anon1256
report this user
6:10 PM yesterday anon1256 commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@80
Abstract

The global burden of atmospheric methane has been increasing over the past decade, but the causes are not well understood. National inventory estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate no significant trend in U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions from 2002 to present. Here we use satellite retrievals and surface observations of atmospheric methane to suggest that U.S. methane emissions have increased by more than 30% over the 2002–2014 period. The trend is largest in the central part of the country, but we cannot readily attribute it to any specific source type. This large increase in U.S. methane emissions could account for 30–60% of the global growth of atmospheric methane seen in the past decade.


3:14 PM yesterday anon1256 commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@ 78 EPA does NOT track fugitive emissions, it estimates them based on industry data, which leads to a large underestimate of methane emissions. It's all in the article I just posted @77. If you want to call it a conspiracy, suit yourself. As for your ridiculous posturing, you can stick where the sun doesn't shine.
1:00 PM yesterday anon1256 commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@75 & 76

sigh. The EPA’s Natural Gas Problem

Now, go back to wallowing in the mud that you seem to like so much.
Jul 22 anon1256 commented on Science News: Exactly What's Wrong With Cliff Mass' Approach to Global Warming, Rare Fin Whale Sighting in Puget Sound.
Cliff Mass goes beyond affirming there is no evidence to associate one particular event with climate change, for example he claimed to have evidence that the Canadian forest superfire earlier this year were mostly due to natural variability based on some hand-waving about the temperature anomaly this spring compared to the average spring anomaly. This seems to show that his concern is not really about "unnecessary alarmism" but more about claiming that climate change isn't going to cause a significant increase in the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events, which is problematic to say the least.
Jul 22 anon1256 commented on How Green Is Her Bullshit: An Uncharacteristically Brief Response to the Green Party Spokesperson's Dishonest Response to My Podcast Rant.
@48 How many other 3rd party candidates are they supporting? how many progressive Democrats are they supporting against Patty Murray, Del Bene, Kilmer and all the TPP cheerleaders?
Jul 22 anon1256 commented on How Green Is Her Bullshit: An Uncharacteristically Brief Response to the Green Party Spokesperson's Dishonest Response to My Podcast Rant.
Come on Savage! You couldn't even manage to get your stupid ass behind Sanders and you want us to believe that you are for 3rd parties? You must think your readers are all some kind of morons.
Jul 22 anon1256 commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@197 Why don't you scrap the left wing of the Democratic party since they haven't been successful? oh, you did by pushing for Clinton from the get go. Is it coincidental? I think not.
Jul 22 anon1256 commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@194 Again, you are conflating failure to succeed with whether another party is necessary to apply pressure on Democrats. It seems like an elementary fault in logic.
Jul 22 anon1256 commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@62 Pay attention please. He is not a shill for pointing out that existing science shows no adverse effect on human health. He is a shill for claiming that being anti-GMO is being anti-science when there exists plenty of good science showing that 99.99% of GM crops are unsustainable monocultures leading to loss of biodiversity.
Jul 22 anon1256 commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@59 Jill Stein is 100% correct that regulatory agencies have been captured by corporatists and that people are justified to be skeptical about whether these agencies are doing their jobs of protecting consumers. As she claimed, there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that the fox has been in charge of the hen house at the FDA, the EPA, the FCC, etc and your denying it just points to your own incompetence or your being deceitful.

"Food and Drug Administration conducted an extensive spying campaign against its own scientists. The spying began after the scientists warned the FDA had faultily approved medical imaging devices for colonoscopies and mammograms that endangered patients with high levels of radiation." Spying on Scientists

"Dan Troy laments the development of what he terms “a whistleblower culture” at FDA (FDA Webview, 4/12). The former chief counsel of the agency made this remark at the recent annual conference of the Food and Drug Law Institute. There is too much irony here: Ask an FDA scientist or medical officer what drove them to blow the whistle and they are apt to cite the anti-regulatory culture fashioned by this very same Dan Troy

"Graham, a physician in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, made news nearly two years ago when he told a Senate panel that the agency was "virtually defenseless" in preventing a "tragedy and profound regulatory failure" such as Vioxx

There are tons more links to evidence where these came from.

As we have seen, you are already absurdly denying that the revolving door between gov agencies and industries is a major corrupting influence so I guess you are being consistent in being an establishment shill.

Stein didn't express support for homeopathy. On the contrary, she is associating it with snake oil. Stop being dishonest.

Methane has indeed a shorter residence time in the atmosphere than CO2 (stop pretending that your grad student level status confers you the ability to wrap yourself in the mantle of science, you nitwit) but it has 80 times its warming potential over a 20 year period. 20 years is the time scale of interest when climate change will cross thresholds of no return for key climate impacts like the melting of unstable icesheets.

"Basic factual accuracy" means reporting that fugitive methane emissions are between 1 and 9% of natural gas production. Fugitive emissions are NOT reported by the EPA (doh!) but several studies have shown that fugitive methane emissions were real and significant, and concentration of methane in the atmosphere have abruptly started to rise again since the onset of fracking. In fact, they amount to the CO2 equivalent emitted by between 35 and 314 coal plants."Basic factual accuracy"

"Using these new, best available data and a 20-year time period for comparing the warming potential of methane to carbon dioxide, the conclusion stands that both shale gas and conventional natural gas have a larger GHG than do coal or oil, for any possible use of natural gas and particularly for the primary uses of residential and commercial heating" Howarth, 2014

At this point in time, ignoring fugitive methane emissions LIKE YOU ARE DOING is fundamental ignorance or/and quack science.

I'll continue later when and if I have more time.

More...