New study confirms the oceans are warming rapidly

I agree with the idea, as the ones that are the most likely to have damages should pay more of the cost in some way or another. Insurer's should also be charging more as they do in my area for coverage. Another good example in my area is the Bolivar peninsula opposite Galveston, it goes under water during bad hurricanes and people keep rebuilding there. Good chance every ten years that the place gets leveled and they keep building there over and over, any rise of sea levels just compounds the issue there.

 

There's no time to waste! We need to tax these Blue Coastal Zones and tax them good and hard!
- Limit construction in lower-lying coastal areas
- Implement a "Blue Coastal Life Savers Tax", a large and steeply-increasing tax on property located in areas scientists say are likely to be flooded because of global warming.

The "Blue Coastal Life Savers Tax" will affect behavior now in ways that will reduce costs in the future.

Climate activists say that between 20 million and 31 million Americans live in places that will be at risk of flooding from global warming by the end of the century. Just to be safe, I think we should aim to reduce the number of people living in these areas by 25% within 25 years, 50% within 50 years and, naturally, 100% by the end of the century.

Demand the "Blue Coastal Life Savers Tax" from Congress NOW!

 

so you're admitting that agw is causing costly harm

 

I completely support The Blue Coastal Life Savers Tax. Surely Prudence dictates that we reduce our Blue Coastal Populations by 25% in 25 years; 50% in 50 years and of course, a 100% in a hundred years. You think those tidal gauges are lying?

Time To Test Democrats’ Tax Patriotism: Plan would make coastal blue states pay their fair share.

Democrats have been saying for years that we need tax increases, and that paying taxes is one of the greatest forms of patriotism.

We need a federal tax plan that eliminates the federal deductibility of state income and property taxes in these Coastal Zones that are predicted by science! to be flooded within a hundred years. You aren't one of these Science Deniers, are you?

If Blue Coastal Zones want to be foolish, fine. But surely you don't advocate for a poor wise single mountain-dwelling mom Walmart Clerk in Appalachia, subsidizing a rich dumb hedge-fund Mogul's coastal McMansion because he is too damn dumb to heed a tidal gauge, do you you? Blue staters want to develop coastal areas shouldn’t be encouraged to do so by federal tax giveaways. And it’s the urban, coastal areas that have done best over the past 25 years, so it seems time for them to pay their fair share now.

Fair share! Fair share! The wealthy states can afford to “chip in a little more!”

Show that you have a heart and brain, support the Blue Coastal "Life-Saver" Taxes!

 

Exactly!

 

Sure, "Mike's Trick" to "hide the decline!" They don't get more credible than Credible-Mike, why "Credible" is Mike's name!

Target of Michael Mann's Latest Lawsuit Says Mann is In "Contempt of Court" for Not Disclosing Climate Data and Models to Permit Him His Truth-Is-a-Defense Defense; Mann Claims He's Not In Contempt
Not sure what's going on here, personally. I just hope Mann loses.

 

First, the quote is "Mike's Nature trick". Second, do you even know what these are referring to? Third, do you even know who said them?

And for the record. I don't and won't defend Mann. I'm not going to use his work to support my position on AGW. In fact, I'm going to come right out and say that I repudiate him and his work.

Maybe Mann could use a dose of humility. I don't take too kindly to people claiming they won a Nobel Prize when they actually didn't. So, if he losses, it's no skin off my back. I think he's done more to harm the public perception of AGW. So in that respect I see him as being somewhat like Al Gore.

 

you're talking about lies and nonsense from agw deniers, mann isn't in contempt of court

"Let’s begin right away with the data that is supposedly being held secret. They are HERE* They have always been there. Anytime anyone says “where’s the data, Michael Mann” just send them there, where the data are."

HERE* - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...e-sabotaging-the-planet/#.WWEoz6aAnSQ.twitter

 

VOX: It’s OK to scare the crap out of people on climate change.

It’s fine for activists to be congenitally positive — that’s their job. But I’m with Slate’s Susan Matthews: it’s just weird for journalists and analysts to worry about overly alarming people regarding the biggest, scariest problem humanity has ever faced. By any sane accounting, the ranks the under-alarmed outnumber the over-alarmed by many multiples. The vast majority of people do not have an accurate understanding of how bad climate change has already gotten or how bad it is likely to get, much less how bad it could get if we keep electing crazy people.

When there are important things that people don’t understand, journalists should explain those things. Attempts at dime-store social psychology are unlikely to lead to better journalism.

Over my 407 years in the climate-o-sphere, I’ve cycled through just about every school of thought on the right way to communicate climate change. What I’ve come to believe is that on this, as on most matters, nobody really knows anything. Even if there are accurate statements about how people in general respond to messages in general, they won’t tell you much about how you ought to communicate with the people you want to reach.

Writing that is consciously pitched to reach and inspire some mythical average reader (as encountered in social science studies filtered through popular journalism) tends to be flavorless and dull.

Similarly, the dry, hedged language of science is not the only serious or legitimate way to communicate, though climate scientists often mistake it as such.

People are too dumb and too irrational to know what’s good for ’em.

I believe it was noted 'scientist' Bill Nye who recently defined “science” as, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

 

you're jumping from one failed point to another

 

Figures. And yes, I double checked. That was indeed fake news. There's basically nothing in that article that was factual. Still...I could care less if Mann wins or losses his libel suit.

And I repeat the irony...the overwhelming majority of reconstructions of the pre-industrial temperature anomalies (some of which came from those very critical of Mann) confirm Mann's conclusions and the basic shape of the graph with the "hockey stick" showing the unnatural warming rate.

 

Blue Coastal Taxes, it's whats for breakfast. Do you believe the tidal gauges? You aren't a science denier, are you?

 

notice how you can't address the fact that mann disclosed the data years ago

here it is, again:

'Data Sources'Filed under: — group @ 27 November 2009
This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.

• Climate data (raw)
• Climate data (processed)
• Paleo-data
• Auxiliary data
• Paleo Reconstructions (including code)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

it is a valid question
If you are going to make a statement that the earth climate is warmer then it should be you have to have had established a reference point to make a comparison

 

Tell it to the Judge:

Michael Mann Could Be in Legal Hot Water for Refusal to Turn Over 'Hockey Stick' Data

Mann is allegedly in contempt of court for refusing discovery to the person he's suing for defamation. Dr. Ball claims he agreed to an adjournment of the court proceedings on the condition that Mann turns over all the data used to create his hockey stick graph that purports to show a spike in global warming in the twentieth century. The discovery of this data is vital to Ball's defense, as he has criticized the methodology used to create the graph, and Mann responded by suing him for stating his views.

Mann's refusal to comply with discovery has been met with consideration that the data behind the hockey stick graph doesn't exist, and the graph is a fraud. Mann's refusal to cooperate in this legal proceeding, that he initiated, is damning.

Should he continue to refuse to comply, it will remain impossible to reproduce his scientific findings — and replication is the key to the scientific method. Mann has jealously refusing to allow the world to examine his findings, claiming he is not compelled to, despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of government and even UN policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation.

Mann's lawsuit against Tim Ball is a SLAPP-style lawsuit designed to bully him into silence. SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) cases have been used to suppress free expression through lawfare. Many states in the U.S. and provinces in Canada have greatly restricted the ability to file them.

The Mann lawsuit was filed by Roger McConchie. All three of McConchie's lawsuits were filed in British Columbia because it is one of only two jurisdictions in Canada that has not passed anti-SLAPP legislation.

Mr Ball decided to withdraw the critical article because we could not afford the legal fight with Mann. "However, within the year, so some six years ago, we received another lawsuit from McConchie on behalf of Mann. It involved an interview I gave after a public presentation of the Hockey Stick, explaining how it was wrong and contradicted all the extensively documented historical material."

