This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Climate Fanatics Run Into Public Relations Snag
Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,
Scientists Turn into Stalinists
Last week, we happened across a press report about a group of climate scientists so eager to shut up their critics that they want to employ the State’s police, courts and jailers for the purpose. Specifically, a group of academic (and presumably tenured) climate alarmists supporting the “CAWG” theory (CAWG=”catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”) have written a letter to president Obama, attorney-general Lynch and OSTP director Holdren, demanding that so-called “climate deniers” (or the organizations allegedly supporting them) be prosecuted under the RICO act (you can see the document here (pdf) – already its first paragraph is “alarming”, as they inter alia brag about things they have incorrectly predicted to happen for more than 35 years, such as an increase in “extreme weather”).

This is not the first time that climate alarmists are letting their inner Stalin hang out and are trying to impose a spot of Lysenkoism for the “good of humanity”. For those not au fait with Lysenko: the man was an influential Soviet biologist who came up with an erroneous theory “based on dialectic materialism” about how to improve crop yields. It never worked, but over the 44 years during which his influence lasted (!), more than 3,000 biologists were either fired, jailed and even executed for opposing his views (a number of modern-day radical climate alarmists are also on record for demanding the harshest imaginable punishments for “deniers”).
The Debate over the Poorly Conceived AGW Theory is not Over
Here are a few excerpts from the letter we want to briefly comment on:
“The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.
(emphasis added)
Apart from the absurd insinuation that only “government-funded science is good science”, as if none of the people involved had any self-interests, science is not the result of some imaginary “consensus” or attains the status of holy writ once its conclusions appear in a government-sponsored paper. As an example, it took the “consensus” 40 years to accept Alfred Wegener’s theory on continental drift, by which time he was dead.
In principle there is nothing wrong with employing a conceptual approach in the natural sciences, but eventually, empirical data must bear hypotheses out. It is moreover not true that we can “afford” to bring industrial civilization to a standstill on the off-chance that the alarmists might be right one day, especially considering how wrong they have been so far.
Let us just briefly address the handful of things listed above. “Extreme weather events” like hurricanes and tropical cyclones have actually done the precise opposite of what has been and continues to be widely claimed – their frequency has declined to multi-decade lows (e.g. in Australia, the “lowest level of cyclone activity in modern history” was reported last year. US readers will have noticed that since Katrina a decade ago and the intrusion of Sandy, hurricane activity has actually been de minimis – statistics confirm it loud and clear).
Global tropical cyclone frequency hits a multi-decade low – click to enlarge.
Rising sea levels: it appears the rise is so slow that the catastrophes that have been predicted since at least 1980 not only have not happened, but that the opposite has occurred in these cases as well. No Micronesian islands have sunk beneath the waves – au contraire, they are growing. Of the 50 million “climate refugees” that were certain to swamp us by 2010, only one has shown up to date, and this seems to be a case of someone trying to get a residence and work permit in a developed country by means of an innovative method. The exact opposite of the alarmist predictions happened in this case as well: the very regions that were supposed to be the main source of “climate refugees” and should have been almost depopulated by now have seen the strongest population growth on the planet.
We haven’t followed the debate on the “acidification of the oceans” very closely, but we note that there definitely is a debate, as this notion appears to be based on questionable data (a.k.a. “sparse and contradictory evidence”). Lastly, even the alarmists are acknowledging that there has been a near 19 year “pause” in global warming (although NOAA is scandalously altering past surface temperature records from their actually measured to “assumed” values, in order to create a warming trend literally from thin air). They have hitherto seen fit to provide 66 different excuses for why the forecasts of their models have been so completely wrong. It is very mean of Mother Nature that she refuses to cooperate with the alarmist agenda. Of course, that the central premise of the AGW theory might actually be wrong isn’t even considered by these worthies (luckily they haven’t yet found ways to retroactively fiddle with the satellite data).

The Pause – satellite measurements have detected no warming for nearly 19 years
The sentence that “the poor will be endangered” unless we regulate industrialized civilization out of existence is preposterous in the extreme. Again, if you assume the exact opposite to be true, you will be correct. In the past, human civilization has flourished whenever temperatures were a lot warmer than they are today (e.g. during the medieval warm period, vineyards thrived in the Scandinavian countries and global population growth and progress both accelerated greatly).
One of the biggest problems with the economically damaging regulations demanded by the alarmists is precisely that they cynically deprive the world’s poor of the possibilities for development the rich countries had at their disposal (see this report for details). In fact, much of the proposed legislation is ultimately nothing but a socialist wealth distribution scheme (that will not only redistribute, but ultimately destroy wealth) – as its major political proponents are occasionally admitting in unguarded moments. As has been noted elsewhere, this is simply “ideology masquerading as science”.
Suppression of Dissent to Preserve the Gravy Train
It seems to us, all of the above should be seen as grounds for vigorous debate, both on the scientific and the political level, before any more harm is done by costly (and ultimately useless) legal activism. However, this definitely isn’t how the letter writers are seeing it:
“We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”
In other words, those who disagree with the alarmists (which is ever easier to do as one after another of their predictions fails to come true) should be treated like the mafia or similar criminal organizations. Needless to say, this would not exactly be conducive to scientific or policy debate. We have yet to see the opponents of string theory demand the jailing of its proponents (or vice versa), in spite of their fierce disagreements.
Our first thought was therefore that one should probably “follow the money” – that the alarmists are probably increasingly worried that their gravy train might be derailed; that their lavish grants and privileges, including their role as “philosopher kings” advising the politically powerful, could come under threat as empirical evidence against their theories keeps piling up. This has inter alia also led to a recent rash of ever more hysterical apocalyptic predictions (see e.g. the laughable “sea level rise” panic outburst from Über-alarmist Dr. James Hansen, which is even denounced by his fellow AGW alarmists – i.e., it is too absurd even for them).
Before we found the time to write this missive, reality has struck in the form of a rather sizable PR problem for the leader of the group of letter writers – and it has indeed to do with “lavish grants”. As Climate Depot reports, “Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’”. You couldn’t make this up.
George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.
Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed. “The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO 20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO 20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.
(emphasis added)
AGW has indeed become an “industry”, albeit an entirely taxpayer funded one. It looks more and more like a giant racket. If it were only a racket, there would be no problem – but it also pursues an agenda, under the pretense that we need to “save the planet” from what increasingly looks like natural variations we have little or no influence over. The agenda however has a clear leftist-authoritarian bent, as all the demands and already implemented policies involve more regulation and government control over the economy, are harmful to economic development and progress, are bound to condemn the poor to remaining poor, and aim at redistributing wealth in a manner that will simply end up destroying it to the benefit of a handful of cronies.
That people obviously benefiting greatly from this racket have the gall to demand that the State treat their critics as major criminals in Stalinesque fashion is really jaw-dropping chutzpa.
Conclusion
The caste of climate alarmists reminds us strongly of assorted doomsayers throughout history. They have almost become a kind of priestly caste, accusing us of committing the alleged “sin” of capitalism, even while they reserve for themselves the right to partake of its fruits to an extent few others are able to (as Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore notes, “environmentalism has become a religion”). Mind, we don’t believe genuine environmental concerns should be ignored, but AGW looks more and more like a contrived non-issue. The hysteria that has been on display of late is probably an indication though that its proponents are actually losing the debate.
