The Democrats are in election mode. The leaders seem to be well versed in the communism pathways of control over the people. All this “get Trump” is used to control it’s base and keep them away from real issues. For example, this week we were to start hearings on climate change. Those hearing would deal with the facts that in items like hurricanes, climate change is so small that is not even measurable. That AGW is more a political tool than a problem. And that science needs to deal with facts and stop scaring the children as a political strategy that keeps the green movement (dollars) moving their way.

The Democrats stopped these hearing to go after Trump. This way the Climate Change scare will still be usable in 2020. The Republicans want to debate and bring Climate Change to the table right now. Democrats want to fool their followers and keep them in the dark. We need a special prosecutor to investigate scientific dishonesty.

I pulled into the shopping center’s parking lot the other day and the panhandlers were there with their cardboard signs. One sign said. “Anything green is good.”

The Republicans want to debate and bring Climate Change to the table right now.
Show me this table and name one Republican who is sitting at it.

Why is this thread titled “Mushrooms”? Are you currently high on shrooms, Mike? Maybe that could explain your distorted delusional system re: AGW being of no real significance.

TimB, yeah, I wanted to talk about mushrooms lol



I’m also glad to talk about congressional hearings on climate change. I’m basically a liberal progressive these days, and I want congress to understand the facts about global warming and climate change. Trump IS an A hole but that’s another matter (except that he is also a climate change denier).

Having a freaky alternative-facts-POTUS like Trump makes life seem surreal, so who needs psilicybin anyway.


House Oversight and Reform Committee on Jun 12. The subject of the Hearing is Contending with Natural Disasters in the Wake of Climate Change.

Republicans - Paul Gosar, Bob Gibbs, Clay Higgins and Kelly Armstrong.

Democrats - Katie Hill, Rashida Tlaib, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Jackie Speier, Jimmy Gomez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

This meeting was canceled for committee to vote on bipartisan basis to hold Barr and Ross in Contempt.

No, I cannot Tim because I do not have any distorted delusional system. Maybe you can explain to me the real significance of AGW. Here’s a start of claims for you to answer.









10.– THE REAL REASON? Economist Walter E. Williams cites Sen. Timothy Wirth, a Democrat from Colorado, who said in 1988: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Tim, I want a big government debate on national TV about Climate Change. We don’t known for sure yet today if Climate Change is good or bad for us because of all the damn political rhetoric. We are not going to stop Mother Nature. That is just crazy talk. So, just how much is the AGW changing Mother Nature?

Pretty damned much you idiot.


Go back to your mushrooms.

OMG mike yohe youre another conspiracy freakshow

Not that I expect Mike to respect any of this information - he’s way the hell too comfortable with out and out lies and ignoring all he doesn’t like.

Notice he doesn’t have the integrity to offer citations for his joke list of shit headlines.

Advancing the Science of Climate Change (2010)
Chapter: Summary

Science has made enormous inroads in understanding climate change and its causes, and is beginning to help develop a strong understanding of current and potential impacts that will affect people today and in coming decades. This understanding is crucial because it allows decision makers to place climate change in the context of other large challenges facing the nation and the world. There are still some uncertainties, and there always will be in understanding a complex system like Earth’s climate. Nevertheless, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

As a result of the growing recognition that climate change is under way and poses serious risks for both human societies and natural systems, the question that decision makers are asking has expanded from “What is happening?” to “What is happening and what can we do about it?”. Scientific research can help answer both of these important questions. In addition to the extensive body of research on the causes and consequences of climate change, there is a growing body of knowledge about technologies and policies that can be used to limit the magnitude of future climate change, a smaller but expanding understanding of the steps that can be taken to adapt to climate change, and a growing recognition that climate change will need to be considered in actions and decisions across a wide range of sectors and interests. Advice on prudent short-term actions and long-term strategies in these three areas can be found in the companion reports Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change (NRC, 2010c), Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (NRC, 2010a), and Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change (NRC, 2010b).

This report, Advancing the Science of Climate Change (Box S.1), reviews the current scientific evidence regarding climate change and examines the status of the nation’s scientific research efforts. It also describes the critical role that climate change science, broadly defined, can play in developing knowledge and tools to assist decision makers as they act to respond to climate change. The report explores seven crosscutting research themes that should be included in the nation’s climate change research enterprise and recommends a number of actions to advance the science of climate…

CC, your posting is from 2010. Isn’t that the year you were backing the claim that all the major facts needed for Climate Science was now completed, and no more studying of climate was going to be required to get moving on new regulations and climate laws.

Player - OMG mike yohe youre another conspiracy freakshow

Sorry, you don’t understand the topic. The meeting that was canceled was to have Michael Mann. Who CC backs all the way. And Judith Curry who I back all the way. Along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other New Green Deal backers. The meeting was to kick off the Climate Change debate. Issues to be covered were extreme events like hurricane activity being used to win the public opinion when the facts are that hurricane activity by AGW are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of any changes in the natural variability. There is no convincing evidence that manmade global warming has caused a change in hurricane activity. This is just one of the reasons the debates are important. The hearings are postponed and not rescheduled yet. One meteorologist called AOC out for not knowing “the difference between weather and climate.” This is becoming a political chessboard instead of real science.

The “shit headlines” CC is talking about, she got correct. They were headlines. And the issues were backed by what we were told was science. If you want to know more about any of the headlines, just ask. There is so much to cover here with just the political issues. That’s why I posted here was to cover the political issues.

Player you seem to have made a conclusion about the postings. I am guessing you have strong opinions on the subject. Would you answer a simple basic question on the subject for me? Does the earth have a natural thermostat?

Is co2 a greenhouse gas numbnuts???

Links to Ocean Heat Content and Climate Change Adaptation

That’s what I am talking about Lausten. We get these reports that look and sound like they have valid science behind the papers.

“A consequence is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (Trenberth et al., 2014; von Schuckmann et al., 2016) of which about 92% goes into the ocean, increasing OHC. Primary indicators of a changing climate include increases in global mean surface temperature, sea level, and OHC (Cheng et al., 2017, 2018; Figure 1a). Moreover, OHC and sea level changes are more robust climate indicators with less weather noise, both for global averages (Cheng et al., 2018) and regional changes.”

Data from 2014 to 2018. But!!! In 2013 Nature published a report by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie titled Recent global warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling.

In March of this year Alberto Zaragoza Comendador tries to look into the problem of all the different reports. “How sensitive is the Earth’s climate to greenhouse gases? Speaking about carbon dioxide in particular, how much would air temperatures increase if we doubled atmospheric concentrations of said gas?”

And he goes on to say – “This question lies at the heart of climate science. It is to climate what GDP is to economics – the central concept. So central that it’s very difficult to have a coherent discussion of climate issues if one does not know about sensitivity. But there is a crucial difference between these measures: the layman is somewhat familiar with GDP but not at all familiar with climate sensitivity.”

I relate “climate sensitivity” to forcing.

October 2018 by Nic Lewis - A close reading of Chapters 1 and 2 of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) reveals some interesting changes from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), and other science-relevant statements. This article highlights statements in SR15 relating to carbon emission budgets for meeting the 1.5°C and 2°C targets.

SR15 explains that ‘The IPCC has traditionally defined changes in observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) as a weighted average of near-surface air temperature (SAT) changes over land and sea surface temperature (SST) changes over the oceans’. Consistent with that, the SR15 1.5°C remaining carbon budgets are based on anthropogenic warming up to 2006–2015 of 0.87°C, which is based on surface temperature datasets that mostly combine near-surface air temperature over land and sea surface temperature over the (open) ocean.

Lausten - Point being, if I just say there is a problem with the concept thinking of the scientists being on the same page you would want proof. And if I post just some of the proof, it will be to bothersome to read.

What I am seeing is that the science is pushing ideas in one direction then the other scientists start pushing back in the other direction. In 2009 we had “ Earth’s Upper Atmosphere Cooling Dramatically , but that didn’t get much coverage. Now in the last year we have a complete change in direction again going back to the 2009 thinking of the earth cooling. NASA is now saying there is a Cooling Trend in the upper atmosphere. Even Player understands that CO2 causes warming. The warming is supposed to keep warming and moving upward and increase the temperatures of the upper atmospheres. But NASA is telling us now that the upper atmosphere is literally decreasing in radius size due to the dramatic cooling that is taking place. The cause is said to be related to the solar minimum. Which CC has done data dumps on to prove the solar minimum is not enough to really have any effect on Global Warming! Yet, the cooling affect in moving downward toward the oceans. Which takes us back to the atmosphere forcing.

Are we going to have a 2020 election on Climate Change warming? When the Climate Change may be in the beginning of a Climate Change cooling stage. I think it is worth a debate.

Lausten, Thanks for the posting the paper.

Player - Is co2 a greenhouse gas numbnuts???

Player are you answering the question? Does the earth have a natural thermostat? And you think that CO2 is the earth’s thermostat?

Lausten, the last post was longer that I like. But I want to cover a couple point on your report posting. Hurricane Harvey provides an excellent case study as it was isolated in space and time. Harvey had recorded high heat values and the thinking is that Harvey could not have produced so much rain without human-induced climate change. NAS put together a “rapid response team” to communicate the data. But that turned out to be more of an Obama-style political activism by the climate scientists acting as community organizers that were picked. This ended up being a one-sided political media enforcement tool of the false CAGW ‘science’ narrative. They feared the majority of American people will ultimately realize they’ve been had by AGW proponents, the NAS and other institutions like NASA that have been pushing the CAGW story line for 35 years, so they are riding out Trump by keeping the narrative going in the public square, on their terms. Again, another reason for the much needed Climate debate.


For the record Mikie here is lost in lalaland. Asking stupidly worded questions can only result in receiving stupid answers.

Want a little realism?

Recent Scientific Advancements Show New Connections Between Climate Change and Hurricanes by Kelly Levin - September 14, 2018

None of the statements above suggest that climate change causes hurricanes. However, it’s becoming more and more clear that a warming climate leads to more devastating hurricanes.

There have also been tremendous advancements regarding the attribution of specific extreme events being enhanced by climate change. According to Nature, there have been more than 170 scientific studies on attribution of extreme events and climate change published between 2004 and mid-2018. For example:

One study found that the unusually active 2014 hurricane season in the Hawaiian islands was substantially more likely due to human-induced warming.

In the Western North Pacific, scientists have found that the extreme energy of 2015 cyclone activity was largely caused by sea surface warming in the Pacific Ocean, with human-induced warming increasing the odds that the event occurred.

Recent research found that with Hurricane Harvey, accumulated rainfall in the Houston, Texas area increased by an estimated 38 percent due to climate change-induced factors, including an increase in available moisture.
Prior to Hurricane Harvey, ocean heat content was the highest on record in the Gulf of Mexico and globally. When Hurricane Harvey came, that ocean heat was lost through evaporative cooling, which was then transferred to the atmosphere as moisture and, in turn, record-breaking heavy rainfall. Researchers say that Harvey could not have been accompanied by so much rain without the influence of human-induced warming.
In just the last several days, a group of researchers assessed the role of human-induced warming in Hurricane Florence, notably releasing their findings before the storm hit. Scientists estimated that the projected rainfall would be 50 percent heavier due to warming.

Building on Prior Research

. . . (plenty more, but you’d have to do a little homework on your own to appreciate that reality.)
Given that our weather is a global heat and moisture distribution engine - and given that weather is the vehicle that circulates and distributes heat, energy and moisture around our globe. It’s simple logical and physical reality - there is no f’n weather system, or natural oscillation, that forms these days that is not influenced by our warming global!!!

It physics fool.



The dinosaurs were on Earth for something like 170 million years. They and most of the rest of species, died off in the greatest mass extinction ever. It may have the result of volcunism which lead to greenhouse gases which lead to global warming which lead to a massive release of methane which caused the extinction event.

It is apparently possible that VERY massive amounts of methane will be released when/if the permafrost melts. There are already many lakes formed from permafrost melts that have so much methane, that one can poke a hole in their ice covering, hold a torch to the hole and light it. Hence the title “Ice on Fire” of a new movie, that is actually quite hopeful about what we can still do to reduce the rise of atmospheric CO2, and even begin to reverse atmospheric CO2.