All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website at Noon Toda (Read 102796 times)

Inspector

Re: All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2017, 08:16:14 AM »
To me, it seems like there are good ideas that are manipulated for personal/corporation/etc gains. 

One that I personal experience is sustainable design for buildings.  Many states have regulations that required certification that new buildings are designed and constructed to sustainable building practices.  Up until a few years ago, the only widely recognized standard for that was LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design).  It was a TOTAL racket!

BLUF: the group(s) behind LEED got support of key people and groups to endorse that it was a good idea, which in general it is.  Then it slowly got written into state laws and eventually even federal laws. 

The thing is, that you need to be certified to state that your design meets LEED to even get projects to get reviewed by the certifying group.  They update the manuals often and with that, you need to buy the manuals, take continuing education to maintain your credentials, so on and so on.  For my former job, as a senior manager that had LEED projects, I had to become LEED certified and that's what opened my eyes to all of this. 

Yes, it is a really good program in general.  However, like any national standard, it doesn't work well in reality EVERYWHERE, and Hawaii is one of those.  We don't have much opportunity for materials produced locally.  We don't have that much opportunity to depend on "natural" methods of ventilation and cooling.  Try having an office in Ewa that doesn't have A/C. . .   Anyways, it's when the corporations behind the LEED program got their hands into everything.  The companies that produced products that are "green" and conform to their standards.  Lobbying to get local, state and then federal laws to require the certification, where it would take years to feel the effects of that requirement. 

It wasn't until a few years ago that the federal government recognized an alternate certification system and revised the code to be less of a monopoly.  That will certainly help the system.  The point again is it was a good system in general, that got twisted into a racket.
Very well said.  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

drck1000

Re: All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2017, 08:23:34 AM »
Very well said.  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
You should be a LEED/USGBC Inspector, Inspector. . .  ;D

London808

OK ARE YOU READY.

(SUBJECT) = GUNS or CLIMATE,

A group that wants more control over the people and the (Government) has decided that (SUBJECT) are dangerous and by pushing that agenda they can manipulate a large majority of people in to believing its true.

They go to independent groups and say can you research (SUBJECT), So groups collect data from various sources and use that information to prove what the (Government)  has asked to to prove.

They take numbers from select sources and weed out any data that does not fit the agenda to show that (SUBJECT) is dangerous, be this through ignoring data by calling it anomaly (and remove the data) by saying that the data needs correcting for (XYZ reasons) or by just ignoring it completely

They then go to the (government) and provide them the manipulated or scuewed data to show them that they were right and that (SUBJECT) is dangerous. 

There is also 4rd party groups that believe that they know better then the common man and also believe that (SUBJECT) is dangerous and they to pay for research into the subject. They to have the research done with the intent of confirming their beliefs.

Any group of organisation that uses facts or data to show that (SUBJECT) is not a danger and that the official narrative is skewed is called crazy and ousted, any one working in the media and or science fields that disagrees is ridiculed and or fired. As such peope that could prove that (SUBJECT) is infact not a dnager and that the data is being manipulated either do not speak out or lie to keep there jobs and or prestige associated with their position,
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

Inspector

Re: All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2017, 11:14:02 AM »
You should be a LEED/USGBC Inspector, Inspector. . .  ;D
Do you know of any companies in the islands that hire LEED/USGBC Inspectors or is this something I would need to be a contractor for?
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

passivekinetic

Mandatory annual (monthly?) government enforced injections for children and adults sounds pretty darn dystopian to me.

(You don't get to choose what gets injected; that is the whole point of "mandatory" otherwise it would not need to be mandatory).
"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous

passivekinetic

OK ARE YOU READY.

(SUBJECT) = GUNS or CLIMATE,

A group that wants more control over the people and the (Government) has decided that (SUBJECT) are dangerous and by pushing that agenda they can manipulate a large majority of people in to believing its true.

They go to independent groups and say can you research (SUBJECT), So groups collect data from various sources and use that information to prove what the (Government)  has asked to to prove.

They take numbers from select sources and weed out any data that does not fit the agenda to show that (SUBJECT) is dangerous, be this through ignoring data by calling it anomaly (and remove the data) by saying that the data needs correcting for (XYZ reasons) or by just ignoring it completely

They then go to the (government) and provide them the manipulated or scuewed data to show them that they were right and that (SUBJECT) is dangerous. 

There is also 4rd party groups that believe that they know better then the common man and also believe that (SUBJECT) is dangerous and they to pay for research into the subject. They to have the research done with the intent of confirming their beliefs.

Any group of organisation that uses facts or data to show that (SUBJECT) is not a danger and that the official narrative is skewed is called crazy and ousted, any one working in the media and or science fields that disagrees is ridiculed and or fired. As such peope that could prove that (SUBJECT) is infact not a dnager and that the data is being manipulated either do not speak out or lie to keep there jobs and or prestige associated with their position,


OK OK!!! I got one!!!

HEMP!!!!!

