FUELING CONTROVERSY: Koch Industries is the primary sponsor of the "climate denial machine," according to a Greenpeace report.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/Trawick-Images
Greenpeace is accusing one of the nation's largest conglomerates of sowing confusion around scientific assertions behind climate change, a broadside that comes amid waning public engagement on human-caused emissions.
Koch Industries, a sprawling private corporation based in Wichita, Kan., and run by two brothers, is the primary sponsor of the "climate denial machine," the environmental group asserts in a 44-page report.
A company spokeswoman said Greenpeace is mischaracterizing Koch's efforts to facilitate "an open and honest airing of all sides" on the climate debate.
Koch subsidiaries own refineries, oil pipelines, fertilizer facilities, coal and cement transportation systems, and other industrial operations. The company also has several foundations through which it gave $24.9 million to conservative groups between 2005 and 2008, the report says.
"The combination of foundation-funded front-groups, big lobbying budgets, [political action committee] donations, and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the U.S.," Greenpeace says.
The group calls Koch the "financial kingpin of climate science denial," saying the brothers, Charles and David Koch, who jointly own 84 percent of the company, have replaced Exxon Mobil Corp. as the leader in stirring controversy around climate conclusions.
Greenpeace portrays the company's efforts as a secret campaign to keep climate doubts pinging around an "echo chamber" that includes groups like the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.
Koch-funded groups have developed "junk science" asserting that polar bears are not threatened by climate-induced melting of Arctic sea ice, promoted the notion that climate scientists are suppressing alternative findings, and financed studies that misinform the public on renewable energy benefits, Greenpeace says.
Company embraces 'sound science'
The company appears willing to embrace its controversial viewpoints. It notes on its Web site that several theories exist in the debate around climate change, including the idea that Earth is "entering a cooling period."
"We believe the political response to climate issues should be based on sound science," the company spokeswoman, Melissa Cohlmia, responded by e-mail. "Both a free society and the scientific method require an open and honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We've strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases."
The company is taking its message to Congress. Oil and gas sector lobbying has more than tripled since 2004, reaching $168.3 million last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Koch spent $12.3 million on lobbyists in 2009, ranking it fifth behind Exxon, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co. and BP PLC.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, have increased their lobbying expenditures fourfold during that same period, spending $22.5 million last year. Greenpeace spent $46,291 on lobbyists in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Koch brothers are devoted to "free market" solutions, and they've been deeply involved in the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, which received more than $1 million from Koch Industries since 2005, according to Greenpeace.
Cato's ecological climatologist, Patrick Michaels, a critic of mainstream assertions around global warming, appeared in more than 20 media interviews within two weeks of the "Climategate" e-mail breach at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, the report says. Michaels has called the CRU scientists a "mob" that has worked to bias climate science to support warming conclusions.
See what we're tweeting about
85 Comments
Add CommentWhat an easy job they have too; there are so many unenlightened constituents willing to help there cause for free. The rise of the couch potato denialist! Of coarse eventually science will win, it always wins, but by that time it may be too late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat an easy job they have too; there are so many unenlightened constituents willing to help there cause for free. The rise of the couch potato denialist! Of coarse eventually science will win, it always wins, but by that time it may be too late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf someone really believes in "free market" solutions, and libertarianism, I mean really believes in a free market to solve most or all problems, then why be a denialist at all? It is inconvenient? If you really believe in a free market solution let it do the solving; stop trying to artificially help it out. Scientific research supports the climate change theory so that should be an opportunity in a free market not the condemnation of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery good point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen companies like Exxon throw out employed environmental technicians under armed threat for having dared look at effluent discharges in the public domain, it is not surprising that they act unethically in everything to do with the environment!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate Gate - Anti-Climactic result:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/31/climate-gate-inquiry-largely-clears-scientists/?test=latestnews
There seems to be a tactic in use now that involves the raising of ones voice - or virtual voices in the case of the internet. Shout loud enough and long enough and your opinion will be regarded as a valid alternate point of view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe see this with evolution and climate change - as well as various other political subjects.
Some political and policy matters may not have a solid factual basis, which allows the "alternate" points of view to persist. Science has observation, data, repetition and verification - and its validity should become clear - eventually.
However there are still people that believe in a flat earth or that humans and dinosaurs existed together, despite "facts" to the contrary. If a wealthy and powerful person/group really wanted to "put out" such a message it is hard to stop the message from being heard.
It's true, too many people think the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaurs walked around with cavemen. Until the mentality of the public changes, science is doomed to be dragged through the trenches like policits and faith. Until people distinguish between science and belief, you will get bogus stories like this supported by politicians and the public alike.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskrohleder, Many people believe in free market solutions. But not the natural climate change deniers. Most of them think the government has to step in and force behavior changes by the people, levy excessive taxes on traditional energy sources while heavily subsidizing alternative energy sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreenpeace is going after the wrong people. Junk science (e.g., the Himalayan ice sheets will all melt by 2035 and statistical manipulation to hide results that don't conform to AGW) and climate scientists suppressing alternative viewpoints as we found out in the e-mails have hurt the "cause" more than Koch ever could.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere appears to be little true science behind AGW. There is no such thing as scientific consensus (I have never heard of scientists ever voting on any scientific theory). All these inconvenient facts hurt the "cause". There are lots of scientists that disagree with AGW.
In the end science will win out but only when true scientists can subject their data and methodologies to true peer reviews. Claiming a model is unassailable when the model is not reviewable, or that data has been lost just doesn't cut it. Getting the junk out of climate science would be a good step in the right direction.
Further case evidence that the greed of a few will ruin the lives of the many.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least they'll make their millions in the short term.
I wonder if any eco-terrorists are thinking of paying those brothers a visit any time soon? Wouldn't surprise me.
Candide, do you honestly think that stolen email constitute scientific evidence, supported by FOX?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists debate each other all the time in their systematic efforts to find the truth.
FOX News: Unfair and unbalanced, as always... Too bad they didn't stay in the entertainment industry, they do make really great movies...
Please read the story - the scientists were VINDICATED.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven FOX (unfair, unbalanced) publishes that there is no conspiracy.
Publishes, yes, because it will attrack readers on their website, but Fox News would never air that on TV, which goes against the viewer base.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@RDH (Real Dumb Human ?) -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There appears to be little true science behind AGW. "
- uh, only many decades worth. Of course if you don;t LOOK or if you have a BIAS ahead of time it can appear differently.
"There is no such thing as scientific consensus"
Really? Are you a scientist (I bet not)? Consensus starts with peer review and builds from there. Not a vote in the political way.
I just had to post this link, you must look at this if you're interested in "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic": http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the link, good article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever there are, IMO, several types of skeptics/deniers:
- True skeptic. Thinks maybe the earth is warming but maybe the cause can be wholly or partially not due to mans activities. Is mostly willing to listen and perhaps change their mind given enough data and cogent arguments.
- Deniers 1. Think the science is faulty, quote mainly non-scientific sources for opposing views. Their opinion rarely changes, despite facts and arguments.
- "Big Lie" deniers. These people say that the earth is not warming, but is, in fact, getting cooler. They point to the weather(not climate) in their backyard as "proof." All facts to the contrary are part of some massive conspiracy (to which they are not privy). These people (like Sen. Inhofe) tend to be religious in their belief and it is virtually impossible for them to change their mind.
Now, some of the deniers talk about "alarmist" believers, and (unfortunately) they do have a point. Some people just join in and go too far, when they do not really know any facts or details. Unfortunately a few of these people give the Big Lie Deniers something to bloviate about. Just because some people ARE like that does not change the facts or data and does not diminish the reasonable people and scientists that are working to quantify what is happening with our one and only atmosphere.
Regardless the earth will do as it wants (I know, anthropomorphizing again...) and the result will be absolutely clear to all - eventually.
Sad to see so much attention given to the Koch brothers and their 'conservative' causes. Their father was a big figure in the John Birch Society, and the brothers have continued the family tradition of wild conspiracy theories. The CATO institute is still whipping the dead horse of the hacked email 'scandal', even though every real review of those emails has shown that there's no scandal there at all. Truth is no object when you're defending an ideology and a (fossil fuel) bottom line. These people are the same groups and individuals who denied the health effects of tobacco too. As for subsidies-- all I want is the real costs of fossil fuels to be included in their price. Subsidies for green energy are trivial (compare the huge efforts to fund nuclear energy-- still too expensive to build, instead of too cheap to meter, as promised) But the massive subsidies and externalities that fossil fuel companies (and users) profit from are a threat to any action that might protect the climate we all depend on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do think the Earth is warming, but does anyone know who funds Climatewire?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I dothink the Earth is warming, but does anyone know who funds Climatewire?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy subscription to Scientific American.
The thing may be as follows: oil was used mainly for industrial purposes, then they discovered that gasoline, formerly useless, was worth for engines, and the market of energy for transport expanded, now being more than 50% of USA energy consumption. Low taxation on gasoline gave the oil companies the sole opportunity to increase their profits by increasing the volume of sales, and big size cars were preferred as cost of fuel was not too high, and they are comfortable to drive. Currently the USA is importing the surplus of gasoline Europe produces, as many vehicles there use Diesel, and any measure that will sharply reduce transport and housing energy use will reduce oil companies revenues, putting some of them in an starvation way, an scenario that arouses all the elementary self-preservation instincts of oil industry management. President Bush stated that energy savings and climate warming countermeasures will rely on technology advances, but technological advances require the investment of capital, and energy and transport industries have a shortness of funds when the market is in a low activity situation, even when prices to the consumers do not reflect the reduction of commodities price in origin, and people in an unstable income situation do not tend to expend vary much on energy saving measures, evenmore when the cost of energy has been reduced -for a while, I add, as it happened not too long ago-. A possible stimulus to the introduction of energy saving technologies would be tax reductions for these things, but this will increase the government debt, forcing to emit bonds or other public financing ways, putting the economy, and thus the descendants of current citizens in a debt position, making real the president Thomas Jefferson nightmare of people having to pay a rent to the banks for their own home, as banks become owners of everything by the alternate situation of recession and inflation. A big part of USA debt is on Chinese government hands, but even when somebody from the Federal Reserve said after a chinese spoke of claiming the payment of the debt, as USA did to Germany in the 20's, nearly putting them into bankrupt, as they were in recession and hyperinflation , the Fed man said that they had wonderful machines to print any amount of banknotes . It's funny, but as long as the amount of currency reflects some kind of correlation with production of goods and services, those comments are nothing but jokes. Somebody buys debt, so they have money , and it can come from nothing but from our pockets
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile Koch is a big one they are minor compared to big oil. I actually worked for Koch building one of his Maxi 80' racing sailboats.
In the 70-now big oil has hired PR firms to fake Eco groups and put out bull like batteries pollute, kill despite the fact that cars have many times more of them than EV's ever did with little problems because they are the most recycled material on the earth % wise with 99% recycled. I use to get all RE releases on EV's and was easy to spot them.
Plus most of the bull about ethanol was produced by them like their bought and paid for flack, Prof. Pimental who selectively used data, mostly old to make ethanol look bad.
I drive EV's ever day at 25% of the cost of an ICE so Koch, Big oil needs to worry as once the truth comes out they are screwed.
Ans Nissan just said they are selling the Leaf for $25k after rebate is the starting salvo of the EV revolution.
RDH: Sorry mate you got it wrong, Science is not about a consensus view, it is about the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consensus view of peptic ulcers was stress caused them and the only treatment - surgery - cut out huge portions of the stomach. Today we take a two week antibiotic course and eliminate Helicobacter pylori, which is also the only known pathogen to cause cancer. In the early 1980s when two Perth scientists claimed Helicobacter caused ulcers the consensus view was, they were mad.
When it comes to the climate, the massive homo sapien population drives rapid climate change, it does so by reducing biodiversity. Human activities have brought on the sixth extinction, it is progressing faster than the fifth and after it runs it course, the planet will restore itself as a warehouse of life which it keeps exporting across the galaxy.
Is this the same David Koch from the sponsors of NOVA on PBS?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember just a few happy years ago when all unbelievers were accused of being in the employ of the oil companies? If the oil companies had in fact hired all the people writing against it in forums like this our unemployment problems would be over. After the Big Lie failed we've mostly moved on to ad hominum attacks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Remember just a few happy years ago when all unbelievers were accused of being in the employ of the oil companies?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never made that accusation. I have always been of the opinion that likes of you and all the other anti-science types merely swallow the industry propaganda without a hint of skepticism. In other words, you are doing their work for them, for free. I am sure the boys in the board room are happy for the all the free labor. Maybe they will send an official "Atta Boy" certificate.
"After the Big Lie failed we've mostly moved on to ad hominum attacks."
That you think science is waged in the court of public opinion tells me all I need to know about your level of ignorance.
Greenpeace and Kochtopus are BOTH guilty of "sowing confusion around scientific assertions behind climate change". The Koch brothers did not engage in unbiased research to decide what thier policy should be vis-a-vis the environment and for the most part, neither did Greenpeace. In both cases their views and conclusions came first, and the science came afterward as a tool to promote their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo doubt humans have and will continue to influence the climate. The task of figuring out what to do about it will not be made easier by the shrill voices of propagandists of both the right and the left. Today President Obama managed to infuriate both Koch and Greenpeace with a single initiative. We need more of that.