Ball was asked his views about Mann. He replied, "He was at Penn State but maybe it should be State Pen." McConchie then went on to sue Ball's publisher, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, which is common with SLAPP lawsuits.

"My wife and I were discussing what to do, when nine days later we received the third lawsuit from Andrew Weaver, a lead author on the section on computer models for four of the IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013)," Ball explained. "At that point my wife and I decided we were not going to be bullied anymore and launched our defence."

As explained at the Climate Change Dispatch blog, there are specific violations of statute and case law that indicate Mann could be held legally liable:

Ball is now entitled to have his lawyer fashion any reasonable remedy to right this wrong. He can apply to enforce the crux of the ‘truth defense’ he has relied on from the outset. This strategy permits Ball, if Mann doesn’t show his hidden data, to be vindicated under the law such that Ball’s words, that Mann belongs in jail for data fraud, are true. Not releasing his secret "science" for open courtroom examination means, legally, this is an omission proving a guilty mind. Case law is specific on this, telling us that intentional withholding of key evidence is an “admission of guilt”.

So, what now for Mann, this serial liar and SLAPP suit specialist?

Well, things look mighty bleak for both Mann and McConchie. A lawyer’s written commitment during trial is not just an enforceable agreement, it is a breach which can give rise to professional regulatory sanctions. He could lose his law license.

In such cases, where the wronged party has been unlawfully denied access to the evidence, this permits a choice from among some powerful remedies. These exist to make wronged parties whole again when they suffer such an egregious transgression as Mann’s (some examples here).

Using case law precedents, Hodgins v. Street, Dr. Ball may ask for an ‘adverse inference’ remedy. This kind of remedy allows an insertion in the final court judgment to say that Mann refuses to disclose his dodgy ‘hockey stick’ data because to do so would have proven the truthfulness of Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” In other words, Mann did commit criminal fraud with his graph.

Ball says that defending himself for the right to express his opinion has cost him most of his life savings — over $1 million Canadian. He expects to prevail and recover damages and legal fees, but that process can take years.

Ball notes that Mann has profited handsomely off the hockey stick graph, which was paid for while he was in the Virginia university system — which is why Ken Cuccinelli sued him when he was Virginia's attorney general. "Think about that. Not only does he deny me the documents I need to prove my innocence against his charges, but the money he used to collect and publish that data was provided by the taxpayers of Virginia and the falsified results used to create global policy on climate, environment, and energy."

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made that Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents, no judge has declared that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Ball said via email that Mann's statement is not valid and is contrary to court records. "The truth is the papers were sought and never provided and are still not provided, which blocks me from my defence of his charge."

It is interesting to note that Mann is defending himself as vigorously in the court of public opinion as he is doggedly pursuing his critics in legal court.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the question of the existence of man-made global warming, as well as the right to suppress free expression with which one disagrees, will be on full display as this and the other lawsuits against Dr. Ball wind their way through the courts.

As Ball summed it up from his home in Victoria, British Columbia, "Americans must defend free speech at all costs because you can see what happens in the rest of the world where we don’t have it."

Excerpts, read the whole thing at the link.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...r-for-refusal-to-turn-over-hockey-stick-data/

 

In order to understand a definition one should know the meaning of each and every word in it.


Your definition of a scientific theory has to use the word evolution twice in 5 short sentences.


It can only mean if one does not know what the theory of biological evolution is about one cannot know what a is a scientific theory and what is garbage.


It can only mean that for 200 years starting from the scientific revolution by Newton people created volumes the most fundamental and valid to the present day physical theories, but they couldn’t know what was a scientific theory and what was garbage because because evolution was not made up yet..


One has to know nothing about nothing or in other words be a believer in evolution and GW in order to not to see how idiotic is such a suggestion.

Not taking existing standards and not applying them to evolution, but using evolution as a standard backwards is a perversion.