Hemp is a great example of how government just uses science whichever way it wants to.

It used to be mandatory for people to grow hemp, based on tons and tons of scientific facts (it is an awesome material for fabrics, can even be used for fuels, not to mention medicinal uses).

Then science was used to say hemp is super dangerous, and made it illegal (again, remember, it was mandatory for farmers to grow hemp at one time; you would be fined for NOT growing it).

Now we MIGHT be shifting back to growing hemp. Hawaii for example is doing some test trials (you need permission, and only for university research right now). Let's see how those go.

So let's not be so naive as to think that if science is absolute, then you can depend on science to guide you absolutely. You forget the layer of governmental intervation and interpretation that goes between you the citizen, and the science.

Not all scientific research is allowed or encouraged either. Who decides what is allowed? Usually by funding (either funding, or not funding). That is an indirect way to censor science (you can always blame tight budgets).
"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous

drck1000

Re: All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website
« Reply #86 on: January 25, 2017, 11:27:38 AM »
Do you know of any companies in the islands that hire LEED/USGBC Inspectors or is this something I would need to be a contractor for?
You're asking to become part of the evil empire!!!!!   >:(

Nah.  I know of companies that do LEED/USGBC commissioning, but they are mostly engineering companies that have licensed engineering (mostly mechanical) doing the inspection and certification documentation.  I can ask around if they need construction inspectors, which I assume is your background. 

Inspector

Re: All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website
« Reply #87 on: January 25, 2017, 11:56:35 AM »
You're asking to become part of the evil empire!!!!!   >:(

Nah.  I know of companies that do LEED/USGBC commissioning, but they are mostly engineering companies that have licensed engineering (mostly mechanical) doing the inspection and certification documentation.  I can ask around if they need construction inspectors, which I assume is your background.
Thanks for checking around. My current project ends in October/November time frame so I'll be looking around that time.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

omnigun

OK ARE YOU READY.

(SUBJECT) = GUNS or CLIMATE,

A group that wants more control over the people and the (Government) has decided that (SUBJECT) are dangerous and by pushing that agenda they can manipulate a large majority of people in to believing its true.

They go to independent groups and say can you research (SUBJECT), So groups collect data from various sources and use that information to prove what the (Government)  has asked to to prove.

They take numbers from select sources and weed out any data that does not fit the agenda to show that (SUBJECT) is dangerous, be this through ignoring data by calling it anomaly (and remove the data) by saying that the data needs correcting for (XYZ reasons) or by just ignoring it completely

They then go to the (government) and provide them the manipulated or scuewed data to show them that they were right and that (SUBJECT) is dangerous. 

There is also 4rd party groups that believe that they know better then the common man and also believe that (SUBJECT) is dangerous and they to pay for research into the subject. They to have the research done with the intent of confirming their beliefs.

Any group of organisation that uses facts or data to show that (SUBJECT) is not a danger and that the official narrative is skewed is called crazy and ousted, any one working in the media and or science fields that disagrees is ridiculed and or fired. As such peope that could prove that (SUBJECT) is infact not a dnager and that the data is being manipulated either do not speak out or lie to keep there jobs and or prestige associated with their position,

OKAY ARE YOU READY.
A group that wants more control of money over people and the environment (oil corporations) have decided that climate change doesn’t exist.  They are pushing an agenda to manipulate people into believing climate change doesn’t exist.  They go to independent groups and say can you research that climate change is false, So groups collect data from various sources and use that information to prove what the (oil corporations) want to be proved.  They find some remote possibilities and some datasets they might be able to fudge and use it as proof that climate change from humans is fake.  They take numbers from select sources and weed out any data that does not fit the agenda to show that climate change by humans isn’t dangerous, be this through ignoring data by calling it anomaly (and remove the data) by saying that the data needs correcting for (XYZ reasons) or by just ignoring it completely. They then go to the skeptics provide them the manipulated or skewed data to show them that they were right and that human based climate change isn’t dangerous. 


See this is far more plausible.  While your theory says that somehow they convince 90+% of scientists.  Mine only needs enough money to convince 10% or less to raise doubts. Also arguably the climate change deniers represents a larger amount of money so why only a few scientists agree?  Perhaps most scientists cant be bought for money.  Perhaps they got into science, for you know science.  Just like many doctors get into the medical field to help people not purely for profit.

drck1000

Re: All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2017, 12:27:47 PM »
National park's Twitter feed posts climate data in apparent defiance of Trump administration order

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/national-parks-twitter-feed-posts-climate-data-in-apparent-defiance-trump-administration-order.html

Apparently, Twitter has been a method to be heard and apparently more so nowadays a way to sort of "do battle" in a sense.  Twitter wars always seemed petty and immature and this is really no different.  The posts, restrictions on posting, etc.

Anyways, just reminded me of this thread. 

drck1000

Re: All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2017, 12:28:34 PM »
Thanks for checking around. My current project ends in October/November time frame so I'll be looking around that time.
Ok.  Will let you know what I hear.  Lots of the commissioning work as well as need for inspectors in Guam right now.   ;D

London808

You really need to drop the 90%+ bullshit i have already shown that the figure is based on BULLSHIT SCIENCE.
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

aieahound

George carlin with a humorous perspective.

punaperson

You really need to drop the 90%+ bullshit i have already shown that the figure is based on BULLSHIT SCIENCE.

Flapp_Jackson


You can literally say you believe in any religion, you can make one up to get an exemption.  You can write you belong to the religion of xodia5oftheplanetyzar and not get vaccinated.

Basically this.  My perfect political party would be republican for gun control, immigration, military and freemarket.  And democrat for science, NASA, environment, abortion rights, less wars.   Stuff that belong to neither side is taxes,  I believe they should be low but don't let the rich get away with murder.  Freedom,  this is a weird one but republicans believe in too much surveillance state and democrats limit free speech cause "muh feelings"


Yup we live in a free market state everyone wants to make money.  It does appear the co2 polluting companies are desperate to deny climate change.  Its why they are in the minority of credible scientists backing them up.

Bullshit!  Did you read the exemption rules?

Let me offer you a clue ...

HRS § 302A-1156. Exemptions

A child may be exempted from the required immunizations:

    (1) If a licensed physician certifies that the physical condition of the child is such that immunizations would endanger the child's life or health; or
    (2) If any parent, custodian, guardian, or any other person in loco parentis to a child objects to immunization in writing on the grounds that the immunization conflicts with that person's bonafide religious tenets and practices. Upon showing the appropriate school official satisfactory evidence of the exemption, no certificate or other evidence of immunization shall be required for entry into school. 


BONAFIDE: 
bo·na fide
ˌbōnə ˈfīdē/
adjective
adjective: bonafide

    1.    genuine; real.
    "only bona fide members of the company are allowed to use the logo"
    synonyms:   authentic, genuine, real, true, actual;


Why are you making shit up?  It's very easy to Google, just like you Google all your Climate Change "facts."
« Last Edit: January 25, 2017, 01:33:22 PM by Flapp_Jackson »
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

omnigun

You really need to drop the 90%+ bullshit i have already shown that the figure is based on BULLSHIT SCIENCE.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm


So what percent of scientists do YOU think believe in climate change/ don't believe.  Plz post references too. I didn't post the nasa page dealing with it cause you think the government is behind this.  Don't post oil funded websites either  :shaka:

punaperson

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm


So what percent of scientists do YOU think believe in climate change/ don't believe.  Plz post references too. I didn't post the nasa page dealing with it cause you think the government is behind this.  Don't post oil funded websites either  :shaka:
Here are some articles questioning the accuracy and bias of the website you cite as authoritative:

Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science (PDF) (28pgs) (Lubos Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, March 29, 2010) - [Archive] http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf

Skepticalscience – Rewriting History (Shub Niggurath Climate, October 10, 2011) http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

Roger Pielke Sr at the SS.com: A dark day in the climate science debate (Shub Niggurath Climate, September 18, 2011) http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/roger-pielke-sr-at-the-ss-com-a-dark-day-in-the-climate-science-debate/

Skepticalscience.com quote surgery on Pat Michaels (Shub Niggurath Climate, January 18, 2012) http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/

My Interactions With Skeptical Science – A Failed Attempt (So Far) For Constructive Dialog (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 17, 2011) http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/my-interactions-with-skeptical-science-a-failed-attempt-so-far-for-constructive-dialog/

Final Comments On My Interaction With Skeptical Science (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 21, 2011) http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/final-comments-on-my-interaction-with-skeptical-science/

Response To Skeptical Science On A Series Of Weblog Posts (Roger A. Pielke Sr., October 25, 2011) http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/response-to-skeptical-science-on-a-series-of-weblog-posts/

A Response to Skeptical Science's "Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data" (Patrick J. Michaels, January 17, 2012) http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/01/17/a-response-to-serial-deleter/

‘Skeptical’ ‘Science’ gets it all wrong – yet again https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/

Astrophysicist debunks disinformation on Skeptical Science blog http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/06/astrophysicist-debunks-disinformation.html

Flapp_Jackson

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm


So what percent of scientists do YOU think believe in climate change/ don't believe.  Plz post references too. I didn't post the nasa page dealing with it cause you think the government is behind this.  Don't post oil funded websites either  :shaka:

In order for ANY percentage of scientists to agree or not, ther must first be a list of who these scientists are.

No such list exists.  The ones speaking against CC are deemed to not be experts in whatever disciplines are needed to believe in CC.

If YOU have such a list, please post it.  Otherwise, to state 90%, 97% or even 50% of "scientists" is a made-up BS stat.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

London808

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm


So what percent of scientists do YOU think believe in climate change/ don't believe.  Plz post references too. I didn't post the nasa page dealing with it cause you think the government is behind this.  Don't post oil funded websites either  :shaka:

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016