- 50806 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Oh good gawd almighty, what BS. Canada is virtually uninhabited compared to the US. It has more land too! The temps in some parts up there get down to 40* Below 0. Then there's Alaska and, the big enchilada, Siberia. If/when the globe warms enough to thaw those places out, and melt all that ice, there will be more available land, not less. NYC was under a mile of ice in the last ice age. Ah, the good old days!
You are not a scientist, you are an activist. An ideal scientist is akin to an ideal journalist, supposed to experiment, measure and report regardless of his own feelings. In practice both journalists and scientists make shit up to conform to whet their betters expect from them as they are scared shitless of unemployment.
They are scared because there are too many mediocre scientists fighting for scarce university positions. You see them on facebook liking pictures of Neil de Grease Tyrone.
Look at the words you people use.. "we have invested trillions". Saganesque, but guess what, there is no "we", humanity is an abstraction, not a team.
Today science is about the pursuit of a justification for preconceived perceptions and beliefs. How many grants have been awarded by government sources specifically to disprove climate change? How many scientists have lost their grants when their data did not support climate change?
people will dismiss science presented as conceptually flawed if paid for by an oil company yet NEVER consider such a thing from a government funded effort that everyone but a mushroom under a rock KNOWS will be used to aggregate more power to government and less freedoms for people.
Sure. fear Exxon. but government loves us. sure.
Well I think running out of fossil fuels will stifle your freedoms much more than will any policies put in place to reduce global warming. So it's a win-win situation -- if we get off fossil fuels to help slow global warming, then at the same time we will continue to be able to have an economy when fossil fuels run out.
And when will that be, 200 years from now?
The world has been at Peak Oil for 10 years now, only "saved" by the US shale oil boom increasing production to maintain the plateau. It turns out that the shale oil boom was just Wall Street's latest ponzi scheme and it wasn't even profitable so subtract this away and oil production will go way down, which I'm sure it already has. So it seems we are now beyond Peak Oil. When the financial crash happens it will be official since so many peopel will be thrown into poverty, decreasing demand for oil along with increasing its price since paper assets will no longer be a source for investment, only real world things will, and bam, there we have it, we will be on the slide down the back side of the Hubbert Curve.
Conventional oil was just frosting on the cake, shale oil is a technical reality and will be profitable once prices go up again. The fact prices are low in lieu of Yellen's printer indicates how succesful they were. And shale will be repeated all across planet earth. Theres enough gas in eurasia alone to replace all oil consumption for 200 years. Coal for millenia.
conventional oil (and it's early sources) are more like the wheat itself to make the cake. Do you disagree that we continue to require more energy to get the same amount of energy out? What was the EROEI in 1890? How about now? How much money have the energy companies spent just to keep the production flat for the last ten years? Before that was the production flat? Is it just a conincidence that human population rose dramatically as the energy sources ramped up?
Eroei is a ridiculous metric. Its dollars for dollars. Stop reading to Kunstler's rants.
takes a rant to call a rant
are you suggesting that only Kunstler points to EROEI? That's silly
Please enlighten us and teach us how this "metric" makes no sense
in the real world that is
please also show us how "dollars" are the "real thing" that matters
Because its impossible to measure. All industries have hidden energy costs, including the energy costs of the workers.
If an oil worker buys a house and takes energy to make the house, that goes into the cost of extracting shale oil? Why not, its just another input. But cannot be estimated and no company would care anyway. Its always dollars for dollars, its the only metric that counts for investors.
Even if you were to calculate EROEI and turns out negative... would not matter as long as the business was profitable. Because you can burn cheap energy to produce expesive premium energy. A BTU of coal is cheaper than a BTU of oil, regardless of both being the same amount of energy.
It makes perfect sense to burn several BTUS of coal to get one BTU of oil, as long as the oil price is high enough and the coal price low enough.
And then theres straight coal liquefaction, used by the germans in WW2 despite having bombs raining on them.
In short, there will be plenty of oil in the future, it will simply be very expensive but society will pay for it because theres no energy as expensive as not having energy.
the Nazi's liquified coal because they had the whole world turning on them and they were desperate. That example is not your side of the argument. Your last sentence is the best example of your odd logic "there will be plenty of oil, it will simply be very expensive"
There is not that much gas, although there may still be quite a bit of coal for a century or two, it is still undetermined.
Ah yes, the "shale oil will save us" fantasy. Actually, shale oil wasn't profitable even at $100, it was all a Wall Street funded ponzi scheme that popped when oil price dropped due to deflation. And interestingly the ponzi nature of the scheme is partly contributing to the massive price crash, because as price drops the shale oil players (as indeed they are, PLAYERS) need fast cash to keep the ponzi going so they actually pump faster as price goes down, which further feeds the temporary glut and causes price to drop more. All thanks to Wall Street and Yellen. It is arguable that shale oil will never be profitable at any price because if its net energy is negative, meaning that more energy needs to go into drilling for it and getting it out than it ultimately provides, then as oil price goes up, the input prices for oil production also go up along with it, preventing any profits from being made. Furthermore, the shale oil is light oil and lacks a lot of the heavier fractions that it historical crude has so it doesn't provide a lot of the raw materials used for other products from oil, only gasoline.
Know what, maybe it will be profitable at 150 dollars, or 300, or 400 dollars. It does not matter nearly as much as the fact that shale oil and gas are a technical reality. Put all of wall streets paper gimmicks aside and see the reality of millions of barrels of oil.
Once conventional oil is depleted enough shale oil and shale gas will be the fuels of choice. At 200 a barrel. Big deal. Civilizations dont run on fiat money, the price never mattered but the physical supply of fuel. And shale is good for a couple of centuries, coal for millenia despite your wishfull thinking it aint so.
It isnt right that shale oil takes more energy to produce than one gets back from it but if it were, the oil industry could still profitably extract it by burning cheap coal to get expensive oil. Its fine to burn to coal calories to get 1 oil calory if the prices is more than twice that of coal, as is the case.
You make no sense. Firstly, "we" have indeed invested trillions in coastal infrastructure. "We", being every taxpaying and working member of a country, and collectively on the global scale, all countries, unless you think that Martians somehow built our infrastructure for us. It is too bad you are too blinded by your ideology to understand that the plural of "person" is "people" and that in the language of English, when you yourself are included in "people" then it is gramamatically corrrect to refer to that group as "we". It's like if I go to the movies with my friends, I say that "WE went to the movies". I don't say, "Earthlings went to the movies" or "Martians went to the movies".
Secondly, I am perplexed how you can call me an activist and not a scientist, when I studied science and engineering in university for 10 years and have worked in those fields for 25 (oh yes, I know you will then consider me a teat-sucking academic since the western right wing values stupidity over knowledge, while at the same time comfortably partaking in all the fruits of that knowledge like food, cars, computers, electricity, medicine, etc).
