Progressive Liberal Hypocrisy
- Thread starter bigredfish
- Start date
Considering how many illegals there are here, not surprised.
Nearly 2.5M people sign petition supporting illegal immigrant truck driver charged in fatal crash
Harjinder Singh faces vehicular homicide charges after a fatal Florida Turnpike crash that killed three people when his truck trailer collided with a minivan.www.yahoo.com
Sybertiger
Known around here
They could only get 2.5 million out of the 10 million illegals here plus the liberal politicians in DC to sign it? They can do better than that.Nearly 2.5M people sign petition supporting illegal immigrant truck driver charged in fatal crash
Harjinder Singh faces vehicular homicide charges after a fatal Florida Turnpike crash that killed three people when his truck trailer collided with a minivan.
Oh look, his feelings are hurt and he is crying! So sad...NOT! YOU HUGE POS! Rot in Uganda.....ha, ha!
Snoop Dogg Says ‘I’m Scared to Go to the Movies’ After Pixar’s Gay Couple in ‘Lightyear’ Led to Questions From His Grandson: ‘These Are Kids. We Have to Show That at This Age?’
Snoop Dogg recently appeared on the “It’s Giving” podcast (via Entertainment Weekly) and spoke about being “scared” to bring his grandchildren to the movies after watching 2022’s “Lightyear,” Pixar’s “Toy Story” spinoff featuring the voice of Chris Evans. The rapper brought his grandson to watch...
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 16,621
- 27,937
Snoop Dogg Says ‘I’m Scared to Go to the Movies’ After Pixar’s Gay Couple in ‘Lightyear’ Led to Questions From His Grandson: ‘These Are Kids. We Have to Show That at This Age?’
Snoop Dogg recently appeared on the “It’s Giving” podcast (via Entertainment Weekly) and spoke about being “scared” to bring his grandchildren to the movies after watching 2022’s “Lightyear,” Pixar’s “Toy Story” spinoff featuring the voice of Chris Evans. The rapper brought his grandson to watch...
man you know you've got trouble when Snoop Dogg questions the progressives
No one finds it upsetting when Trump tries to redefine science?
By SETH BORENSTEIN and MICHAEL PHILLIS
Updated 11:56 AM EDT, August 26, 2025
WASHINGTON (AP) — Two key documents from the Trump administration aimed at revoking the long-standing finding that climate change is dangerous were filled with errors, bias and distortions, according to dozens of scientists surveyed by The Associated Press.
One of the reports argues that sea ice decline in the Arctic has been small, but uses data from the Antarctic to make the point. It uses a French-focused study on climate-related crop losses for a claim about the U.S. — a generalization the author said didn’t work because of significant differences in climate and agriculture. And after saying decades-old wildfire statistics aren’t reliable, the report reproduces them in a graphic anyway, making it appear fires were worse a century ago than they have been more recently.
Scientists noted those basic errors, but the most common critique from the vast majority of the 64 who answered AP’s questions was that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy ignored, twisted or cherry-picked information to manufacture doubt about the severity and threat of climate change.
Jennifer Marlon, director of data science at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, was among those.
read more
Takeaways from scientists on the Trump administration’s work on climate change and public health
“The work and conclusions appear biased. The data and graphs use classic mis- and disinformation techniques,” she said. “It is almost a user’s guide on how to lie with figures.”
The Trump administration in July proposed revoking a 2009 government finding that climate change is a threat to public health and welfare, a concept known as the “endangerment” finding that is backed by mainstream science. Overturning it could pave the way for cutting a range of rules that limit pollution from cars, power plants and other sources.
AP reached out to some 350 scientists by email — nearly all the lead authors of research cited in the Trump administration’s work, plus another 139 climate experts in science, health and economics who are prominent in the field. Fifty-three of the 64 scientists who responded — including outside researchers not mentioned by the reports — gave the EPA and DOE documents a negative review. Seven praised them. The remaining four took no clear position.
In 15 cases, scientists whose work was cited said it was misused, misinterpreted or taken out of context.
When EPA was asked to respond to the scientists’ critiques, the agency said it had considered a variety of sources and information in assessing whether the predictions and assumptions baked into the 2009 finding that climate change is a public threat are “accurate and consistent.” The Energy Department said it was committed to “a more thoughtful and science-based conversation.”
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the Trump administration “is producing Gold Standard Science research driven by verifiable data” and that the endangerment finding had long been misused to justify expensive regulations “that have jeopardized our economic and national security.”
The public has until Sept. 2 to comment on the Energy Department report and until Sept. 22 for the EPA’s proposal to revoke the endangerment finding. Then the Trump administration must consider that feedback before a final decision.
Overturning the finding could undermine environmental standards such as a rule that requires reducing emissions from some coal-fired power plants by 90%, or one limiting methane releases from the heaviest polluting oil and gas wells. Another regulation at stake is a requirement that new car emissions be cut roughly in half by the 2032 model year.
Environmental groups are already challenging the documents in court.
The EPA’s report arguing to overturn the endangerment finding relied heavily on the Energy Department’s work. That DOE report is what most scientists surveyed by the AP focused on. Together, the two Trump administration documents maintain that while climate change is real, its future effects are unclear and likely weaker than projected by many mainstream scientists. The administration also contends that U.S. cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, which largely come from burning fuels like oil and coal, would mean little globally. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest emitter behind China.
Marlon, the Yale researcher, singled out the flawed wildfire data and said the proper thing for scientists to do is not to show such information. “The report instead plots this unreliable data,” she said.
The document also erroneously claimed that the area burned by wildfire in the U.S. hadn’t increased since 2007. Marlon ran the data herself to confirm that it had, though more slowly than in prior years. Data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows that the 10-year average annual burn rate was 6.5 million acres in 2007; in 2024, it was almost 7.6 million acres.
“Arctic sea ice extent has declined by about 5% since 1980,” the Energy Department report said. But the report linked to a National Snow and Ice Data Center chart for the Southern Hemisphere, which means Antarctica. Antarctic sea ice has in fact declined about 5% in that time, but Arctic sea ice shrank by more than 40%.
“It suggests sloppy work,” said data center senior scientist Walt Meier.
That error and any others that are found will be corrected, the report authors said.
“The report’s preface states clearly that it is not meant to be a comprehensive review of climate science but rather is focused on important data and topics that have been underreported or overlooked in media and political discussions,” the DOE report’s authors said in a joint statement provided by co-author Ross McKitrick, a professor at the University of Guelph in Canada specializing in environmental economics.
“Generic accusations of bias or cherry-picking are not helpful for serious scientific discussions,” they said.
Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said agencies are required to make a “reasoned analysis” when they reverse a policy like the endangerment finding.
“Reasoned means objective. I don’t know how it could mean anything else other than that,” he said, adding that he didn’t believe the Trump administration reports were objective.
The National Academy of Sciences, a collection of private, nonprofit institutions set up to provide independent and objective analysis for policymakers, says it’s preparing a fast-tracked special report on the latest evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.
Nineteen scientists used variations of the phrase “cherry pick” to describe the administration’s reports.
“I will surely not be alone in saying these reports cherry-pick information to minimize the threat of climate change,” said Steven Sherwood, a professor and climate researcher at the University of New South Wales. He said the reports were well written and easy to understand, then added: “But being biased in selecting what to show, they are not honest efforts to portray the broader picture, but instead read as efforts to persuade against concern about carbon emissions.”
Francois Bareille, a French economist whose work was referenced in the Energy Department’s report, said the work was fundamentally flawed. “These documents do not reflect genuine scientific rigor, but rather a misleading reinterpretation of peer-reviewed research.”
By SETH BORENSTEIN and MICHAEL PHILLIS
Updated 11:56 AM EDT, August 26, 2025
WASHINGTON (AP) — Two key documents from the Trump administration aimed at revoking the long-standing finding that climate change is dangerous were filled with errors, bias and distortions, according to dozens of scientists surveyed by The Associated Press.
One of the reports argues that sea ice decline in the Arctic has been small, but uses data from the Antarctic to make the point. It uses a French-focused study on climate-related crop losses for a claim about the U.S. — a generalization the author said didn’t work because of significant differences in climate and agriculture. And after saying decades-old wildfire statistics aren’t reliable, the report reproduces them in a graphic anyway, making it appear fires were worse a century ago than they have been more recently.
Scientists noted those basic errors, but the most common critique from the vast majority of the 64 who answered AP’s questions was that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy ignored, twisted or cherry-picked information to manufacture doubt about the severity and threat of climate change.
Jennifer Marlon, director of data science at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, was among those.
read more
Takeaways from scientists on the Trump administration’s work on climate change and public health
“The work and conclusions appear biased. The data and graphs use classic mis- and disinformation techniques,” she said. “It is almost a user’s guide on how to lie with figures.”
The Trump administration in July proposed revoking a 2009 government finding that climate change is a threat to public health and welfare, a concept known as the “endangerment” finding that is backed by mainstream science. Overturning it could pave the way for cutting a range of rules that limit pollution from cars, power plants and other sources.
AP reached out to some 350 scientists by email — nearly all the lead authors of research cited in the Trump administration’s work, plus another 139 climate experts in science, health and economics who are prominent in the field. Fifty-three of the 64 scientists who responded — including outside researchers not mentioned by the reports — gave the EPA and DOE documents a negative review. Seven praised them. The remaining four took no clear position.
In 15 cases, scientists whose work was cited said it was misused, misinterpreted or taken out of context.
When EPA was asked to respond to the scientists’ critiques, the agency said it had considered a variety of sources and information in assessing whether the predictions and assumptions baked into the 2009 finding that climate change is a public threat are “accurate and consistent.” The Energy Department said it was committed to “a more thoughtful and science-based conversation.”
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the Trump administration “is producing Gold Standard Science research driven by verifiable data” and that the endangerment finding had long been misused to justify expensive regulations “that have jeopardized our economic and national security.”
The public has until Sept. 2 to comment on the Energy Department report and until Sept. 22 for the EPA’s proposal to revoke the endangerment finding. Then the Trump administration must consider that feedback before a final decision.
Overturning the finding could undermine environmental standards such as a rule that requires reducing emissions from some coal-fired power plants by 90%, or one limiting methane releases from the heaviest polluting oil and gas wells. Another regulation at stake is a requirement that new car emissions be cut roughly in half by the 2032 model year.
Environmental groups are already challenging the documents in court.
The Trump administration argues that climate science is alarmist
The EPA’s report arguing to overturn the endangerment finding relied heavily on the Energy Department’s work. That DOE report is what most scientists surveyed by the AP focused on. Together, the two Trump administration documents maintain that while climate change is real, its future effects are unclear and likely weaker than projected by many mainstream scientists. The administration also contends that U.S. cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, which largely come from burning fuels like oil and coal, would mean little globally. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest emitter behind China.
Marlon, the Yale researcher, singled out the flawed wildfire data and said the proper thing for scientists to do is not to show such information. “The report instead plots this unreliable data,” she said.
The document also erroneously claimed that the area burned by wildfire in the U.S. hadn’t increased since 2007. Marlon ran the data herself to confirm that it had, though more slowly than in prior years. Data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows that the 10-year average annual burn rate was 6.5 million acres in 2007; in 2024, it was almost 7.6 million acres.
“Arctic sea ice extent has declined by about 5% since 1980,” the Energy Department report said. But the report linked to a National Snow and Ice Data Center chart for the Southern Hemisphere, which means Antarctica. Antarctic sea ice has in fact declined about 5% in that time, but Arctic sea ice shrank by more than 40%.
“It suggests sloppy work,” said data center senior scientist Walt Meier.
Report authors respond to criticism
That error and any others that are found will be corrected, the report authors said.
“The report’s preface states clearly that it is not meant to be a comprehensive review of climate science but rather is focused on important data and topics that have been underreported or overlooked in media and political discussions,” the DOE report’s authors said in a joint statement provided by co-author Ross McKitrick, a professor at the University of Guelph in Canada specializing in environmental economics.
“Generic accusations of bias or cherry-picking are not helpful for serious scientific discussions,” they said.
Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said agencies are required to make a “reasoned analysis” when they reverse a policy like the endangerment finding.
“Reasoned means objective. I don’t know how it could mean anything else other than that,” he said, adding that he didn’t believe the Trump administration reports were objective.
The National Academy of Sciences, a collection of private, nonprofit institutions set up to provide independent and objective analysis for policymakers, says it’s preparing a fast-tracked special report on the latest evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.
Many experts said the reports were biased
Nineteen scientists used variations of the phrase “cherry pick” to describe the administration’s reports.
“I will surely not be alone in saying these reports cherry-pick information to minimize the threat of climate change,” said Steven Sherwood, a professor and climate researcher at the University of New South Wales. He said the reports were well written and easy to understand, then added: “But being biased in selecting what to show, they are not honest efforts to portray the broader picture, but instead read as efforts to persuade against concern about carbon emissions.”
Francois Bareille, a French economist whose work was referenced in the Energy Department’s report, said the work was fundamentally flawed. “These documents do not reflect genuine scientific rigor, but rather a misleading reinterpretation of peer-reviewed research.”
Cracker Barrel Nukes Woke Logo, Brings Back "Old Timer" In MAGA Cultural War Victory
Cracker Barrel Nukes Woke Logo, Brings Back "Old Timer" In MAGA Cultural War Victory | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com