SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jlallen who wrote (938727)6/7/2016 4:43:42 PM
From: Tenchusatsu1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Respond to of 1576882
 
Jlallen, from the letter:
Indeed, these are just a few of literally thousands of positive surveys, all of which can be viewed online at www.98percentapproval.com.
I'm sorry, but with a website name like "98percentapproval.com", its hard to take any of these survey results seriously.

Does Trump not see this? What a maroon.

Tenchusatsu



To: jlallen who wrote (938727)6/7/2016 5:09:02 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576882
 
Were you the lawyer for Peabody's Out Liar Gang?

Peabody's Outlier Gang Couldn't Shoot Straight In Minnesota Carbon Case, Judge Rebuffs Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Mendelsohn, Bezdek

By John Mashey • Tuesday, June 7, 2016 - 09:27



Overview
On 04/13/15, Peabody Energy followed other major coal companies i nto bankruptcy, and days later lost a battle in a landmark legal war on Minnesota's Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The “best” gang1 of climate denial outliers they could hire tried to confuse the court with absurd claims in both science and economics. The Judge was not fooled, and ruled unambiguously, as reported by Bloomberg BNA, University of Minnesota Consortium on Law and Values and MPRNEWS:
Updated climate change costs make coal-fired power less attractive:

“State law already requires Minnesota account for climate change costs when deciding how to generate electricity. But an administrative law judge says the price range Minnesota uses is way too low - by a factor of more than 10 - because it's outdated and doesn't fully account for health problems and other societal costs tied to climate change. If the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission agrees with the judge's view, it could mean wind and solar will look a lot cheaper than burning coal…. On Friday, Administrative Law Judge LauraSue Schlatter mostly agreed the federal government's social cost of carbon figures were the way to go and suggested the state PUC adopt a new price range — from about $11 to $57 per ton of carbon emitted. The previous range was about 50 cents to less than $5.”

Scientist and witness John P. Abraham explained Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case.
Dana Nuccitelli followed with more detail in Coal made its best case against climate change, and lost.
These just scratch the surface of a major case with 19 witnesses and ~550 documents. The volume of recorded nonsense is too large to cover in a post, so key testimonies are annotated for any who want to assess witness credibility.

Often citing dubious or mis-used sources in both science and economics, Peabody's fossil gang couldn't shoot straight.
Opposing witness could and did, and the judge saw that.

desmogblog.com