posted April 01, 2014 08:37 AM            

That the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world cannot lead the way....well it is beyond simply immoral.

quote:

---

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.

Peter Christoff, writing in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.

Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system, the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.

Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral.Numerous authors, including several scholars, say that various conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s, and some, including the National Center for Science Education, consider climate change denial to be a form of pseudoscience.

Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.

---

^That 120 Mill, is since 2010. One would imagine the number is closer to the "B" as in Billion. Reading about the 'profitability' of our man- contributed changing climate on here [LL] makes me a little sick. Hurricane Sandy was a big wake up call to Manhattanites. Being under water tends to do that.
There are Island Countries that are looking into moving. Moving to places like Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

:edit:

quote:

---

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is an American conservative foundation with about half a billion US dollars in assets. According to the Bradley Foundation 1998 Annual Report, it gives away more than $30 million per year. The Foundation has financed efforts to support federal institutes, publications and school choice and educational projects. Since the 1980s and today the Bradley Foundation funds organizations which dismantle environmental regulations and funds educational programs directed to promote US military expenditures and actions. The Bradley for the "environment" foundation funds legal actions to block newly recognized endangered species from being registered.

---

posted April 01, 2014 04:31 PM            

This its the man who designed (c 1930) cars that got 30mpg, parked sideways without turning, went up to 90, and carried 11people. Also the geodesic dome, bathrooms that used next to no water, and other highly efficient solutions to water and fuel shortages.

Like James Lovelock, early warming proponent and scoffer at all our current "solutions"(espevially windmills) he projected that by now it would be to late to do anything to prevent earth changes and overcrowding...and that we would collectively stall until we have no choice...prescient men.

Yes politicians use climate change; yes many of the measures to rein it in are probably futile; neither of those things make the scientists involved"shills"or the problems imaginary. Politicians and fuel-happy oligarchs also manipulate to their own ends.

Even if the sun its the main culprit that doesn't mean we aren't contributing. Like Randall, who says since we can't control volcanoes we might as well not try to control ourselves, the oil and coal barons want to convince us that we need their products more than clan air and water - which they are currently positioning themselves to sell to us at profit in the near future. So they encourage us to continue spoiling our resources (to their profit) so they can sell us the"fix" we will need as a result.

posted April 02, 2014 06:40 AM            

One of the things that became apparent to many newbies watching the search for the
plane...you know that plane the one the
media wet itself over, was the amount of garbage floating around in the ocean.

air has already become a salable commodity.->

posted April 02, 2014 09:08 AM            

There is scientific consensus the earth stopped warming in 1998 while carbon dioxide..CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere continued to rise. Scratch CO2 as the cause of global warming.

There is a consensus that man made global warming is a crock of crap. Of course, you would have to know what the word "consensus"
means to understand why that's a true statement.

31,000 American scientists signed a petition stating their factual disagreement with the Leftist Fruit Loops proponents of the Man Made Global Warming Religion.

I'm still waiting...for years...for that list of Scientists who agree global warming is a man made event. So far, no list, so every time one of the Fruit Loops crowd talks about a "consensus" in favor of man made global warming, you're going to get challenged.

posted April 02, 2014 12:18 PM            

"No one used the word consensus but you, Jwhop. Perhaps you would like to defend it"...Catalina/katatonic

"Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons."

"Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system"

posted April 02, 2014 07:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
Beg pardon I missed that now would you care to defend your contention that there is consensus on the lack of warming the last few years? I agree with you, by the way, that consensus is a poor word choice
when discussing science. But that applies to both sides.

And since the "deniers" are in the pay of private funders many of whom have a horse in the fossil fuel race...and the IPPC are volunteers, perhaps you will also expound on who is the mercenary group?

---

How to dumb things down 101
ala JW
Parse words until the whole point is buried in tar sand.

posted April 03, 2014 08:51 AM            

Notice, notice, notice:

I said a consensus among climate scientists.

No person who refuses to accept actual temperature data as recorded by temperature reporting stations around the earth, refuses to accept actual temperature data as reported by space based satellite reporting stations and/or refuses to accept actual data on ice sheet thickness/density and area of ice coverage at the planetary poles is any kind of scientist at all.

That person is anti-science, anti-scientific method and is...in a word, an ideologue, not a scientist.

Among climate scientists, there is a consensus there has been no global warming in the last 16 years...since 1997.

Even the high priests of the man made global warming religion at the UN IPCC and East Angelia University ADMIT THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING SINCE 1997.

Those who will not submit to the evidence of their own eyes and will not submit to the evidence of actual temperature records from a variety of temperature reporting stations and methods ARE NOT SCIENTISTS AT ALL.

Among real scientists, there is a consensus there has been no warming for the last 16 years...since 1997.

posted April 06, 2014 07:59 AM            

How did someone this delusional, this terminally stupid manage to clean up The Love Canal, invent the Internet and become the inspiration for the movie...Love Story?

Oh wait, none of that's true...except in the delusional mind of Algore.

Algore carried his delusions into Man Made Global Warming. Poor Al, it's not a pretty picture!

Here's Algore blithering, blathering, bloviating and bullshiitting about A MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS

Al Gore..Chairman, Generation Investment Management and The Climate Reality Project
The Costs of Carbon Pollution Are Clear
03/31/2014

The new report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the world's preeminent group of climate scientists -- represents even more definitive evidence of the growing urgency to immediately reduce the spewing of global warming pollution. The atmosphere can no longer be used as an open sewer. The costs of carbon pollution are clear: decreasing crop yields, more destructive storms, the spreading of tropical diseases to temperate latitudes, rising seas, more climate refugees, failures of governance, increasing floods, deepening droughts, more destructive fires and heat waves -- all contributing to the new reality of the global climate crisis. Put together, these factors are already affecting the lives of millions around the world by driving them from their homes, disrupting their livelihoods, and in some cases, further straining destabilized regions.

posted April 22, 2014 10:50 PM            

cow flatulence causes global warming! Cow f@rts cause man made global warming?

