The thought police are hard at work blasting this 1st op-ed in NY Times by Brett Stephens . Not only that ,they are punishing the Times by cancelling prescriptions ,for daring to publish anything that questions climate orthodoxy. Stephens said that the point of his column was "to help the climate-advocacy community improve the quality of its persuasion". But his very mild critique is being condemned by the climate cult . Of the criticism ,Stevens says "I am by no means an expert in climate science, and I take it as fact that the earth is warming, perhaps dangerously so. Nor am I infallible: Human fallibility was my very point," he said. "That said, I have reasonably good credentials in writing and reading. Clearly some of my critics need remedial education in these basic subjects."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/o...inty.html?_r=0

Stephens was raked over the coals by Trump supporters during the election for being a 'never Trumper ' . Now he is taking fire from the rabid left . A petition at 'Change.org' already has almost 29,000 signees calling for Stephens to be fired.

.https://www.change.org/.../tell-the-new-york-times-do-not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The thought police are hard at work blasting this 1st op-ed in NY Times by Brett Stephens . Not only that ,they are punishing the Times by cancelling prescriptions ,for daring to publish anything that questions climate orthodoxy. Stephens said that the point of his column was "to help the climate-advocacy community improve the quality of its persuasion". But his very mild critique is being condemned by the climate cult . Of the criticism ,Stevens says "I am by no means an expert in climate science, and I take it as fact that the earth is warming, perhaps dangerously so. Nor am I infallible: Human fallibility was my very point," he said. "That said, I have reasonably good credentials in writing and reading. Clearly some of my critics need remedial education in these basic subjects."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/o...inty.html?_r=0

Stephens was raked over the coals by Trump supporters during the election for being a 'never Trumper ' . Now he is taking fire from the rabid left . A petition at 'Change.org' already has almost 29,000 signees calling for Stephens to be fired.

.https://www.change.org/.../tell-the-new-york-times-do-not...

---

Your hysteria is absurd. Good grief, the guy's a columnist, not a scientist. He's entitled to his opinion, and congrats to the Times for giving him a platform. But your words like "thought police, climate cult, the rabid left", and claiming "prescriptions (sic) are cancelled" is about as true as is denial of climate change.

Stephens' premise seems to be that the more scientists that believe in climate change, the less true climate change is. Let anyone wrap that idea around their rational mind. He's just another shill for corporate interests, the planet be damned.

Quote:

---

Stephens' premise seems to be that the more scientists that believe in climate change, the less true climate change is..

---

He just might be right, there are other times when orthodoxy in science has proven wrong, Climate scientists have a great deal to gain by having their views accepted not the least of which are the plump research grants. Perhaps they should turn their attention to explaining why the planet has been warming for ten thousand years. Ok, we have been using fossil fuels for a couple of hundred years and in that time change has been observed, but that change doesn't fit the modelling. Here is a example, anecdotal, yes but interesting, in a tidal river on the coast oyster growers have been raising oysters for a hundred years and they say they haven't measured any discernable rise in water level, this in a place where a rise of a few feet would inundate the town

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Here is a example, anecdotal, yes but interesting, in a tidal river on the coast oyster growers have been raising oysters for a hundred years and they say they haven't measured any discernable rise in water level, this in a place where a rise of a few feet would inundate the town

---

Here is ANOTHER example, anecdotal, yes, but interesting, in a tidal river on the coast oyster growers have been raising oysters for a hundred years and they say they have measured a steady RISE in water level, this in a place where soon their town will be inundated.

My homies tell me Lake Ontario is rising, covering sandy beaches and threatening homes along the shore.

the glaciers are still receding from the last ice age that began 3 million years ago, and peaked about 20,000 years ago. . I don't know why we think that the climate here and now is the norm instead of the exception. For most of the world's existence it has not had a climate adaptable to human life . The ice age itself most likely happened to various tectonic movements ,volcanos ;the creation of the Isthmus of Panama that blocked the flow of warm tropical water between the oceans . What we do know is that after 20,000 years the glaciers started their retreat ;and it was a rapid retreat . What caused this ? No it wasn't mammals from 20,000 years ago driving SUVs . It was solar activity .Scientists from Oregon State University and other institutions conclude that the known wobbles in Earth's rotation caused global ice levels to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years.
"Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that's now pretty certain," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU. When the glaciers began their retreat they dumped enough fresh water into the oceans to cause a rise in levels 10 meters in some areas . "http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/aug/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-ice-ages-%E2%80%93-may-also-help-predict-future

Quote:

---

1. "prescriptions (sic) are cancelled"

---

yes a correction is that subscriptions are being cancelled by the looney intolerant leftists who can't stand to hear opposing points of view .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Here is ANOTHER example, anecdotal, yes, but interesting, in a tidal river on the coast oyster growers have been raising oysters for a hundred years and they say they have measured a steady RISE in water level, this in a place where soon their town will be inundated.

---

Well there you go, it depends upon where you live, I have always said this is a northern hemisphere problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes a correction is that subscriptions are being cancelled by the looney intolerant leftists who can't stand to hear opposing points of view .

---

You see Tom no one likes to be wrong or to be shown to have a wrong opinion, and few of us have enough information to have an informed opinion, but it has been shown recently that the heat output of the sun has increased, so I expect solar fluctuations that could cause changes on Earth are possible. We do not live in a steady state and owing to our short lives we rarely live long enough to observe significant change, this era may be the exception, but I do know that where I live, a century ago wide spread snow fall was prevalent and now it is rare, We no longer build houses with snow roofs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

My homies tell me Lake Ontario is rising, covering sandy beaches and threatening homes along the shore.

---

Please tell me how this is related to climate change? Is there a nearby glacier melting? Have inflow from rivers changed? Is the lake open to the sea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Please tell me how this is related to climate change? Is there a nearby glacier melting? Have inflow from rivers changed? Is the lake open to the sea?

---

Lake Ontario is one of the Great Lakes which drain into the Atlantic. Hmmm, wonder how Niagara Falls' erosion is doing with more water going over?

No one here is a scientist, so quoting (questionable) theories about the sun putting out more heat (!!!) is fruitless. I approach it politically.

For instance, why has the right wing from day one opposed global warming? At first they were in total denial. Then, overwhelmed by the science, they agreed to global warming but claimed it was a normal part of the earth's weather patterns. Now they deny all the science proving that climate change is primarily being caused by humanity's technology.

Since most people believe in science, you would think the right wing would be evenly split between acceptance and denial. But no, the right is adamantly opposed to climate change as described by science.

Why? Clearly, they do the will of their masters - the corporate interests. Honestly facing climate change means cumbersome regulations and, worst of all, decreased PROFITS. As they like to say, leave things alone. The market will take care of everything. As lower Manhattan sinks into the ocean taking Wall Street with it, the traders at Goldman Sachs will cry out, "Why didn't someone tell us?" Too late, boys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

No one here is a scientist, so quoting (questionable) theories about the sun putting out more heat (!!!) is fruitless. I approach it politically.

For instance, why has the right wing from day one opposed global warming? At first they were in total denial. Then, overwhelmed by the science, they agreed to global warming but claimed it was a normal part of the earth's weather patterns. Now they deny all the science proving that climate change is primarily being caused by humanity's technology.

Since most people believe in science, you would think the right wing would be evenly split between acceptance and denial. But no, the right is adamantly opposed to climate change as described by science.

Why? Clearly, they do the will of their masters - the corporate interests. Honestly facing climate change means cumbersome regulations and, worst of all, decreased PROFITS. As they like to say, leave things alone. The market will take care of everything. As lower Manhattan sinks into the ocean taking Wall Street with it, the traders at Goldman Sachs will cry out, "Why didn't someone tell us?" Too late, boys.

---

You say this is political but this has approached the religious. Climate science says it must be accepted to the exclusion of all other opinions because it is science. However what we are talking about is computer modelling with very few perimeters filled in. This results in projections proving wrong and being constantly modified. Science it is not. There was once a group of people who believed the Earth was flat based entirely upon their observations. There was another group who believed the Earth was the centre of the solar system, even the universe, and persecuted anyone who dared to say they might be wrong. IS ANY OF THIS FAMILIAR?

So we know the earth is not flat or the centre of the solar system, however we do know that the sun fluctuates in output and one day may grow very large. We don't know enough to be certain that the sun is stable in the sense it's output or dimensions are unchangeable, therefore it could be contributing to the observed warming. Someone keeps telling me the Earth is getting hotter, but my personal observations doesn't support this, so I ask where are they taking these readings? And how can I know they are objective and do not suffer from undue influence such as being taken near a volcano or next to an air conditioning unit or standing on a concrete plinth in full sun?

At least Athos recognizes that it's politics, not science, driving "The Climate Inquisition," to use the title of the OP.

In my career in Entomology, nowhere else have people claimed the practice of altering data to fit the theory is a valid approach to "science." Every other field refers to that practice as charlatanism, or outright fraud. The scientific method is to alter the theory to fit the data.

Yet "the hits keep on coming": The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Yet "the hits keep on coming": The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

---

Yes I know Cats but the true believers don't want to believe it, when this debate first started I thought there was merit in the arguments, I was an early adopter of solar and designed a passive solar house but I found with research that the claims don't stack up, that there are other explanations. What they don't realise that what is observed in a laboratory may not be observed in nature when there are many other factors in play. Ok CO2 and methane may have an impact but it isn't the whole story and the data is very suspect because the effects are not observed consistently.

The whole thing started as a political exercise to justify nuclear energy, and I still think the use of nuclear energy is justified but an industrial chemist friend told me long ago that today's nuclear energy is a waste of a vital resource because of the inefficiency of the process. If we turned our attention to solving the problems rather than finding more and more ways to use up rare minerals in polluting refining processes we may just find some long term solutions

That's the biggest problem Clete, big money is for fossil fuels, energy solutions take MONEY. The money is on drill baby drill. They can't hide nuclear waste, but refining waste can be recycled but shows up again in water supplies.

Are they cooking the data? Who knows what a self interested politico-scientist will do to boost his ego/profits (yes we do). We do know what rich huge companies will do to protect their profits though!

Bottom line money TRUMPS clean air, water, and land. That means no matter what the science really is polluting the facts is big money to some. Try telling that to affected humans though, those are the real FACTS to consider.

Quote:

---

Hmmm, wonder how Niagara Falls' erosion is doing with more water going over?

---

The water flow over Niagara is a controlled event . The normal flow of water volume flowing over the Canadian Horseshoe falls is approximately 100,000 cubic feet per second. Controlling water volume is a natural part of conservation with each State /Provence having Conservation Authorities. Most major rivers have dams and flood gates to control the amount of water run off,to flooding whenever possible. In the case of the Great Lakes System, the rivers are easier to control (the amount of water flowing into the lakes) than the lakes themselves. Great Lake flooding and in particular ice build-up, ice flow and melt can cause great damage to those towns and communities bordering the Great Lakes. But that is not the case with the Niagara River /Falls . At night, when the Hydro Control Dam gates are lifted for diversion of water from the river into the hydro tunnels, the flow over the Horseshoe Falls drops to a minimum 50,000 cubic feet of water per second from a daytime flow of about 100,000 cubic feet per second . The Niagara generating stations supply one quarter of all power used in New York State and the Province of Ontario . From the Niagara River the water flows into Lake Ontario ,then it goes into the St Lawrence River ,before it's final destination ;the Gulf of St Lawrence .

Lake Michigan is the lowest lying lake of the Great Lakes . It does not feed into the Niagara River . It flows south into the Illinois River and then into the Mississippi ;and then the Gulf Of Mexico.

Quote:

---

No one here is a scientist, so quoting (questionable) theories about the sun putting out more heat (!!!) is fruitless. I approach it politically.

For instance, why has the right wing from day one opposed global warming? At first they were in total denial. Then, overwhelmed by the science, they agreed to global warming but claimed it was a normal part of the earth's weather patterns. Now they deny all the science proving that climate change is primarily being caused by humanity's technology.

Since most people believe in science, you would think the right wing would be evenly split between acceptance and denial. But no, the right is adamantly opposed to climate change as described by science.

Why? Clearly, they do the will of their masters - the corporate interests. Honestly facing climate change means cumbersome regulations and, worst of all, decreased PROFITS. As they like to say, leave things alone. The market will take care of everything. As lower Manhattan sinks into the ocean taking Wall Street with it, the traders at Goldman Sachs will cry out, "Why didn't someone tell us?" Too late, boys.

---

Your narrative is a little off. First in the 1970s the left tried to scare us with talk of global cooling . Then they shifted to human caused AGW . Then when the data did not match and all the gloom and doom of 'Inconvenient Truth ' did not play out the narrative changed again to human caused 'climate change ' .Now you got all temperature ,weather patterns covered with your 'political 'climate science .
The left is hypocrites . How many more times do we have to endure lectures from the likes of Leo Dicrapio who jets around the world preaching how other people need to sacrifice ? How many more times do we have to put up with Al Goracle's attempts to profit from his carbon swapping schemes ? Your 'consensus science' looks like the Spanish Inquisition to me . That is why they came down so hard on Brett Stephens . How dare he question the orthodoxy of 'settled science '(never even considering that the phrase itself is an oxymoron and a perversion of what science itself teaches ) .

And how are you living as you preach . Have you given up cars ,climate controlled homes that use fossil fuels ? Have you built solar panels on your mud yurt ? I doubt it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

No one here is a scientist,

---

Hello A:

Well, I sure ain't a scientist.. I just look around..

We used to throw our trash on the ground... I guess we DID that because we thought we had SOOOOO much ground, that nobody would notice.. But, we did.. We ALSO thought that the ocean was SOOOOO big, that nobody would notice if we threw our trash into it.. But, we did... Now, we're throwing our trash into the air, I guess because we think there's SOOOOO much of it, nobody will notice if we deposit our trash there... But, we are..

That's the problem.. Here's the solution..

Seems to me that the climate change debate is like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.. Here's what's so. Fossil fuel is finite. We ARE going to run out. Some people doubt that, but some people are crazy too. So, SINCE we ARE gonna run out, whether is causes climate change or not, is ultimately moot.. And, since we're gonna run out anyway, we either develop a NEW source of energy, OR we go back to the stone age..

So, IF this is work we're gonna HAVE to do eventually, I suggest we do it now.. We may NOT be successful, and have to go back to the stone age anyway, but, I don't wanna go down without a fight.. However, I BELIEVE we can do it, because I'm a can do person, and the USA is a can do country.. At least it USED to be..

None of that is science. It's just me looking around.

excon

Quote:

---

However what we are talking about is computer modelling with very few perimeters filled in. This results in projections proving wrong and being constantly modified. Science it is not. There was once a group of people who believed the Earth was flat based entirely upon their observations. There was another group who believed the Earth was the centre of the solar system, even the universe, and persecuted anyone who dared to say they might be wrong. IS ANY OF THIS FAMILIAR?

---

Bingo!! Not only that ;but we know for a fact that climate scientists have no problem with the idea of fudging data to come up with a preconceived conclusion . We know how Michael Mann was able to come up with a perfectly shaped 'hockey stick' graph showing a correlation between warming and the Industrial Revolution. All he had to do was "hide the decline" of the Little Ice Age .

This is what we do know . During the Medieval warm period ,the world was so warm that there were grape vines in England . What we do know is that during the Little Ice Age ,there were festivals on the frozen Thames River . None of those extremes happened because people were driving SUVs and drilling oil.

Many extraneous factors are ignored Tom because they represent an inconvenient truth. That truth is we don't really know what is driving the changes we observe and this is because someone has shouted look over there. Maybe a rise in ocean temperature is causing sea level rise, maybe the oceans are absorbing the temperature increase, but I have observed both hotter and colder seasons, and I have lived long enough to see a fifty year cycle come around again. Personally I don't want to see those low temperatures again so a little warming is a good thing, a little more rain is a good thing..

I have a question for all those who pursue renewable energy, what is going to happen when all those solar panels and wind generators are going to have to be replaced at the end of their twenty year life? Are our landfills going to be full of solar panels? Will the landscape be full of useless windmills?

There is a maintenance cost to everything humans do, as well as upgrading when new technology is developed. What do you do when your faucets leak, or your tires wear out?

You change them out with new stuff!

Even with renewables, we are taking from the earth . Rare earth minerals still have to be mined .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...m-ion-battery/

They exploit child labor in the Congo to extract the cobalt needed for lithium.Another one of those inconvenient truths .Neodymium and dysprosium are also used in solar panels and wind turbines .Almost all of it is mined in China .There is only one mine in the US . This is what it looks like .

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attach...id=48765&stc=1



The demand for these are already close to exceeding world supply .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

There is a maintenance cost to everything humans do, as well as upgrading when new technology is developed. What do you do when your faucets leak, or your tires wear out?

You change them out with new stuff!

---

It is not the same Tal, Tyres are made from rubber a truly renewable resource, when the faucets leak I replace a small part, a washer, I don't throw the faucet away, you may want to live in the throw away society but I try to avoid it, I don't need a new car every year or a new phone, electrical generators in power stations can last a long, long time, I know of hydro stations over a century old, so the world will have to think about consumption and recycling on a greater scale

The attachment didn't go through, but I take your point, Tom. There are always trade offs for resources, and the associated costs that are not limited to just money I guess.

Makes for some complicated international trade deals doesn't it? But don't you think those Chinese are tired of wearing those silly useless masks? Or shutting down factories when they have "guests". Ever see what Los Angeles use to look like before emission standards were enacted?

One bright and early morning in Pittsburgh circa 1940



http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Be...32_43%20PM.png


Pittsburgh - after coal REGULATION!!!!!

http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Be...50_11%20PM.png

Athos,
Those pictures illustrate perfectly the concept of "mission creep." As a former resident of Chattanooga, TN, the second smoggiest city in the world in 1970, I understand completely how EPA funding and local enforcement cleaned up the air and made the river habitable. Now, however, with their original goals accomplished, the bureaucracy has to justify their paycheck so they declare cattle a pollutant and want to regulate puddles after a rainstorm.

Is there still work to be done? Absolutely. Finding solutions for Flint MI and Camp Lejeune and a thousand other sites are critical needs but the mindset of Walter Peck from 'Ghostbusters' isn't going to help anyone or anything

We can all have the clean air we want, it involves keeping the corporates honest and having community responsibility, it doesn't involve declaring CO to a pollutant

Yes it does if you want to limit how much CO you want pumped into your environment. Certain levels are poisonous to humans and most other oxygen breathers on this planet. You are aware that children and babies are more susceptible and what may not kill you will certainly make you sick as a dog. That's why what man produces as a bi product of his other activities like driving has to be monitored and regulated for the public safety... like any harmful substance.

Now you may trust a corporation to spend the resources to make them honest, but I for one would rather have verifiable documentation that corporations are in safety compliance.

Exposure over time to even small amounts that are over what's found in nature, can be hazardous to your health Clete, and it's just common sense that it is a pollutant in the hands of corporations that produce them.

Works for me . The company I work for can afford to implement Part 117 of the FSMA . But many of our smaller competitors are going to be driven out of business over these new Obama era regulations. Good for us . WE will absorb their business and grow to be a larger more powerful corporation in our field ...thanks to those regulations that everyone thinks are needed even though there is no evidence that it will make our products any safer . You guys keep on talking about reigning in corporations ,and perhaps this is the unintended consequences (although I doubt it and believe it is all part of the greater socialist plan). But the more regulations you enact ,the fewer players in the game .These are the big -oil ,big coal ;big-pharma ,big -agri ,big -banking companies you constantly complain about .You helped create them .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Yes it does if you want to limit how much CO you want pumped into your environment. Certain levels are poisonous to humans and most other oxygen breathers on this planet. You are aware that children and babies are more susceptible and what may not kill you will certainly make you sick as a dog. That's why what man produces as a bi product of his other activities like driving has to be monitored and regulated for the public safety... like any harmful substance.

Now you may trust a corporation to spend the resources to make them honest, but I for one would rather have verifiable documentation that corporations are in safety compliance.

Exposure over time to even small amounts that are over what's found in nature, can be hazardous to your health Clete, and it's just common sense that it is a pollutant in the hands of corporations that produce them.

---

Also - corporations, by law, are responsible ONLY to their shareholders and to regulatory LAW, if any. Without regulatory law, corporations will do anything they can legally get away with. Look at the preposterous reactions of the tobacco industry as the cancer-causing effects of cigarettes became proven, Big Pharma that will price a drug at whatever the market will bear oblivious to the fact of death and dying among the less fortunate unable to afford the price, - there are dozens and dozens of such examples that show corporations to be completely uninterested in good citizenship.

When "studies" are cited denying climate change, look who paid for the study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Athos,
Those pictures illustrate perfectly the concept of "mission creep." As a former resident of Chattanooga, TN, the second smoggiest city in the world in 1970, I understand completely how EPA funding and local enforcement cleaned up the air and made the river habitable. Now, however, with their original goals accomplished, the bureaucracy has to justify their paycheck so they declare cattle a pollutant and want to regulate puddles after a rainstorm.

Is there still work to be done? Absolutely. Finding solutions for Flint MI and Camp Lejeune and a thousand other sites are critical needs but the mindset of Walter Peck from 'Ghostbusters' isn't going to help anyone or anything

---

I agree in general with what you're saying, but after mission goals have been accomplished, there remains a need for maintenance and for constant watch-dogging. Silly regulations should be discarded.

Energy companies like Exxon Mobile have funded studies on both sides of the debate .And energy companies take a lead in R & D of renewables .
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-fossil-fuels
Of course they do .They are in the energy business ;not just the oil business.

The imbalance in funding comes from the fact that most of climate funding comes from government and left wing organizations and they are the ones that start with preconceived conclusions .It is very difficult for some of the top climate scientists to get funding for their research unless they embrace global warming fearmongering .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#26d6c5e07ecf

But is this big Government cure worse than the disease?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...pill/31384515/

I rode a coal fired stream train from Durango to Silverton that followed the Animas River through the San Juan National Forest . It was a very scenic ride . If you watch the video you can see what the river was like before the EPA turned it yellow .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdyMOt68MxY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I rode a coal fired stream train from Durango to Silverton that followed the Animas River through the San Juan National Forest . It was a very scenic ride . If you watch the video you can see what the river was like before the EPA turned it yellow .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdyMOt68MxY

---

Very scenic indeed Tom thanks for that, reminds me a little of the Zig Zag about 50 miles from where I live if you like steam trains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50LDT3ezG_0

It was once known as the 8th wonder of the world

love narrow gauge rail trains .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

love narrow gauge rail trains .

---

Not quite sure why you might refer to as narrow gauge, our NSW and trans-continental trains run on what we refer to as standard gauge, Victoria uses a broad gauge while Queensland and Western Australia use narrow gauge. This is where the nonsense of various states going their own way disrupts commerce. Narrow gauge is often used for industrial lines not connected to main lines

That is what the Durango-Silverton line was . The train rides very close to the edge of a ravine through most of the trip.

Yes I observed it was a narrow gauge line

Ahhh, drove that route on the million dollar highway in a semi with 48' stepdeck trailer. Never again!