That is America. Zionist media can make anyone guilty or put in the axis of evil and then shove that down the throat of public. Americans should better get their act together to root out Israeli agents who run their media empire and prpagate the falsehood as the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1st, calling Koch Industries one of the nation's largest conglomerates is certainly deceptive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen people who believe in the theory of AGW; and I define AGW as (1) the belief that human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere as being the major or sole cause of a warming planet, and (2) that warming a planet is bad for humanity overall) classify people who do not support the theory as "denialist", or religious, or conservative it is prejudiced.
Candide- you point out that a scientist who supports AGW theory was investigated and found to have not tampered with the data. That is news, but it does nothing to validate (or refute) the basic theory. By the way I think you other post was well stated and reasonable.
Regarding point (1) of AGW theory- science continues to gather more data. The article shows that if 100% of human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere was eliminated, it would only reduce the total release of CO2 by 10%. This certainly should give those who believe in AGW something that may shake their current belief.
Regarding point #2 - Even the strongest (rational) supporters of AGW theory agree that we do not currently understand what a warmer planet would be like in specific areas of the planet, so we can not currently determine the overall negative or positive effect of the change (a warmer planet.) Yes, change can be traumatic to those affected, but that does not mean there were not also positive benefits, or that change was not eventually going to happen in any case.
In the United States, it is interesting that we do not hear AGW supports pushing harder for vast, immediate construction of new power plants that would help eliminate the countries need to use as much oil and be cleaner at the same time. At the end of the day that is what is needed.
woops....forgot to paste the link
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soils-emit-carbon-dioxide
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to introduce you to the phenomena known as the Suess Effect. This is how we know that humanity has increases CO2 levels by 38% since the Industrial Revolution.
Suess Effect:
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/2009/05/suess-effect.html
A prediction made in the 1950's by Hans Suess and observed to be happening.
"The article shows that if 100% of human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere was eliminated, it would only reduce the total release of CO2 by 10%."
Where does your link say this?
"When people who believe in the theory of AGW; and I define AGW as (1) the belief that human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere as being the major or sole cause of a warming planet,..."
How about you try using a definition used by the scientist themselves, instead of making up a strawman definition?
"..and (2) that warming a planet is bad for humanity overall)"
I am sure future that future scuba diving enthusiast will appreciate all the new and neat former cities to dive on, but I am not sure that "benefit" out weighs having our current coastlines.
"...classify people who do not support the theory as "denialist", or religious, or conservative it is prejudiced."
If you DENY the vast amount of empirical observations that supports AGW then you are a Denier.
If you think that for over a century geophysicists have been plotting in cahoots with socialist to wreck capitalism then you are a DENIALIST and a conspiracy kook to boot.
See it is not mean so much as an epithet, but as a accurate description of irrational behavior. Reality: It matters.
There are lots of scientists that disagree? The recent University of Chicago survey found that more than 97% of climatologists supported AGW. Of the other 2-3%, a good number of them no doubt simply did not agree with the wording that AGW was "significant," or that the wording was too ambiguous to support. It is reasonable to assume that the percentage of climatologists who do not support AGW is less than 2%, and of those not funded directly by vested interests, less than 1%. Those are the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are lots of scientists that disagree? The recent University of Chicago survey found that more than 97% of climatologists supported AGW. Of the other 2-3%, a good number of them no doubt simply did not agree with the wording that AGW was "significant," or that the wording was too ambiguous to support. It is reasonable to assume that the percentage of climatologists who do not support AGW is less than 2%, and of those not funded directly by vested interests, less than 1%. Those are the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere do we get contrary to Greenie-Weenies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom your own F'n emails. You are snarky, lying, cheating, and would be thieving academic fakes.
Quinn the Eskimo: From your own F'n emails. You are snarky, lying, cheating, and would be thieving academic fakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it not amazing how much propaganda one guy can spout in a single sentence?
@trent1492- I would not argue that humans are not increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. We certainly are doing so. The question is what impact that increase is having on the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the link that pointed out the amount of carbon being released from soils- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soils-emit-carbon-dioxide
I quote from that article- "The researchers found that soil respiration had increased by about 0.1 percent per year between 1989 and 2008, the span when soil measurement techniques had become standardized. In 2008, the global total reached roughly 98 billion tons, about 10 times more carbon than humans are now putting into the atmosphere each year."
Regarding your point- How about you try using a definition used by the scientist themselves, instead of making up a strawman definition? The definition I posted "the belief that human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere as being the major or sole cause of a warming planet" IS consistent with wit what most on this site, and many other AGW alarmists believe. If you go with the definition: "the belief that human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere as being one of the causes of a warming planet" - I would agree
Regarding your statement- "I am sure future that future scuba diving enthusiast will appreciate all the new and neat former cities to dive on, but I am not sure that "benefit" out weighs having our current coastlines." Sorry, but that is simply a stupid statement. The amount of sea level rise certainly does not support the degree of fear that you are attempting to generate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/nsidc-confirms-wuwt-ice-forecast/
On a long term basis, sea levels will undoubtedly rise regardless of human actions. Sea levels are currently near to the all time historic low levels and have been as much as 3000 inches higher than they are today. Please look at 500M years of sea level data from two completed different sources.
Your statement -- If you DENY the vast amount of empirical observations that supports AGW then you are a Denier. So you simply wish to apply prejudicial labels to those that do not agree with your conclusions. The "vast amount of empirical observations" you reference is really not vast at all when considering the complex issue of climate change. There is data that the world has gotten somewhat warmer. There is data that carbon in the atmosphere has increased. There is not ANY data that excludes other potential causes, and as we learn more (look back again at ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soils-emit-carbon-dioxide ) and you will clearly see that there are other causes and those who believe in AGW, by any definition; should stop the stupid name calling. You apprear to be on "thin ice" in supporting your basic premise. LOL, couldn't resist the pun.
Part 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Sisko
Sisko says: I would not argue that humans are not increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. We certainly are doing so. The question is what impact that increase is having on the environment.
Considering that we are OBSERVING those impacts and that the physics predicts even more impacts I think that it safe to conclude that you are just not that familiar with the science.
Quote from that article- "The researchers found that soil respiration had increased by about 0.1 percent per year between 1989 and 2008, the span when soil measurement techniques had become standardized. In 2008, the global total reached roughly 98 billion tons, about 10 times more carbon than humans are now putting into the atmosphere each year."
Yes, and nowhere in that quote does it say or can you deduce what you asserted in your last post. Which is:
Sisko' s Prior Post: The article shows that if 100% of human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere was eliminated, it would only reduce the total release of CO2 by 10%. This certainly should give those who believe in AGW something that may shake their current belief.
Your quotation does not support your assertion. Are you even slightly aware that humans have increased the CO2 levels by 38%? That figure is not a guess but is the result of isotopic analysis.
