Global Warming 2.0: The Freeze

[JD Barleycorn]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...zing-or-below/

All fifty states see freezing temperatures while in Washington DC environmental activists protest the Keystone XL pipeline to stop global warming....

....and Obama says that he will act alone to save us all from global warming.

[Whirlaway]

Buffalo gets more snow in a week than they typically get all year !

Parts of Upstate NY get hit with Six Feet of snow.

[Whirlaway]

Obama wasn't lying when he led some to believe he could walk on water; frozen lakes and rivers !

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...zing-or-below/

[IIFFOFRDB]

Good reading for "laugh at a Libtard Wednesday"... except it's not funny

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/1...atory-tsunami/


EPA’s next regulatory tsunami
Guest Blogger / 1 day ago November 18, 2014
epa-logo[1]Trillions of dollars in ozone compliance and economic stagnation costs, for fabricated benefits

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Looming Environmental Protection Agency ozone regulations personify the Obama administration’s secrecy, collusion, fraud, and disdain for concerns about the effects that its tsunami of regulations is having on the livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare of millions of American families.

Virtually every EPA announcement of new regulations asserts that they will improve human health. Draconian carbon dioxide standards, for example, won’t just prevent climate change, even if rapidly developing countries continue emitting vast volumes of this plant-fertilizing gas. The rules will somehow reduce the spread of ticks and Lyme disease, and protect “our most vulnerable citizens.” It’s hogwash.

But Americans naturally worry about pollution harming children and the poor. That makes it easy for EPA to promulgate regulations based on false assumptions and linkages, black-box computer models, secretive collusion with activist groups, outright deception, and supposedly “scientific” reports whose shady data and methodologies the agency refuses to share with industries, citizens or even Congress.

It was only in May 2012 that EPA decided which US counties met new 2008 ozone standards that cut allowable ground-level ozone levels from 80 parts per billion to 75 ppb. Now EPA wants to slash allowable levels even further: to 70 or even 60 ppb, equivalent to 70 or 60 seconds in 32 years.

The lower limits are essential, it claims, to reduce smog, human respiratory problems and damage to vegetation. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says a 600-page agency staff report strongly recommends this reduction, and her Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee agrees. They all say the lower limits are vital for protecting public health, especially “at-risk populations and life stages.” Her decision will ultimately involve “a scientific judgment” and will “keep people safe,” Ms. McCarthy assures us.

Under terms of a convenient federal court settlement, EPA must issue its proposed new standards by December 1 of this year, and make a final decision by October 2015. The process will be “open and transparent,” with “multiple opportunities” for public hearings and comment throughout, she promised.

EPA has offered little transparency, honesty or opportunity for fair hearings and input by impacted parties thus far, and we should expect none here. But other problems with this proposal are much more serious.

If the 60 ppb standard is adopted, 85% of all US counties would likely become “non-attainment” areas, making it difficult to establish new industrial facilities or expand existing plants. Even in Big Sky, clean-air Wyoming, Teton County could be out of compliance – mostly due to emissions from pine trees!

A Manufacturers’ Alliance/MAPI study calculated that a 60 ppb ozone standard would cost the US economy a whopping $1 trillion per year and kill 7.3 million jobs by 2020. A Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and National Association of Manufacturers study concluded that a 60 ppb rule would penalize the state $189 billion for compliance and $53 billion in lost gross domestic product between 2017 and 2040. That’s $10 billion per year in just one state.

But the standard would save lives, EPA predictably claimed, citing 2009 research directed by University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health Professor Michael Jerrett. The study purportedly tracked 448,000 people and claimed to find a connection between long-term ozone exposure and death.

Other researchers sharply criticized Jerrett’s work. His study made questionable assumptions about ozone concentrations, did not rely on clinical tests, ignored the findings of other studies that found no significant link between ground-level ozone and health effects, and failed to gather critically important information on the subjects’ smoking patterns, they pointed out. When they asked to examine his data, Jerrett refused.

