Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 60670 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

litesong

Everett, WA

#34365 Feb 20, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
If any of these guys are getting paid with fossil money.........
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has a 2-bit oil can job that allows him to post on toxic topix AGW forums as an AGW denier. For this,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' got a raise to a 2.5 bit oil can job.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34366 Feb 20, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
...The majority of governments promote AGW.
The link you posted states this:
Regional environmental groups and community activists are spending their limited operating budgets in a massive conspiracy with 90% of the world's scientists to create a worldwide hoax and crash the global economy.
Let's analyze that.
First off where did the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace come from? Did they sprout up through regional activists and community organizers? Oh no, wait, they were created by the UN.
Second, the NGOs hardly have limited operating budgets. The Rockefeller Foundation alone has given over 28 million to these organizations just to stop the pipeline. Oh and let's not overlook the debt-for-nature schemes...the WWF and other environmental groups have racked up over 140 million from this. This is just a few examples of their "limited operating budgets." Could you please post what skeptic organization or scientist is getting this kind of money. I can post all kinds of money going to climate scientists coming from governments and foundations from all around the world.
Thirdly, where do you get 90% of scientists? Can you show me the list?
My point is that both sides have an agenda. Corruption, power, money, and greed are not just limited to any one side. To just continue to say that anyone who doesn't agree with AGW is being funded by big oil is just dead wrong. When someone tells you global warming is settled (back in 1982) and there is no more debate, that's when you should question why? Especially with the science of climate change. There is no way we can know for sure without a doubt with no more discussion how our climate is affected by man or natural forces. Shutting down the voices or discrediting the voices of those who don't agree with AGW is the most anti-science movement I have seen.
OK, it is possible that lots of governments understand scientific fact, so they see the necessity to act to mitigate AGW/CC. In the US, however, oil industry (& lots of others with financial interests) have strongly biased our government against action. To an extent, however, world-wide, you're right; I was talking about the US.

However, governments everywhere are BROKE. There is NO excess money lying around to fund NGOs & grants. Puh-leeze.

You ask for how much money is going to deniers. Well, DUH. The Koch brothers (with ExxonMobil in the past) are the biggest funders of denial. They're so secretive they don't want ANY of their corporate numbers public, let alone something sensitive like AGW/CC denial. They run the 2nd largest privately owned company in the US.

Still, people have attempted to estimate their support. The Heartland Institute has taken lots of money for denial, but their emails were hacked (hey - where have we heard THAT before?) & it was discovered they were engaged in a conspiracy to change the public school curricula to reduce children's concern for AGW/CC. They denied it, of course, but lost some funding anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Instit...

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/gl...

It's 100.00000000000000000000% IMPOSSIBLE for scientists to engage in the kind of conspiracy you allege. Science MUST be VERIFIABLE by other scientists in other places at other times. If it isn't, there are problems. It would be TOTALLY impossible to arrange different scientists to cooperatively bias their results. It'd be tougher than herding cats.

The ONLY conspiracy is from the denier side. That's where the money is. That is a fact. Some deniers here get some of it. Tell me another reason for posting such nonsense.

The joke is 100% correct, you are 100% WRONG.

The science is settled, just not the details. We learn more & more over time.

BTW, I didn't say a thing about "90% of scientists"; perhaps it was Wallop10 or someone else.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#34367 Feb 20, 2013

REAL science doesn’t need "believers" and rhetoric, propaganda, PR campaigns and politics and climate change's dirty little secret is that while science does indeed say climate change is real, it does NOT say climate change is a real deadly crisis. You can't have a little climate crisis and you fear mongers wanted this misery to be real.
Not one single IPCC warning isn't qualified with "maybe” and “could be”…… as in "Help my planet could be on fire maybe?" Climate change is real and really not a crisis!
Former climate blame believers are better planet lovers.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34368 Feb 20, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
However, governments everywhere are BROKE. There is NO excess money lying around to fund NGOs & grants. Puh-leeze.
You ask for how much money is going to deniers. Well, DUH. The Koch brothers (with ExxonMobil in the past) are the biggest funders of denial. They're so secretive they don't want ANY of their corporate numbers public, let alone something sensitive like AGW/CC denial. They run the 2nd largest privately owned company in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Instit...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/gl...
It's 100.00000000000000000000% IMPOSSIBLE for scientists to engage in the kind of conspiracy you allege. Science MUST be VERIFIABLE by other scientists in other places at other times. If it isn't, there are problems. It would be TOTALLY impossible to arrange different scientists to cooperatively bias their results. It'd be tougher than herding cats.
The ONLY conspiracy is from the denier side. That's where the money is. That is a fact. Some deniers here get some of it. Tell me another reason for posting such nonsense.
The joke is 100% correct, you are 100% WRONG.
The science is settled, just not the details. We learn more & more over time.
BTW, I didn't say a thing about "90% of scientists"; perhaps it was Wallop10 or someone else.
What the Koch Brothers do is no different than what George Soros does or what Al Gore does. They all give money to front groups, media, lobbyists, education to promote their ideas. Why is one side only considered corrupt and money grubbing while the other side is considered altruistic? It seems Soros and Gore have benefited greatly. Why is it perfectly OK for Al Gore's film to be taught in schools, but the other side of global warming is forbidden? You say that the work of scientists must be repeatable by other scientists. Two recent published papers show that the MWP was warmer than today. So obviously this science is not settled. Michael Mann has some "splaining" to do.

First paper: http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-...

Second paper: Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia
Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank

Abstract

Palaeoclimatic evidence revealed synchronous temperature variations among Northern Hemisphere regions over the past millennium. The range of these variations (in degrees Celsius) is, however, largely unknown. We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland. The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.

And to say that governments are broke and can't fund climate science is sticking your head in the sand. Michael Mann alone has received grants totally 6 million over the last 13 years, 3 million of that in the last 3 years alone and most of that from the stimulus. Phil Jones has received 19 million over 6 years. But yet governments can’t be corrupt. They would never want more control or more tax dollars rolling in or politicians legislating new laws that benefit their portfolio. Nah, that would never happen.

You said:“The science is settled, just not the details.” What does that mean?

And you did bring up that 90% of the scientists agree that man causes warming. You posted it in your link telling me that these NGOs have “limited operational budgets.”
litesong

Everett, WA

#34369 Feb 20, 2013
me me me getting mine in the 69 position wrote:
REAL science doesn’t need "believers" and rhetoric, propaganda, PR campaigns and politics...
Correction:
REAL science doesn't need AGW denier, bachelor of arts(but no Bachelor of Science) rhetoric, paid for by trapped oil boardroom Pee-R campy politics, pushed by egotists needing to follow what they can understand, which isn't science.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#34370 Feb 20, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, just listen to our politicians go on and on about global warming, and wait, how many countries go to the UN Climate change summits every year and demand things like money? And how many governments go on and on about taxing carbon and have enacted carbon trading schemes? The majority of governments promote AGW.
The link you posted states this:
Regional environmental groups and community activists are spending their limited operating budgets in a massive conspiracy with 90% of the world's scientists to create a worldwide hoax and crash the global economy.
Let's analyze that.
First off where did the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace come from? Did they sprout up through regional activists and community organizers? Oh no, wait, they were created by the UN.
Second, the NGOs hardly have limited operating budgets. The Rockefeller Foundation alone has given over 28 million to these organizations just to stop the pipeline. Oh and let's not overlook the debt-for-nature schemes...the WWF and other environmental groups have racked up over 140 million from this. This is just a few examples of their "limited operating budgets." Could you please post what skeptic organization or scientist is getting this kind of money. I can post all kinds of money going to climate scientists coming from governments and foundations from all around the world.
Thirdly, where do you get 90% of scientists? Can you show me the list?
My point is that both sides have an agenda. Corruption, power, money, and greed are not just limited to any one side. To just continue to say that anyone who doesn't agree with AGW is being funded by big oil is just dead wrong. When someone tells you global warming is settled (back in 1982) and there is no more debate, that's when you should question why? Especially with the science of climate change. There is no way we can know for sure without a doubt with no more discussion how our climate is affected by man or natural forces. Shutting down the voices or discrediting the voices of those who don't agree with AGW is the most anti-science movement I have seen.
Your WWF and Greenpeace lies are easily disproved...unless you have some fake documents to submit?

You should be the person to answer my long-standing question. Do you have pictures of Mann's mansion or Trenberth's Tarantula? With all this closely-accounted-for grant money that these scientists are siphoning off, you'd think they'd be living high on the hog. You do know that grants pay for more than just scientists salaries, don't you? Stuff like travel and equipment and assistants? Do you have any proof these guys are getting rich off the "conspiracy"?

Third point: how do they get thousands of fellow scientists, students, and statisticians from a variety of countries and philosophies, to keep such a big secret in this day of whistleblower rewards and sensational journalism, when blowing the conspiracy with solid evidence would make the stool pigeon a very rich person?

Did you know there's a Nobel prize waiting for whomever disproves the global warming theory? Why haven't we seen that one scientist who blows it all wide open and becomes famous in history from this point forward for exposing the fatal flaws that 97% of climate scientists have made?

Last point; even if they were evil and corrupt, how would that change the known science?

And my last question and it's a very important one: Are you just as full of shit as the other deniers here or are you more so?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#34371 Feb 20, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What the Koch Brothers do is no different than what George Soros does or what Al Gore does. They all give money to front groups, media, lobbyists, education to promote their ideas. Why is one side only considered corrupt and money grubbing while the other side is considered altruistic? It seems Soros and Gore have benefited greatly. Why is it perfectly OK for Al Gore's film to be taught in schools, but the other side of global warming is forbidden? You say that the work of scientists must be repeatable by other scientists. Two recent published papers show that the MWP was warmer than today. So obviously this science is not settled. Michael Mann has some "splaining" to do.
First paper: http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-...
Second paper: Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia
Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank
Abstract
Palaeoclimatic evidence revealed synchronous temperature variations among Northern Hemisphere regions over the past millennium. The range of these variations (in degrees Celsius) is, however, largely unknown. We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland. The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.
And to say that governments are broke and can't fund climate science is sticking your head in the sand. Michael Mann alone has received grants totally 6 million over the last 13 years, 3 million of that in the last 3 years alone and most of that from the stimulus. Phil Jones has received 19 million over 6 years. But yet governments can’t be corrupt. They would never want more control or more tax dollars rolling in or politicians legislating new laws that benefit their portfolio. Nah, that would never happen.
You said:“The science is settled, just not the details.” What does that mean?
And you did bring up that 90% of the scientists agree that man causes warming. You posted it in your link telling me that these NGOs have “limited operational budgets.”
Give us the name of the website where you found these grant amounts.

The figures I've seen were a lot lower.

And, are you under the intellectually deficient illusion that all those millions go directly into the pockets of the lead author without him actually doing anything? Are you aware that grant recipients must account for their expenditures?

As for the straw men Koch brothers and G. Soros, the difference is in morality. I doubt you'd understand, but giving away money to protect your own interests is not the same as giving away money to improve the lot of mankind. That the difference, my dear Watson.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34372 Feb 20, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
REAL science doesn’t need "believers" and rhetoric, propaganda, PR campaigns and politics and climate change's dirty little secret is that while science does indeed say climate change is real, it does NOT say climate change is a real deadly crisis. You can't have a little climate crisis and you fear mongers wanted this misery to be real.
Not one single IPCC warning isn't qualified with "maybe” and “could be”…… as in "Help my planet could be on fire maybe?" Climate change is real and really not a crisis!
Former climate blame believers are better planet lovers.
Yes, what you say is true. The problem is that there are delays & inevitabilities built into the system. CO2 lasts centuries in the atmosphere, continuing to cause warming. Ice packs melt very suddenly, then take thousands of years to reform.

If a significant fraction of Arctic methane is released, there will be a runaway positive feedback & all of it will be released. This is because methane is 72 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2 for the 1st 20 years, & warming will be faster than ever. There is as at least as much carbon locked up in the Arctic as in the rest of the atmosphere combined.

The problem is that we don't know what a "significant fraction" is. 10%? 20%? 30%? Once we cross the threshold, though, it's over for ice on the earth, & sea level will be ~75 meters higher, with temperatures ~10-15º C higher. Everyone will want to live in northern Siberia, except OOPS!! the northern third of Siberia will be under water.

There are predictions that droughts will be severe enough to cause widespread agricultural collapse as early as 2044, with famine, mass starvation, war & disease killing billions of humans. Or not. But we're already in drought in the US now. Even the Great Lakes are at their lowest levels ever.

The Arctic Ocean icepack is disappearing much, much faster than predicted even a few years ago, when we thought it would last till mid-century. Now it looks like it could be gone in September (peak melt) by 2016 or 2017. That's not good news for the methane in the permafrost on land or locked in clathrates on the Siberian continental shelf.

Of course, it could be that none of this will happen, changes will be slow & milder, & not truly catasrophic. It could be we'll find other ways to adapt. Maybe we'll be able to mine the Helium-3 on the Moon, develop low-neutron fusion power & use it to actively remove atmospheric CO2.

Or not. It'd be a LOT easier & cheaper to not emit the CO2 in the 1st place.

We're doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. Reducing CO2 emissions now is like an insurance policy against possible catastrophic consequences in the near future.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34373 Feb 20, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What the Koch Brothers do is no different than what George Soros does or what Al Gore does... Two recent published papers show that the MWP was warmer than today. So obviously this science is not settled. Michael Mann has some "splaining" to do.

Second paper: Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia
Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank
Abstract
Palaeoclimatic evidence revealed synchronous temperature variations among Northern Hemisphere regions over the past millennium. The range of these variations (in degrees Celsius) is, however, largely unknown. We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland. The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.

You said:“The science is settled, just not the details.” What does that mean?
And you did bring up that 90% of the scientists agree that man causes warming. You posted it in your link telling me that these NGOs have “limited operational budgets.”
Uh, no. The Koch brothers could buy & sell George Soros & Al Gore several times over. They are NOT the same. What Al Gore does is all in public, Soros has been backing out of actvism like this.

Meanwhile, the Kochs, thru ALEC especially, have virtually taken over the Republican Party, remaking it in the image of their father, the co-founder of the John Birch Society.

You are incorrect about the Ljundqvist paper. Firstly, he's a known denier, or at least one who ignores recent changes, taking a much longer view. If you read the abstract, it sounds like he's comparing 1880-1960 with the MWP. Well, DUH. If 1880-1960 is "today," of COURSE it was warmer then. Then he mentions "50-year periods"; if "today" is 1960-2010, or 1950-2000... again, DUH.

Then you quote th abstract that says temps in Scandanavia during the MWP were warmer. Well, DUH again! You can't just use data from Sweden & Finland & say that's the whole world. Like they say on ESPN, "come on, man!"

Can you answer any of gcaveman1's questions? Where is Phil Jones' Rolls-Royce? Where is Michael Mann's mansion? He's right that riches & fame are available to any scientist who could disprove AGW/CC, & probably to any whistle-blower on any "conspiracy."

If you think there's a conspiracy of scientists to create a "hoax" of AGW/CC, you are PSYCHOTCALLY DETACHED FROM REALITY. It's 100.0000000000000000% IMPOSSIBLE. Herding cats would be WAY easier.

The science is settled that the world is warmer, & it's caused by human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels. It's settled that doubling CO2 will raise temps; we don't know if it'll be 2º C or 8º C; it'll probably be close to ~4º C.

We know there will be droughts, but don't know how severe, where or when. We know there will be sea level rise, but don't know how much or how fast, or whether it'll be linear over time (probably not). We know there will be more severe storms, heat waves, cold snaps & floods, but don't know exactly when or where. Weather will be intensified.

We know methane is being released from the Arctic at alarming rates. It's 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas for the 1st 20 years. There's at least as much carbon frozen in the Arctic as in the entire atmosphere.

We know that the Arctic Ocean icepack is disappearing MUCH faster than predicted just a few years ago.

We're doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. Not releasing CO2 in the 1st place will be MUCH easier & cheaper than trying to removing it later.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34374 Feb 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What the Koch Brothers do is no different than what George Soros does or what Al Gore does. They all give money to front groups, media, lobbyists, education to promote their ideas. Why is one side only considered corrupt and money grubbing while the other side is considered altruistic?...
What do you mean? How much money have Al Gore or George Soros donated too front groups, lobbyist,.etc compared to the Koch Brothers? Give us the figures that support your blather or shut up.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34375 Feb 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your WWF and Greenpeace lies are easily disproved...unless you have some fake documents to submit?
You should be the person to answer my long-standing question. Do you have pictures of Mann's mansion or Trenberth's Tarantula? With all this closely-accounted-for grant money that these scientists are siphoning off, you'd think they'd be living high on the hog. You do know that grants pay for more than just scientists salaries, don't you? Stuff like travel and equipment and assistants? Do you have any proof these guys are getting rich off the "conspiracy"?
Third point: how do they get thousands of fellow scientists, students, and statisticians from a variety of countries and philosophies, to keep such a big secret in this day of whistleblower rewards and sensational journalism, when blowing the conspiracy with solid evidence would make the stool pigeon a very rich person?
Did you know there's a Nobel prize waiting for whomever disproves the global warming theory? Why haven't we seen that one scientist who blows it all wide open and becomes famous in history from this point forward for exposing the fatal flaws that 97% of climate scientists have made?
Last point; even if they were evil and corrupt, how would that change the known science?
And my last question and it's a very important one: Are you just as full of shit as the other deniers here or are you more so?
First: WWF and Greenpeace receiving funds from Rockefeller Foundation.

http://www.verumserum.com/...

Debt for nature swaps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-for-nature_...
In a commercial debt-for-nature swap or three-party debt-for-nature swap, a non-governmental organization (NGO) acts as the funder/donor and purchases debt titles from commercial banks on the secondary market. Since the late 1980s, organizations such as Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund have participated in international debt-for-nature swaps. The NGO transfers the debt title to the debtor country, and in exchange the country agrees to either enact certain environmental policies or endow a government bond in the name of a conservation organization, with the aim of funding conservation programs.In total, recorded third-party debt-for-nature swaps have generated nearly US$140 million in conservation funding from 1987-2010.

To answer your longstanding question, you all are the ones stating that skeptics are funded by big oil money. I'm only pointing out that the AGW side is very heavily funded by many entitites especially governments run by humans who can also be corrupt and greedy. And yes, I understand that grants pay for everything and have to be accounted for, yet you don’t seem to apply that same reasoning to scientists who get grants and their papers don’t come to the same conclusion as Mann or Jones. You all are the ones stating that those who are skeptics are only doing it for the money. Can you show me the mansions and expensive cars of Roy Spencer, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, etc.

Climategate is a whistle-blower situation.

Please list the 97% of scientists who believe man is responsible for the Earth warming.

The known science is that the Earth is warming; still debating the effects of man and natural forces even though the anti-science crowd would like that to stop.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34376 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no. The Koch brothers could buy & sell George Soros & Al Gore several times over. They are NOT the same. What Al Gore does is all in public, Soros has been backing out of actvism like this.
Meanwhile, the Kochs, thru ALEC especially, have virtually taken over the Republican Party, remaking it in the image of their father, the co-founder of the John Birch Society.
You are incorrect about the Ljundqvist paper. Firstly, he's a known denier, or at least one who ignores recent changes, taking a much longer view. If you read the abstract, it sounds like he's comparing 1880-1960 with the MWP. Well, DUH. If 1880-1960 is "today," of COURSE it was warmer then. Then he mentions "50-year periods"; if "today" is 1960-2010, or 1950-2000... again, DUH.
Then you quote th abstract that says temps in Scandanavia during the MWP were warmer. Well, DUH again! You can't just use data from Sweden & Finland & say that's the whole world. Like they say on ESPN, "come on, man!"
Can you answer any of gcaveman1's questions? Where is Phil Jones' Rolls-Royce? Where is Michael Mann's mansion? He's right that riches & fame are available to any scientist who could disprove AGW/CC, & probably to any whistle-blower on any "conspiracy."
If you think there's a conspiracy of scientists to create a "hoax" of AGW/CC, you are PSYCHOTCALLY DETACHED FROM REALITY. It's 100.0000000000000000% IMPOSSIBLE. Herding cats would be WAY easier.
The science is settled that the world is warmer, & it's caused by human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels. It's settled that doubling CO2 will raise temps; we don't know if it'll be 2º C or 8º C; it'll probably be close to ~4º C.
We know there will be droughts, but don't know how severe, where or when. We know there will be sea level rise, but don't know how much or how fast, or whether it'll be linear over time (probably not). We know there will be more severe storms, heat waves, cold snaps & floods, but don't know exactly when or where. Weather will be intensified.
We know methane is being released from the Arctic at alarming rates. It's 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas for the 1st 20 years. There's at least as much carbon frozen in the Arctic as in the entire atmosphere.
We know that the Arctic Ocean icepack is disappearing MUCH faster than predicted just a few years ago.
We're doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. Not releasing CO2 in the 1st place will be MUCH easier & cheaper than trying to removing it later.
The Koch Bros. haven't taken over anything, what are you, a conspiracy nut?
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34377 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no. The Koch brothers could buy & sell George Soros & Al Gore several times over. They are NOT the same. What Al Gore does is all in public, Soros has been backing out of actvism like this.
Meanwhile, the Kochs, thru ALEC especially, have virtually taken over the Republican Party, remaking it in the image of their father, the co-founder of the John Birch Society.
You are incorrect about the Ljundqvist paper. Firstly, he's a known denier, or at least one who ignores recent changes, taking a much longer view. If you read the abstract, it sounds like he's comparing 1880-1960 with the MWP. Well, DUH. If 1880-1960 is "today," of COURSE it was warmer then. Then he mentions "50-year periods"; if "today" is 1960-2010, or 1950-2000... again, DUH.
Then you quote th abstract that says temps in Scandanavia during the MWP were warmer. Well, DUH again! You can't just use data from Sweden & Finland & say that's the whole world. Like they say on ESPN, "come on, man!"
Can you answer any of gcaveman1's questions? Where is Phil Jones' Rolls-Royce? Where is Michael Mann's mansion? He's right that riches & fame are available to any scientist who could disprove AGW/CC, & probably to any whistle-blower on any "conspiracy."
If you think there's a conspiracy of scientists to create a "hoax" of AGW/CC, you are PSYCHOTCALLY DETACHED FROM REALITY. It's 100.0000000000000000% IMPOSSIBLE. Herding cats would be WAY easier.
The science is settled that the world is warmer, & it's caused by human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels. It's settled that doubling CO2 will raise temps; we don't know if it'll be 2º C or 8º C; it'll probably be close to ~4º C.
We know there will be droughts, but don't know how severe, where or when. We know there will be sea level rise, but don't know how much or how fast, or whether it'll be linear over time (probably not). We know there will be more severe storms, heat waves, cold snaps & floods, but don't know exactly when or where. Weather will be intensified.
We know methane is being released from the Arctic at alarming rates. It's 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas for the 1st 20 years. There's at least as much carbon frozen in the Arctic as in the entire atmosphere.
We know that the Arctic Ocean icepack is disappearing MUCH faster than predicted just a few years ago.
We're doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. Not releasing CO2 in the 1st place will be MUCH easier & cheaper than trying to removing it later.
Soros has not backed out of activism. He just recently started the Climate Policy Initiative and is giving a billion dollars to this new entity. Soros is pretty equal with the Koch Brothers in funding policies they believe in. Soros' Open Society Institute is bigger than ALEC and funds all kinds of political activism.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opens...

So you are calling Ljundqvist a denier. How does one get that label? Just by getting a peer-reviewed paper published that doesn't agree with the "settled science?" The 1880-1960 period was the calibration period. If there is a problem with this paper, then let someone write a peer-review paper and they can duke it out. Don't just dismiss him as a denier because you don't like the results. It makes you sound anti-science and that you don't like anyone actually putting out new information.

We do know that the earth is warming. I would say 100% of scientists agree. What we cannot be 100% sure of is what exactly are the main causes, natural, man. With a warming world, you will see changes you listed. It is just not certain how much man is contributing.

And I will ask you, where are all the skeptics' mansions and expensive cars since according to you and gcaveman1, they only do it for the money.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34378 Feb 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Give us the name of the website where you found these grant amounts.
The figures I've seen were a lot lower.
And, are you under the intellectually deficient illusion that all those millions go directly into the pockets of the lead author without him actually doing anything? Are you aware that grant recipients must account for their expenditures?
As for the straw men Koch brothers and G. Soros, the difference is in morality. I doubt you'd understand, but giving away money to protect your own interests is not the same as giving away money to improve the lot of mankind. That the difference, my dear Watson.
Michael Mann grants:

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/02/manns-ma...

George Soros is protecting his worldwide interests. I really don't like having any billionaires. no matter party affiliation, determining who is in our government.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34379 Feb 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Michael Mann grants:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/02/manns-ma...
George Soros is protecting his worldwide interests. I really don't like having any billionaires. no matter party affiliation, determining who is in our government.
Yep, scientists get money for research.

Most of this gets spent on facilities, equipment and staff.

It doesn't go into the pocket of the researcher.

There are rules to say it can't.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ta...

You evil slander is reality free- a lie.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34380 Feb 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, scientists get money for research.
Most of this gets spent on facilities, equipment and staff.
It doesn't go into the pocket of the researcher.
There are rules to say it can't.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ta...
You evil slander is reality free- a lie.
In this post, I was saying that I didn't like billionaires, such as the Koch Brothers or George Soros pouring money into our political process and directing policy and who they want in our government based on what each of them believes. It makes it harder for the average person who really wants to help our country win any kind of election.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34381 Feb 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, scientists get money for research.
Most of this gets spent on facilities, equipment and staff.
It doesn't go into the pocket of the researcher.
There are rules to say it can't.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ta...
You evil slander is reality free- a lie.
BTW, I had only posted the Michael Mann grant money because someone had asked for the link. I didn't mean Mann was making money off the grants.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34382 Feb 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
... Soros is pretty equal with the Koch Brothers in funding policies they believe in. Soros' Open Society Institute is bigger than ALEC and funds all kinds of political activism.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opens...
So you are calling Ljundqvist a denier. How does one get that label? Just by getting a peer-reviewed paper published that doesn't agree with the "settled science?" The 1880-1960 period was the calibration period. If there is a problem with this paper, then let someone write a peer-review paper and they can duke it out. Don't just dismiss him as a denier because you don't like the results. It makes you sound anti-science and that you don't like anyone actually putting out new information.
We do know that the earth is warming. I would say 100% of scientists agree. What we cannot be 100% sure of is what exactly are the main causes, natural, man. With a warming world, you will see changes you listed. It is just not certain how much man is contributing.
And I will ask you, where are all the skeptics' mansions and expensive cars since according to you and gcaveman1, they only do it for the money.
It's pure bovine excrement that Soros spends more than the Koch brothers. ALEC controls half the legislatures in the country. They write legislation. The 2 richest Koch brothers (there are 2 more that are also multi-billionaires in their own right) themselves have more than twice as much money as the entire Soros family, including children etc.

They are behind the voter ID laws that exclude Democrats, the stand your ground gun laws, the anti-union stances of several States, the recent attempt to change the way States assign electoral votes, & on & on. If there's been an attempt to radically change laws to the disadvantage of Demos, it's been backed by ALEC.

And as caveman said, there's a difference between backing mainly self-serving changes like the Koch brothers, rather than things that benefit many, like the Soros family.

As I tried to say in my last post, perhaps I shouldn't have called Ljundqvist a "denier" per se, but rather someone who isn't focused on recent data. If he calls 1880-1960 the "current" era, fine, lots of geologists would think that way, they're focused on much longer time periods. But it omits recent climate science, which has shown marked warming that began in 1975.

The natural forcings of climate are better understood all the time, & they have been excluded from causing the recent warming. Solar activity has actually fallen slightly, yet still we're warming.

When former skeptic Richard Muller started his Berkeley study, partially funded by the Koch brothers, Anthony Watts said he would believe Muller, regardless of the results.

What happened? Muller said current warming was 100% anthropogenic. His data is wide open on the internet for all to see & criticize, & if anyone doesn't like his methods, he's open to looking again.

Yet Watts SUDDENLY says Muller is wrong. OK, prove it. His data & methods are accessible, find the problems.

Some deniers have done very well financially. Christopher Monckton does quite well based on nothing but lies & publicity stunts. Of course most people will carefully hide their oil money.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34383 Feb 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, I had only posted the Michael Mann grant money because someone had asked for the link. I didn't mean Mann was making money off the grants.
Well, if you weren't implying any shenanigans, what did you mean by posting this?

"Michael Mann alone has received grants totally 6 million over the last 13 years, 3 million of that in the last 3 years alone and most of that from the stimulus. Phil Jones has received 19 million over 6 years."

White man speak with forked tongue?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34384 Feb 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
First: WWF and Greenpeace receiving funds from Rockefeller Foundation.
http://www.verumserum.com/...
Debt for nature swaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-for-nature_...
In a commercial debt-for-nature swap or three-party debt-for-nature swap, a non-governmental organization (NGO) acts as the funder/donor and purchases debt titles from commercial banks on the secondary market. Since the late 1980s, organizations such as Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund have participated in international debt-for-nature swaps. The NGO transfers the debt title to the debtor country, and in exchange the country agrees to either enact certain environmental policies or endow a government bond in the name of a conservation organization, with the aim of funding conservation programs.In total, recorded third-party debt-for-nature swaps have generated nearly US$140 million in conservation funding from 1987-2010.
To answer your longstanding question, you all are the ones stating that skeptics are funded by big oil money. I'm only pointing out that the AGW side is very heavily funded by many entitites especially governments run by humans who can also be corrupt and greedy. And yes, I understand that grants pay for everything and have to be accounted for, yet you don’t seem to apply that same reasoning to scientists who get grants and their papers don’t come to the same conclusion as Mann or Jones. You all are the ones stating that those who are skeptics are only doing it for the money. Can you show me the mansions and expensive cars of Roy Spencer, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, etc.
Climategate is a whistle-blower situation.
Please list the 97% of scientists who believe man is responsible for the Earth warming.
The known science is that the Earth is warming; still debating the effects of man and natural forces even though the anti-science crowd would like that to stop.
First: Is the Rockefeller Foundation the same as the UN?

Tell us what is evil about debt for nature swaps.

My long standing question is for proof that AGW-accepting scientists are getting rich. That's the unsubstantiated claim made by your side. I don't think that we have ever claimed that denier scientist fakers were getting rich, only that they produce the results their puppetmasters desire. It's possible that they are such bad or sloppy researchers that oil/coal grant money is all they can get.

Climategate was judged to be an overblown panic in the press, according to at least four independent reviews.

Wiki:

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.(This is where the 97% number comes from.)

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found that as of 2007 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believe human-induced warming was occurring....

The known science is that the Earth is warming; still debating the effects of man and natural forces even though the anti-science crowd would like that to stop.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 40 min Obama is a joke 1,406,198
Cure For Prescription Drug Addiction ! 2 hr Not True 2
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Dr Guru 219,774
Frank Underwood Here: I Could Sure Use Some Hel... 3 hr Claire Underwood 9
last post wins! (Apr '13) 3 hr Retired SOF 1,272
News 15 Wounded In Tuesday Shootings Across Chicago 3 hr Resident 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr PEllen 103,167

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages