Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A few "layperson" points on "science";

    1) The Data/Information has to be open to all to validate/vet, as well as the methods/instruments used to aquire the data/information.

    2) The method of processing the data/information has to be reproducable by other parties, especially those that might be oppossed to the conclusions.

    3) The procesed data, and it's conclusion should provide a predictable result.

    4) Any other party should be able to replicate similar data aquisition, similar data processing, arrive at similar conclusions and be able to calculate similar predictions.

    Any one whom read the article I linked in my past posts and the trail of embedded links to other articles with more of the "science" in them should see that there was a big fail, fourfold, especially in the "Prediction Department".

    But then, same folks and same schtick that about 40-50 years ago was "chicken little~the sky is falling" we're on the edge of Global Cooling and the next 'ice age' is around the corner.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      But then, same folks and same schtick that about 40-50 years ago was "chicken little~the sky is falling" we're on the edge of Global Cooling and the next 'ice age' is around the corner.
      No, they weren't.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
        No, they weren't.
        Right...
        “Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age”… It was just a TIME article.

        Posted on June 11, 2013 by David Middleton
        Guest Post by David Middleton

        You can always count in TIME magazine’s Bryan Walsh for a good laugh…



        Well, I suppose that Mr. Walsh is correct that a 1977 TIME magazine cover did not predict “another ice age.” The prediction (sort of a prediction) was from a 1974 TIME magazine article…


        The full text of the article can be accessed through Steve Goddard’s Real Science.

        TIME, like most of the mainstream-ish media, has acted like a climate weathervane over the years…



        Dan Gainor compiled a great timeline of media alarmism (both warming and cooling) in his Fire and Ice essay.

        While the 1977 TIME cover was a fake, this 1975 magazine cover and article were very real…



        Energy and Climate: Studies in Geophysics was a 1977 National Academies publication. It featured what appears to be the same temperature graph, clearly demonstrating a mid-20th century cooling trend…



        The mid-20th Century cooling trend is clearly present in the instrumental record, at least in the northern hemisphere…



        So, why are the warmists so obsessed with denying this? Is the mid-20th century cooling period so “inconvenient” that it has to be erased from history like the Medieval Warm Period?
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • 'Global Cooling' in the 1970s

          This 'phenomenon' started, and persisted, mainly due to media hyping either minority fringe scientists who were dead wrong, or predictions made using solid science (Rasool et al, 1974) that did not come to pass (increased aerosols in the atmosphere).

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...l-cooling.html

          Another often misinterpreted quote (from a 1972 National Science Board report):

          "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.

          For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.

          When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"


          The bolded statment was, and still remains, correct. We are still headed for a relapse into Ice Age conditions thousands of years into the future, AGW or not. However, AGW still poses a great disruption for the here and now.

          As for actual scientific consensus on 'global cooling' or an 'imminent ice age:'


          Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers. (Source: Connelly, Peterson, and Fleck, "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus," 2008.)


          Figure 2. The number of citations for the articles shown in Figure 1 and listed in Table 1. The citation counts were from the publication date through 1983 and are graphed on the year the article was published. The cooling papers received a total of 325 citations, neutral 424 and warming 1,958 (ibid.)

          Comment




          • "The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/) says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

            According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."


            "Since the year 2000, land temperature changes are 50 percent greater in the United States than ocean temperature changes; two to three times greater in Eurasia; and three to four times greater in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. Warming of the ocean surface has been largest over the Arctic Ocean, second largest over the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans, and third largest over most of the Atlantic Ocean.

            In the global maps at the top of this page, the years from 1885 to 1945 tend to appear cooler (more blues than reds), growing less cool as we move toward the 1950s. Decades within the base period do not appear particularly warm or cold because they are the standard against which all decades are measured. The leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War II."
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ecadaltemp.php

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              'Global Cooling' in the 1970s

              This 'phenomenon' started, and persisted, mainly due to media hyping either minority fringe scientists who were dead wrong, or predictions made using solid science (Rasool et al, 1974) that did not come to pass (increased aerosols in the atmosphere).

              [URL=...skepticalscience.com...URL]

              Another often misinterpreted quote (from a 1972 National Science Board report):





              The bolded statment was, and still remains, correct. We are still headed for a relapse into Ice Age conditions thousands of years into the future, AGW or not. However, AGW still poses a great disruption for the here and now.

              As for actual scientific consensus on 'global cooling' or an 'imminent ice age:'

              [IMGskepticalscience.comIMG]
              Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers. (Source: Connelly, Peterson, and Fleck, "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus," 2008.)


              Figure 2. The number of citations for the articles shown in Figure 1 and listed in Table 1. The citation counts were from the publication date through 1983 and are graphed on the year the article was published. The cooling papers received a total of 325 citations, neutral 424 and warming 1,958 (ibid.)

              Setting aside the fact that "consensus" has nothing to do with science...

              In the 1970's, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times and the rest of the lamestream media all ran headline stories about global cooling and "impending" ice ages. They ran no such stories about warming. Furthermore, an average less than 10 articles per year is not a "consensus." Further furthermore, prior to 1974, the number of neutral and cooling papers outnumbered warming. Why? Because the Earth was actually cooling then.

              Connelly has been routinely been banned from Wikipedia for his Gorebotic antics. Connelly et al., 2008 makes Cook et al., 2013 appear robust in comparison.

              The fact that these sorts of papers continue to pass peer review is simply more evidence of the Gorebots' desperation to erase the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, early 20th century warming and mid-20th century cooling. The Climategateers weren't kidding when they discussed this...
              "Kevin [Trenberth, NCAR] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

              --Email from Phil Jones (CRU East Anglia University) to Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004



              The latest example is Karl et al., 2015.
              Last edited by The Doctor; 16 Jun 15, 09:14.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Speaking of Karl et al., 2015...
                NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

                June 4, 2015
                Did SNL’s Tommy Flanagan Oversee the New Surface Temperature Data?

                By Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts, commentary from Dr. Judith Curry follows

                There is a new paper published the journal Science about the recent slowdown in global surface warming (released from embargo today at 2PM eastern). It is from Tom Karl and others at NOAA’s newly formed NCEI, National Centers for Environmental Information (a merger of three NOAA data centers: NCDC, NODC and NGDC) and from the government-consulting firm LMI. The lead author is Tom Karl, Director of NCEI and Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The paper is Karl et al (2015) Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. “Possible” is obviously the key word in the title.

                There is a big push by the American Association for the advancement of Science (AAAS) to promote this paper.

                [...]

                Clearly, with each revision of data, NCDC is making the past cooler and the near present warmer through their adjustment process of the original data. To revisit something said in regards to a previous news story about NCDC’s tendency to adjust data as time goes on, so much so that they can’t even tell us with certainty anymore which month in the past century was the warmest on record, this is still applicable:
                “Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported … changes with the moment,” Watts told FoxNews.com.

                “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”

                Hold that thought, because NCDC is at it again.


                [...]

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/0...ing-past-data/

                The National Centers for Environmental Information used to actually be 3 separate scientific entities: NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), NGDC (National Geophysical Data Center) and NODC (National Oceanographic Data Center). A "data center' collates and analyzes data. An "information center" disseminates information - AKA propaganda center.

                Adjusting past data to make the 1930's cooler can reasonably be explained through data homogenization requirements. Adjusting the late-1990's to make them cooler relative to the early 2000's is nothing less than fraud.

                Karl et al., 2015 is almost as laughable as NASA-GISS' top climate "scientist's"...
                Gavin says the funniest things!

                David Middleton / 1 week ago June 6, 2015

                Guest post by David Middleton
                NOAA temperature record updates and the ‘hiatus’


                — gavin @ 4 June 2015


                In a new paper in Science Express, Karl et al. describe the impacts of two significant updates to the NOAA NCEI (née NCDC) global temperature series. The two updates are: 1) the adoption of ERSST v4 for the ocean temperatures (incorporating a number of corrections for biases for different methods), and 2) the use of the larger International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) weather station database, instead of GHCN. This kind of update happens all the time as datasets expand through data-recovery efforts and increasing digitization, and as biases in the raw measurements are better understood. However, this update is going to be bigger news than normal because of the claim that the ‘hiatus’ is no more. To understand why this is perhaps less dramatic than it might seem, it’s worth stepping back to see a little context…


                Global temperature anomaly estimates are a product, not a measurement

                The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate. We do not have direct measurements of the global mean anomaly, rather we have a large database of raw measurements at individual locations over a long period of time, but with an uneven spatial distribution, many missing data points, and a large number of non-climatic biases varying in time and space. To convert that into a useful time-varying global mean needs a statistical model, good understanding of the data problems and enough redundancy to characterise the uncertainties. Fortunately, there have been multiple approaches to this in recent years (GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way, Berkeley Earth, and NOAA NCEI), all of which basically give the same picture.

                […]

                The ‘hiatus’ is so fragile that even those small changes make it disappear

                […]

                – See more at:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/#sthash.B1t4pbWO.dpuf
                If “the ‘hiatus’ is so fragile that even those small changes make it disappear,” the underlying trend must also be so fragile that small data fudges are the difference between hiatus and the road to AGW calamity.


                In the meantime…




                Gavin Schmidt is NASA' top climate scientist despite the fact that he's not a climate scientist or any other sort of scientist. He's a mathematician. Gavin is the owner of the Real Climate blog; which is infinitely more reliable then John Cook's SkepSci. The best thing about RC is the fact that Roy Spencer will occasionally pop in to explain atmospheric science to Gavin...
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • What I find hilarious about this debate is in the last week or so how the pro- side has warmed up to the idea that convincing those who are skeptical or opposed to Gorebal Warming should become an ideological appeal rather than a scientific one. That is they are now arguing that Gorebal Warming should be taken on something akin to religious faith rather than scientific fact.

                  That to me says the pro- side in this debate is losing ground at a significant rate because when they stop arguing facts and start arguing emotion and faith, they are in essence admitting they really don't have a rational argument anymore.

                  Comment


                  • Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
                    http://wiseenergy.org/

                    Worth a close look and filled with article and paper links ...
                    Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDE...e_gdata_player

                    Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

                    This critique fully debunks the “97% of Scientist…” claim

                    97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”

                    Global Warming: Manmade or Not?

                    ^ Just a sampling from one section of the above site.


                    Last edited by G David Bock; 18 Jun 15, 12:02.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • So as to not p!$$ off Nick, I'll post this here...
                      The Unsettling, Anti-Science Certitude on Global Warming
                      Climate-change ‘deniers’ are accused of heresy by true believers. That doesn’t sound like science to me.


                      By JOHN STEELE GORDON
                      July 30, 2015 8:03 p.m. ET
                      382 COMMENTS
                      Are there any phrases in today’s political lexicon more obnoxious than “the science is settled” and “climate-change deniers”?

                      The first is an oxymoron. By definition, science is never settled. It is always subject to change in the light of new evidence. The second phrase is nothing but an ad hominem attack, meant to evoke “Holocaust deniers,” those people who maintain that the Nazi Holocaust is a fiction, ignoring the overwhelming, incontestable evidence that it is a historical fact. Hillary Clinton’s speech about climate change on Monday in Des Moines, Iowa, included an attack on “deniers.”

                      The phrases are in no way applicable to the science of Earth’s climate. The climate is an enormously complex system, with a very large number of inputs and outputs, many of which we don’t fully understand—and some we may well not even know about yet. To note this, and to observe that there is much contradictory evidence for assertions of a coming global-warming catastrophe, isn’t to “deny” anything; it is to state a fact. In other words, the science is unsettled—to say that we have it all wrapped up is itself a form of denial. The essence of scientific inquiry is the assumption that there is always more to learn.

                      [...]

                      Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions. Why did the warming trend between 1978 and 1998 cease, although computer climate models predict steady warming? How sensitive is the climate to increased carbon-dioxide levels? What feedback mechanisms are there that would increase or decrease that sensitivity? Why did episodes of high carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere earlier in Earth’s history have temperature levels both above and below the average?

                      With so many questions still unanswered, why are many climate scientists, politicians—and the left generally—so anxious to lock down the science of climatology and engage in protracted name-calling? Well, one powerful explanation for the politicians is obvious: self-interest.

                      If anthropogenic climate change is a reality, then that would be a huge problem only government could deal with. It would be a heaven-sent opportunity for the left to vastly increase government control over the economy and the personal lives of citizens.

                      [...]

                      Mr. Gordon is the author of the forthcoming “Washington’s Monument and the Fascinating History of the Obelisk,” out early next year from Bloomsbury.

                      http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-unse...ing-1438300982

                      For an opposing view, here's identity thief John Cook of the Skeptical Science blog and most recent author of the 97% consensus lie...
                      The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial
                      By John Cook
                      Updated 12:25 PM ET, Wed July 22, 2015

                      1. Fake experts
                      Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree...

                      [...]

                      2. Logical fallacies
                      The reason why there's a 97% consensus is...

                      [...]

                      3. Impossible expectations
                      While many lines of evidence inform our understanding of climate change, another source of understanding are climate models. These are computer simulations...

                      [...]

                      4. Cherry-picking
                      Signs of global warming have been observed all over our planet...

                      [...]

                      5. Conspiracy theory
                      The global surface temperature record is constructed by teams across the world...

                      [...]

                      http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinio...ial/index.html

                      You can always count on Cooksie for a laugh. His first four telltales are the Gorebots' bread and butter. As for the fifth telltale...

                      CAMBRIDGE PROFESSOR: BIG-OIL-FUNDED DEATH SQUADS TRIED TO MURDER ME BECAUSE I KNEW TOO MUCH ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING...

                      The logical fallacies bit is a hoot... He starts it off with an appeal to consensus fallacy...
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

                        Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'Global warming is a non-problem'
                        'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong.'
                        'Global warming really has become a new religion.'
                        "I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November...I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.'
                        'We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.'

                        By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJuly 6, 2015 8:34 PM with 893 comments
                        EXCERPT:
                        ...
                        “The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.
                        “I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”
                        “So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.
                        ...
                        http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/...lobal-warming/




                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • This is an interesting clip to listen to. It's about five minutes total and you have to get thru about half to get to the real meat of the matter, so to speak. Ted Cruz is confronted by the typical gorebot on gorebal warming and Cruz points out how 30-40 years ago it was global cooling and the solution was more guv'mint control of industry, energy and people's lives. When the data didn't support "cooling" then the same 'chicken littles' started clamoring about global warming, and the solution was "more guv'mint control of industry, energy and people's lives". But when again the data didn't support this, it became more common to use climate change, so that whether it was getting warmer or cooler, wetter or dry, the "climate is changing" (which it has since the begining of climate on this planet) and the solution is still the same: "more guv'mint control of industry, energy and people's lives".

                          No matter what the problem the solution is the same ... should be enough to pause and wonder ...
                          http://conservativesunited.com/liber...ets-destroyed/

                          BTW, person asking the question of Cruz was typical obnoxious liberal punk in tone and attitude ...
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • Here for now, but possible this and the next post will be used in another thread;
                            The Obama Administration’s War on Fossil Fuels
                            Sen. James Inhofe | Monday Sep 14, 2015 12:15 PM
                            EXCERPTS:

                            President Obama and his administration are embroiled in an all-out war on fossil fuels. Under the guise of saving the planet from global warming, the administration has issued rampant regulations trying to further reduce CO2 emissions under the so-called Clean Power Plan. Not only have these regulations been shown as ineffective at actually impacting global temperatures or sea levels, it turns out that the rules will have serious economic impacts on all Americans, especially low-income and minority families.

                            A study by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) found the president’s climate agenda would only reduce CO2 concentration by less than one-half of a percent; reduce the average global temperature by less than 2/100th of a degree; and reduce the rise of sea levels by 1/100th of an inch – or the thickness of three sheets of paper. These paltry numbers make the president’s agenda seem downright reckless in light of the $479 billion price tag that it comes with.

                            It gets worse. Under the Clean Power Plan, electricity prices will steadily increase – by double digits in the majority of states, and over the course of the next decade, tens of thousands of Americans will lose access to well-paying jobs that will be shipped overseas to places like China with less stringent environmental standards.
                            ...
                            On June 23, I chaired a hearing in the EPW Committee focused on the impacts of the president’s proposed carbon regulations on electricity costs for American businesses, rural communities and families. During the hearing, we heard from the National Black Chamber of Commerce’s President, Harry Alford, who testified that the administration’s Clean Power Plan would increase Black poverty by 23 percent and Hispanic poverty by 26 percent. It would result in cumulative job losses of 7 million for Blacks and nearly 12 million for Hispanics in 2035 while decreasing Black and Hispanic median household income by $455 and $515, respectively, in 2035.

                            Why is it that the cost is so great? The Obama administration’s final rule will force Americans to replace dependable, affordable fossil fuels with high-cost, unreliable alternatives. The so-called Clean Power Plan primarily relies on a federally mandated shift towards wind and solar which makes up less than five percent of our electricity grid, a percentage that has taken our nation decades to achieve. Yet the rule will demand Americans reduce its fossil fuel dependency until renewables are 28 percent of electricity production by 2030. This is unachievable without great economic pain.
                            ....
                            States should not be forced to comply with an illegal agency mandate that forces investment in high-cost, unreliable energy and attempts to stamp out low-cost, reliable fossil fuels. The president and his administration need to really listen to the concerns of the American people and realize that by perpetuating the war on fossil fuels, we are sacrificing our remaining economic security.
                            ...
                            http://humanevents.com/2015/09/14/th...tm_campaign=nl
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • To Help the Poor, We Should Increase Energy Supplies, Not Subsidies
                              Brian McNicoll | Monday Sep 14, 2015 11:50 AM
                              EXCERPT;

                              My friend Myron Ebell, a true hero of the American environmental movement, had given a long interview on why he thinks global warming is less of a threat than some argue and why adapting to it, rather than fighting it, made the most sense.

                              “What if you’re wrong?” the interviewer asked. “Then I eat a lot of crow, and we have some serious problems,” Ebell said. “But what if they’re wrong? What if we’re doing all these things that hurt our economy, that hurt the poor … and it’s all unnecessary?

                              The second part of Ebell’s answer ended up on the cutting room floor, of course. But the perspective deserves further attention because momentum continues to build to do still more damage to the economy and the pocketbooks of the less fortunate in the name of stopping global warming.
                              ....
                              On top of that, Pope Francis has called for us to reduce the use of fossil fuels and said we need to “touch the hearts of those who look only for gain at the expense of the poor and the Earth.”

                              But he might be surprised where that leads because a lot of those who are looking for gain at the expense of the poor and the Earth are taking advantage of global warming hysteria to do so.

                              And it is hysteria. We’re going on 20 years of no actual global warming. The polar ice caps were to have been gone by now, but the South Pole has more ice than ever. In fact, some are now warning that decreased solar activity could make excessive cold – rather than heat – our more pressing challenge.

                              The more frequent and severe storms we were warned of haven’t occurred either. In fact, we’re in the longest period without anything more than a Category 1 hurricane making landfall in the United States since before the Civil War. We’re having fewer tornadoes and of less severity, fewer serious thunderstorms and of less severity, and less severe weather overall by virtually any measure.
                              ...
                              http://humanevents.com/2015/09/14/to...tm_campaign=nl
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • Gorebots demand Maobama use RICO Act against science...

                                These people need to be tarred and feathered...
                                Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

                                As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

                                We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

                                The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

                                Sincerely,

                                Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
                                Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
                                Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
                                Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
                                Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

                                David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
                                Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
                                Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
                                Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
                                Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
                                William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
                                Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
                                T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
                                Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
                                Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
                                Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
                                Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
                                Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
                                Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
                                Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

                                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/1...lence-critics/

                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X