 2013, Cook and Lewandowsky 2016) with the greatest change among conservatives (Kotcher et al 2014).

From a broader perspective, it doesn't matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong.


Underline is mine.

The global temperature is 2016 stands at 1.24C increase since the industrial revolution’s increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Image

The upward trend is undeniable as is the increase in climate caused damage.

Image
Source of Data: The EM-DAT International Disaster Database, Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters, University of Louvain.
Article.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8021
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Climate Change Terrorism

Postby Jim » Mon May 01, 2017 8:49 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
.
.
.
.


And now, the latest, to wit, that people (actually just in the U.S.) with enough wherewithal to own a car are having too many babies!
Jim
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Previous

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests