AOC's Chief of Staff says the Green New Deal is not about the Climate

Not to shift off of Science but take my expert field for an example. When Democrats speak of the financial collapse from around 2008 forward, they speak as if they are experts. I am the expert in this field. From sales of property to owning offices employing agents, I did that. I also appraised and also hired appraisers, adding to my expertise in home markets. And then operated a mortgage firm so I was also in the middle of the action on loans.

But listen to Democrats and they wander all over the landscape trying to assess the reasons of the collapse.

I see it on climate too. So long as the IPCC claims it is likely we changed for the warmer from .65 to 1.06 C, over a span of 140 years, I refuse to let them alarm me at all. But they are welcome to try to alarm the suckers

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

 

I go back to just the Great Lakes located here and in Canada for my evidence. We know from studies that once that area was entirely glacier covered. Who would think it would warm to the extent the glaciers left us magnificent enormous lakes? That took a lot of heat energy. And the glaciers reached far enough down to include New York City.

I sure want to know more about the humans that caused the Great Lakes to form.

 

Interesting how Trump and his supporters are concentrating most of their efforts on four freshmen Congresswomen.

They do this so they can avoid what Trump says and his many failures. Basically, his administration has accomplished nothing, and upcoming very soon is Mueller's indictment of the President.

No wonder Trump and his pals want to talk about "The Squad."

 

Think what you said here. A conspiracy theory is that man can actually control climate.

So why waste our times talking of what man can do if man can't ever control climate?

 

Again you are only reporting what the MSM tells you to report. The daily work of the Congress is almost not one bit related to the things of the 4 women who say they are of color. Pelosi has had to bat them all down. She even convened a special hearing on their activities.

 

Educated now means you sat, you regurgitated, you pleased the establishment, you got the sheepskin -- in most cases.

 

When I was both in high school and later in College science courses, the subject called climate change was not even mentioned.

 

I think it was mentioned in passing in Anthropology that the Sahara was once lush full of flora and fauna, a virtual paradise. It was mentioned in all the hard sciences that the only real constant is change.

 

People who know something about science are now asking: "is science broken?"


"If the replication crisis is a sign that science isn’t broken, then what does “broken” even mean?
In the stem-cell case, self-correcting science did appear to work as advertised: Problems in the paper were discovered by attentive colleagues shortly after it appeared in print. But the recent history of science fraud suggests that many more examples come to light not quickly and not via any standard self-corrective mechanism—e.g., peer review or unsuccessful replications—but rather at a long delay and through the more conventional means of whistleblowing. That’s how Diedrik Stapel, a notorious fabulist with 58 retracted papers in social psychology, was discovered in 2011. The fact that Stapel’s brazen fraud had not been caught (or self-corrected) earlier made his case a seminal event in the current replication crisis. Why had no one noticed, in strictly scientific terms, all the false effects that he’d slipped into the literature?"
SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html

 

The global warming scare does seem to be rather like a conspiracy theory. It has more to do with political expediency than science.

 

North of Alaska it was once verdant too.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-north-pole-once-was-tropical/

 

Actually there is truth in what you say. But it has nothing to do with the Scientific Method that you were hanging your hat on a couple of posts back. Maybe before you rest on the Scientific Method you should find out what it is exactly.

What is the compulsive obsession with FOX News???? I know no one who tunes in to FOX News to learn science. Nor does anybody tune in to CNN, PMSNBC, NBC, CBS, or CBS; PBS once in a great while.

It takes too long and too much effort to explain my understanding and belief in climate change and AGW, and it seldom gets anywhere. But for simplicity's sake: Does one believe in AGW is the wrong question. The fundamental science behind AGW is not in doubt. But much of the detail is in doubt. The main question: To what extent is AGW occurring now, will it continue, and, if so, will its effects be disastrous, beneficial, or not amount to much. It is these questions (mostly the last two) that science does not have a solid handle on even though they religiously claim they do.

 

Funny, but that is exactly what a friend of mine told me many- perhaps 25 years ago. He was a self-made millionaire at 30, and voted young businessman of the year.

 

GD prehistoric coal plants.

 

Yep. The real question has to do with how we will adapt and how we can use change to our advantage. Of course it won't be convenient, but then when you do things like building a city like New Orleans where a good part of it is below sea level, it's already set up for disaster. Same is true with a good part of the west coast; just a matter of time. We do a lot of that short term thinking. Our planners may consider 20-50 years into the future- but in mother natures plans, that's a split second.

 

From Australia AXE the tax

This will shock the Democrats minds to see how tiny their problem is.

 

I have yet to deny climate changes. I will be called a denier however. But the above is accurate. They promise to us a global disaster. I call their bluff.

 

man did not walk on the moon, so they could not control climate

 

A denier pretending to be into science. That’s a first.
CNN, msnbc.....etc. will have a legitimate scientist on. Faux, never, except to give them 30 seconds before interrupting them.

You’re doing your typical hatchet job, trying to sound ligit but sewing seeds of doubt. It’s funny. You can hear it coming a mile away. You still think you’re smarter then everyone ? Seriously ?

 

Ha ha
Don’t you guys get tired of cuttin* and pasting cinspracy theories and lies ?
Amazing.

 

Rates scare you ?

 

To add a level to my understanding, I watched a lot of a youtube presentation on shifting sands on the west coast of the US. This may not sound important but knowing about sand moving up and down our beaches adds to a level of important knowledge.

This is not the scientific lecture I watched but does a fine job in less time making some points.

 

I have Stanford , Yale and MIT backing me. You have Faux news.

 

So.......

 

You think Slate publishes conspiracy theories?

How about the NYT?

"Dr. John Ioannidis, a director of Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, who once estimated that about half of published results across medicine were inflated or wrong, noted the proportion in psychology was even larger than he had thought. He said the problem could be even worse in other fields, including cell biology, economics, neuroscience, clinical medicine, and animal research.

The report appears at a time when the number of retractions of published papers is rising sharply in a wide variety of disciplines. Scientists have pointed to a hyper competitive culture across science that favors novel, sexy results and provides little incentive for researchers to replicate the findings of others, or for journals to publish studies that fail to find a splashy result."
NEW YORK TIMES, Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says, By Benedict Carey, Aug. 27, 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/...ings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html