You have just demonstrated again that believers in GW know nothing about nothing and have quite perverted minds.

American Association for the Advancement of Science must have no credibility in any conversation about science because of the total idiocy of its statements.

 

NO FREE PARKING: Searching for Parking Costs Americans $73 Billion a Year.

INRIX today published a major new study combining data from the INRIX Parking database of 100,000 locations across 8,700 cities in more than 100 countries, with results from a recent survey of nearly 18,000 drivers in the U.S., U.K. and Germany, including close to 6,000 across 10 U.S. cities. With the goal of analyzing and ranking the economic costs of “parking pain” in these markets, INRIX research found that, on average, U.S. drivers spend 17 hours per year searching for parking at a cost of $345 per driver in wasted time, fuel and emissions.

INRIX analyzed the parking market in 10 of the U.S.’s largest cities, and revealed that New York drivers endure the worst challenges. On average, drivers in the Big Apple spend 107 hours per year searching for a parking spot at a cost $2,243 per driver in wasted time, fuel and emissions, amounting to $4.3 billion in costs to the city as a whole.

A Federal “parking tax” levied on automobiles in our most congested cities, with rapidly escalating fees based on a vehicle’s size and price, and with revenues devoted to carbon reduction, ought to alleviate the problem.

 

what a bunch of malarkey you wrote, it's you who has no credibility

agw is a confirmed 'scientific theory'

 

the judge hasn't ruled mann in contempt

you have to be extremely naive to believe pj media

it's a conservative news, opinion and commentary collaborative wing-nut blog

"These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

 

Mann missed a judge’s deadline to produce his data in what’s dubbed the “climate science trial of the century” and now faces defeat, financial consequences, and possible criminal investigation in the United States.

Mann had launched a series of punitive lawsuits designed to silence critics, with journalist Mark Steyn, National Review Online, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and 79-year-old scientist Dr. Timothy Ball being targets. The last one, a libel suit filed six years ago in the British Columbia Supreme Court in Vancouver, resulted in a “Battle of the Graphs” and has blown up in Mann’s face.

Mann is the Penn State climatologist famous for inventing the “hockey stick” graph promoting the notion that planetary temperatures spiked in the 20th century after a Golden Age of stasis. This graph was misleading at a minimum, the product of what Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia termed “Mike's trick” to “hide the decline.” What Mann did was splice two separate data sets together to create the illusion of spiking temperatures; the graph spliced data sets together without differentiation, hiding the global temperature “decline” shown by the Briffa reconstruction set.


Mann used statistical sleight-of-hand to create a temperature graph that omitted the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, thus making our time appear by far the warmest of the last thousand years. In contrast, Dr. Ball provides a graph indicating that medieval temperatures were higher than today’s for close to 300 years. (Both graphs can be found here, and the video below illustrates the difference. Graphs contrasted at 2:57.)



Mann’s now discredited graph played a huge role in influencing government policy and was featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report in 2001.

The libel suit against Ball concerns his assertion that Mann is guilty of fraud. O’Sullivan quotes Ball as explaining:

Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that Mann produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.

As a consequence, O’Sullivan wrote on July 4 that Ball

is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

… Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State” is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have willfully [sic] hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

So whether or not the Canadian court’s judgment will heat things up for Mann or Ball remains to be seen.

Read the whole thing:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...y-in-the-climate-science-trial-of-the-century

 

no he didn't, the data was released years ago

here it is, again: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

Yes

he did.

 

Thank you for confirming that no believer in evolution, GW, black holes, and in even more idiotic belief such as multiple universes can never ever come up with anything else but spewing an insult like a mad dog spewing saliva.

I greatly appreciate and I will let the American public, including illegal aliens to choose between freedom and and slavery.

An thank you again for submitting no objection to any statement I made, but trying to bite my leg.

Try again.

I am immune.

I am Inquisitor.

 

it looks like you're immune to telling the truth

 

How would you know anything

about telling the truth?