Michael Honeycutt, chief toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, says Jerrett and EPA exaggerate health risks from ozone. The Texas Public Policy Foundation told EPA the agency needs to consider “the totality of studies on this issue, rather than giving exclusive weight to a single study,” the foundation emphasized. Unfortunately, EPA almost always focuses on one or two analyses that support its regulatory agenda – and ignores any that might slow or derail its onrushing freight train.

Even worse, those lost jobs and GDP result in major impacts on the lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health, welfare and life spans of millions of Americans. And yet, EPA steadfastly refuses to consider these regulatory impacts: for ozone, carbon dioxide, soot, mercury and other rules.

Then there is the matter of outright deception, collusion and fraud at EPA, via these and other tactics.

One such tactic is sue-and-settle lawsuits. Agitator groups meet with EPA officials behind closed doors and agree on new rules or standards. The agency then conveniently misses a deadline, “forcing” the activists to sue. That leads to a court hearing (from which impacted parties are excluded), and a judgment “forcing” the agency to issue new regulations – and even pay the agitators’ attorney fees! American Lung Association, NRDC, Sierra Club and EPA sue-and-settle collusion resulted in the new ozone proposal.

This clever sue-and-settle tactic was devised by none other than John Beale – the con artist who’s now in prison for bilking taxpayers out of $1 million in salary and travel expenses for his mythical second job as a CIA agent. It defies belief to assume his fraudulent propensities did not extend to his official EPA duties as senior policy advisor with his boss and buddy Robert Brenner, helping Ms. McCarthy and her Office of Air and Radiation develop and implement oppressive regulations. Indeed, his own attorney says he had a “dysfunctional need to engage in excessively reckless, risky behavior” and “manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives.” A US Senate report details the sleazy practice.

As to the “experts” who claim lower ozone limits are vital for protecting public health, there’s this.

The American Lung Association supports the EPA health claims – but neglects to mention that EPA has given the ALA $24.7 million over the past 15 years. Overall, during this period, the ALA received $43 million via 591 federal grants, and Big Green foundations bankrolled it with an additional $76 million. But no one is supposed to question the ALA’s credibility, integrity or support for EPA “science.”

EPA also channels vast sums to its “independent” Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which likewise rubberstamps the agency’s pollution claims and regulations. Fifteen CASAC members received over $181 million since 2000. CASAC excludes from its ranks industry and other experts who might question EPA findings. Both EPA and CASAC stonewall and slow-walk FOIA requests and deny requests for correction and reconsideration. Even congressional committees get nowhere.

As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House on Science, Space and Technology Committee, noted in a letter, 16 of the 20 CASAC members who “peer-reviewed” the ozone studies also helped to write the studies. That makes it even less likely that their reviews were “independent.”

That Senate report, The Chains of Environmental Command, also notes that the Obama EPA has been deliberately packed with far-left environmental activists who work with their former Big Green colleagues to shape policy. They give radical groups critical insider access and also funnel millions of taxpayer dollars through grants to their former organizations, often in violation of agency ethics rules.

These arrogant, unelected, unaccountable, deceitful, dictatorial elites think they have a right to impose ozone, carbon dioxide, ObamaCare and other diktats on us, “for our own good.” They are a primary reason American businesses and families are already paying $1.9 trillion per year to comply with mountains of federal regulations – $353 billion of these costs from EPA alone. The damage to jobs, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health and welfare is incalculable.

The next Congress should review all EPA data, documents and decisions, root out the fraud and collusion, and defund and ultimately reverse all regulations that do not pass muster. The principle is simple: No data, honesty, transparency or integrity – no regulation, and no taxpayer money to impose it.

[WTF]

I hate to break it to you short sighted deniers but GW models predicate extreme temperature/weather swings.

Remember the drought we had three years ago here in Texas?

So once again you are showing your extreme ignorance on this matter.



But then again, you were the guys crying about
Death Panels
Ebola
ISIS.


Yall must have some shitty drawers scared as you seem

[Budman]

Originally Posted by WTF

I hate to break it to you short sighted deniers but GW models predicate extreme temperature/weather swings.

Remember the drought we had three years ago here in Texas?

So once again you are showing your extreme ignorance on this matter.



But then again, you were the guys crying about
Death Panels
Ebola
ISIS.


Yall must have some shitty drawers scared as you seem

You do realize that these models pretty much cover anything and everything that could possible happen. That way no matter what happens you can claim that it is Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever you decide to call it in the future. It is a CYA for all of the global warming cult followers. I'm sure the model is accurate because the government would never lie to us for a political agenda, right?

[IIFFOFRDB]

ClimateGate After Five Years: Ten Credibility-Killing Quotes from Leaked Files That Media Ignored

By Joseph Rossell | November 17, 2014 | 9:36 AM EST

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s deal to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both countries couldn’t have come at a more ironic time.

Their Nov. 11, announcement came just days before the fifth anniversary of ClimateGate, which cast a pall over the credibility of major climate research institutions. On Nov. 17, 2009, it was discovered that hundreds of emails and files were either hacked or leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA). According to Roger Pielke, Jr., months before ClimateGate, CRU admitted it did not have the raw data its climate science is based on.

“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data,” CRU said on its website, according to Pielke [Emphasis his]. Pielke’s response was, “Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious?”

The ClimateGate files shed further light into the problems with CRU data, but media coverage of the scandal didn’t. The three broadcast networks ignored the breaking news for a full 13 days in November 2009. Since then, the networks have mentioned it just nine stories (the most recent was in May 2010) and never mentioned the Harry Read Me file, according to Nexis searches. Later the networks sought to “exonerate” accused scientists.

One of the most disturbing files was a more than 200-page document called HARRY_READ_ME.txt. Darrel Ince, professor of computing at the Open University, wrote in The Guardian (UK) that it is imperative that scientists relying on computer programs release their programs given that “a slip of a keyboard could create an error in programs that will be used to make financial decisions which involve billions of pounds and, moreover, that the probability of such errors is quite high.”

PJ Media and others said it appears to have been written by Ian “Harry” Harris who worked tirelessly to fix CRU’s convoluted data. While working on the project, he catalogued his many challenges between 2006 and 2009 in the file, the most extensive single document released.

His frustrations did not inspire confidence in CRUs data given his many exclamations like, “This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!” “Harry” complains that every time he seemed to make progress “it ends worse than before.” At another point, he exclaims, “Just another thing I cannot understand, and another reason why this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!”

The HARRY_READ_ME file was a long-running commentary, describing the disconcerting breath of problems he encountered while attempting to edit and organize his climate data sets at CRU.

These challenges included CRU loss of data, predecessors accidentally deleting important calculations, receiving poorly organized data from various parts of the world, and having to work with a glitchy array of customized computer programs.

In circumstances such as these, the writer was forced to make many judgment calls on how to proceed, despite admitting, “I haven't had any training in stats in my entire life.”

Despite these revelations, CRU’s climate models have been defended by the U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

BBC reported on Nov. 20, 2009, that researchers at CRU “played a key role” in IPCC findings. The IPCC’s conclusions on climate change in turn heavily influenced the EPA’s ruling that it has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide in order to prevent global warming, according to NewsMax on Dec. 9, 2009.

Yet to critics, the file demonstrated the muddled state of CRU’s climate data and illustrated the vast complexity required to generate climate models. Christopher Booker, a columnist with The Telegraph (UK), wrote, “What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes [sic] they had devised” to model purported global warming.

In February 2010, the minority staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report on the ClimateGate scandal. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., was the committee’s ranking minority member at the time. Minority staff said in the report that the Harry Read Me File “raises several serious questions as to the reliability and integrity of CRU‘s data compilation and quality assurance protocols.”

That report also said, “Moreover, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based consensus and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.”

Here are just 10 of the most stunning quotes from the HARRY_READ_ME file. WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE:




1- "OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

2- "So, once again I don't understand statistics. Quel surprise, given that I haven't had any training in stats in my entire life, unless you count A-level maths."

3- “I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.”

4- "Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it."

5- "So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master database to be ‘fixed’ by this program? Quite honestly I don't have time - but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally. It's the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it's restricted to Russia!!"

6- "Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy – naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!"

7- "Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

8- "Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot star[t] in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

9- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late."

10- "Because although I'm thrilled at the high match rate (87%!), it does seem worse when you realise that you lost the rest.."


- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-....0Oj0wmNk.dpuf






.

[i'va biggen]

The earth has gone from dinosaurs to woolly mammoths yet some will deny climate change.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by WTF

I hate to break it to you short sighted deniers but GW models predicate extreme temperature/weather swings.

Remember the drought we had three years ago here in Texas?

So once again you are showing your extreme ignorance on this matter.



But then again, you were the guys crying about
Death Panels
Ebola
ISIS.


Yall must have some shitty drawers scared as you seem

Don't forget BENGHAZI

Obviously, the fucksticks can't grasp the concept of climate change. (Or evolution, or science for that matter.)

It's another redundant and worn out argument from the Flat Earth Society.

Again, I ask our resident "conservatives" to bring something new to the table than the same old thing.

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

The earth has gone from dinosaurs to woolly mammoths yet some will deny climate change.

no one cares if the earth heats up, cools down, hurricanes or torandos
as long as we can get our starbucks, text/drive and hang out the fast food place next door to the abandoned gym

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Budman

You do realize that these models pretty much cover anything and everything that could possible happen. That way no matter what happens you can claim that it is Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever you decide to call it in the future. It is a CYA for all of the global warming cult followers. I'm sure the model is accurate because the government would never lie to us for a political agenda, right?

They want their model to fit any senario so that they can levy a penalty, or tax, on any conceivable circumstance.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

The earth has gone from dinosaurs to woolly mammoths yet some will deny climate change.

You are so delightfully dense, LittleEva! So refreshingly stupid. The fun part is when you think you have made a point, when you've stated what everyone already knows, and you think you are original. Very funny!

Now, as we all (except you) know, the issue isn't climate change. The issue is do humans cause climate change. I know you won't understand this, so when you and AssupLiar , uh, meet up again, find someone who can explain it to you.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I am so delightfully dense, i'va So refreshingly stupid. The fun part is when I think I have made a point, when stated what everyone already knows, and I think I am original. Very funny!

Now, as we all know, the issue isn't climate change. The issue is do humans cause climate change. I won't understand this, so when JD and whirrly , uh, meet up again, find someone who can explain it to them.

[stockguru]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

The earth has gone from dinosaurs to woolly mammoths yet some will deny climate change.

The climate changes ALL THE TIME. ALWAYS HAS.

That's the point. Man has had no appreciable impact on the pace, or type of change.

We "deniers" only refuse to believe that a silly carbon tax or billions of dollars in regulatory costs added to businesses will make a dent in it. It's entirely vain to believe that we humans can make any difference for better or worse. If the earth finds us to be a nusience - it will shake us off like it did the dinosaurs and wolly mammoths. Even if we use CFL bulbs and have solar panels on our roof.

MAN-MADE climate change is what's up for debate, and what I, for one, will not blindly believe. Climate change is a fact that has been true since there has been a climate.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by stockguru

The climate changes ALL THE TIME. ALWAYS HAS.

That's the point. Man has had no appreciable impact on the pace, or type of change.

We "deniers" only refuse to believe that a silly carbon tax or billions of dollars in regulatory costs added to businesses will make a dent in it. It's entirely vain to believe that we humans can make any difference for better or worse. If the earth finds us to be a nusience - it will shake us off like it did the dinosaurs and wolly mammoths. Even if we use CFL bulbs and have solar panels on our roof.

MAN-MADE climate change is what's up for debate, and what I, for one, will not blindly believe. Climate change is a fact that has been true since there has been a climate.

Precisely! It's the lib-retard solutions that are bogus.