Dakota Rural Action exec Frank James says Tuesday’s hearing before the South Dakota Supreme Court on Keystone XL didn’t go that well for Dakota Rural Action and the tribes appealing the Public Utilities Commission’s recertification of TransCanada’s permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. DRA and the tribes were hoping for a discussion of the merits of the permit and TransCanada’s claims that they can safely the tar sands oil they say the market craves. Instead, they found themselves slogging through procedural arguments over whether the PUC needed to hold any hearings on the recertification:
The PUC’s Attorney de Hueck was next up, and he argued the PUC made a mistake, wasted everyone’s time for nine days, and that the Supreme Court should throw out this appeal based upon this newly-found and interpreted piece of law. He even let the Supreme Court Justices know that the PUC was considering editing some of their own documents to remove references to appeal rights, which would effectively prevent citizens from appealing future decisions made by the PUC.
There was nothing stopping the PUC from defending their process and urging the Supreme Court to decide this case on the merits presented to the Circuit Court. Instead, the PUC abandoned its previous arguments, and its attorney was almost gleeful with this opportunity to further block regular citizens from participating in the process [Frank James, “KXL Permitting Process: Who Will Represent the People?” Dakota Rural Action, 2018.04.19].
The procedural argument appears to revolve around SDCL 49-41B-27, the statute that gives pipeline permit holders four years to start construction:
Utilities which have acquired a permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may proceed to improve, expand, or construct the facility for the intended purposes at any time, subject to the provisions of this chapter; provided, however, that if such construction, expansion and improvement commences more than four years after a permit has been issued, then the utility must certify to the Public Utilities Commission that such facility continues to meet the conditions upon which the permit was issued [SDCL 49-41B-27].
The PUC’s appellee brief makes great hay of the word certify in that statute:
A central issue in this proceeding boils down to what is meant by the term “certify” in SDCL 49-41B-27 and what effect does the use of that term have on issues such as the certifying party’s prima facie case and burden of proof. …The statute at issue in this proceeding, SDCL 49-41B-27, does not contain the word “establish,” the word “prove,” or the word “demonstrate.” The language of SDCL 49-41B-22 clearly demonstrates that the Legislature knew how to craft language requiring the proposed facility to prove with evidence that it satisfies the four factors set forth in that statute
…[N]othing in SDCL 49-41B-27 references a revocation of the permit, indicates that the permit holder must relitigate the original permit proceeding under SDCL 49-41B-22, or apply for a new permit. In this case, the statute at issue, SDCL 49-41B-27, states simply that the permit holder must “certify” that “the facility continues to meet the conditions upon which the permit was issued.”…
The word “certify” is a precise and narrow verb. “Certify” means “to authenticate or verify in writing,” or “to attest as being true or as meeting certain criteria.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). To “attest” means “to affirm to be true or genuine; to authenticate by signing as a witness.” Id.; Deadwood Stage Run, LLC v. South Dakota Department of Revenue, 857 N.W.2d 606 (2014). See also Argus Leader v. Hagen, 2007 S.D. 96, ¶ 13, 739 N.W.2d 475, 480 (“Words and phrases in a statute must be given their plain meaning and effect.”). Thus, under the plain meaning of the language of the statute, Keystone’s obligation under SDCL 49-41B-27 in this case was to verify in writing or to attest as true that it continues to meet the 50 KXL Conditions to which the facility is subject, which are set forth in Exhibit A to the KXL Decision. Apx A26-A39. Keystone’s obligation to “certify” could certainly be construed to mean that Keystone met its burden under the statute by filing with the Commission a certification signed under oath by Corey Goulet, President, Keystone Projects, the corporate entity in charge ofimplementation and development of the Keystone Pipeline system, including the Keystone XL Project. Ex 2001, p. 1, (AR 020502) [PUC Appellee’s Brief, In the Matter of PUC Docket HP 14-0001…, pp.6–10].
In other words, the PUC would like the Supreme Court to read the four-year recertification requirement to mean that the PUC’s nine-day public hearing was unauthorized and unnecessary and that all a pokey pipeliner has to do to keep its permit is write a letter to the PUC saying, “Yup, we’re still good!” That interpretation of the recertification statute wouldn’t stop the PUC from revoking a permit for failure to satisfy permit conditions, but the public would have no opportunity to challenge recertification with new evidence of the pipeliner’s unreliable construction practices and spill estimates.
That’s an odd interpretation, and one you would think the state would have learned from during the sewage ash scam and the Lonetree Balefill issue. But, no, apparently not.
There was a similar situation in solid waste statutes that provided a one year permit, followed by 5-year renewals. The one year permit was for meant for a construction period and initial operation, and whatever inspection was needed to assure construction and operations were done according to approved plans and permit conditions. The 5-year permit renewal was only to be given if construction and operations were completed as specified. The idea was that you had the permittee by the balls, if construction was sloppy. The other thing it prevented was some fly-by-night operation speculating on getting a permit and selling it off right away.
That’s really a good way to police these corporate entities. The sewage ash scam, unfortunately, took advantage of lax permitting in other areas. And, because the state didn’t really follow their own laws and regulations, the second permit was just handed to Lonetree in spite of the fact they failed to even begin construction, aside from a little dirt work.
The PUC may think they pulled one over on the public, but it indicates how corrupt their process is. They may want to revisit their statutes and update them.
See Cory,
Words do matter.
The pipeline is far safer than any other mode of transportation.
Did you guys and gals know “well Regulated” meant in good condition when the Second amendment was written?
Jason … Pipelines are not safer for our environment. When a pipe bursts more oil is dispersed and more land is poisoned than when a train wrecks. The cleanup from a burst pipe takes longer and costs more. Who or what do you assert the pipe is safer than?
Porter,
This link disagrees with you.
https://globalnews.ca/news/1069624/how-do-crude-spills-compare-by-rail-truck-pipeline-you-may-be-surprised/
Pipeline leaks also don’t kill humans Porter.
GlobalNews.ca is an invalid source many say has links to Russia.
As the Association of American Railroads points out, the volume of oil spilled by railcars is “less than 1 percent of the total pipeline spills.” That’s 2,268 barrels spilled by the railroads between 2002 and 2012, compared to 474,441 barrels spilled by pipeline operators over the same span, according to the Association’s numbers.
People die from railcar accidents because rail cars need to be modernized. No deaths have occurred not attributed to outdated rail equipment.
Wouldn’t the state be admitting they screwed DRA and the tribes out of a considerable amount of money? If the attorney for the state is correct, the state committed fraud, using state processes to drain the resources of the intevenors. I find this legal gimmick to be reprehensible. And after this, I think the state will have a hard time expecting anything but vigorous protests. The Supreme Court should hammer the state for this Gambit. And the intervenors should sue the PUC for millions of dollars.
Porter
My research for Global News, Canada shows pretty much the same as you reported
The Russia connection to Global News should be of concern.
Porter,
LInk me to the proof the numbers are wrong in the link I posted.
Link me to the proof that humans have only died because of outdated railcars.
I’m guessing you will not.
Where did you go to school, Jason? You have a shallow understanding of research. Find a valid, non-Russian website and resubmit your assertion. Railroad spills are less than 1% of all oil spills.
Here’s an article about the poor condition of oil tanker rail cars.
It’s Friday afternoon, which means most people in ESD are on a barstool or in a booth so pursuing your assertion that pipelines are safer isn’t necessary. Troy tried and lost and you’re no Troy, Glodt. https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/energy/2015/05/150506-crude-oil-train-accidents-over-time
Both of those incidents involved the newer CPC 1232 cars initially proposed as a safer alternative to the DOT-111 cars involved in other accidents, such as the deadly derailment and crash in Lac Megantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people. Both car types fall under the new regulation.
That is from your link Porter.
I can guarantee you a pipe leak will not kill a human being. You cannot do the same for a rail car or truck.
That is a fact you cannot deny.
A pipeline leak can kill in many ways. A worker could be run over by the heavy equipment used to remove the soil. The pollution could contaminate water which could cause illness or death if consumed. I’d say “Prove me wrong but I’ve already proven it correct.”
Overall, you and the old Chair Force sarge are Cory’s fish to filet. He deserves the enjoyment of making you look foolish without my help. Goodbye, Felicia. lol
Porter, my friend,
Wouldn’t any oil spill; pipeline, oil tanker, railroad, etc., eventually contaminate underground wells that could potentially not only make people sick, but kill them?
Porter,
Are you game for the rail lines and trucks passing within 50 feet of your house?
Porter,
While you are deciding if you want the rail cars and truck to go by your house, can you do a quick calculation on how much diesel fuel is used to transport oil by train and truck?
I’m guessing it’s virtually zero for the pipeline.
Exactly, Roger. The future doesn’t involve burning fossil fuels.
Jason … Bye, Felicia
Porter,
I accept your surrender.
I’ll just leave you with some scientific facts.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sophistry-in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-the-lie/
1,500 barrels of oil, equivalent to 63,000 US gallons (240,000 l; 52,000 imp gal), into the Yellowstone River for 56 minutes before it was shut down.[13] As a precaution against a possible explosion, officials in Laurel, Montana evacuated about 140 people on Saturday just after midnight, then allowed them to return at 4 a.m. Yellowstone River 2011
1500 bbls/140 people. hmmmmm
Again on the Yellowstone, 2015. Nearly 6,000 people were told not to use municipal water in Glendive due to the elevated levels of cancer-causing benzene found in the Yellowstone River, and in the tap water supplied.[20][21] Bottled water was provided to their residents.[22] On January 23, 2015, the city water treatment plant was declared decontaminated.
1200 bbs/6000 people/city water treatment plant. cancer causing benezene. ever see anyone die of cancer? factual enough Jason?
Leslie,
Did anyone die?
Porter,
There is a difference between surrendering an not putting up with someone’s idiocy.
leslie,
That is a great comment.
708 psig is considered “moderate” for oil transmission lines. Some pipelines can run at slightly above 1400 psig. kxl is 1,308 psig.
Small tanker trucks have a maximum capacity of 3,000 gallons, while large tankers have a maximum capacity of 11,600 gallons.
the deepwater gulf spill had a much-higher-than-normal pressure of 3142 psi to liquefy (on the ninth attempt) and allow mud to circulate. The unexpectedly high pressure and subsequent lower-than-specified mud flow led to problems. 1,400 psi on the drill pipe was ignored.
imagine what will happen to the state when MNI WICONI intakes intercept water flowing down the Missouri from Bismark colored with ruptured pipeline oil or dilbit under the river in the winter. There goes most of the state. Ever been to ND in the winter Jason?
That’s an invalid interpretation of what Myles Allen asserted.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/sep/27/right-wing-media-could-not-be-more-wrong-about-the-15c-carbon-budget-paper
I don’t surrender, Jason.
bye, felicia
An expression used to dismiss someone not worth your time.
Leslie,
The oil pipelines are south of Bismarck. Did you know there already was one under the river?
Fort Yates gets its water from Mobridge now.
The dilution from the pipeline to Mobridge would significant.
You should educate yourself on the logistics before commenting on it.
Porter,
Feel free to prove any of the facts wrong that I linked to.
I drove that highway about a hundred times. you? so you think SD treats its muni/indust/domestic drinking water at ft. yates?
http://www.wrlj.com/about-us-2/system-stats/
Are you drunk Leslie?
Read what I posted.
Jason … buddy. Your links are invalid.
The water treatment plant you just posted about is in Pierre. There is no way the oil would get there because of the lack of current and prevention measures that would be deployed.
Porter,
Thanks for admitting you can’t refute the facts in the link.
dilution? 26 scientists to grade the effects of the spill on about two dozen aspects of Gulf health, they concluded the Gulf was 11 percent less healthy today, dropping from an average 73 to 65 on a scale of 100 to zero. 2015
I refute the validity of your links thus there are no facts. Your links are either from Fake News sites or they are paralogical meaning they don’t support your assertion. In short, you’re a phony.
Gulf health?
How does that affect humans? I thought we were talking about South Dakota?
Porter,
Go ahead and refute all you want. The scientists disagree with you.
The majority of scientists agree with me. Let me simplify for you, since you grew up in Pierre. Climate change is about pollution. Burning coal kills fish and pheasants.
No they don’t Porter.
Man up Porter and refute the facts in my link.
I got a 29 year chip from elder Basil last Saturday.
your trumpian responses w/o cites:
1. Did anyone die?
2. You should educate yourself on the logistics before commenting on it
3. no way the oil would get there
4. Are you drunk
Leslie,
How does it feel to lose an argument based on facts against a Republican?
leslie didn’t lose anything, she and Porter just proved Jason is a phony.
Thanks for the verdict Judge Roger. LOL.
Seriously,
They haven’t refuted any of my facts with evidence.
The scientists agree with me. Your links are fake. Try again.
Porter,
If you are right, you should have no problem refuting the facts in my link.
So far you haven’t.
What kind of half-educated haybilly logic is that? It’s impossible to refute an invalid assertion. There are no facts to refute. E.G. – This link doesn’t even have a author.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sophistry-in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-the-lie/
No one denies the physics of the GHG effect, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2, however, is a very weak GHG. CO2’s blanket is more like a thin sheet of tissue paper put over an H20 mummy sleeping bag. H2O’s effect negates anything CO2 does in the lower atmosphere. According to MODTRAN, the CO2 signature isn’t even measurable until you are up 3km in the atmosphere. Additionally, as demonstrated by the SpectralCalc Blackbody calculator, the IR temperature of thermalized CO2, 13 to 18µ is a sweltering -80°C. CO2 doesn’t “warm” the planet, it helps prevent it from cooling below -80°C.
As noted above, CO2 is a GHG, but a very weak one. H2O, on the other hand, has a permanent dipole and is a very very very potent GHG. Dr. Myles Allen points out that CO2 is potent relative to the non-GHGs of O2 and N2, but fails to address H2O. That is like claiming an aspirin cured the pain AFTER being given a huge dose of morphine, and never mentioning the morphine.
So Porter,
Do you disagree with this fact?
“refute any of my facts”.
You sound like a broken record.
By continually repeating that comment you lose what credibility you may have had, which in your case, is none.
You’re making that up. Show a source.
Prove it wrong Porter.
It should be easy to prove wrong if it’s wrong.
You’re making up a story. That’s not what Myles Allen said.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/sep/27/right-wing-media-could-not-be-more-wrong-about-the-15c-carbon-budget-paper
I’m making up a court case?
I see you can’t refute the fact I posted.
Thanks for admitting you know nothing about science.
What court case? What fact?
The one in San Francisco that my link referenced.
Do you deny the facts stated in my post at 21:28?
Yes, of course. A court case is two lawyers lying for their clients. You’ve posted one set of lies. Show the judges decision.
Porter,
Is H2O more of GHG than CO2?
Judges don’t decide science.
I bet you won’t answer my question because you are a fraud.
Yes. Water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect.
Why would you rely on a court case for facts and then disregard the judges ruling? Seems a bit misdirecting and misrepresentative of the truth, JG.
You’re a lawyer. Wrap this up with your final argument and I’ll send you home crying. The internet is very bored with your word games.
The case is still ongoing.
So you agree with one part of my link. let’s go on to the other facts.
This was the graphic the judge found to be misleading. CO2 is 400 parts per million. What that means is that 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere is CO2. If a stadium holds 100,000 sports fans, 40 would represent CO2, about 10 would represent the CO2 attributed to man. The entire AGW theory is based upon thermalizing 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere to an IR temperature of -80°C. The entire AGW Theory is the equivalent of 40 people in a 100,000 seat stadium trying to do a wave.
Dr. Myles Allen uses the same graphic to make 5 claims:
Both temperature and density of absorbing CO2 molecules decrease with height
Increasing CO2 forces energy to escape from higher altitudes
Higher air is colder, and so radiates less energy
So the surface and lower atmosphere have to warm up to restore balance
Successive CO2 doublings have about the same impact on the global energy budget
Temperature and density of CO2 are not related to altitude. Temperature drops in the troposphere in direct relationship to H2O, not CO2. Where there is H2O there is warmth, where there isn’t H2O there is cold. The temperature then “inverts” and warms with altitude in the stratosphere due to the ionization of O2 to O3. It then cools again in the mesosphere where CO2’s true impact on warming is observed by placing a floor on temperatures. The temperature then increases again in the thermosphere. H2O dominates the Troposphere, O2/O3 dominates the Stratosphere, and CO2’s main impact is way up in the mesosphere, far from the surface. Additionally, there is wide difference between measured IR temperature and actual energy. The Thermosphere is warm as measured by IR spectrometry, but an astronaut would freeze to death without insulation and water freezes as well in the “warm” thermosphere.
JG?
Instead of me posting the article Porter, can you point to any fact you disagree with in the link?
You are misrepresenting what Myles Allen said. What you posted aren’t facts. They are the false claims in a legal case from only one side. No validity. Only supposition. Lawyers lie in court for their clients.
In conclusion: The majority of climate scientists agree. Climate change is man made. Last word tonight is your’s.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Porter,
I’m asking you to refute the facts in my link.
So far you haven’t.
It must suck for you to debate someone with knowledge and facts.
So far you have not proved one fact in my link false.
The reason you are stopping the debate now is you know you can’t refute the other facts.
Why can’t liberals and democrats debate the facts?
Porter
Congratulations on your debate victory here tonight, you can’t go wrong when you have actual facts.
A well deserved accomplishment.
Porter,
I’m not here to “win”. The problem is the education system in America has failed.
Lol.
I thought Porter posted what Roger said.
I keep forgetting that Roger defends every Democrat on here.
Porter didn’t win any debate Roger.
He in fact lost because he chose to disengage from the debate.
He couldn’t refute the facts so he chose to coward out.
Roger,
Can you debate the science or even understand it?
Jason lost a major debate with Porter and leslie, they buried him and he should just crawl away with shame.
Again, congratulations to Porter and leslie.
Prove I lost a debate Roger.
I bet you can’t.
In Conclusion,
Porter has stated he can’t refute any of the facts in my link.
Refute, refute, refute.
Set it to music, debate loser.
Roger,
It’s not my problem you aren’t intelligent.
Porter,
I am still waiting for you to refute the facts in my link.
Since it’s now a new day, I and 1300 independent scientific experts will absolutely refute and denounce your false claim and assert that conservative climate change deniers have misinterpreted the five claims made by Allen.
You claim:
Both temperature and density of absorbing CO2 molecules decrease with height
Increasing CO2 forces energy to escape from higher altitudes
Higher air is colder, and so radiates less energy
So the surface and lower atmosphere have to warm up to restore balance
Successive CO2 doublings have about the same impact on the global energy budget
Temperature and density of CO2 are not related to altitude. Temperature drops in the troposphere in direct relationship to H2O, not CO2. Where there is H2O there is warmth, where there isn’t H2O there is cold. The temperature then “inverts” and warms with altitude in the stratosphere due to the ionization of O2 to O3. It then cools again in the mesosphere where CO2’s true impact on warming is observed by placing a floor on temperatures. The temperature then increases again in the thermosphere. H2O dominates the Troposphere, O2/O3 dominates the Stratosphere, and CO2’s main impact is way up in the mesosphere, far from the surface. Additionally, there is wide difference between measured IR temperature and actual energy. The Thermosphere is warm as measured by IR spectrometry, but an astronaut would freeze to death without insulation and water freezes as well in the “warm” thermosphere.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there’s a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.
Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived “forcing” of climate change.
*Your so called facts have been refuted, undeniably and by the most educated minds on the planet. Here’s the link.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/sep/27/right-wing-media-could-not-be-more-wrong-about-the-15c-carbon-budget-paper
In conclusion, you’ve been undeniably refuted. WELCOME TO LOSERVILLE, JASON. population YOU!! ha ha ha
There is still hope ! Montana filed suit against the Trump administration last year regarding validity of permitting and a Federal Judge ordered the administration to release all the documents pertaining to the permits. So there must be something valid in the expiration of the permits- It could take years and over $6 million dollars to sort through the 4.5 million documents.
One of the few times I am willing to shovel in tax payer dollars to get this on hold.
As per usual Trump policy, it cherry picked the documents , so the pipe line is still being held at bay by Montana. If anyone can stop them Montana will get it done. I think there is no less than 3 lawsuits against the administration and TransCanada filed right now with the state.
Go Porter !
Thank you, Robin. Tomorrow we’re going to delve into Jason’s psyche, a bit. He’s exhibiting some troubling symptoms of loneliness and repression. Poor fella. Maybe if we all welcome him to liberalism he can salvage what’s left of his life. Liberals care about you, Jason. Follow the light ….. :)
Porter,
You haven’t refuted any of my facts.
Minnesota’s Wind Failure
https://2lffqo2moysixpyb349z0bj6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MN-Energy-10.2017-Final.pdf
LoserVille Jason … My link refutes all the assertions in your post. You gave no facts to be refuted. Above and beyond that, your source refuted your assertions. If you read my link you’ll see that your source, Myer Allen states that conservatives have misconstrued his analysis in an attempt to find something, anything to support their false conclusion that climate change isn’t caused by human CO2 emissions.
It’s common for a loser to claim victory. You may of course continue to do so however you’ve been refuted.
As The Cube said in Fridays … Bye, Felicia
Porter,
Your link did not refute anything in my link.
Any intelligent person knows that.