Hey, who knew??

But, how about human flatulence? Should we be banning Pinto Beans...staple of Hispanics?

How about Black Eyed peas..main ingredient in Hoppin' John, a staple in the black community??

Where is this nonsense going to wind up? These man made global warming religionists are starting to sound racist!

Does Cow Flatulence Accelerate Global Warming?
4 June 2010

Researchers Discover Cows’ Effect on Climate Change-

posted April 24, 2014 09:37 AM            

Rational conclusion: Carbon Dioxide, CO2 does not cause global warming.

So the man made global warming religionists must find some other cause they can attack and control. We are seeing the opening barrage in the new front in the global warming war.

posted April 24, 2014 09:46 AM            

April 24, 2014
Global Warming and Settled Science
By Andre Lofthus

The AGW community would have you believe that the science in favor of AGW is settled. As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics, I can tell you that, indeed, the science is settled, but not the way the AGW extremists would have you believe. Atmospheric transmission measurements taken in the 1950s demonstrate conclusively that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere cannot be the cause of global warming if global warming even exists.

A basic principle of science is that correlation does not prove causation. Climate scientists are working overtime fudging temperature related data showing global warming over many decades that correlates with the industrial revolution and increasing use of carbon-based fuels. Climate scientists are boldly asserting that this correlation proves global warming is caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Real scientists would demand to know the physics of how increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. Is there any real physics behind this unsupported bold assertion? As I am about to explain, based on test data from the 1950s, there is not.

There are three points I want to make that fall in the categories of physics and atmospheric physics. First, molecules in the atmosphere absorb lightwaves over what are called spectral bands. The spectral band can be narrow, as small as a single wavelength, or broad, covering a continuum of wavelengths or frequencies. This molecular absorption causes increased vibration within the molecule exciting certain vibration modes. The physics of each molecule determine which wavelengths can be absorbed to excite internal vibrations. Spectral band absorption in the atmosphere can be quantified based on measurements over a certain distance through the atmosphere such as “90 per cent absorption in this spectral band over a distance of 300 meters at sea level through the atmosphere”.

The second point is not really atmospheric physics, but more fundamental. Objects like the earth emit a spectrum, or wavelength continuum, of radiation that is completely described by “Planck’s Law” of black body radiation, derived in the 1900 by Nobel-winning physicist Max Planck. That curve predicts the peak intensity of light from the sun in the visible spectral band, and the peak intensity of light emitted by the earth in the LWIR spectral band. Planck’s curve has been validated by experimental data for over a hundred years, and was a huge breakthrough for the physics community in the 20th Century.

The third point is that there are two spectral bands in which the CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation. The first band is in what is called the Medium Wave InfraRed (MWIR) spectrum, and the second spectral band is in the LWIR spectrum. Both bands are created by absorption of energy in a CO2 molecule to excite stretching and/or bending modes of vibration within the molecule. The MWIR band of absorption excites stretching vibration modes, and the LWIR band of absorption excites bending vibration modes.

Of these two bands, the LWIR band is the most important in the absorption of infrared radiation from the earth because it is centered in the LWIR where most of the energy radiated by the earth is located, and is at least 5 times wider than the MWIR band. The center wavelength of the LWIR absorption band for the CO2 molecule is 15 microns with a width of about 1 micron. By comparison, the center wavelength at which the maximum spectral radiant emittance occurs for the earth (based on Planck’s Law) is approximately 9.5 microns with significant amounts of energy contained in radiation with wavelengths that extend out to beyond 25 microns.

So, there is a spectral band centered at 15 micron where the CO2 molecules happily absorb radiating energy in the atmosphere to excite bending modes of vibration within each molecule. This band is in the LWIR where most of the radiation from the earth is contained, and has a spectral width of about 1 micron. This is a small but not insignificant portion of the more than 20 micron wide spectral band over which the earth radiates in the LWIR.

A reference book published by the Office of Naval Research, a department of the U.S. Navy, titled The Infrared Handbook was published in 1978 and is used as a bible by everyone I know in the IR community. Atmospheric transmission data at sea level is contained in this book based on measurements that were taken in the 1950 time frame, much before any recent increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. These particular measurements are over a path length of 300 meters, and cover the IR spectrum from short-wave infrared out to beyond 20 microns in the LWIR (see “Field Measurements of Atmospheric Transmission”). In the LWIR absorption band of CO2 (center wavelength of 15 microns) the transmission measured is 0.0 due to CO2 absorption. That is, total 100% absorption over 300 meters at sea level in the spectral absorption band of CO2 that would capture the most energy, or “heat”, being radiated by the earth’s surface.

Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric mixture of gasses present in the 1950s by burning fossil fuels or by bovine flatulence will not increase the measured absorption in the CO2 LWIR band above the 100% level that was measured and reported in The Infrared Handbook. You cannot get more than 100% absorption. It is not physically possible. And yet that appears to be the basis of the theory of “man made” global warming

The science of anthropogenic global warming is settled, and has been for decades. Just not the way the AGW alarmists would have you believe. Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be the cause of global warming, if global warming even exists.