Don't worry, I am not "scared shitless" of unemployment, I am doing just fine thank you. Sorry, but ad hominem attacks cannot support a scientific argument. All they do is reveal that the person flinging those attacks has no argument and has to resort to mudslinging.
You are a teat sucking academic.
I dont live in a coastal city. Could not care less if they flood. I rent my place and if an asteroid demolishes the place i'll move to a different city and rent a new place.
I have not invested anything into any infrastructure. I paid taxes and could not care less what the taxman did with them. He could not care less about what i thought either and our arrangement worked.
So you don't care if the coasts get flooded? You don't care if your taxes are going to go up when it has to be paid for? You don't care that the city you live in is going to have an influx to more than double its population when the coastal people are displaced? You honestly don't care if your fellow man loses his homes and cities? Wow, I don't know what kind of a belief system you have but it's obviously completely self serving and uncaring whcih goes against all major belief systems except for Satanism, so I think I rest my case.
Yes you have invested into coastal infrastructure because you have paid taxes. You don't care what the taxman did with your money? So you don't think government should be held accountable for its expenditures? You do know you are on ZH, right?
It might be an irrational fear of giant dragon flies!
Giant C02 production begets giant plants and giant 02 production which begets
GIANT BUGS!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110808-ancient-insects-b...
Lol..
Not for nothing, but cyclones RETURN the earth towards equilibrium. While i think a warmer planet is a better planet, the trend towards fewer tropical cyclones is troubling. Discuss.
All symptoms, not causes. The Ball of Fire will have its way.
The Earth turns while the Sun burns.
Rotisserie?
Fewer hurricanes and cyclones should worry us quite a bit. Cool oceans are not good less temperature differential is not a good thing.
Give it up ZH, you obviously know nothing about natural sciences, stick to economics; you're hurting your credibility. Funny how just a few articles up there's one about California's ongoing drought, yet here they seem to be denying climate change. Oh right, that's CLIMATE CHANGE, not GLOBAL WARMING, as in, the climate naturally fluctuates, BUT THIS TIME IT'S NOT BECUASE OF US, right? (Even though the Milankovich cycles should be sending us back into an ice age). We can't POSSIBLY have an impact on the climate, we just aren't that big and powerful enough, yet we have completely altered the vegetative composition of the planet which is the main mechanism that interacts with the atmoshpere... Huh? Bizarre. My friend has been going to the Arctic for 30 years and he has personally seen drastic warming trends up there which is clearly backed up by official readings. But I guess the ZH writers sitting in their air conditioned New York offices don't bother to go outside much.
NOBODY is claiming there is no change in the climate. The details are a little more complex than a testimonial from a friend.
Warming causes increased CO2, not the other way around.
Never mind Milankovich, check out what Willie Soon has to say.
"Warming causes increased CO2, not the other way around."
It goes both ways
Funny how no one responds to my statement, since they can't, all they give me is a bunch of thumbs down. Keep on with it everyone, if you give me enough thumbs down then it will change how the global climate system works to suit your own political biases!!!
the "not the other way around" statement was one of the more ignorant statements in this chain
anyone who brags about a friend who goes to the artic for the past 30 years is questionable. an academic sucking the teat of government? or a driller? the most interesting man in the world?
You might want to get more info before accusing me of bragging (????? how is that bragging?). But if you are so interested in my froend you should be happy to learn that he is an entrepreneur and has his own company collecting marine specimens and selling them around the world. Every couple years has gone to the Arctic to collect. I am sorry this is not something you want to hear. And BTW the academics are not sucking the government teat, when you adjust government spending for real inflation using John Williams' Shadowstats you see that government spending has gone down drastically over the last 40 years, interestingly right around when the US hit Peak Oil...
your friend sounds cool, but i don't see how anyone can make the argument that government spending is down. tax, borrow and spend is all I see.
"tax, borrow and spend is all I see"
That is due to the debt-based exponential design of the monetary system. Chris Martenson at Peak Prosperity explains this well. As to how accurate John Williams Shadowstats inflation adjusters are, I can't say but probably reasonably accurate.
the exponential design of the monetary system...and the fantasy that the real world is forever exponential as well
If thats really the best you've got, then should that reassure us?
You support becoming subserviant to these same militant sociopaths who have been assuming ever greater control over the worlds population since say...pick a date?
Nope instead of playing that silly game, how about we begin with that day in September..Do ya remember?
And yet you support 'science' huh?
Hole lotta 'science' 'bout dat day der ain't been 'splained me reckons??
You?
"You support becoming subserviant to these same militant sociopaths who have been assuming ever greater control over the worlds population since say...pick a date?"
Why do you assume that? The logical mistake you are making is not separating two issues: 1) How will the Earth's climate respond to increased anthropogenic GHG's?, and 2) how will the bankers use that situation to exert greater control over and wealth extraction from the populace, as they do with every other opportunity they can?
Thankfully, I am rational enough to understand the difference and not let political biases cloud science.
This is what the snake oil salesmen were trying to sell before the Glo-bull Warming hoax was invented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993
Well, now we have the beautiful ACA. Just think what they'll do next.
If you truly believed that climate change has stopped the advancement of glaciers, and if you had any sense of what glaciation would do to life on earth, you'd be global warming's biggest booster.
You just made the case for AGW.
I love the guy's sources. As if I were to write a scientific paper on diabetes and obesity and would take latest McDonald's sponsored "research" telling people who drink water have more risk of diabetes than those on Ciclamate coke...
You take millions of years of carbon stored underground and puff it into the atmosphere in a geological nano-second, you can't expect it not to have any consequence at all.
There's nobody more blind than one who doesn't want to see.
Given that warming causes out-gassing of CO2, and not the other way around, I would agree with your quote:
"There's nobody more blind than one who doesn't want to see."
I wonder if you ever considered the possibility that no matter how warm and cold, carbon was taken from its millions of years underground storage and burned into the atmosphere as CO2...
What percentage of this carbon are we reintroducing and what percentage change in our environmental carbon?
Go stand in the middle of NYC and imagine how overcrowded and a mess the world is, and then....get in a plane and fly over America and look down, and then imagine the vastness of our spaces, how much area that there is virtually no one living in, despoiling. We must be careful of how our perceptions influence our actions.
All carbon that was taken from its millions of years underground storage is new carbon in the environment.
Are you capable of admitting to the possibility of being wrong? Your most likely answer would of course be "yes".
Your answer however would be irrelevent.
The truth IS.
And at the rate you're going...You'll perhaps never know it.
Being wrong in? Carbon stored underground for millions of years being puffed in a geological nano-second into the atmosphere? There's plenty of evidence on that. Check your exhaust pipe for it.
Check your lungs for it, too. We can eliminate cars, but how do we get rid of all these useless breathers? /sarc
That's kinda' the point behind the arguments of those of us who doubt.
Yeah, but without the carbon taken from its millions of years underground storage, all carbon would be neutral. It's atmospheric rate would be more or less constant. Once you introduce new carbon that was taken away from the environment, it's a different issue.
Arrest them for treason and helping spread bankster propaganda.
From Scientific America which is biased towards funding:
"Global average temperatures are now higher than they have been for about 75% of the past 11,300 years, a study suggests."
The sun which makes up 99.9% of all matter in the solar system has something to say about global temperatures: "Earth and the rest of the planets will do whatever I say."
Those extremists were so wrong that they had to change their war cry from Al Gore's global warming to climate change. They are F'n idiots. Arrest them. Don't let them get away.
Yipeeee Somehow we're all going to die, die, die bitchez, die.
And the whole 'warming is causing bigger and badder storms' argument. There hasn't been a fatal hurricane in the US since Katrina.
That's ten years. There has been so little disaster news that Anderson Cooper had to re-visit Louisiana for the tenth anniversary just to remind everybody about climate change.
Forest fires in CA. were helped along by the dumping of industrial toxins into the air. Sulfur dries things out, like it does with warts.
How much has the sea-level risen since Gore. Any coastal inhaitants have anything to say here?
There is no historical record of severe weather events during the Earth's history especially if you ignore the ice ages, great floods (biblical, Sumerien, native Americans), salt flats, and the city of Atlantis.
LOL......
I am more concerned that there has not been warming in so many years. When I was in high school we were being 'alarmed' that an ice age was coming, and an ice age IS truly something that should scare the shit out of people. Much rather warmer than fucking frozen tundra.
My father spent decades in Senior Rulings National Revenue CANADA Oil, Mines, & Resource Taxation. I owe everything I have, and grew up on, to those industries that my father earned his living from through being a Chartered Accountant. I learned to respect these industries, and the fact that they are taxed by government. Moreover, I am a formally educated scientist, and 'Climate Change' does not jibe with science, empiricism, or Evolutionary Theory in Biology. Without an evolutionary time scale to empirically evaluate methodological validity, efficacy, reliability, et cetera, we have a loose collection of poorly constructed notions that cannot honestly meet the definition of anything close to 'Climate Science'. Science is being bastardized by these douchebags involved in this 'Climate Change' propaganda. And it is honestly nothing more than propaganda. I'm pleased that this climate change shit does not wash on Z/H.
Ditto, besides, let's say there's 100 years of oil left; so the temp (if it were true) goes up another 0.8 degrees. That's that.
What most people don't get is the exponential curve function. There is no way that partially combusted oil can cause Antarctica or Greenland to melt. They will do it on their own.
I have a degree in ME from a top school. Thermo, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, combustion, chemistry, physics...real relevant stuff. I don't know of one professor or student who bought into the climate "science" shtick
Interesting, because so do I. And climate science never came up in my ME education because it 1) isn't really relevant, 2) ME profs don't study Earth Sciecne. I also have a degree in forest management and based on that understanding of how the environment works it's pretty clear that climate change is in deed an issue to worry about.
Hey Fred, all banter aside, you seem somewhat reasonable, even if we disagree. Having studied thermo, you may find my treatise on thermodynamics and economics of interest. I would like to be disproven since my warnings are so dire but no one has been able to yet.
Thanks. I will give it a look.
It could be argued that it's rooted in Big [GLOBAL] Government taxation [THEFT] as a solution to a problem alarmed and 'SOLVED' by those that have their paychchecks provided by same Big [GLOBAL] Government that funded the alarm.
Thesis -> Anti-Thesis -> Synthesis
The pattern is familiar.
Exactly.
Every single plane ticket sold over the last 7-8 years costs $75 more now due to carbon taxes.
Worth lying for? You bet.
Climate alarmism is nothing but a vehicle for global dictatorship.
http://www.cfact.org/2015/09/23/special-report-the-radicals-advising-pop...
Good stuff!
CFACT, Climate Depot, and Mark Morano all do a great job of tracking, exposing, and debunking climate quackery.
In an honest world, Morano would get a Nobel Prize for Climate Science.
The bottom line is, if global warming is real, move inland.
If not, be their slave.
Either way, we're screwed.
So move inland or STFU.
I'm out, my fingers are tired.
Kudos to all of you who would not be swayed by fear and/or popular opinion.
Humans blamed for climate change is a hyper-complicated issue, which this article and many of the previous comments have grossly over-simplified.
Global Warmer Pope.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/francisvidela.jpg
Jorge Mario Bergoglio (now called pope francis) and General Jorge Videla
Bergoglio, who at the time was “Provincial” for the Society of Jesus, had ordered the two “Leftist” Jesuit priests and opponents of military rule “to leave their pastoral work” (i.e. they were fired) following divisions within the Society of Jesus regarding the role of the Catholic Church and its relations to the military Junta.
While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976 were released five months later. after having been tortured, six other people associated with their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos). These included four teachers associated with the parish and two of their husbands.
Upon his release, Priest Orlando Yorio “accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over [including six other people] to the death squads … Jalics refused to discuss the complaint after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Associated Press, March 13, 2013, emphasis added),
his name was guy mcpherson.
What god or computer declared global warming as fact? Must mankind return fire to the gods? Was Prometheus a criminal or a a savior of mankind?
Reject fire and all its results and live without them or shut up.
"The caste of climate alarmists reminds us strongly of assorted doomsayers throughout history."
Kind of like coming to ZH everyday to read the daily alarmists doom about the US economy. And the Prepers religous ferver in the preparations. So, in other words ......... ,your words, "The war isn't over, but just begun".
"And the Prepers religous ferver in the preparations."
Right. I think you mean the Preppers, many of whom do so for religious reasons (the End Times, or similar beliefs)? And lots of whom do not, being Preppers because when this shitstack collapses in the Crunch due to interlocking stupidity (no need for conspiracies, a simple multiple simultaneous lack of vision and understanding will do) getting medicine, supplies, food, clean water and materials to rebuild will be a cast-iron bitch on rails? And whatever you haven't had the simple common sense to stockpile (and defend) for yourself may well be unobtainable?
Don't make the mistake of thinking all preppers are religious nuts seeking a fulfillment of prophecy. Some of us are just smart enough to realize that the greatest danger comes from ignorance, and that you can't count on government, your fellow man or anyone else to take care of you. If you can't stand on your own two feet when the Crunch comes, you won't be left standing - your ignorant, starving, desperate fellow men will end your suffering, but not with relief.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/20/can-even-god-forgive-jorge-mario-...
Can God forgive Jorge Mario Bergoglio
His being accused of being a marxist and all that, for supporting climate change, may be distracting people from the fact he provided cover to facist regimes in South America. Perhaps he is the perfect guy for this new age of fascism we live in.
He's the Obama Pope.
Talk like Marxist, support and care for uber wealthy.
Who was in the audience the Pope had in New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral?
His old friend Henry Kissinger.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pope-francis-visits-united-states-galler...
I found it odd seeing him there, then I remembered that they are old pals from the Dirty War in Argentina.
KISSINGER TO ARGENTINES ON DIRTY WAR:
"THE QUICKER YOU SUCCEED THE BETTER"
Newly declassified documents show Secretary of State
gave green light to junta, Contradict official line that
Argentines "heard only what [they] wanted to hear."
While military dictatorship committed massive
human rights abuses in 1976, Kissinger advised
"If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better."
Washington, D.C., 4 December 2003 - Newly declassified State Department documents obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act show that in October 1976, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and high ranking U.S. officials gave their full support to the Argentine military junta and urged them to hurry up and finish the "dirty war" before the U.S. Congress cut military aid. A post-junta truth commission found that the Argentine military had "disappeared" at least 10,000 Argentines in the so-called "dirty war" against "subversion" and "terrorists" between 1976 and 1983; human rights groups in Argentina put the number at closer to 30,000.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/
Francis is no liberation theologian. He’s a priest adhering to strict Vatican ideology. In welcoming the pontiff on the White House south lawn, Obama ignored his earlier disturbing record. Before becoming Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998 and a cardinal in 2001, Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) fully supported Argentina’s CIA/Henry Kissinger backed coup, followed by military dictatorship (March 1976 – December 1983) – a brutal period of dirty war (la guerra sucia), much like under Pinochet in Chile for nearly 17 years. Thousands were disappeared (los desaparecidos), held in detention centers, tortured and killed. Anyone expressing dissent or considered an ideological or political threat was vulnerable. Communists, socialists, independent journalists, human rights supporters, trade unionists, priests endorsing social justice, and students were targeted. Junta power ended months after Britain defeated Argentina in the 1982 Falklands War. Pope Francis in his earlier capacity was complicit in Argentina’s dirty war – waged to benefit wealth and power interests at the expense of social, economic and political justice. Progressive liberation theology supporting social justice is verboten in Vatican City.
30.000 leftists dissapeared?
During the Chavez regime 300.000 dissapeared as well. Saw one of them myself as he got his brains blown out.
http://www.laht.com/Vzla2010/0810/ElNacionalCaracasMorgueShot.jpg
You folks down here in the "Rabbit Hole" enjoying this Global Warming/Climate change exchange of "OPINIONS"?
All I know is there is (apparently) way too much aluminum, etc being reported in surface water analyses from what appear to be legitimate sources from around the world.
And - just came in from viewing the full moon here in western Oregon and them boys been sprayin' heavy tonight - chemtrails all over the place.
But, everything weatherwise is just A-OK, especially down there in California.
Nothing to see here - move along - - - - - - - - -
I will give you the straight facts. I am not interested in name-calling, and I will not debate.
FIRST, most (normal) people do not have a clear distinction in their heads between "weather" and "climate". Donald Trump is a good example of this type of thinking. People look at TV and see that their weather man (or woman) is often wrong - so they assume that the whole "climate debate" is a hoax. That is completely wrong. Daily weather is about local conditions. Global climate is about large-scale effects. These two things are completely different.
There are systematic long-term changes taking place in the climate of the Earth. It is warming, and we are living in the "athropogenic era" - where people actually impact the climate and environment in a major way. The best possible evidence for climate change is the North Pole. The whole icecap is disappearing!! By the year 2030, the North Pole will just be a giant "slushy" during the summer ... soft ice and water. Please don't tell me that things are "hunky dory" when the whole North Pole is disappearing.
Climate scientists have been making some extreme claims. This is NOT because these scientists are a bunch of "attention-getting media whores", although some people paint them that way. It is because these scientists are genuinely concerned that a series of changes are going to take place in the next 200-300 years that will have major effects on the Earth. The problem is ... we cannot WAIT to get all of the data. By the time we have the data to check the climate models, it will be way too late to fix the problem. That is the reason why the scientists (some at least) are making very vocal statements.
Unfortunately, both the scientists and the media have given the public a very skewed view of climate change. Some of the real dangers have been completely ignored, while other problems are very long term (e.g. sea level rises) and we might be able to adjust to them.
Let me give you ONE example where climate change is vicious. A small change in the Earth's temp, by a few degrees, has a BIG effect on the life cycle of insects. A warming by a few degrees is enough to cause an insect species to go from being a "minor problem" to a major problem. Think about it this way. Draw a line across North America (east-west) that marks the boundary of freezing temps in the winter (i.e. the most southern location where it gets to freezing in the winter). That line is a boundary that some insect species do not cross - they don't survive the freeze cycles. Now if the Earth warms by a few degrees, that line moves north by several hundred kilometers. And that exposes a VAST area of forests and croplands to warmer temperatures - and the possibility of invasion by new insect pests. This is not a trivial problem. Between the problems of water supply, larger storms, and insect invasions - farmers are not going to have a lot of fun this century.
We could tolerate CHANGE - if everyone cooperated. But people on this planet are greedy, selfish, and willing to kill for "what is theirs". So you think we can fit another 2 billion people into this world in the next 30-40 years, while fighting environmental degradation, energy probllems, food supply issues, clean water issues, climate change - and fighting each other?
I don't.
OK. I am a scientist and have a univeristy degree to prove it like that matters. No one ever listens to me until it is too late but I have no debt. Explain that. You almost lost me at "Scientists are genuinely concerned."... Bullshit, scientists study things with no prejudice if they are following the scientific method and they submit papers based upon their findings in a very formal manner for peer review and reproducable results. We do not see that with global warming but we do see a a bunch of political bullshit. You can't tell me that you have any empirical evidence of global warming because I know you don't. Where are the facts? There is not enough data to even know.
Where you are correct is that there is issue with overpopulation. Set politics aside and your points are true on that issue. What do we do about it? I notice that white people are not breeding as much as the people with brown eyes. I am not racist but merely an observer. What is really happening is that the brown eyed people are outbreeding us at a tremendous rate and using socialism to finance it at other's expense. It is pretty simple to figure out really.
Perhaps some people need to die? How do you pitch that? No one wants to hear that including me but I know the truth of the numbers. I think it has come to some very bad terms and you will have to choose. That is why I went to Rockies a few days ago. I wanted to see if there is a chance yet and only maybe is my answer. I have never wanted to hurt anyone other than maybe a punch in the face. Punching someone in the face is no big deal, but blowing someone's brain out is another. For 30 years before ZH existed I was already collecting things.(I was 10 YO) I don't know. I am pissed off and to the point that we turn on these fuckers now or forget it and you are a slave. That is our choice.
I have heard a lot of talk over the years... I don't know. I can't do ANYTHING MORE for anyone. I do not know what to do. I will not go full retard or anything like that but I am not seeing any other options. What can we do?
Scientists are as career driven and institutionalized as any one else. This idea that they ignore the political landscape is not valid. Careers of those that don't pay attention to it and go down roads that threaten others' careers will have their own wrecked.
re: your ONE example... not only insects, but coral reefs as well.
here is NOAA's page on ocean acidification: http://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/Home/WhatisOceanAcidification.aspx
increasing CO2 is a huge factor in the now decades long decline in global reefs, but to be fair other factors exist... pollution / runoff, El Niño (will cause major bleaching events this year), overfishing / bottom trawling, Crown of Thorns starfish destroying corals (especially at the Great Barrier Reef), etc. ~ globally there are thousands of scientists and researchers that are doing their best to combat reef damage, including development of reef nursuries / transplanting, studying / monitoring corals that do best in warmer temperatures, cross-breeding species for better odds of survivability, etc... the author of this article is a complete DICKHEAD, as opposed to the people who are actually dedicating their entire lives (with minimal budgets) to actually making a positive difference for our planet.
some of my best images of the Caribbean are here: www.reefheart.com ~ enjoy the majesties of our tropical reefs now because if what seems to be a majority of commenter's opinions above have their way (do nothing, it's just natural cycles, fuck the "alarmists"), our reefs are going to be largely algae-infested garbage heaps in 50 years.
Just look out west and see what a century of trying to control forest fires has done, given forests are SUPPOSED to burn every now and then despite man's conceit he knows what is NORMAL.
Yet, a 2 degree drop in temps ushers in the glaciers. A mere 0,5 degree drop gets us serial crop failures in Europe and similar latitudes, as history has shown. Since we're 12,000 years into an interglacail period within a 2.5-million-year ice age - the longest interglacial period in 400,000 years - I'm simply going to be more concerned with cooling than warming.
When the glaciers last melted, sea levels rose 400 feet. Whatever ecosystems lived in shallow sea water were devistated, as well as those sesnitive to the shock of lowered salt levels from all that fresh water. What happens to a coral reef that is 400 feet further below water within a 1000-year period? Far from destroying mankind, who flourished on the equatorial coastlines up to that time (now submerged), that catastrophe, played out about every 100,000 years, gave mankind the World.
7.25 Billion people have TWO things going for us right now - (1) Hydrocarbons as fuel and (2) an unusually warm climate (90% of the time we have glaciation). Loose either and it's billions dead. Global alarmist pshychopaths want us and our posterity TO HATE BOTH. We can handle bugs. We can't handle political concensus parading as science.
Your bug scenerio might get traction under Global Warming but falls flat under Climate Change. Climate Change expects greater fluctuation in temeratures, therefore said bug populations would suffer disruptions in their breeding cycles from extreme cold more often than under "normal" climate conditions. That would tend to perodically suppress migration.
Two words: East Anglia
All kidding aside, this global warming and associated sea level rise is serious business. The oceans may have risen as much as 400' since the end of the last ice age. If we don't do something, oceans will continue to rise until the beginning of the next ice age.
The national science organizations of every country on Earth has endorsed the concept global warming and it's malign effects. Do you think that they're simply dupes of AI Gore? Consensus does not mean truth, but I'd say that in this case it's a good indicator.
Consensus is politics, not science. Of course national (government run and fed) science organizations are being political. Just as shocking, the sun sets in the West.
The central thesis of AGW is governmnent must be empowered to save the planet, against which every other charge pales - what has more value than The Planet? Yet regardless of the list of things like ending poverty, war, disease, overporulation, etc. that governments have not only failed to fix but have usually made worse, most people feel comfortable enough with government to believe it will solve global warming out of sheer benevolence (thanks, socialism).
Questioning AGW is no more complicated than questioning what government will ACTUALLY do with the rights it must take from you and me in order to have the power to save the world. For anyone who has ever cracked a history book, the answer is obvious.
The national science organizations of every country on Earth has endorsed the concept global warming and it's malign effects. Do you think that they're simply dupes of AI Gore? Consensus does not mean truth, but I'd say that in this case it's a good indicator.
Ahhh.. caught ya there. You said "warming". You must be old enough (like me) and you have been hearing about this since it was "Global Warming". They realized things just were not getting warm enough fast enough so they had to change the strategy. Now it is called "Climate Change".
Ahhh.. because it never gets old:
In Mike Slee's 1989 documentary After The Warming, host James Burke uses the term "climate change" NINETY seconds into the film.
they so evil
MEAN
mwahahahaha
I swear I heard the term "global warming" multiple times at the various IPCC AR5 press releases.
You KNoW? that outfit with the 30,000+ peer reviewed science papers?
Peer review is meaningless.
I would trust more articles posted on online forums with membership restricted for scientists only. All papers accepted and dissected by the whole community.
"...30,000+ peer reviewed science papers?"
Of those papers, less than 1 percent blame AGW directly.
Consensus is a construct. With the right question, it can be made to sound like most believe the Earth is flat, whereas we now know it to be banana-shaped.
The dupes are those actually believing this b/s. The preachers and zealots are in for the money + power.
The hysteria that has been on display of late is probably an indication though that its proponents are actually losing the debate.
Brought to you by the same 200 year old Hungarian Zionist Jewish guy that brought you VOA... Reporters Without Borders... Amnesty International... And staged events that actually kill lots of people and overthrow legitimate governments like Svoboda in Ukraine and ISIS in Syria...
Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source.
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF)
They have no other choice but to use force now. They've been caught. Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) and then other bloggers found that the entire global warming "signal" is due to them altering the data. There is no warming. None. Zero. It doesn't exist. 100% scam. When their "adjustments" and "estimates" are removed from the surface temperature record the entire warming signal disappears. It's just not there to be found. If we then correct for urban heat island effect, and do so realistically by several degrees as everyone knows it is from walking out into an open field from a built up area on a late summer evening, we would have a cooling trend.
NASA accomplishes these changes by altering the data very slowly cooling the past and warming the present. With each year the changes become more extreme. It's so easy to confirm what Heller and others are saying. I did it myself as a spot check. Just grab two data sets or two plots a few years or more apart and compare them. The common years will be different. The faithful try to hand wave this away, but they can't do any more than deploy appeals to authority and faith. It makes them look silly.
The warmists are dead in the water as the information spreads. The only hope they have is to stop the spread now.
If these climate LOONS insist on worrying about something, worry about the climates's impending return to an ICE AGE.
Can't grow crops in ice, but can grow buku crops in the tropics.
Follow the money as it currently flows and this debate is over.
Absolutely true. It is staggering how many politicians your agenda can buy when you are the Koch Brothers and how easily you can get the media to repeat your talking points when you own them.
Bizarre, and complete bollocks. Check out who funds Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the WWF. Try billionaire liberal misanthropes from the Hewlett Packard family, the Sierra Club, and Stalinist throwbacks from the EU kleptocracy. Oh, and BP and Shell. Then come back and repeat "Koch Brothers" as if it meant anything to begin with.
Also, try finding anything in the MSM which points out the obvious flaws in the "narrative" about climate change and "renewable" energy rather than repeating the increasingly-hysterical nonsense spewed out by the "climate consensus". If I were the Koch Brothers I'd sack my PR guys for failing to enforce our choke-hold on the media.
The satanic commie left has unlimited funds from the Federal Reserve, they are called "Grants"
which allow the NGO's to subvert the nation and the world.
And the biggest tool is war which is used to alter the lives of an entire people.
WW l-Bolshevic Revolution
WW-ll-Chinese Communist Revolution, State of Israel, Expansion of Soviet Union into Europe
WWlll-to be determined
Dakota --- land of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.
I wonder why satan and commie paint now dominates the minds of sons of the Land of the Cheyennes.
Cheyenne Autumn and WS occupy must have something in common.
On a moar factual front the FED belongs to the US's most unrivalled "capitalism is good for the world" tradition.
No commie or satanic sauce in that bakery of fiat, just pure malt greed.
The projection of the lying left is so repulsive.
Accuse others of exactly what you have been doing for 100 yrs or more.
The real problem with your cyclone graph, though, is that if there is even the slightest uptick in cyclones next year from the recent low counts it will inevitably be blamed on climate change. Thus every slight deviation from the weather norm, up or down, is grist to the climate change lobby's mill.
A little google of Pater Tenebrarum who wrote this article reveals that Pater is an independent financial analyst.
Why the hell would he have any credibility regarding climate science and why would we listen to him?
Ohhh because he fits with our narrative. Got it.
Why the hell would anyone believe in the credibility of "climate scientists" who have got absolutely eveything wrong since they started in on their campaign to shut down industrial society and starve the poor (for the sake of "the planet")?
This article accurately describes the current state of play in this field. Naked emperors so desperate to stop people pointing at them and shouting "no clothes!" that they are prepared to use anti-racketeering laws (oh, and anti-terrorist legislation if they could get away with it) to shut down legitimate and credible dissent.
Nothing to do with any "narrative" here or elsewhere.
That all you got? An ad hom in the form of desiring an appeal to authority? Two logical fallacies in one just makes you twice the douche. (Note that me pointing out your douchiness isn't an ad hom -- I didn't say your post was wrong because you're a douche, I said you're a douche because your post was so fucked up.)
About bloody time that ZH removed "climate" bollocks from its ever-lengthening list of catastrophes about to happen real soon now. Only last week you guys were sounding the alarm on something or other weather-related which was going to destroy the world as we know it. Glad to see you woke up and drank some coffee.
Scientist who study the sun report that our sun is starting anothere 300 year cycle, but to the downside. This fits in with Martin Armstrong's computer model on 309 year cycle. The last cold period the earth experienced ended right after the American Revolution, (think the winter at Valley Forge), and the sun has been warming up until approximately 2-3 years ago. Farmers in the northern part of the US are already experiencing a large reduction in revenues because they must plant later than usual and harvest sooner all due to the cold weather. As Martin commented, it was known as "GLOBAL WARMING" but they had to change the name to "CLIMATE CHANGE" to explain the record amounts of snowfall and freezing temperatures through out the planet. I agree with Martin as we continue to enter this new area of much colder weather, this is going to have huge implications on food prices, where to farm and population migration. Folks, we are just now entering the new weather changes and just look at the weather in the northern US the last 2 years with record snow fall and record breaking cold. Passager trains have already spent millions on dealing with the new weather and they are not spending the money on weather warming, but record cold and snow. I saw yesterday on the Weather Channel an interview with the head of the passager trains in a large northern city and he said they are putting on snow plows on all trains so the problems they encountered last year, (too much snow so trains were halted), would not happen again!
Christopher Essex on climate models. Well worth understanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4 (52:10)
The hysteria that has been on display of late is probably an indication though that its proponents are actually losing the debate.
Is it really any different from the hysteria over the swiss gold referendum, jade helm, china devalues currency then sells USTs, formation of BRICS bank, yuan swap facilities, and every other huge event that turns cold without immediate highly visible negative effects on US, leaving us hungry for the next black swan.
How to fix the environment.......GET prices of all raw materials up.......people will use less and recycle and share more!!!!!!
That and molten salt reactors.
"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him.
It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself."
Joseph Sobran
Dilbert's take on being sustainable is great. He was going to sit in the dark and decompose on some garden seeds if I recall correctly. Maybe that is what those really concerned about the environment should do?
Maybe that was Dogbert the green consultant and he wanted you to stop eating and breathing as well.
It always was (and still is), about Human Population Reduction - or 'HPR' for short. Different 'wrappers' for the latest generation (20 years on average), but the goal remains the same. The height of selfishness and greed. But then again, it's been that way since man learned how to organize in groups...
Bunch of non-scientists calling each other cunts over disagreements about which there is no good, clear and convincing evidence either way.
Congrats.
You're wasting your lives.
I won't fight them if they want to waste their own lives. It's how many other lives they destroy that pisses me off.
Actually, Americans are doing a great job of destroying themselves through their overly consumptive lifestyles and addiciton to oil.
It is going to be one cold assed winter this year I believe. Better get a new snow shovel.
If you judge by the last time we had this kind of El Nino, here in the northeast it will be considerably warmer and a little wetter than normal. It will be a welcome reprieve from that last two, which were the coldest and snowiest I have seen in 43 year of living here.
Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Global Warming, Lysenkoism & Eugenics: climate science in the public square.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RLPdEMjphM (56:23)
Science is a mode of inquiry, not a source of authority.
@ the Indeli cat - Scientist have said their bit, we're quoting them; the evidence is quite clear. And it isn't our lives we're wasting, it's our children's lives we're improving by outing the globalist agenda for what it is... alarmism and governance. They are the cynts.
I'm not a scientist. Just wanted to get that out as a disclaimer. But it seems to me that there must be some effect on the environment when we pump the amount of shit into it that we do. Into the land, sea and air, we're pumping a lot of stuff, and it's going into what is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system. That has got to have some kind of effect on the environment. Now, I have no idea if it leads to global warming, global cooling or growing a third eye, but it has to have some effect. I'm not advocating that we need to take drastic measures, but I for one would like to see some improvement in the way that we control our emissions.
With their lies it turns everyone away from the actual damage being done that can be easily solved. Evil works that way.
All kinds of interactive variables influence climate change over millennial and epochal time-frames. I don't have a clue how that works and climatologists are probably as advanced as medieval surgeons with leeches. So shit is happening and everybody has their panties in a knot. My view is that we can be careful about the stuff that might matter, particularly about the "free" externalities we don't cost into economic activities; stuff like breathable air and drinkable water(we are reasonably sure we need that stuff), habitat for biodiversity, and other boring items that we don't notice till they are not there. (let breathable air vanish suddenly and see if the DOW index matters a fuck). So everybody should remain calm, keep studying the planet, and err on the side of balanced caution when in doubt.
The problem is when junk science is used to justify erring on the side of caution, their version of caution is cited. "It would be cautious to act, and irresponsible to do nothing." If nothing is happening, the inverse would be true. Again, who do you listen to?
Patrick Michaels et al. lecture in: The Lack of Science in the Scientific Consensus: The Case of the National Climate Assessment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAuHzcexcM (1:13:45)
But ZH is all about doom and gloom - so climate change should just fit it's agenda - I actually feel bad that I can't add it as one of the issues that could trigger the total collapse! In reality I think that man contributes very little to it, that most of it is just part of the earths natural geological cycle and that the lizard people are trying to use it to squeeze the sheeple out of more money (re: 'added taxes' through 'energy credits') and giving them more control over factories and such. Even down to 'de-suburbanizing' the landscape and forcing people to live in 'camps' (what used to be know as 'cities' - now known as 'fucking ghetto death traps full of powder kegs of armed, pissed off, unhappy, sheeple hooked on the mommy states teats'). This way all of the rich folks can use entire states for their grouse hunting estates.
I think all that de-suburbanizing is a result of runnig out of oil.
Or maybe de-suburbanizing is about cities being the concentration of FIRE economy and government benefits against an ever-difficult climate in mining, manufacture and agriculture in the hinterlands. All Gov driven.
Yes, all of the above, all interrelated
Al Gore founded Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) together with former GS bankster David Blood in 2004. They produced the movie An Inconvienient Truth to make money. They manage Pension funds investments into "sustainable" develpments and they invented carbon emission certificates trading and make money with it. That imo is all what Al Gore is really concerned about when he talks about AGW, making money.
His fund manages not only for instance NYC Pension funds, but his investment partnership Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) received 560 million from the US Gov. GIM owned 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange, (today allegedly 3%) which owns 100% of the European Climate Exchange.
If we didn't have climate change, mankind would just be just a pile of Tyrranosarus dung!
Zerohedge is a Corporate/government Captured Propaganda site.
Climate warming is fact and confirmed by thousands of credible scientists.
Aside from the warming you think that pumping millions of tons of pollutants into our atmosphere is a good thing!
This site is a joke ... pure corporate crap in disguise.
It is anti-union, anti-environment, and pedals fear on a daily basis.
This site is for self-identifcation of potential anti-government radicals.
"Climate warming is fact and confirmed by thousands of credible scientists." Is this what you know or is this what you've been told?
"Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes the fact, not in the belief that it is a fact."
-Sprading
"This site is for self-identifcation of potential anti-government radicals."
*Puts hand up.* Someone has to stand up to the lying establishment.
Climate warming is fact and confirmed by thousands of credible scientists.
Wonder what they would say if their government funding was cut off.
Look at the good side. If they are right, it'll slow down the coming ice age. http://iceagenow.info/
This site is for self-identifcation of potential anti-government radicals.
That's about one of the nicest things you could say. Thank you.
Dude...
You gotta put more elbow grease into polishing that turd if yer gonna try and roll it by this crowd... I mean, at least make it sound half-way credible...?
'Potential anti-government radicals'...?
Oh Shit...!!!!!
ZeroNews, I generally agree with your take on ZeroHedge, it seems to be a platform for the GOP to spout its rhetoric, it would be interesting to see where ZH's revenue comes from (come on ZH'ers, you are so intent on slamming climate scintists for where their funding comes from, let's see where your funding comes from). But ZH does provide a service because the government and corporate world is now the same thing, and the government is completely corrupt, and ZH does point out the total unsustainability of the current monetary system.
Dear Mr. Zero:
Is it OK if I call you by your first name -- Zero.
Reading your posting makes me feel stupid.
I think I'll stop now. Too much exposure might actually start making me stupid.
global warming (climate change) is a means to an end of governments to control the means of production to an evern higher degree than they already do now.
"global warming (climate change) is a means to an end of governments to control the means of production to an evern higher degree than they already do now. "
Global warming is A means to an end of governments to control the means of production, but there is more at play than goverments OR the means of production, and that is "nature". If the proletariat (in your terms) don't acquire a scientific understanding of the world around them, and take control of their own behavior, they will be as extinct as the bourgeoisie (in your terms).
This link is from the university of Florida about thermohauline cycles. It doesn't sound like settled science to me in this paragraph when it says scientists don't know or they think.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/resources/global-ocean-conveyor.php
"The thermohaline ocean currents have a strong effect on Earth’s climate. This “conveyer belt” type circulation moves heat around the Earth. Scientists do not completely understand this flow of water, but they think that the influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic Ocean causes a disruption to the flow. This freshwater is less dense and would not sink, causing the global flow of ocean water to slow, drastically changing Earth’s climate. Scientists think that if the conveyor slows or stops, the warmer surface water would not be propelled back toward the north Atlantic through the Gulf Stream. This could cause Europe to have colder climates."
A quote from the IPCC (3rd assessment report, 2001:) [emphasis mine]
"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Section 14.2.2.2 pg.774
2001! They've known all along.
And Exxon has known since at least 1981 about what they and other fossil fuel companies were doing to the climate. But then, they joined the denialist crowd and have been lying to the sheeple since then. Follow the money. They must have been successful, look at how many here at ZH are in profound denial. Can you say baaaaa?
http://climatecrocks.com/2015/09/23/what-exxon-knew-then-is-what-we-know...
That's got nothing to do with it. It doesn't change fact.
Willie Soon and many others have had their work sponsored by the oil industry. Now he calls the whole thing a hoax. Meaningless.
Show some facts and then we can call this a debate. Otherwise it's just name calling at kindergarten level.
Bring forth the data.
Skeptics don't lie about the data, they show it. Alarmists never refer to data, they always rely on personal attacks and fear-mongering. Move inland if you're so afraid of a 0.4 degree rise over the next century (predicted.) Haven't you ever had a fever?
The west has benefitted from pollution in order to produce. We will not let emerging market countries catch up, so now CO2 is illegal. Get it?
So, because scientists don't understand every detail abotu the climate, they therefore understand nothing? It's like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they proclaim that climate change is very likely a result of increased CO2 and that it presents danger to our future, then they are criticized for being too certain of something, which we're then told is not how science works (actually that's not the case), but then if scientists engage in the scientific method and ask questions and admit that the knowledge about scertain aspects of the climate system is not complete, then they just don't understand how the climate works... When in reality, scientists have ENOUGH evidence to make their warnings about AGW. Science, by its defintion, can never be 100%, but that does not mean its findings are not predictable, otherwise your car wouldn't move.
Although I remain unconvinced about many of your conclusions I can dig the way you think...
"What? You don’t understand?!? Duh! It’s the social planner’s Hamiltonian expression for assessing the Pareto optimality of the decentralized equilibria! That’s how you maximize household utility, Stupid! Z is the colour of your dish soap, Q is how many forks you have in your cutlery set, v is the time you spend at work, c is how many raccoons live in your attic, L is …"
btw did you check for Grainger causality? ;)
Although I remain unconvinced about many of your conclusions I can dig the way you think...
"What? You don’t understand?!? Duh! It’s the social planner’s Hamiltonian expression for assessing the Pareto optimality of the decentralized equilibria! That’s how you maximize household utility, Stupid! Z is the colour of your dish soap, Q is how many forks you have in your cutlery set, v is the time you spend at work, c is how many raccoons live in your attic, L is …"
btw could you produce a time series and claim Grainger causality? ;)
That isn't at all what has been said here.
Science should be predictable and repeatable. The simple fact is that the alarmists have made broad claims concerning climate based upon models which are unreliable. This has lead to carbon taxes and unfair trade barriers against countries which have not had the chance to develop their production because CO2 is now pollution.
If the science is not settled (and it isn't,) claims about consequences should not be taken as gospel. They should be rigourously investigated, and that is all that us skeptics want.
One picture says it all:
http://iceagenow.info/2015/09/meteorologist-asks-pope-to-look-at-this-ch...
There's a lot of libertarians here (whose religion is "the market") who are going to feel awfully stupid when their state dries up for five years, or is swamped by a 1000-year flood two years in a row, if they experience the longest heat-wave ever recorded, when food prices rise and fish stocks disappear, the globe experiences successive "hottest year ever recorded" year-after-year, and people start moving en masse due to lack of water.
Oh wait. It's already happeing.
Generally, the crowd here is smart and funny and oh-so-wickedly cynical, but what most people here know about science could apparently fit on the head of a pin, with room left over.
Keep on believing that "the markets" will solve everything; it's your religion and nothing will chnage your minds