Sisko says:Regarding your point- The definition I posted "the belief that human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere as being the major or sole cause of a warming planet"
I have this crazy idea. How about we see how atmospheric scientist themselves define it:
Climate change Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climatechange may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’.
Source IPCC Glossary Page 943.
Funny how your definition bare almost nothing at all to what it is actually defined.
Part 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: "I am sure future that future scuba diving enthusiast will appreciate all the new and neat former cities to dive on, but I am not sure that "benefit" out
weighs having our current coastlines."
Sisko Says: Sorry, but that is simply a stupid statement. The amount of sea level rise certainly does not support the degree of fear that you are attempting to generate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/nsidc-confirms-wuwt-ice-forecast/
Speaking of dumbness: Are you even slightly aware that SEA ICE area has nothing what so ever to do with sea LEVEL rise? This something that you should have learned in elementary school. The blog post you linked too is discussing ARCTIC SEA ICE; I got to say rather incompetently too.
As in it confuses natural variability with TREND and can not accurately interpret what the National Sea Ice Data Center is actually saying. Pro tip for you: If the NSIDC says that the maximum of sea ice extent is 1 million square kilometers. Then that means that sea ice extent is below 1 million square kilometers. Sheesh
Sisko Says: On a long term basis, sea levels will undoubtedly rise regardless of human actions. Sea levels are currently near to the all time historic low levels and have been as much as 3000 inches higher than they are today. Please look at 500M years of sea level data from two completed different sources.
Please explain to me how the fact that sea level has risen in the past means that humans can not be responsible for sea level rising NOW? You do understand that the same phenomena can have more than one cause?
Sisko Blubbers: Your statement -- If you DENY the vast amount of empirical observations that supports AGW then you are a Denier. So you simply wish to apply prejudicial labels to those that do not agree with your conclusions.
It is a simple description that is accurate. Robbery makes one a robber and a criminal. That those nouns are prejudicial is irrelevant to the accuracy.
Do not want to be called a Denier? Then simply stop spouting Exxon-Mobil and Koch Industry lies and stick to what the professional scientist are actually saying. That you find credibility in blogs by weather presenters rather than geophysicists is more telling about your ideological block headiness than it is about the science.
@trent1492-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease take another look at the link and do the math. Based on the report of increasing CO2 emissions from the Earth's soil; if all of humanity's CO2 emissions were immediately eliminated, (around 10B annual tons would eliminated from the atmosphere), that is still only 10% of the emissions of the soil, and therefore 90% of the carbon will continue to be released completely independent of any human actions.
Whatever other emissions would continue over the 98B tons from the soil, it seems the reduction in annual emissions would be a small fraction of total annual atmospheric CO2 emissions.
Climate models can not currently determine at what rate global warming would be reduced if humanity's contribution to CO2 were eliminated? Would the annual temperature begin to cool?
You wrote- "Are you even slightly aware that humans have increased the CO2 levels by 38%? That figure is not a guess but is the result of isotopic analysis."
Can you site the source of this conclusion? I would like to understand how it was arrived at. If it assumed that any change in atmospheric carbon levels were due to humans, then the base assumptions would have been incorrect.
Regarding the definition of AGW vs. Climate Change- I never tried to define climate change. I do not claim to be the foremost expert on climate change. I am an engineer who has tried to read extensively on the subject, so I believe I am reasonably well informed on the issue.
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko Says:Please take another look at the link and do the math. Based on the report of increasing CO2 emissions from the Earth's soil; if all of humanity's CO2 emissions were immediately eliminated, (around 10B annual tons would eliminated from the atmosphere), that is still only 10% of the emissions of the soil, and therefore 90% of the carbon will continue to be released completely independent of any human actions.
Today's keyword is: Accumulation.If you add even a small amount beyond what the normal amount of CO2 being added is then you will a NET increase. Our CO2 levels began to climb at the start of the Industrial Revolution and have been
growing since.
I got a stunner for you. Humanity does not add even 10% of co2 levels on a ANNUAL basis. It puts into the atmosphere about 3% a year and 60% of that is reabsorbed by terrestrial systems. So in fact humanity adds a little over 1% of the total CO2 levels to atmosphere.
Yet those of us with basic math skills recognize this a NET ACCUMULATION. A calculation that can observed by the declining c13/14 levels in the atmosphere. Remember the Suess Effect?
"Climate models can not currently determine at what rate global warming would be reduced if humanity's contribution to CO2 were eliminated? Would the annual temperature begin to cool?"
Citation. Peer reviewed journal only please. Tell me, since humanity IS increasing CO2 levels then halting that increase will not halt a temperature rise, why? Your whole argument seems is one of personal ignorance.
Trent: Are you even slightly aware that humans have increased the CO2 levels by 38%? That figure is not a guess but is the result of isotopic analysis.
Sisko: Can you site the source of this conclusion? I would like to understand how it was arrived at. If it assumed that any change in atmospheric carbon levels were due to humans, then the base assumptions would have been incorrect.
I have already given you one link for a source. Do you actually read what I link too? Here allow me to once again link it: Suess Effect:
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/2009/05/suess-effect.html
Empirical Observations of the Suess Effect:
A 1000-year high precision record of δ13C in atmospheric CO2
Tellus B Volume 51 Issue 2, Pages 170 - 193
Isotopic characterisation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions using isotopic and radiocarbon analysis
Google for Links
Physics and Chemistry of The Earth
Volume 21, Issues 5-6, October-December 1996, Pages 483-487 Ocean and Atmosphere.
Their is plenty more on Suess Effect.
Is the amount of anthropogenic CO2 small? Yes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas it created a problem in the atmosphere? Also yes.
This summary comes from from Wikipedia, but sources are cited:
There is a large natural flux of CO2 into and out of the biosphere and oceans. In the pre-industrial era these fluxes were largely in balance. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans. The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the airborne fraction ; this varies for short-term averages but is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.abstract
Presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html
Sisko Says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the definition of AGW vs. Climate Change- I never tried to define climate change.
Take a look at what you said only a few posts back:
When people who believe in the theory of AGW; and I *DEFINE AGW as (1) the belief that human generated carbon being released into the atmosphere as being the major or sole cause of a warming planet, and (2) that warming a planet is bad for humanity overall) classify people who do not support the theory as "denialist", or religious, or conservative it is prejudiced.
* All caps added by author.
Duplicity thy name is Sisko.
"I do not claim to be the foremost expert on climate change. I am an engineer..."
How does your engineering training give you special insights into to the physics of gases and their interaction with Earth's terrestrial systems and the Sun? Why is your word as a Engineer to be taken more seriously than geophysicists trained and published in the field?
who has tried to read extensively on the subject, so I believe I am reasonably well informed on the issue.
"I am an engineer who has tried to read extensively on the subject, so I believe I am reasonably well informed on the issue."
How can anyone take you seriously when you approvingly link to Watts' and have not even heard of the Suess Effect?
I am surprised more people don't seriously consider where the impetus for fervent AGW supporters and deniers comes from (by 'impetus' I mostly mean 'bankroll'). From this article I gather that the oil companies - energy being the largest segment of the world's economy - have much deeper pockets than the green scientists. From the start I would guess that the oil companies have a much higher stake (financially) in perception management of the issue that could affect behaviours of consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used to naively think that the forests and animals have no wallet, so I didn't question the motivations of the scientists; seriously, do we really think that most scientists enter their profession not because of an interest in rationally understanding the world, or do most do it for greed? Some oil men undoubtedly enter their field to help the world, and some are driven by greed. Even if you take greed out of the equation, it is the businessmen who are responsible to their shareholders to increase profit*.
After Climategate (which was portrayed out of context) I do now see that there are also nefarious motivations for supporting AGW: the fear gets media coverage, and they stand to get government funding. And now, they may be bank-rolled by new Green Tech companies* (see above).
My solution: have all the big oil companies buy up Green Tech. Then they win whether consumers buy sustainable or non-sustainable energy. They would get strength in the diversity of their investments. They would have to waste less money on lobbying and public relations because it is a foregone conclusion that we need energy somehow. When big oil owns everything the market place can finally be free to vote without all of the misinformation and conspiracy-theories and capitalism can merrily walk towards whatever direction is most profitable, according to demands of unmolested (in the way of PR) and hopefully, informed consumers.
krohleder:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"but by that time it may be too late."
Too late for WHAT? Exactly?
How about an equally diligent inquiry into who funds climate change alarmism? Meddlesome NGO's, foundations run by unelected progressives, frustrated academic grantsmanship champions, activist government sinecures like Jim Hansen, and opportunistic politicians appear to predominate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Kochs of the world certainly have the first-amendment right to promulgate their views by any legal means. At least they are not attempting to use the police power of the state to compel citizens to cease activities that are presently legal and beneficial. At least the skeptics express their views at their own expense and not on someone else's nickel.
@miner49,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat you can not tell the difference between scientific research and a public relations disinformation campaign absolutely destroys any credibility that you imagined you had.
Does anyone smell yet another liberal-arts slacker who lives in his parents' basement, and has never produced any useful goods or services?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell that, I'm sure, would give SciAm an excuse to do an article centered on themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't good, prudent scientists give a fair look to all sides of a question? Especially when it's an unproven theory with billions of dollars and the livelihood of the western world at stake?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That you can not tell the difference between scientific research and a public relations disinformation campaign absolutely destroys any credibility that you imagined you had."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes that apply to Al Gore/An Inconvenient Truth and his hockey stick? Or will you try to argue that the documentary film had NO public relation value at all?
Sisko -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Even the strongest (rational) supporters of AGW theory agree that we do not currently understand what a warmer planet would be like in specific areas of the planet"
- Of course not. Climate models and scientific consensus are general in this field and educated guesses at best. Educated yes, but non-specific. However we can know something will be bad without details. A world without potable water would be bad, the specifics of how that would play out do not need to be known to understand that. Setting ones hair on fire would be very bad - though exactly what would happen does not need to be known... ;)
"...so we can not currently determine the overall negative or positive effect of the change (a warmer planet.) Yes, change can be traumatic to those affected, but that does not mean there were not also positive benefits"
- We cannot determine with specificity ALL effects. Yes, there probably will be a mixed bag, some good with some (many) bad effects - for humans. Humans and most of the life we know survives in a very narrow, on a cosmic scale, temperature range. Too cold or too hot is bad - even if we cannot predict the exact details of why.
Maybe some plants and insects will prosper, good for them. Maybe cold weather animals will be decimated or go extinct (hope we humans do not need them). Humans, in the long term, will probably adapt (unless I am overly optimistic) - but at what cost? We humans survived the black plague when about 30% of the population died, but do we want to do something like that to ourselves IF it can be prevented? Or should we just move ahead full speed (damn the topredoes!) and chalk up whatever happens to a learning event that will ultimately beneift our children 10, 20 or 100 generations from now?
In the short term I think that humans have very limited and selfish goals. Look at any historical econimic collapse. Most people will take a windfall today even if it screws them and their descendents down the road. The major concern I have is that we will only discover that we have created a mess AFTER we have passed a critical and extremely obvious tipping point. Add in latency that could keep the situation moving in a not-favorable direction for many years and it becomes even more important that we act on the side of caution now.
@squish
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a very interesting solution. The problem is green tech is still more expensive than fossil fuel tech. If it were not the case, all the big oil would shift to green tech to be cost competitive. Partially shifting to green tech will make the company less competitive versus wholly fossil tech companies. It might be cheaper to spin lies to perpetuate fossil tech than to buy up green tech companies.
With all the passion, propaganda and possibly lies on both sides of the debate advocates and skeptics, it would be interesting to bet on the issue. For instance, use the IPCC forecast for human CO2 emissions and global temp. in 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, etc. If the actual data match the forecast within the predicted margin of error, advocates win. If not, skeptics win. Since there's persistent claim of scientific consensus, I would imagine the odds are against the skeptics. A 10 to 1 consensus would give a $1 skeptic bet a $10 win. So if I were a climate scientist-advocate, I would make a skeptic bet so if I turned out to be wrong and lose my credibility and my job, at least I would win my retirement fund! LOL
'LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE' published an extensive list of negationist companies and the bogus institutions they fund, complete with the sums involved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe principal source of funds comes from the Exxon Corporation....involving millions of dollars every year. They claim the right to defend shareholder's interests. Yet again the first ammendment of the American constitution guarantees their right to lie...
@ Dahoeb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see you are still repeating the same set of lies. Once again what is up with the Al Gore obsession? Did he reject you as a lover or something?
Hey! Deniers! Why is it you guys never ever acknowledge that Hockey Stick has been replicated in about eleven other studies. Studies that used other different techniques and proxies?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
I wonder why?
lol really? lol Are you going to accuse the British Court of spreading lies too? The same court that identified 11 misleading inaccuracies in an Inconvenient Truth? I must be lying about that too, right? Just another group of deniers I bet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the same hockey stick that was replicated in 11 other studies", yeah, if you all use the same numbers, I'd hope they get the same graph...and you do realize that ice cores show the overall temperature increases are FOLLOWED by co2 increase....weird. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
You did see the email from the IPCC scientist in which he explained how to manipulate the number to exaggerate the effect? Oh, thats another lie....the oil companies faked that hacked email, and paid off the scientist to admit to it.
And how do explain the years of incoherent alarmism, first about global cooling, then global warming, then climate change, then all the hurricanes we were supposed to get that never happened....yet you want everyone to hang on the words and theories of these same people? You're insane. Or a tool. Probably both.