Well, you should have a higher opinion of your intelligence. I refuted your claims but lets move on. Your next post is from Center of the American Experiment. C’mon, man!! That’s another invalid site. That’s Johnny Hinderaker’s website. I grew up with Hinderaker and sat next to him in class. His Dad, a fine liberal, was my Grandma’s lawyer. He’s far to biased to be valid and anything you try to say that quotes him is biased, too. Try again to change the subject. It’s your only hope to end your loneliness. i.e. Keep asking questions and telling lies so you don’t have to face your emptiness. Just wondering … How’d your father treat your mother, Jace? Hmmmm?
http://www.citypages.com/news/center-of-the-american-experiment-right-wing-lobbyists-disguised-as-a-think-tank/390485181
Porter,
The site may be invalid to you, but you can’t refute the evidence from the site.
The article is written by a prof from Berkley.
Your fake science is going to lose in a court in San Francisco.
Porter,
Let’s discuss the satellite earth temperature recordings since they started recording earth temps.
You’ve become just an inexperienced con-man, Jason. Maybe you could apprentice with Troy and get some chops before you embarrass yourself further.
The article is one of Hinderaker’s lackeys interjecting his uneducated and invalid opinions into an invalid professor’s longwinded, uncredentialed dissertation. Your source is, once again, flawed. The professor you speak of Steven F. Hayward earned a BS in business from Lewis and Clark College. He earned a Masters of Arts in government (1984) and a Ph.D. in American History (1996) from the Claremont Graduate School. Hardly cred in naming himself an expert in climate change or climate stagnation or anything except maybe how to sell art forgeries.
~ Also, you’re not honest enough to have a discussion with about anything in science, business, agriculture, humanities or government.
Feel free to tell me about your childhood. I think we can make some progress in helping your neuroses. #helpful
Great post Porter not refuting any of the facts I have linked to.
Why don’t you want to discuss the satellite data?
This from NASA and I’m pretty sure that it’s accurate. Pretty sure that NASA trumps anything your wild stories can come up with- Go outside and get some sunshine , it’s nice outside and some vitamin D and regenerate your brain cells before dementia sets in.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
Folks … What Jason is exhibiting is a “cognitive disconnect”. He knows he’s been proven wrong but he believes he hasn’t been proven wrong. e.g. When Trump compared the Nat’l Park Service photos of his inauguration compared to Obama’s inauguration. Trump could plainly see that his was smaller but he believed his was bigger.
Q – “Why won’t you discuss satellite data?”
A – “Because you don’t want to discuss. You want not to sit home alone and be depressed.”
Porter,
You will not discuss the Satellite data because it proves you wrong.
Robin,
Global Warming ‘Fabricated’ by NASA and NOAA
Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres – NASA and NOAA – have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century “global warming”.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
Porter,
I’m willing to discuss the satellite data whenever you want.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted – ie fabricated by computer models – 20th century ‘global warming’ suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted – even by climate activists like NASA’s James Hansen – that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.
advertisement
As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists’ fashionable “global warming” narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up – where before they looked either flat or declining.
But as Goddard notes, the Environmental Protection Agency’s heatwave record makes a mockery of these adjustments. It quite clearly shows that the US heat waves of the 1930s were of an order of magnitude greater than anything experienced at any other time during the century – far more severe than those in the 1980s or 1990s which were no worse than those in the 1950s.
These adjustments, however, are not limited to the US temperature data sets. Similar fabrications have taken place everywhere from Iceland to Australia.
The fact that supposedly reputable scientists can make these dishonest adjustments and get away with it is, notes long-time sceptic Christopher Booker, one of the more remarkable anomalies of the great climate change scam.
The scam will be exposed in the San Francisco Court.
Shhhhhhh …….. It’s over, JG. Listen to Robin. Get some fresh air. If it wasn’t a snowstorm in CO you’d not have gotten this much of my attention. Peace, brotha’
Again with Breitbart as a source?
Since when does Jason get to direct the conversation on Cory’s blog?
PUC Contends Public Hearing on Keystone XL Recertification was Unnecessary.
A Century Of US Cooling – Erased By NOAA
The US has by far the most complete temperature record in the world, and the thermometer data shows the US has been cooling for a century. But NOAA tampers with the data to create a non-existent warming trend before they release their graphs to the public
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzGPq9LSjEw
Porter,
I have the data that says you are lying about global warming.
Why are you wimping out?
Cory,
What if your opponent asks you about this issue.
What will you say?