[AdTheNad]

A flock of empty suits, all buckle no belt, all hat no cattle, all belly no oil, with their usual denegrating answers for those that dont agree, resist the truth in favor of their emotional dogma of the crack pot theories of global warming and peak oil. Both are heavily subsidized propaganda programs put in place by political forces harnessing the support of the easily led. Show a picture of a polar bear by water and arctic ice is disappearing bringing certain doom. Show a pic of a duck in oil and we have a global catasrophe, show a phony graph or list of "scientists" funded by global warming and you have "proof". Hang your hat on something as rediculous and meaningless to the world as eroei. The proof of what I say is in the pudding and I see a lot of heads full of pudding. Your dogma is politics not science.

You may be the least intelligent troll PO.com has had to date. You don't seem to understand anything, apart from some completely illogical conspiracy theories.

If you think eroei is meaningless to the world, try starting a rat farm, where the feed is nothing but other rats. Then watch what happens when you realise you are putting in more rats then you are getting out. Understand that this may be a viable business proposal while there are humongous subsidies available from the government for each rat produced, all the while the government goes further and further into debt everyday.

[dorlomin]

with their usual denegrating answers for those that dont agree, resist the truth in favor of their emotional dogma of the crack pot theories of global warming and peak oil. Both are heavily subsidized propaganda programs put in place by political forces .....

Argument by assertion. The time honored scientific method of shouting "I am right" over and over again.

And of course there is the irony to consider.

denegrating answers for those that dont agree

A flock of empty suits, all buckle no belt, all hat no cattle, all belly no oil,

[ian807]

"Yup. Journalists. Always the sharpest knives in the drawer. Right up there with economists."

*snort* That is so awesome.

He's made his position clear, not really any point in arguing, and besides, 48 hours until we all get toasted by "Mayan Imaginary Flaming Death Balls"™ or something.

Yup, I'm tilting my Sunday special tinfoil hat to a rakish angle and heading for the bunker now.

[Keith_McClary]

with their usual denegrating answers for those that dont agree

Next they'll be denigrating your spellchecker.

Both are heavily subsidized propaganda programs

PO.com could sure use a zippy new server. Where do we apply for a heavy subsidy?

[Graeme]

Will this make a difference.

[rockdoc123]

Will this make a difference.

Hopefully not, as anyone with some sense would have understood that Sandy had zip to do with Climate Change.
You want to debate me on it....have at it. I have documented landfall hurricane data for the last hundred years that shows it wasn't anything unusual and there are a couple of publications out there to back that up, there is documented data of high storm surge in Manhattan at times when there was much lower CO2 and temperatures and of course lower sea level. The fact of the matter is the leaked IPCC Chapter 2 (if my memory serves or perhaps its chapter 5) indicates that there is no climate change pattern in storms (including hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes), droughts or floods. (I downloaded the chapters so I could provide quotes if you want).
So continue to wring your hands but all this lobbying for spending money to prevent something we don't actually understand very well is dumb even if there weren't better things to spend those tax payer dollars on....how about poverty, water quality, infrastructure, jobs etc. Try explaining to that homeless family you might walk by in the street that rather than the government giving them any assistance in immediate help or long term help through job creation you believe that spending money to combat an invisible gas ( that is still being debated as to how much impact it might have on climate; look at recent papers on climate sensitivity if you disagree) will be much better for him and his family. Where I come from that conversation would result in a Glasgow handshake delivered with prejudice and rightly so.
Given the economic situation in the US spending money to avoid climate change is akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

[meemoe_uk]

Econ101 could start be reading the links provided by Union of Concerned Scientists, in particular the link on the causes of global warming FAQ (4th link down under heading of basics of global warming science).

There is no longer any doubt in the expert scientific community that the Earth is warming—and it’s now clear that human activity has a significant part in it. UCS continues to support and communicate vital research on climate change, including the human “fingerprints” of its cause, the impending consequences, and the urgent need for realistic solutions.

In the articles listed below explore the latest climate science, the evidence of global warming, and the expert scientific consensus that human activity is the major cause of—and therefore solution to—this urgent global crisis.

Then after that, Graeme can read the Oregon Petition project, which, unlike the so-called union of concerned scientists, actually has signatures of scientists, that AGW is BS.

" There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "
- signed by 31,487 American scientists including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

[dorlomin]

Then after that, Graeme can read the Oregon Petition project, which, unlike the so-called union of concerned scientists, actually has signatures of scientists, that AGW is BS.

Charles Darwin, I.C. Ewe, Ginger Spice and Hawkeye Pearce are among the comedy signatures.

There is no way to verify how many of these are real people, have the qualifications they claim let alone post grad qualifications in a relevant discipline.

Clickety click

[Graeme]

I posted the wrong link above. I meant to post this.

Online video lectures on climate change

For those who’d like to get the basics of climate change explained first-hand by a climate scientist, here are two video lectures.

In the first, I show some of the basic data sets and findings about global warming, including some comments on historic land marks of our science.

The second lecture deals with the impacts of climate change (with a focus on extreme events and sea-level rise) and the possibilities for holding global warming below 2°C.

[Econ101]

Here is a bit of fact you might find interesting:

The Truth About Climate Change: An Open Letter to the United States Congress

February 8, 2011

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

In reply to "The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change"

On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to "take a fresh look at climate change." Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.

We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.

The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as "sounding the alarm" about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world "need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency," as well as the "direct health impacts from heat waves" and "climate-sensitive infectious diseases," among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that "no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet's climate," which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth's climate.

To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of "what is happening to our planet's climate," as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see site below). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the "group of eighteen," citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the "group of eighteen" pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at http://bit.ly/Ra9Zkb.

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth's climate and weather.

But don't take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don't be intimidated by false claims of "scientific consensus" or "overwhelming proof." These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.

Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.

Signed by:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
John Boring, University of Virginia1
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Neil Frank, Former Director National Hurricane Center
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Victor Goldschmidt, Purdue University1
Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City College
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado1
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Edward Krug, University of Illinois1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
James Wanliss, Presbyterian College
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Bruce West, American Physical Society Fellow
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1

1 - Emeritus or Retired
2 - Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Endorsed by:
Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Richard Becherer, University of Connecticut1
E. Calvin Beisner, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, Engineer
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
John Kimberly, Geologist
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Rene Rogers, Litton Electron Devices1
Bruce Schwoegler, MySky Communications, Inc.
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
James Spann, Chief Meteorologist, ABC 33/40 - Birmingham
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org
Bob Zybach, Ecologist

1 - Emeritus or Retired
See Alarmist Letter to US Congress Here: http://bit.ly/TIPZDr


News Story Regarding Alarmist Letter Here: http://bit.ly/Ra9ZAq

Study: Carbon Dioxide and the Earth's Future: http://bit.ly/TIPZDs

For the Much Larger Report see Here: http://bit.ly/Ra9ZAr

Two Physicists/Mathematicians Show That Hothouse Global Warming is Impossible
http://bit.ly/PlsW37

[dorlomin]

Here is a bit of fact you might find interesting:
Two Physicists/Mathematicians Show That Hothouse Global Warming is Impossible
http://bit.ly/PlsW37

The atmospheric greenhouse eect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Ac-
cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist

Clouds are cold, often 10-20 degrees colder than the surface. Yet at night, but the very mechanism they are claiming does not work, clouds re-emiting short wave radiation back to the surface keeping it warmer than it would otherwise be.

The second law of thermodynamics is actually about entropy, where it addresses 'heat' is about physical bodies in contact which means that order flows to disorder i.e. the faster moving particles spread their energy cooling.

[Graeme]

Here's some more facts you might find interesting:

Faces Behind a Global Crisis

US Carbon Billionaires and the UN Climate Deadlock

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to explain the role of the world’s two wealthiest men—carbon billionaires, Charles and David Koch—in paralyzing United States climate policy that underpins the international impasse at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Our objective is to inform more global awareness and increase public pressure on the US actors stopping solutions to today’s climate crisis. This report follows from another IFG report, Outing the Oligarchy: Billionaires Who Benefit from Today’s Climate Crisis, published in December 2011 as global climate talks were held in Durban, South Africa.Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index recently ranked the two brothers’ combined net worth as greater than the world’s wealthiest man, Carlos Slim. They have outspent all other oil companies—including Exxon—to kill US climate legislation by campaign contributions, lobbying of legislators, funding denial science, attacking clean air laws, stopping the shift in subsidies, and other activities aimed at influencing policy outcomes (see Figure 1). Their aggressive funding for an extreme faction of conservatives polarized the climate policy debate in the US, making impossible any meaningful movement towards science-based emissions targets to enable an equitable global agreement.

While they have come under increasing scrutiny in the US for their influence on the domestic US debate, little attention has focused on their international impacts from ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions that are intensifying today’s droughts, floods, fires, and famine, as well as the epic damage being done directly to the natural world. The Kochs cashed in by polluting our planet—
economists would call them free-riders—and now they wield their wealth to rig the rules in their own favor, making them classic rent-seekers. Leading an epic propaganda effort by the broader fossil fuels industry, global climate cooperation may face no bigger barrier blocking progress today than these two individuals of undue influence.

IFG’s report draws clear links between the Kochs’ cash and today’s US policy paralysis holding hostage any global deal. US authorities must steadfastly defend against the Kochs’ attempts to fasttrack permitting of tar sands infrastructure, attacks on EPA’s right to regulate carbon, and efforts to stop stronger standards for power plants, among other climate policy priorities outlined herein. Serious steps to reduce the role of private money corrupting US policy outcomes is also a matter of global urgency to be addressed, ultimately by a constitutional amendment to clarify that money is not equal to speech and corporations are not people1, as well as publicly funded elections. International support for US efforts is also proposed in order to create global pressure for change.

And here is a video to explain what the Kochtopus is:

KOCHTOPUS - The Kochs' Influence Network Explained

[Keith_McClary]

Here is a bit of fact you might find interesting:
Two Physicists/Mathematicians Show That Hothouse Global Warming is Impossible
http://bit.ly/PlsW37

The atmospheric greenhouse eect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Ac-
cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist

It starts out proving that current increased CO2 levels do not significantly change the thermal conductivity of air. Maybe eCon can explain how this demolishes climate science?

[Rod_Cloutier]

Risk Management argument that the debate is mute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwi ... r_embedded

I'm a non-scientist and this is my current opinion.

And the two year update:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation ... F_anaVcCXg

[Econ101]

Nonsense. Especially the fourth box. This model could be useful if it wasn't so leading. My opinion is this: follow the money when it comes to these issues. They are being driven by politics which has succeeded in politicizing the weather. What is the politics at hand? It is the struggle to change who receives the government benefits. People are easily led and logic easily twisted.

[Econ101]

Here's some more facts you might find interesting:

Faces Behind a Global Crisis

US Carbon Billionaires and the UN Climate Deadlock

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to explain the role of the world’s two wealthiest men—carbon billionaires, Charles and David Koch—in paralyzing United States climate policy that underpins the international impasse at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Our objective is to inform more global awareness and increase public pressure on the US actors stopping solutions to today’s climate crisis. This report follows from another IFG report, Outing the Oligarchy: Billionaires Who Benefit from Today’s Climate Crisis, published in December 2011 as global climate talks were held in Durban, South Africa.Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index recently ranked the two brothers’ combined net worth as greater than the world’s wealthiest man, Carlos Slim. They have outspent all other oil companies—including Exxon—to kill US climate legislation by campaign contributions, lobbying of legislators, funding denial science, attacking clean air laws, stopping the shift in subsidies, and other activities aimed at influencing policy outcomes (see Figure 1). Their aggressive funding for an extreme faction of conservatives polarized the climate policy debate in the US, making impossible any meaningful movement towards science-based emissions targets to enable an equitable global agreement.

While they have come under increasing scrutiny in the US for their influence on the domestic US debate, little attention has focused on their international impacts from ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions that are intensifying today’s droughts, floods, fires, and famine, as well as the epic damage being done directly to the natural world. The Kochs cashed in by polluting our planet—
economists would call them free-riders—and now they wield their wealth to rig the rules in their own favor, making them classic rent-seekers. Leading an epic propaganda effort by the broader fossil fuels industry, global climate cooperation may face no bigger barrier blocking progress today than these two individuals of undue influence.

IFG’s report draws clear links between the Kochs’ cash and today’s US policy paralysis holding hostage any global deal. US authorities must steadfastly defend against the Kochs’ attempts to fasttrack permitting of tar sands infrastructure, attacks on EPA’s right to regulate carbon, and efforts to stop stronger standards for power plants, among other climate policy priorities outlined herein. Serious steps to reduce the role of private money corrupting US policy outcomes is also a matter of global urgency to be addressed, ultimately by a constitutional amendment to clarify that money is not equal to speech and corporations are not people1, as well as publicly funded elections. International support for US efforts is also proposed in order to create global pressure for change.

And here is a video to explain what the Kochtopus is:

KOCHTOPUS - The Kochs' Influence Network Explained

Is there an evil monkey under your bed too? What a rediculous propaganda piece when you have the likes of Al Gore spreading profitable lies and our president wasting billions on to buy political influence and secure huge sums of these tax handouts in the form of political contributions. It's -11 here now. It's not a record so the temp cant be used as absolute proof of global cooling but the trend tells me it's going to stay cold.

[Rod_Cloutier]

It's -11 here now. It's not a record so the temp cant be used as absolute proof of global cooling but the trend tells me it's going to stay cold.

Confirmation Bias

The author of the 'Four boxes', that I quoted previously; Greg Craven, wrote a book, most of which dealt extensively with avoiding confirmation bias in decision making. It was called 'What's the worst that could happen'.

$16.95 on Kindle- check it out and you'll be less confused!

[dorlomin]

It starts out proving that current increased CO2 levels do not significantly change the thermal conductivity of air. Maybe eCon can explain how this demolishes climate science?

Econ has not the foggiest what they are cutting and pasting. They cannot explain what they are trying to say or defend the criticisms.