brenthutch

Nothing new about any of that, especially when taken in a military context. Paragraph one of an operations order (OPORD): "Situation: Provides information essential to subordinate leader's understanding of the situation. A. Enemy Forces 1. Weather and light data general forecast for the length of the operation: temperature (high & low), sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, moon phase, % illumination, wind speed, wind direction, BMNT, EENT." Notice how weather is top-line under "Enemy Forces"?

Meh, she faked it. Nothing to see here folks. He made a 150 million in 2005 and paid 38 million in taxes. The rest is all just sensationalized conjecture and more speculation. . . So he paid at a lower rate than my wife and I. For shame. I'd have to see the schedule A for deductions and the $103 million write down from line 21. Accounting for those two figures puts his tax rate at close to 100%. Yes, most people aren't in a position to write down $103 Million. A privilege for the privileged. Yes, most people aren't in a position to pay $35 million+ in income tax in a year. A privilege for the privileged indeed.

Rachel Maddow + Trump's taxes = Geraldo Ravera + Al Capone's vault OMG Trump only paid $35 million in federal income tax in 2005. Stop the presses.

Time for someone to go to jail. Did you know it's illegal to publish somebody's tax returns? It is illegal to leak ones tax returns, it is not illegal to publish them.

Why are you asking billvon? Airdvr is who brought it up. Jerry Baumchen Hi jerry, It was a rhetorical question.

It took six pages to go from lovable molecule to "insufferable arrogant narcissistic dicks". I thought this was Speakers Corner, what took so long?

Too bad you so often ally yourself with the anti-science side of politics, then. Let me remind you that you often ally yourself on the anti vaccination, and anti GMO (AKA anti-science) side of politics.

Forgive me if I don't give much credence to polls. Polls said the earth was the center of the universe, polls said whites were the superior race, polls said the earth is 5000 years old, polls elected Obama, polls elected Trump. Thank you very much but I would rather use the scientific method as my North Star. Oh and BTW, when Michael Mann was introduced to me as "Mr. Global Warming" my biasometer went to eleven. A lifetime of advocacy for a position is a cause for incredulity not blind acceptance.

I really could not care less about what people think, I am only concerned with policy and where the dollars are or are not going and in that regard, I am very happy!

1st article I love how they lump renewables in with natural gas. LOL Frack baby frack! 2nd article More people believe in ghosts then believe they will personally be affected by climate change. Sounds about right.

It didn't say affected, it said threatens, big difference. From my standpoint I have already won. The government is getting out of the control the weather business. NASA is going back to space exploration, the EPA is being reigned in, taxpayer money will no longer be squandered on "alternative" energy boondoggles, instead we will develop our cheap and dependable traditional energy sources and to top it off, the fate of electric cars will be left to the tender mercies of the market. Oh and at the North Pole??? More polar bears than ever.

Coolest.

What part of "the net increase in fossil fuel consumption was 2.6 times the overall increase in the consumption of renewables." do you not understand? What part of rate of growth do you have trouble with? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels The trend is clear. Despite the absolute numbers which do not indicate trends. Spoken like a true warmist.

What part of "the net increase in fossil fuel consumption was 2.6 times the overall increase in the consumption of renewables." do you not understand?

Really? "Climate change threatens America’s economy, national security, and public health and safety"

Meanwhile back in the real world..... "While global coal consumption did decline by 1% in 2015, the world set new consumption records for petroleum and natural gas. The net impact was a total increase in the world's fossil fuel consumption of about 0.6%. That may not seem like much, but the net increase in fossil fuel consumption -- the equivalent of 127 million metric tons of petroleum -- was 2.6 times the overall increase in the consumption of renewables (48 million metric tons of oil equivalent)." https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/06/08/world-sets-record-for-fossil-fuel-consumption/

If the current trend holds, our place in the world won't be as good, it will be much much better.

Yes, ensuring that asbestos fibres are no longer inhaled would be extremely urgent, even though potential severe health effects would not show until much later. Once the effects show, it is long too late to stop the inhaling of the fibres. The damage has been done. Smoking is much the same way. Something can be an urgent threat, even if the effect isn't until later. Maybe something more related to skydiving might help: If a jumper is about to leave the plane without a parachute, one would call that an urgent threat to their life. Even though death will be a few minutes after leaving the plane. Does that help you see how urgent doesn't have to be tied to quick or immediate? This really is grade 1 type of stuff. So when exactly will the death and destruction stuff manifest? So far we have record food production, more polar bears and fewer people in poverty than ever. No drought in California, fewer tornadoes, hurricanes, and wildfires etc etc. Why are you guys so negative? You reject the very notion that the world is is not coming to an end, despite the evidence that is right before your eyes. What a sad pathetic existence. You have my pity.

I guess we have to talk about smoking, asbestos, ships, icebergs and elevated levels of distress because y'all can't discuss the failed predictions of climate change alarmists. Anyway who likes the title of my thread?

Yes. The lead time required to turn the ship around is measured in decades. It's a very large ship. Do you understand now? Lead time for what? What are we turning around?

You need to bone up on the concept of "urgent"

From your post "climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat." ur·gent adjective (of a state or situation) requiring immediate action or attention. "the situation is far more urgent than politicians are admitting" synonyms: acute, pressing, dire, desperate, critical, serious, grave, intense, crying, burning, compelling, extreme, exigent, high-priority, top-priority; life-and-death Can you explain to me how something can be an "urgent threat" for three decades? I'm still waiting for Al Gore's clockwise rotating northern hemisphere mega-storms.

President Donald Trump The White House Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10: “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.” For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are. Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC. The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth. We note that: The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming, It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed, The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments, Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide, Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans. Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills. I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petion (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC. Respectfully yours, Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences SUPPORTING SIGNERS: Most of signers of the Petition, agree with my remarks above. In the limited time available to prepare the letter, it has been reviewed and approved by the following: ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation). ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012). BASTARDI, Joseph: Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics. BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics. CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer. DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees. EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year. FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia). HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993. HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut. IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska – Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meterologist. LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri. MARKÓ, István E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium). MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom). MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society). NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition. SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia. SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist. SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ’81; M.S., Meteorology, ’79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ’78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology. STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic). WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.

Is that the same Jon Huntsman that Obama appointed?

It's strange that our military, specifically the Navy, is vocal about the effects of climate change and are actually planning ahead for rising sea level while the rest of our citizens hear no evil. The military is no different than any other government bureaucracy, they will be vocal about any thing that will generate more funding. Just take a look at the trillions of dollars spent/wasted defending freedom and democracy from the paper tiger of communism. Dammit, Man! It's going to be a hellscape out there! Need more military funding! It's actually not too much of a stretch to think what would happen if droughts become rampant in the tropical or sub tropical bands where most of the third world countries and massive human populations reside. Those are the very areas that are benefiting from the fertilizer effect of higher CO2 levels, according to NASA.