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

Full story: Newsday 47,032
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

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

Oviedo, 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

Oviedo, 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.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#34385 Feb 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
When did you drop out of school?
After all, you could have corrected your spelling and grammar permanently in the intervening years.
Funny thing is, you'd rather blame someone else for your failures.
Actually.
To answer your first question, never. As for my grammer and spelling, many would admit that in the past nine years that it has shown improvement. Can anyone say the same about your posts?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34386 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

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.
We could go on and on...Soros owns have of the legislature and the Koch brothers own the other half. One has a socialist agenda and the other has a conservative agenda.

The BEST paper never made it through peer review and were never published.

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/temperature-data...

Judith Curry, the co-author of the one of the BEST papers refused to sign off the one you are referring to and accused Muller of "hiding the decline" and removed herself from the paper. Here is what she had to say:

Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said.‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said.‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought,“Oh my God”.’ In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.

As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said:‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.‘To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

Al Gore does quite well on a movie that was found riddled with errors and filling his bank account with money from from Big Green and Big Oil.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#34387 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. Actually, in the world of smart phones, it can be difficult to type apostrophes. Since languages simplify their grammar over time, it's possible "your" may become the norm for both words. It'll just upset the traditionalists.
Language including grammer and spelling is always in a state of change. For example, how many times do you see the word thy outside the bible. Even sith the same starting point languages can vary. An example is how here we spell a word like labor one way and the english spell it labour. Or the same thing can have different names such as truck and lorry.

Texting has already introduced new words and changed how we view other words and phrases. Words like sexting for example. I expect your will be replaced with ur in the not to distant future.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34388 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.
Your link shows Jones getting $22.6 million over 19 years. That's about $1.2 million a year.

Mann getting $6 million over 13 years is less than $0.5 million a year.

Take out for equipment, travel, and assistants, and how rich are these guys getting?

Don't try to back up after your claim falls flat. But you guys always have trouble with math.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34389 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.
They're living high on the hog, no matter what you think or say. Our government is ripped off daily, these "scientists" are no different.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34390 Feb 21, 2013
I'd love to see how well these AGW scientists and all the higher ups from failed green energy cos. live, including their cars.

Our government is scammed daily, i see these people as no different.

“obamabot livs”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34391 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Language including grammer and spelling is always in a state of change. For example, how many times do you see the word thy outside the bible. Even sith the same starting point languages can vary. An example is how here we spell a word like labor one way and the english spell it labour. Or the same thing can have different names such as truck and lorry.
Texting has already introduced new words and changed how we view other words and phrases. Words like sexting for example. I expect your will be replaced with ur in the not to distant future.
I've already started, ur welcome to help.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34392 Feb 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I was only pointing out that there is massive money coming from governments to fund climate change and what is the difference between Big Government and Big Oil. They both have agendas.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34393 Feb 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
...Soros owns have of the legislature and the Koch brothers own the other half. One has a socialist agenda....
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/temperature-data...
Judith Curry... refused to sign off the one you are referring to and accused Muller of "hiding the decline" and removed herself from the paper. Here is what she had to say:
Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis...‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said.‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said.‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought,“Oh my God”.’ In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.
As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said:‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline... It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
...
Uh... kristy... Did you actually READ what Judith Curry said? Did you understand it?

What she's saying is that WARMING DID NOT STOP IN 1998, like so many deniers have said. She also says Muller says it did, which is a bit of a distortion.

The only reason anyone can say that is if they use 1998 as the starting year, because there was a very strong El Niño that year. If you "start the clock" that year, then it (falsely) appears there's been no warming since then. Trouble is, if you start the clock any other year, even 1997 or 1999, the warming is obvious again.

Again, Judith Curry is insisting that WARMING IS CONTINUING.

***

It is PURE, UNADULTERATED EQUINE EXCREMENT to suggest that Soros has a TINY FRACTION of the influence the Koch brothers do. You are psychotically detached from reality if you believe Soros has even 10% of their influence.

Do you understand that ALEC WRITES THE LEGISLATION for more than half the State legislatures in the country? They have literally written the majority (or at least a very, very large chunk) of new legislation introduced in the US (at the State level) over the past few years. They are by FAR the most influential political people in the country, dwarfing everyone else COMBINED. Of course they fund the Tea Party - but that's just a tiny part of their empire

Soros, & ALL other Democratic donors COMBINED, are small fries compared to the Kochs. This is not even a question.

And there are no socialists in the Democratic party. There is ONE independent in the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who describes himself as a "democratic socialist" (small-D small-S), but he's the only one.

There is a French Socialist Party, but right now, that's about it. Let me know if I'm missing any. There are very, very few in the US. Socialists believe the government should own the means of production, & I'll lay money you can't find a SINGLE Demo in office who would say that, nor would their policies promote that.

The way lots of righties seem to see it, everyone to the right of the John Birch Society is a commie pinko leftist socialist. Sorry, it ain't so. The Democrats in the Congress & White House, like Al Gore, are dedicated capitalists.(He even said that in an interview recently, BTW.)

Obama is like a solid, moderate Republican from the 50s or 60s.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34394 Feb 21, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're living high on the hog, no matter what you think or say.
No they are not. The law says they can't use research funds to boost their pay.

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

No one can accuse you of thinking.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34396 Feb 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
First: Is the Rockefeller Foundation the same as the UN?
Tell us what is evil about debt for nature swaps.
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. 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
No the Rockefeller Foundation is not the same as the UN. WWF was created by the UN though and actually I was wrong about Greenpeace...they weren't created by the UN. UNESCO is a specialized agency of the UN. In 1948, the Director of UNESCO (Julian Huxley) established the UICN as the environmental arm of UNESCO and Huxley then created the WWF under UICN. There is nothing evil about debt for nature other than we the taxpayers are on the hook and these environmental groups get a lot of land for from countries all over the world, so you know, they can stop things like dams that might help those in poverty get electricity. But my point was in response to a link that stated these environmental organizations operate on a limited budget and I was just pointing out that they don’t. They have lots of money.

This was my original question to this thread:“Just wondering, can politicians, governments, and NGOs who promote AGW be corrupt and greedy or is that only limited to big oil and scientists who are skeptical of AGW?”

So what you are saying is that scientists who publish papers that have results showing man is not the main contributor to global warming, they are then puppet masters of the oil companies. So my question is how come that only works one way? Scientists can’t be puppet masters of governments? Someone stated earlier that governments are broke, yet they continue funding climate science. Governments are looking at ways to fix the financial messes they have made. Having a crisis and taxing brings lots of money into the coffers. So if you can say that big oil is funding science to protect their interests, political leaders in our government also need to protect their interests to keep their power and bring in lots of cash.

As to your survey, yeah, I can’t believe there are 3% of scientists who don’t think the Earth has warmed in the last 100 years. And yes, probably 84% believe man has an impact. What the debate is over is how much man drives climate versus natural forces.

Naomi Oreskes did a study and everyone agrees, because you know, that’s how science works. Once everyone agrees, then you move on and discredit anyone who comes along and questions the settled, no-debate science.

In honor of Naomi and her "merchants of doubt" I will post this from Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt (an expert reviewer from the IPCC) who wrote a book last year called “The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen.” He has this to say:

“The IPCC decision-makers are fighting tooth and nail against accepting the roles of the oceans, sun, and soot.” Accordingly, IPCC models are completely out of whack.“The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.”
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34397 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh... kristy... Did you actually READ what Judith Curry said? Did you understand it?
What she's saying is that WARMING DID NOT STOP IN 1998, like so many deniers have said. She also says Muller says it did, which is a bit of a distortion.
The only reason anyone can say that is if they use 1998 as the starting year, because there was a very strong El Niño that year. If you "start the clock" that year, then it (falsely) appears there's been no warming since then. Trouble is, if you start the clock any other year, even 1997 or 1999, the warming is obvious again.
Again, Judith Curry is insisting that WARMING IS CONTINUING.
***
It is PURE, UNADULTERATED EQUINE EXCREMENT to suggest that Soros has a TINY FRACTION of the influence the Koch brothers do. You are psychotically detached from reality if you believe Soros has even 10% of their influence.
Do you understand that ALEC WRITES THE LEGISLATION for more than half the State legislatures in the country? They have literally written the majority (or at least a very, very large chunk) of new legislation introduced in the US (at the State level) over the past few years. They are by FAR the most influential political people in the country, dwarfing everyone else COMBINED. Of course they fund the Tea Party - but that's just a tiny part of their empire
Soros, & ALL other Democratic donors COMBINED, are small fries compared to the Kochs. This is not even a question.
And there are no socialists in the Democratic party. There is ONE independent in the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who describes himself as a "democratic socialist" (small-D small-S), but he's the only one.
There is a French Socialist Party, but right now, that's about it. Let me know if I'm missing any. There are very, very few in the US. Socialists believe the government should own the means of production, & I'll lay money you can't find a SINGLE Demo in office who would say that, nor would their policies promote that.
The way lots of righties seem to see it, everyone to the right of the John Birch Society is a commie pinko leftist socialist. Sorry, it ain't so. The Democrats in the Congress & White House, like Al Gore, are dedicated capitalists.(He even said that in an interview recently, BTW.)
Obama is like a solid, moderate Republican from the 50s or 60s.
I posted the link to Judith Curry's statements, obviously you didn't look at the link. Judith Curry made the statement,
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said.‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ in response to Muller going to the media and claiming the BEST paper shows that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming CONTINUALLY.

Prof Curry said the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained. She went on to say this graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said.‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

Judith Curry is insisting their data show that warming has stopped.

Since: Mar 09

San Marcos, TX

#34398 Feb 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was only pointing out that there is massive money coming from governments to fund climate change and what is the difference between Big Government and Big Oil. They both have agendas.
Interesting. I didn't know the government was in the business of changing the climate. I was under the impression that they were funding research into climate change.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34399 Feb 22, 2013
When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing, and indeed pushing, climate ‘skepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”

Powell said:


Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Adding:


Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:


His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:


There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Mighty Righty 1,115,362
Amy 10-1 7 min Mister Tonka 9
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 9 min HughBe 69,535
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min LRS 178,608
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 min Toj 98,364
Feel-good news is made near Ferguson 31 min reality is a crutch 1
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 53 min Always Smile 4,050

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]