George Soros is both funding the pro-climate change movement, and is betting against the US dollar, while concurrently investing heavily in Petrobras offshore oil drilling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet the connection?!! Some are betting against America, by pushing us into adverse economic actions, and hoping our currency crashes.
I, and millions of others, don't believe mankind can much affect climate. We are NOT funded by Koch or anybody else.
We see environmentalists making money off stimulus, subsidies, and political favors. We see that many green energy devices can't be made without rare earth elements (REE), which are monopolized by China. www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/global/01minerals.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
We see the economics don't exist for cheap green energy, and many others are waking up to that.
We note that ethanol is the most corrosive fuel we've ever created, and that it destroys many small engines www.opei.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1926.
We know America is going bankrupt and the ecopoliticians are accelerating the decline.
@Dahoeb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed that you once again have changed the subject. I think is like the 13th or 14th talking point you have regurgitated. Do you really think that no one notices? However, I am amused by you lies, obfuscations, and general irrationality. So let's take a look at you latest set:
Dahoeb Says: Are you going to accuse the British Court of spreading lies too?
Trent: No. I am accusing you of lying about what the court found. You know in the Age of Google it is pretty difficult to misinform. Case in point: If I go and see what the British Judge actually said I find the following:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
"# I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists. "
How much more clear can you get? The judge found the An Inconvenient Truth to be "broadly accurate" and when he speaks of errors in the film he always says it in quotation marks.
How much more blatant can your lying become?
So more choice selection from the verdict by the judge who FOUND for the DEFENDANT:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"# I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
Got more lies to spread on this subject? I have no doubt you do. Just remember Google is my friend.
Let's take a deep breath--Greenpeace claiming someone has a political agenda is the pot calling the kettle black.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the same hockey stick that was replicated in 11 other studies", yeah, if you all use the same numbers,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvidence? Show me what data sets they ALL used and why those data sets are flawed.
"And you do realize that ice cores show the overall temperature increases are FOLLOWED by co2 increase....weird"
What is this new talking point #18? In the natural world why would you expect the CO2 to suddenly increase without an input in the modern world? Are you at all familiar with Milankocvitch Cycles? Why are so furiously ignorant of these matters?
"You did see the email from the IPCC scientist in which he explained how to manipulate the number to exaggerate the effect?
No and neither have you. Once again you are exaggerating and lying without a blush. I tell you what. How about you produce the E-Mail in full with a link. I just have one question for you?
Why is it you either ignore or do not know the fact that Michael Mann and has been cleared of wrong doing and both reports have found those claims to be without merit? Once again, why do you repeatedly say the same debunked information over and over again?
"And how do explain the years of incoherent alarmism, first about global cooling.."
Tell us all about this Global Cooling alarmism. I do hope you know the difference between a news magazine and peer reviewed journal. You do know that once again your talking point here has been debunked a long time ago?
I am glad and at the same time rather sad you are not getting paid to defend the interest of the fossil fuel industry. I am glad you are getting paid because you are really incompetent. And I am sad because you have clearly bought into the disinformation campaign being waged by fossil fuel industry.
I just want to go on record as supporting global warming. Not the theory. I want the world to warm up and am willing to help in any way possible. I will volunteer to spray paint snow black so it doesn't reflect heat back to space. Just tell me what to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHistory shows that food production is much higher in warmer climate phases. I like food so let us get busy and heat this planet!
historical
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere comes a point - here, now - when argument becomes nothing more than advocacy of an entrenched position. Despite volumes of evidence, those who understand AGW will never convince those who do not, nor change the fallacies promoted by deniers. By regurgitating gasbag talking points, deniers will never alter the perception of climate mavens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe course has been set. Wealth controlled by petroleum will continue to be used to obfuscate the issue of climate change until the last drop of oil has been extracted from the earth. By then, they will all have become "green;" they'll own wind farms and geothermal plants, and maintain their dominance of the energy industry. But the condition of this earth - and the remaining life on it - will look nothing like it does today.
Be glad that you're living now - even you moronic deniers - because lots of problems are coming this way. It's a shame that we've allowed the moronic deniers the opportunity to insure that those problems are many times worse than they would otherwise be.
For a trip down memory lane, I recommend reading Anthony Sampson's "The Seven Sisters", first published in 1975.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it doesn't deal with the past 35 years of oil company activities, it does document the history of the oil companies from the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania to the first energy crisis.
Notable among its discussions is the author's carefully argued opinion that the US government left much middle-east diplomacy in the hands of the major oil companies; more and more so from the end of WWII to October of 1973,when OPEC wrested some power from them.
This book has helped me toward a historically informed perspective on our current energy problems, as influenced by corporate players, governments and environmental groups. I expect you may find a copy on Amazon, or some such.
I expect the situation hasn't greatly changed since 1973. We still have a Jekyll-and-Hyde institutional monster doing middle-east relations. My guess is The State Department does Israel, the oil companies do much of the rest.
An article in the April 1991 edition of Sci Am pointed out the hidden costs of oil.
See
http://www.energystorm.us/The_Real_Cost_Of_Energy-r115622.html
for a quick summary. Your local library may have the back-copy. In a word, the cost of oil is greatly increased by the expense of military "security".
According to Dr Tilman Ruff, a member of the Australian group Medical Association to Prevent War, "[in 1991], the US Department of Defence was estimated, excluding nuclear weapons and space programs, to consume enough petroleum products in one year as were required to run the entire US urban public and private mass transit system for 14 years. This information was from "World Military and Social Expenditures 1991.
Dr Ruff also noted that "An F-16 fighter plane on a training mission lasting less than one hour consumes twice as much fuel as the average motorist does in a year." I assume that fact also relates to 1991.
So the cost of oil is also increased in greenhouse terms, by military involvement with the middle-east oilfields. This looks to me like a vicious circle involving the military, the oil companies and other consumers. I am pleased that Greenpeace has added some transparency to the issue.
"History shows that food production is much higher in warmer climate phases. I like food so let us get busy and heat this planet!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course why did not I think of that? We all know that the Sahara Desert is the bread basket of the word. Like just like we know that waters really do not need such other pesky elements like water.
Perhaps it is time you learned about Liebig's Law of the Minimum.
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/~barak/soilscience326/lawofmin.htm
Tell me you are not a farmer.
@Bucket of Squid,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarn it to heck. My prior post should read:
We all know that the Sahara Desert is the bread basket of the world. Just like we know that plants really do not need such other pesky elements like water.
Perhaps it is time you learned about Liebig's Law of the Minimum.
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/~barak/soilscience326/lawofmin.htm
Tell me you are not a farmer.
Proof reading. It really works.
@ Trenty Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=2
The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:
1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)
2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")
3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future&")
4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years.
5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")
6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)
7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")
8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")
9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.").
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/28/climategates-michael-mann-be-investigated-penn-state#ixzz0kMsAx9tj
Nope, nothing the least bit suspicious about that. The link has a bunch of other very inspiring emails. Just cause they're not criminal doesn't mean theres nothing fishy.
Maybe you didn't see the article from Newsweek or Times talking about global cooling. Go to this link for the actual newsweek document. http://xtronics.com/reference/cooling.pdf
I wouldn't pay much attention to the newsweek article though, I mean, it's not peer reviewed. And I know I sure don't read ANYTHING unless it's peer reviewed. dur dur dur
@Doaheb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou realize I am quoting directly from the judges decision?
You do realize he found for the defendant?
You do realize those "errors" are put in quotation marks?
You do realize that no matter how much you lie the judges decision is there for all to see?
You do realize that Al Gore is not climate science and climate science is not Al Gore?
@Doaheb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us take a look at what the official verdict is on this:
"60. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that
recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat”
method of handling data. "
So much for the that little trick, eh?
Want some more? Yes? Here you go:
“Hide the decline”
66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. "
Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
Admit it Doaheb, you have been had.
"I wouldn't pay much attention to the newsweek article though, I mean, it's not peer reviewed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right. I do not pay attention. I do not pay attention because citing popular press articles from over thirty years ago on the state of the science is stupid.
Now have you ever thought that it might be a good idea to review and survey what the scientist were actually saying in the literature during the 70's? You do? Well, guess what? Some patient and souls has done just that and gotten it published. Let's see what they say:
"The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations."
Page 1331
"During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers."
Page 1333
Source:
The Myth OF The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
American Meteorological Society
September 2008
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1?cookieSet=1
So out of a total number of papers 71 papers, only 7 predicted cooling and those cooling papers tallied only about 12% of the citations. So much for that "global cooling alarmism of the 70's lie."
Now that was regurgitated lie #19. At what point are you going to realize that you are dupe of fossil fuel propaganda?
@ Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI copied and pasted it for you buddy. With links. If you can't understand an article from ABC News (not exactly a bastion of right wing thought) I don't know what to tell you. You can call me a liar till the cows come home, but it's all out there in black and white.
And instead of worrying about as to what Penn State found and cleared from the emails, read them for yourself and make up your own mind. Read them and ask yourself if you'd trust their work to be unbiased and pure. If you disagree with my assessment, then I won't push the point anymore.
I'm not going to sit here and call you a liar, because you seem to believe everything your saying and I'm sure you're doing plenty of copying and pasting like me.
Keep in mind, I never said that global warming/climate change doesn't exist. I'm just skeptical about it's extent and I think there are still other options/factors/possibilities out there. I've heard many a time that even if it does, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. Which leads into my next point.......
Frankly, the more that I hear one side drowned out while the other side promotes the end of the world is coming if we don't impose sweeping changes like increasing taxes and govt influence, I get weary, as most people should. The more someone screams at me that the debate is over, the more I'd like to debate. Wouldn't you do the same if a car salesman tried these tactics on you?
The reason I go after Al Gore is because the man received an Nobel Prize for an Inconvenient Truth, travels around the globe preaching about it and stands to make millions or billions off of the policies he demands that are imposed. http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
He is widely recognized as the leading spokesman for Global Warming. And if the man truly believed that, I don't think it'd take reporters pointing out the hypocrisy in his standard of living to get him to try to reduce his "carbon footprint".
But since neither of us are going to budge, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion on the matter, at least you have some good information to help me better see the other side of the story. Good day to you sir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCBC (Canada) did a documentary 3 years on "The Denial Machine" and how the same "scientists" hired by the tobacco companies to spread doubt about cigarettes causing cancer were hired by the oil and coal companies to do the same about global warming. Does the name Fred S. Singer ring a bell? He will deny anything for a price. In all cases special symposiums were funded by dummy companies linked to PR firm APCO which was hired by tobacco companies and later by coal and oil companies.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811#
@ Doaheb
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I copied and pasted it for you buddy. With links. If you can't understand an article from ABC News (not exactly a bastion of right wing thought) I don't know what to tell you. "
Which part of "I copied and posted the judges decision itself" do you still fail to understand? Which part of the judge finding for the defendant do you not comprehend?
"And instead of worrying about as to what Penn State found and cleared from the emails,..."
What I copied and pasted was NOT from the Penn state inquiry which cleared Michael Mann, but from the parliamentary committee investigation that was held in the U.K. Why is it you can not even get the most basic facts correct?
"Frankly, the more that I hear one side drowned out while the other side promotes the end of the world is coming if we don't impose sweeping changes like increasing taxes and govt influence, I get weary, as most people should. "
Let us get this straight. One side has science and logic the other is a well funded disinformation campaign making every attempt to forestall action so as to increase its revenue stream. You are a prime example of that campaigns dupe.
Your side lies, steals, and obfuscates at every opportunity and sees everything in a political light. Yet, reality is still happening and going to continue to happen no matter how much you close your eyes and tap your ruby red slippers and wish you were back in Kansas. The Laws of Thermodynamics holds true whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or whatever.
@wmroche,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Does the name Fred S. Singer ring a bell? "
It sure does. Fred Singer along with about half-a-dozen others are the same characters who fought for the tobacco companies denying links to tobacco and cancer.
People like Steve Milloy of Junk Science not only have engaged in disinformation about the science behind tobacco and cancer links but also have done the same in regards to the Ozone Hole and DDT. Hell, they have established entire institutes such as the CATO and Marshall Institute to deny a whole sleuth environmental problems.
SECURITY OF SUPPLY:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA MAJOR NEGLECTED FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDY
A.J. Cavallo ~1997
A further interesting item on military "security" and the petrochemical industry. Anyone know of any more recent research available on the internet?
Anyone not see how this topic is relevant to global warming?
Summary
Various groups have attempted to set a monetary value on the externalities (that is, those costs not reflected in the market price) of fossil fuel usage based on damages caused by emissions of particulates, sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen and carbon. One externality that has been neglected in this type of analysis, however, is the cost of maintaining a secure supply of fossil fuel, in particular of petroleum from the Middle East. Military expenditures for this purpose are relatively easy to quantify based on US Department of Defense and Office of Management and Budget figures, and amount to between $1 and more than $3 per million Btu, based on total fossil fuel consumption in the US. (These costs should be compared to the average price of about $2.40 per million Btu paid by US utilities for oil and natural gas[1] in 1993.) Open acknowledgment of such expenses would, at the very least, have a profound effect on the perceived competitiveness of all non-fossil fuel technologies. "
http://www.green-trust.org/securesupply/securesupply.htm
So I can post links from ABC news showing all the inaccuracies that the UK COURT found that you could read yourself...so ABC news must be the new corporation just peddling lies from oil companies? You on the other hand would rather just cover up those inaccuracies. Typical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd instead of reading and interpreting the emails for yourself, you rely on parliament to interpret and read them back to you? Seriously? All I have to say is "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is...".
I talked about the inaccuracies in those bold predictions regarding the Glaciers in the Himalayas. They got that spot on too, right? Oh wait, no, that must be another oil company buy off.
I'm sure thats why India decided they're going to do their own climate studies, separate from the UN.....it's those damn oil companies again....I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with glaring evidence of corruption. After all, what does India know.
If global warming was such a serious, dire, threat, why wouldn't EVERY country jump on board all kinds of strict new regulations? You would think it would be a global consensus, but places like China, Russia, etc. don't seem to be too worried.
You seem to have a hard time admitting that theres a trend stemming back decades indicating POSSIBLE corruption and ulterior motives.
"Your side lies, steals, and obfuscates at every opportunity and sees everything in a political light. Yet, reality is still happening and going to continue to happen no matter how much you close your eyes...."
Ahhh, so the liberal rage comes bursting out. Cute. Somebody studied a little too much science and too little history....poor thing. But I'm sure you think healthcare will really only cost 9.7billion dollars too, right? Afterall, thats what the CBO and government say.
I'll have to get a hold of you when I decide to sell my special magical car......I'll give you a great deal, I swear, you can trust me.
@Doheb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are simply repeating yourself again. In short the same errors and same lies. You do not even know how to engage in argument do you?
I have point out to you that instead of using a intermediary to interpret the judges decision I have simply put up what the judges decision was. The Inconvenient Truth Can and is shown in U.K schools. The plaintiff failed to make his case. Get over it.
"And instead of reading and interpreting the emails for yourself, you rely on parliament to interpret and read them back to you? Seriously? All I have to say is "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is...".
You just did not read any of it did you? It says nothing of the sort. Here it is in point bulletin so even ideologues like your self can understand.
"Michael's Nature trick" refers to the following.
1. Michael is Michael Mann a paleoclimatologist.
2. Nature is the journal Nature. The journal Nature is the journal in which Michael Mann published a study in 1998.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/research/research.html
3. Trick is a common term for a clever short cut in math and science. See for example the Google Scholar search using the word "trick".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=trick&num=100&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=phy&as_subj=chm&as_subj=eng&as_sdts=5&hl=en
See how that works?
"I talked about the inaccuracies in those bold predictions regarding the Glaciers in the Himalayas. They got that spot on too, right? Oh wait, no, that must be another oil company buy off."
Here is the glacial mass index for the world's glaciers. Notice that 92% of glaciers are losing mass. That is an OBSERVATION. Of course I have already cited to you before. Did you think it would go away?
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html
"I'm sure thats why India decided they're going to do their own climate studies, separate from the UN.....it's those damn oil companies again....I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with glaring evidence of corruption. After all, what does India know."
You just have a hard time with reality do you not? Below is a link to a recent commitment by India to cut its CO2 emissions.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE62I1GX.htm
Notice that India is part of that deal.
"If global warming was such a serious, dire, threat, why wouldn't EVERY country jump on board all kinds of strict new regulations?"
Money and politics. You really are that simply.
"Ahhh, so the liberal rage comes bursting out. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRage? I am have fun.
"Somebody studied a little too much science"
That you think that someone can "study too much science" tells me all I need to know.
@ candide,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago.
Smilodon (Sabretooth Tiger) became extinct around 10,000 BC.
It was generally assumed that the last Woolly Mammoths vanished from Europe and Southern Siberia about 10,000 BC, but new findings show that some were still present there about 8,000 BC.
A lot of people think Sabretooth's and Mammoths are dinosaurs, thus the assumption that human's and dinosaurs were around at the same time. Even though technically that's incorrect.
You don't have to be a Bible basher to make this mistake.And what do you mean the Earth's not flat, since when? Doesn't it end just of the edge of the U.S! Lol
@quizzle -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. "
- I guess that depends on the meaning of "MODERN" man.
"A lot of people think Sabretooth's and Mammoths are dinosaurs, thus the assumption that human's and dinosaurs were around at the same time. Even though technically that's incorrect. "
- A "lot of people" can think whatever they want, that does not make it correct or valid.
The "humans and dinosaurs existed together" believers generally are proponents that the Earth is 6,000 years old and was created by a divine being. Even your two statements above are contrary to that.
"And what do you mean the Earth's not flat, since when? Doesn't it end just of the edge of the U.S! "
- Very funny..:) Judging by the poor level of scientific knowledge of the "general public" within the U.S. you may be right - knowledge of the world ends at the edge of the U.S. The would certainly explain some people's warped assessments of CLIMATE change...
I don't care if India is part of a co2 deal. You keep missing my point. My point is that they've decided to start conducting their own studies. You're frantically copying and pasting and researching but you can't grasp such a simple point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat you think that someone can "study too much science"....yeah, because you seem to be a chump, having not learned from past events to help put things into context. You're clearly far too smart for that though.
Like I've said a million times, I'm simply debating the extent and cause of "climate change". I'm not arguing that it's non-existent, but you can't comprehend that either.
But this whole little debate thing is growing tiresome, just going in circles. I still have the big oil websites I have to visit, ya know.
@ Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Money and politics."
But I suppose that only works one way, at least in your little world.
@Doaheb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't care if India is part of a co2 deal."
Doaheb Translated: I really do no care if I am shown information that directly contradicts my fossil fuel talking points.
" My point is that they've decided to start conducting their own studies."
Who has been doing their studies for them? Who? You do realize that by signing on to that agreement they EXPLICTY agree that there is a problem and something needs to be done about it.
"That you think that someone can "study too much science"....yeah, because you seem to be a chump, having not learned from past events to help put things into context. You're clearly far too smart for that though."
You just make less and less sense as time goes by. Do you think no one has noticed your utter silences about your past claims?
You know claims that you have made and shown to be lies? Such as:
The debunked claim about the scientific consensus of a global cooling scare in the 70's
The fraudelent claim that there has been no warmig over the past decade; when in fact it has been the warmest on the instrument record.
The lie that the eleven other studies that confirm the Hockey Stick are all based on the same data.
The idiocy of claiming that Mars and Earth are warming at the rate to spite the fact that the Inverse Square Law makes that impossible.
The moron claim that since warming has occured in the past that humans can not be causing the Earth to warm now. As clear a demonstratioin of Post Hoc reasoning as can be found.
I could go on here but I do want to belabor the point that you are a dupe and a incometent liar for the fossil fuel industry. I think any lurkers will come to that judgement by now.
It all reminds of you WWII. Copenhagen was AGW's Stalingrad. Sure many millions ended up dying later but the war was over. Here you still hear the (leftist this time) fascists writing from the bunker but its over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this