OT: How is this "draining the swamp"?

[Alan Baker]

'President Trump has stocked his administration with a small army of
former lobbyists and corporate consultants who are now in the vanguard
of the effort to roll back government regulations at the agencies they
once sought to influence, according to an analysis of government records
by the New York Times in collaboration with ProPublica.'

<https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-hiring-lobbyists-top-ethics-official-says-no-transparency>

'One striking case involves Michael Catanzaro, an appointee on the
National Economic Council whose portfolio includes energy and
environmental issues. Catanzaro was formerly a lobbyist for oil and coal
companies that strenuously opposed the Obama administration’s clean
power regulation. Three industry sources told the Times that Catanzaro
is now working on that same issue in the Trump administration.

Even under Trump’s weakened ethics rules, former lobbyists like
Catanzaro are not supposed to work on issues that they formerly had
lobbied on.

Still, under Trump’s executive order, he can issue waivers at any time
to staffers, Catanzaro included, for any reason, and never disclose it.'

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-04-17 5:14 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>> 'President Trump has stocked his administration with a small army of
>> former lobbyists and corporate consultants who are now in the vanguard
>> of the effort to roll back government regulations at the agencies they
>> once sought to influence, according to an analysis of government records
>> by the New York Times in collaboration with ProPublica.'
>>
>

> No shit. Just like he said he would do. Just like he should do.
>

No.

Quite specically, what he said he would NOT do; would ALLOW:

'Last June on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” host John Dickerson asked Donald
Trump: Given the candidate’s drumbeat of criticism of the Washington
lobbyist class, “Will you say ‘No lobbyists will work for me and no big
donors?’”

“I would have no problem with it, honestly,” Trump responded.

After the exchange, a “Face the Nation” producer followed up with
campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks, who confirmed that, yes, Trump was
referring to banning lobbyists from his administration.'

<https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-before-would-have-no-problem-banning-lobbyists-trump-now-youre-hired>

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:14:57 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>> 'President Trump has stocked his administration with a small army of
>> former lobbyists and corporate consultants who are now in the vanguard
>> of the effort to roll back government regulations at the agencies they
>> once sought to influence, according to an analysis of government records
>> by the New York Times in collaboration with ProPublica.'
>>
>

>No shit. Just like he said he would do. Just like he should do.

Bullshit. He was going to "drain the swamp", and just replaced it with
one that is worse. Surely you will admit that he placed several in
positions in which they are lost.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-04-17 6:43 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> Nobody is worse than those global warming moonbats.
>

Utterly unresponsive to what Bobby wrote.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:43:46 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>Nobody is worse than those global warming moonbats.

Rick Perry
Ben Carson
Jeff Sessions
Betsy DeVos
Steve Bannon
Sean Spicer

Then there was:
Michael Flynn
Monica Crowley


And that's just off the top of my head. There are more.

[MNMikeW]

Obama filled the swamp with the creatures from the Black Lagoon. Nobody
said shit.

[John B.]

Really? Who were those creatures?

[Alan Baker]

Right on time!

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-04-18 9:44 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> I have been right about global warming for two decades. We need
> people in charge who understand science.

Well we certainly didn't get any...

>
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/new-karl-buster-paper-confi
> rms-the-pause-and-models-failure/
>

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:44:21 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>I have been right about global warming for two decades. We need
> people in charge who understand science.

You mean like the multitude of scientists who think people like you
are full of shit?

>
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/new-karl-buster-paper-confi
>rms-the-pause-and-models-failure/

This doesn't agree with most scientists.

[Alan Baker]

I'm not certain about everything surrounding the current global warming
trend...

...but I am certain that Scott Pruitt is a know-nothing when it comes to
understanding science.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:19:52 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

It just makes sense that the human race adds to it. Look at the Smog
in Japan and Major cities. We're dumping this in our air. Then,and
this isn't involved with global warming, what we've done to our
oceans,lakes and rivers. We're slobs when it comes to our
environment.

>
>...but I am certain that Scott Pruitt is a know-nothing when it comes to
>understanding science.

He's an idiot, and before getting the job wanted to dump the EPA
altogether.

[Alan Baker]

I agree in general...

...but I remain unconvinced about the overall impact we've made in the
area of greenhouse gasses. Water vapour is both a far more powerful
greenhouse gas and there is far more of it in the atmosphere.

[John B.]

If water vapor were the only GG in the atmosphere, there would
be no warming. You're making an argument that people made in the
90s and has been debunked. Water vapor occurs naturally. CO2,
methane and CFCs don't.

[Alan Baker]

CO2 and methane both occur naturally in the atmosphere, John. CFCs
don't, but the other two? Perhaps you need a refresher on basic animal
metabolism. :-)

How can I give any credence at all to the rest of what you say if you
don't understand the most basic facts about this?

[MNMikeW]

John B. wrote:

>
> If water vapor were the only GG in the atmosphere, there would
> be no warming. You're making an argument that people made in the
> 90s and has been debunked. Water vapor occurs naturally. CO2,
> methane and CFCs don't.

Co2 does not occur naturally? LOL! You best just quit while your behind.

[Dene]

John...IT is trolling you. IT's not interested in the exchange of ideas, like we often engage in. IT is only interested in the argument.

[Alan Baker]

No. I'm giving John the facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-04-18 2:59 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>>
>> If water vapor were the only GG in the atmosphere, there would
>> be no warming. You're making an argument that people made in the
>> 90s and has been debunked. Water vapor occurs naturally. CO2,
>> methane and CFCs don't.
>>
>

> There hasn't been any warming in almost 20 years. It is a hoax to
> extract money.
>

<https://www.rt.com/viral/364708-arctic-ice-shrinks-timelapse/>

I realize the first video is probably too long for your attention span,
but the second one is only 43 seconds and shows the Arctic ice pack
dramatically decreasing over the last 32 years.

Do you care to even attempt to explain that if it hasn't been warming?

[MNMikeW]

and yet antarctic sea ice is at record levels.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-04-18 3:19 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> It is a hoax.
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-d
> ata-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/amp/
>

My link postdates yours and had obvious visual evidence.

As to yours directly:

'SUMMARY

This article has been read more than 660,000 times since it was
published in May, making it Forbes’s most read article on climate in
2015. So how accurate was it?

Not accurate at all. According to the reviewers, this article contains
numerous factual errors and flawed logic. The author fails to
distinguish between sea and land ice, and the Arctic and Antarctic.
Taylor’s conclusion, which contradicts the observed signal of global
warming on polar ice, is misleading.'

<http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/forbes-james-taylor-updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/>


There are more:

'In the article, "Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any
Polar Ice Retreat”, James Taylor writes "updated data contradict one of
the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming
is causing the polar ice caps to recede.” The author implies that since
the most recent two years of polar sea totals are near the long-term
average, that global warming is not causing the polar ice caps to
recede. Wikipedia defines cherry-picking as: the act of pointing to
individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position,
while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may
contradict that position


...


In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice
caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows
that this is exactly what is happening. The rest of Taylor’s article is
just whitewash intended to distract readers from these facts. '

<https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/Forbes.article.response.pdf>


'A new Forbes article which claimed that polar ice coverage has not
changed since 1979 has been revealed to be based off misrepresented data.

Updated NASA data screengrab 250The article in Forbes titled ‘Updated
NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat’ based its
entire argument around a single graph, which it claimed incorporated
“new NASA data”.

The problem is however, it did no such thing'

<http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/how-forbes-got-it-wrong-the-real-climate-change-data-from-nasa/>

[Alan Baker]

Wrong, Mikey-boy...

...you're 3 years out of date:

'There is currently less sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent
than at any point since reliable records began in 1979.

"As of Tuesday, it looks like we hit a new record low in the satellite
era," Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data
Center, said.

It wasn't too long ago -- less than 3 years to be exact -- that
Antarctica was in a multiyear stretch of record highs for sea ice.'

<http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/antarctica-sea-ice-record-low/>

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>
> Wrong, Mikey-boy...
>
> ...you're 3 years out of date:
>
> 'There is currently less sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent
> than at any point since reliable records began in 1979.
>
> "As of Tuesday, it looks like we hit a new record low in the satellite
> era," Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data
> Center, said.
>
> It wasn't too long ago -- less than 3 years to be exact -- that
> Antarctica was in a multiyear stretch of record highs for sea ice.'
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/antarctica-sea-ice-record-low/>

The current record minimum in sea ice on its own does not provide "very
credible evidence for global warming" according to Walt Meier, a
research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center, who has tracked sea ice data going back to
1979.

[Alan Baker]

Funny you don't provide a cite so that we might see what else he has to
say, isn't it?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:59:01 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>

>> If water vapor were the only GG in the atmosphere, there would
>> be no warming. You're making an argument that people made in the
>> 90s and has been debunked. Water vapor occurs naturally. CO2,
>> methane and CFCs don't.
>>
>

>There hasn't been any warming in almost 20 years. It is a hoax to
> extract money.

Where would that money go?

The hoax is from the oil industry so they can keep making money.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-04-18 3:37 PM, MNMikeW wrote:

And funny how YOUR maximum was an important rebuttal, but suddenly a
record minimum isn't relevant, don't you think?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:02:40 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>> altogether.
>>
>> If water vapor were the only GG in the atmosphere, there would
>> be no warming. You're making an argument that people made in the
>> 90s and has been debunked. Water vapor occurs naturally. CO2,
>> methane and CFCs don't.
>>
>

>Like I said, global warming is a hoax to fool stupid people.Sheeze.
LOL. You're the stupid one. Taken in wholly.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:42:52 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>The Obama Administration budgeted three billion. Who knows where
> it goes. Trump defunded project.

So we don't know how much was spent or how much Trump garnered for his
pet projects. That figures.

[John B.]

Actually, he's right. I was wrong to say CO2 and methane
aren't naturally occurring.

[John B.]

It most certainly is not.

[Alan Baker]

Thanks, John.

:-)

[John B.]

On its own? I'm sure he's right. But that combined with a mountain
of data and observations from elsewhere does provide credible
evidence, as I'm sure Meier would agree.

[John B.]

Exactly.

[Alan Baker]

It was 3 years ago.

But it isn't short-term maxima OR minima that matters.

It's the trend.

'Comparing Arctic sea ice loss to Antarctic sea ice gain shows that the
planet has-been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500
square miles since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice
larger than the state of Maryland every year.'

<https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains>

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>>
>>> <http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/antarctica-sea-ice-record-low/>
>>
>> The current record minimum in sea ice on its own does not provide "very
>> credible evidence for global warming" according to Walt Meier, a
>> research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA's
>> Goddard Space Flight Center, who has tracked sea ice data going back to
>> 1979.
>
> Funny you don't provide a cite so that we might see what else he has to
> say, isn't it?

It's from YOUR site dumbass.

[Alan Baker]

Then you should have said so. And the word is "cite".

[MNMikeW]

Perhaps you should have read your own cite pipsqueak.

[Alan Baker]

I read the part that was salient, Mikey. (And I understand how to
properly separate your name from the rest of the sentence with a comma.)

My point was to refute YOURS about a short term phenomenon.

When it was in your favour, you were keen to use a short-term maximum to
"prove" that sea ice wasn't diminishing, but you were quick to point out
that such short-term phenomena don't matter when it disagreed with you.

MY original point was about a long-term trend, and that trend--taking
both arctic and antarctic sea ice together--is one of fairly steady
decrease.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-04-19 10:28 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2017-04-19 6:31 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/antarctica-sea-ice-record-low/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current record minimum in sea ice on its own does not provide
>>>>>> "very
>>>>>> credible evidence for global warming" according to Walt Meier, a
>>>>>> research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA's
>>>>>> Goddard Space Flight Center, who has tracked sea ice data going
>>>>>> back to
>>>>>> 1979.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny you don't provide a cite so that we might see what else he
>>>>> has to
>>>>> say, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> It's from YOUR site dumbass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you should have said so. And the word is "cite".
>>
>> Perhaps you should have read your own cite pipsqueak.
>
> I read the part that was salient, Mikey.

No, you stopped reading at the part that satisfied your partisan,
liberal bias, zealotboi.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

I pointed out the important part of the page...

....and isn't it shocking that you just snipped the part about the fact
that the overall amount of sea ice has been decreasing since 1979?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:17:41 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

No Alan, "cite" is a quote,"site" is a place, like a web site that may
have cites.

[Alan Baker]

And I didn't provide a link to an entire web SITE, Bobby.

I provided a link to a particular page as a citation supporting my
statements.

Hence, "cite" is correct in context and "site" isn't.

[Carbon]

Uh, what is a site dumbass?

[Alan Baker]

Mikey doesn't understand the different between "site" and "cite"...

...or what a comma does at the end of sentence where one wants to refer
to the person to whom one is responding.

:-)