brenthutch

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.

If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing: Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could Blocking oil and gas pipelines Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions Cutting U.S. military spending Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran That Trump is planning to do precisely the opposite of these things may or may not be good policy for the United States, but anybody who thinks this is a Russia appeasement policy has been drinking way too much joy juice. Obama actually did all of these things, and none of the liberal media now up in arms about Trump ever called Obama a Russian puppet; instead, they preferred to see a brave, farsighted and courageous statesman. Trump does none of these things and has embarked on a course that will inexorably weaken Russia’s position in the world, and the media, suddenly flushing eight years of Russia dovishness down the memory hole, now sounds the warning that Trump’s Russia policy is treasonously soft.

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.

He was discussing the dollar value applied to CO2 emissions, something used to figure out how much to tax polluters. This was literally a metric of how we evaluate climate change. Two things, 1. CO2 is not a pollutant 2. The degree to which CO2 impacts the climate is unknown, making it a worthless metric for measuring climate change.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

He was not discussing climate change, he was discussing statistics. Two plus two is still four, even if the Heritage Foundation says so.

Yeah, I don't have the gumption to weed through it today. Will get back to ya later. It basically says that if the Obama administration had done a correct statistical analysis, they would have reached a negative Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

I just turned on the news and, without context, heard Nikki Haley say "this is not a rational man, he is unhinged and does not behave in a rational manner". I thought she was talking about her boss but apparently she was referring to Kim Jung Un.

From your article, "When destructive storms, droughts and heat waves became increasingly alarming" Notice how the author only claimed increased alarm and not an actual increase in storms, droughts and heat waves. Also he doesn't address the observed greening of the planet.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YW5JHF_CJCU More math

I'll fully admit that I'm not even going to read through that. Sorry for departing from this dialogue, I can't take that website seriously. "Say what you will of the source Think Progress, they accurately quote and reference this material." Come on man!

There is a big difference between a prediction and an observation. His testimony was about what is actually happening whereas AGW alarmists make guesses about what might happen. Since you mentioned failed predictions, here are a few. http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_-NnCBdQbA Congressional testimony from a scientist!

Did you smoke them first and then finish in sous vide? I typically smoke and the then finish in an oven but want to try finishing sous vide. No I just sous vide. I do the same with my ribs as well. Three hours on smoke, wrap them and back in the smoker or oven for the last two hours. I have seen smoke then sous vide and SV then smoke online, let me know how you make out.

Update: Ribs were perfectly done and super moist but no more then when prepared properly on the smoker and they lacked the bark and flavor of smoked ribs.

On the issue of climate change I have come to the personal conclusion that Brent and I will just have to agree to disagree.The right doesn't want to recognize this for two main reasons. First there are vested interests in big oil. Viewing solar-conservation, etc. as liberal elitist nonsense. No I view this through a lens of pragmatism. If one were to apply a cost benefit analysis to any of these silly programs there short comings would be self evident. I'm sorry I just can't get on board with "all pain and no gain." This is nothing more than a left wing, globalist fantasy, an esoteric discussion that belongs in a philosophy class not wasting band width in the real world.

Chicken Little Higher capital costs plus higher labor cost equals higher energy cost. Who is a Pollyanna now?

Pollyanna? He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Alfred P. Sloan fellowship in 1966, an Alexander von Humboldt award in 1976, the Herbert P.Broida Prize in 1997, the Davisson-Germer prize and the Thomas Alva Edison patent award in 2000.[2] In 2003 he was named the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I don't think so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/will-happer-trump_us_58a384f6e4b094a129f01d6e? "So you really do see global warming as a non-problem, not as something worth investing in? Absolutely. Not only a non-problem. I see the CO2 as good, you know. Let me be clear. I don’t think it’s a problem at all, I think it’s a good thing. It’s just incredible when people keep talking about carbon pollution when you and I are sitting here breathing out, you know, 40,000 parts per million of CO2 with every exhalation. So I mean it’s shameful to do all of this propaganda on what’s a beneficial natural part of the atmosphere that has never been stable but most of the time much higher than now. Is there a finding that could emerge related to, say, sea level that could get you more focused or thinking about the downside of the relentless buildup of this gas? Remember, the thing that’s the issue here is the long-lived nature of CO2. So it’s kind of like a ratcheting mechanism. It’s hard to reverse. Well I think CO2 is good. I’m very happy that it’s long-lived. The longer the better. Look, I mean you can already see the Earth greening. [It is.] If you look at agricultural yields, they’re steadily going up. A lot of that is fertilizer, better varieties, but some of it is CO2. So I mean I can’t imagine why you would want to decrease CO2."

I have St. Louis style ribs in right now. Twelve hours down twelve to go. Last time I did just twelve, ribs were cooked but very tough. My first sous vide fail. Looking forward to ribs 2.0.

I missed this one in Vacation Bible School as a child. So we’ve got the most powerful force in the universe (created it in seven days as you posit) and the manifestation is a talking donkey? I thought that was Dream Works.