3 thoughts on “Milloy talks looming blackouts with Kara McKinney on OANN”
there are two comments for this sort of smoke and mirrors “science”:
“Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people to make fools of themselves” John in OK
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
This is to respond to my previous comment. This comment provides the grounds for a lawsuit alleging that the EPA’s “carbon pollution standards” were the result of a proceeding that was illegal in the respect of ignoring my comment. The plaintiffs could be the subset of U.S. citizens who are disadvantaged by these standards or a consortium of fossil fuel producers. The ideas of the readers of this blog on how to get such a lawsuit going would be most welcome.
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, CA
650-941-0533 terry_oldberg@yahoo.com
That the Biden energy policy is logically and scientifically unjustified is a fact rather than being a mere opinion, for runs of today’s climate models provide the EPA with no information about the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system, precluding regulation of this system by the EPA. The mistaken appearance that the EPA can regulate Earth’s climate system by restricting production of fossil fuels is created by a fallacy in the argument that is made by a climate model in which an “abstract” event is taken to be a “concrete” event in making this argument. This fallacy is called Misplaced Concreteness. An “abstract” event differs from a “concrete” event in the respect that an “abstract” event lacks a location in space and time but a “concrete” event has such a location. Consequently, an “abstract” event is unobservable but a “concrete” event is observable. A collection of observable events is an example of a statistical population but not a collection of unobservable events. Thus the Biden Administration is leading the United States to disaster on the basis of climate models that are entirely lacking in empirical support. At a hearing on “carbon pollution standards” that was held by the EPA in San Francisco in 2013, I advised the EPA ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/07/submission-to-epa-hearing-on-carbon-pollution-standards/ ) that these standards would lack either scientific or logical support. Though the Federal Law requires a public agency to respond to all public comments in rule making, the EPA failed to respond to my comment in setting its “carbon pollution standards. For the EPA to do so was against the law. The Biden Administration’s ruinous energy policy is based upon this illegal conduct on the part of the EPA.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
there are two comments for this sort of smoke and mirrors “science”:
“Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people to make fools of themselves” John in OK
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
This is to respond to my previous comment. This comment provides the grounds for a lawsuit alleging that the EPA’s “carbon pollution standards” were the result of a proceeding that was illegal in the respect of ignoring my comment. The plaintiffs could be the subset of U.S. citizens who are disadvantaged by these standards or a consortium of fossil fuel producers. The ideas of the readers of this blog on how to get such a lawsuit going would be most welcome.
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, CA
650-941-0533
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com
That the Biden energy policy is logically and scientifically unjustified is a fact rather than being a mere opinion, for runs of today’s climate models provide the EPA with no information about the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system, precluding regulation of this system by the EPA. The mistaken appearance that the EPA can regulate Earth’s climate system by restricting production of fossil fuels is created by a fallacy in the argument that is made by a climate model in which an “abstract” event is taken to be a “concrete” event in making this argument. This fallacy is called Misplaced Concreteness. An “abstract” event differs from a “concrete” event in the respect that an “abstract” event lacks a location in space and time but a “concrete” event has such a location. Consequently, an “abstract” event is unobservable but a “concrete” event is observable. A collection of observable events is an example of a statistical population but not a collection of unobservable events. Thus the Biden Administration is leading the United States to disaster on the basis of climate models that are entirely lacking in empirical support. At a hearing on “carbon pollution standards” that was held by the EPA in San Francisco in 2013, I advised the EPA ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/07/submission-to-epa-hearing-on-carbon-pollution-standards/ ) that these standards would lack either scientific or logical support. Though the Federal Law requires a public agency to respond to all public comments in rule making, the EPA failed to respond to my comment in setting its “carbon pollution standards. For the EPA to do so was against the law. The Biden Administration’s ruinous energy policy is based upon this illegal conduct on the part of the EPA.