Comments by 14noscams

Previous | Page 3 of 128 | Next

Posted on January 19 at 8:42 p.m.

Ken_Volok - liberal means something different these days. It used to imply tolerance and diversity and individualism and creativity and freedom, and these days people who describe themselves as liberals are closer to the definition of right-wing fascists. billclausen has mentioned it a few times. The environmental movement is doing a lot of stupid things because few people involved realize that's it's The Big Lie, not an environmental movement, and that's because liberals don't support freedom of speech. Liberal media publish only biased, fraudulent or bad science or non-scientific political statements, and censor all scientists and commenters who disagree. The right-wing media doesn't do this.

On A Regulatory Battle Royale

Posted on January 19 at 6:59 p.m.

I agree, and my comment wasn't personal. I don't believe there's anything positive about Agenda 21 or ICLEI, and Carbajal's position indicates a radically different viewpoint on life as a US citizen, as well as on government and its function in society than mine.

On A Regulatory Battle Royale

Posted on January 19 at 4:48 p.m.

I think Katie is doing a little second or third order cherry-picking here. She quotes the county Climate Action Plan, which is based on IPCC projections, which are made by cherry-picking data and feeding it into cherry-picked computer algorithms to produce politically useful predictions which may coincide with reality on a different planet, and she quotes IPCC's numbers for the reduction in CO2 required, based on a currently used IPCC computer model that the IPCC has previously acknowledged is inaccurate (my comment Jan 18, 4:17 pm), but she completely ignores the fact that THE IPCC SUPPORTS FRACKING, presumably either within or outside of the boundaries of US national parks. Katie needs to brush up on her use of the 'appeal to authority' strawman argument.

How about hitting Salud out of the ballpark?

On A Regulatory Battle Royale

Posted on January 19 at 12:30 p.m.

IPCC modelers are apparently unaware of decades of forecasting research.
Our audit of the procedures used to create their apocalyptic scenarios found that they violated 72 of 89 relevant scientific forecasting principles.
Thirty-nine forecasting experts from many disciplines from around the world developed the forecasting principles from published experimental research.
Another 123 forecasting experts reviewed the work. The principles were published in 2001. They are freely available on the Internet.
We tested the no-trend model, using the same data that the IPCC uses, since forecasting principles require that models be validated by comparing them to actual observations.
We are astonished that there is only one published peer-reviewed paper that claims to provide scientific forecasts of long-range global mean temperatures. The paper is our own 2009 article in the International Journal of Forecasting.
Overall, the no-trend forecast error was one-seventh the error of the IPCC scenario’s projection.
They were as accurate as or more accurate than the IPCC temperatures for all forecast horizons.


On A Regulatory Battle Royale

Posted on January 19 at 8:59 a.m.

2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures
Jan 18th, 2015 @ 10:03 am › Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a former NASA employee. He and Dr. John Christie, also a former NASA employee, download data from NASA satellites at UAH; they're the team that runs NASA's climate monitoring facility at the University of Alabama and the source of published UAH data.

On A Regulatory Battle Royale

Posted on January 19 at 7:09 a.m.

The city benefits from tourism through tax income. Where does the money go? To city government. Salaries and pensions grow exponentially; percentage increases are a larger dollar number as salaries increase. The jobs created are a drain on the community just like Walmart and fast food businesses. We're degrading the standard of living of residents to feed a city employee expense vampire that we can't hope to satisfy by increasing a tourism industry that makes residents more dependent on city social welfare programs that increase expense. We're destroying residents' sense of 'ownership' of their neighborhoods in the process, contributing to the 'blight' Byrne cites as a reason to continue the process.

On Eastside Business District Gets Rocky Reception

Posted on January 19 at 6:49 a.m.

at_large - a "city traffic corridor" is a political designation created by the city master plan. There's no more reason to believe it's accurate or optimal than it is to believe that the city's new street signs with no block numbers are ideal. As you mentioned, the 'community' events have taken place in the last few years. You and I agree on that. They were organized by Sharon Byrne. If local, ie. neighborhood representation isn't important, why are district elections a major issue in Santa Barbara now? Why not hire a professional urban planner from LA if we're going to accept the fact that nonresidents of a neighborhood represent the neighborhood?

On Eastside Business District Gets Rocky Reception

Posted on January 18 at 10:31 p.m.

Block numbers were removed as part of the design concept that eliminates street addresses on buildings. This sounds like compensation for those who don't text while driving, and it's a great way to keep drivers' eyes off intersections where pedestrians might be crossing in crosswalks, and a real asset for tourists. Another weiner!
I'm amazed I've lived here for decades and not caused an accident or hit a pedestrian while dealing with Santa Barbara's consciousness about sign size. It's illegal to post signs big enough to read.

On Santa Barbara Gets New Street Signs

Posted on January 18 at 4:17 p.m.

The January 2015: vol. 60 no. of the Science Bulletin, the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, includes a paper describing a pocket calculator app that shows simple but serious errors in models used by the IPCC that reduce its predictions of a 3.3 degree increase in temperature to 1 degree C with no additional changes in IPCC climate prediction, and that predicts observed temperatures better than any IPCC model. The corrections include eliminating the 'assumption' that feedbacks are positive and will double or triple warming, when in reality feedback between CO2 and H2O likely produce cooling, substitution of the Bode system-gain equation which models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, an incorrect model for climate, correction of the model currently used by the IPCC to predict feedback, one that's already been amended by the IPCC itself to predict lower feedback, and the elimination of the IPCC assumption of 'stored heat' that's used to justify warming that's not predicted by current emissions, and elimination of IPCC's RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 Cº global warming, with no scientific basis.

On A Regulatory Battle Royale

Posted on January 18 at 10:05 a.m.

We can thank Harry Reid and current Senate democrats for obstructing Ron Paul's attempt and Ron Paul's current bill mandating an audit.

On A Regulatory Battle Royale

Previous | Page 3 of 128 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: