Judith Curry (who some believe is never wrong) said Heller/Goddard's data analysis was "bogus".
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/483006570876243968
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Judith Curry (who some believe is never wrong) said Heller/Goddard's data analysis was "bogus".
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/483006570876243968
Wez
DA
Bernie, do you believe what Tony Heller (Goddard) says? Does anyone here choose to believe the information presented at "realclimatescience" over actual scientific sites like NASA, NOAA, etc?
Bruddah IZ
DA
A twitter link? When did you start with twitter links?
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
"Its a shadowy world, skies are slippery gray"
Wez
DA
Looks like Costa Rica is doing a great job with using Renewable sources of energy.
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/8/12847160/costa-rica-renewable-electricity
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/8/12847160/costa-rica-renewable-electricity
I dont even think Judith Curry thinks Judith Curry is "never wrong".
She started out as a true believer, then went "luke warmer", and correctly called BS on the Mann "hockey stick".
Goddard's analysis is up for question. What is not debatable is the nasa records.
Wez
DA
What an awesome nonanswer. Please, continue to doubt ppl who have more knowledge than you, it's doing us great favors.
Ive drilled some core samples into the melting ice of East Anglia's climate watergate, and decided its just that. A core sample of a bigger fraud.
When the dust settles in a thousand years or so, historians will be directed to revisions of fact, and most probably be as clueless as we are today.
I am willing to wager the world will be more or less, in the same climate situation we see her in now.
Bruddah IZ
DA
"Manipulator of crowds, you're a dream twister"
Bruddah IZ
DA
At a Los Angeles ceremony, Gov. Jerry Brown this week signed into law two bills which his office dubbed "historic climate change legislation"— dramatically extending the state's goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
SB 32 mandates that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. That extends the goal set by the state in 2006, when legislation was approved requiring the state to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state is on track to meet that goal, according to the governor's office.
Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, said he supports the idea of cleaner air, but said SB 32 gives too much power to the California Air Resources Board, which has "repeatedly failed to produce basic performance reviews of its climate change programs."
"The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office earlier this year issued a report stating that there were little to no reductions in greenhouse emissions despite billions of dollars having been spent from cap-and-trade revenue, which are dollars ultimately collected in the form of higher prices by consumers," he said.
He said the legislative analyst also questioned the state's methodology for calculating emission reductions. But Nielsen said Brown's office has "turned a blind eye" in moving ahead with climate-change legislation, calling it a "shocking contradiction to the clear legal opinion provided by the Legislature's own attorney."
Critics have also questioned the viability of the cap-and-trade program, which caps the amount of greenhouse gas companies can produce -- but allows for the purchase at auction of emission permits, and allows businesses to trade credits among themselves. That program is the subject of a legal challenge, but Brown has said he is confident the program will be upheld and improved.
entire article:
http://patch.com/california/agourah...overnment&utm_campaign=recirc&utm_content=aol
SB 32 mandates that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. That extends the goal set by the state in 2006, when legislation was approved requiring the state to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state is on track to meet that goal, according to the governor's office.
Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, said he supports the idea of cleaner air, but said SB 32 gives too much power to the California Air Resources Board, which has "repeatedly failed to produce basic performance reviews of its climate change programs."
"The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office earlier this year issued a report stating that there were little to no reductions in greenhouse emissions despite billions of dollars having been spent from cap-and-trade revenue, which are dollars ultimately collected in the form of higher prices by consumers," he said.
He said the legislative analyst also questioned the state's methodology for calculating emission reductions. But Nielsen said Brown's office has "turned a blind eye" in moving ahead with climate-change legislation, calling it a "shocking contradiction to the clear legal opinion provided by the Legislature's own attorney."
Critics have also questioned the viability of the cap-and-trade program, which caps the amount of greenhouse gas companies can produce -- but allows for the purchase at auction of emission permits, and allows businesses to trade credits among themselves. That program is the subject of a legal challenge, but Brown has said he is confident the program will be upheld and improved.
entire article:
http://patch.com/california/agourah...overnment&utm_campaign=recirc&utm_content=aol
Since you bolded the paragraph containing Sen Nielsen's comment about the LAO report on SB 32, did you take the time to look up the report and read what it really says?
Let's here your version....
My version of what?
That appears to be just a press release describing the actual report --
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3328/cap-trade-revenues-012116.pdf
Can you point out a sentence, paragraph, or section that supports Senator Nielsen's comments?
Appears?
Look at this pdf pages 3&4
:http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3446
This is the pdf
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/reso...de-Report-Provides-New-Information-042016.pdf