Why is Tillotson on the AGW bandwagon at all?

Why would he pretend that the Earth is warming, when it hasn't warmed for 12-15 years, although Texas has shown all of+ 0.01F degree per decade over the last 100 years?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/the-uhis-of-texas-are-upon-you/
I guess he decided to adopt the Lomborg stance and hasn't bothered to keep current on the latest findings. Lomberg has a new article behind a pay wall at Foreign Affairs. The main theme seems to be how things forecast in the 1970s Club of Rome , "Limits To Growth" just didn't happen. We didn't all die of starvation while running out of everything.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137681/bjorn-lomborg/environmental-alarmism-then-and-now

The latest Angus Reid survey shows "some 48 per cent of Britons now agree with the suggestion that warming could be "mostly natural" and that the idea of it being human-caused has yet to be proven. By comparison only 43 per cent agree with the idea that warming is "mostly" caused by industrial and vehicular CO2 emissions.

In Canada the ratio is 58:34 in favour of the man made warming hypothesis, while in the USA it's a tie."

Poor Canada....we are so trusting of authority figures.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/28/climate_survey_usa_uk_canada/

Ah, I get it now.

We're just stupid, we don't understand science and math, but oil company execs do. Really, there is no problem. We'll adapt.

It looks more and more that the adaptation needed

is to the coming cold period.

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Well judycross the pine

Well judycross the pine beetle would digress....

The pine beetles were a natural event and maybe

if the Campbell government had given Forestry the funds they requested to fight the infestation when it was first spotted instead of CUTTING FUNDING to forestry as a whole, the minor outbreak might not have spread so far.

You don't suppose the government could have wanted such a catastrophe to underline the Global Warming bunkum, do you?
Oh, perish the thought!

Good news from Colorado, "Results from the latest aerial surveys of Colorado forests confirm that the bark beetle epidemic has slowed dramatically west of the Continental Divide"
http://www.vailbusinessjournal.com/article/id/231/sid/2/

I've heard this same line...

...from fundamentalist religious folks. They think that we will all adapt and all get to live in a nice warm climate, nothing to worry about. If everything goes to hell, well we just didn't adapt. What a load! I'm really starting to wonder who Judycross is shilling for with all this. It sounds like a Kathryn Marshal pitch for ethical oil.

We are now selling the resources faster than ever to foreign interests and it is defined as "growth"? You gotta be kidding?

I can see it now..

...half the world population will die of starvation, disease, floods and other natural disasters but the world will adapt.

waaalll Skywalker,

so long's it's tha good gawd fearin', cowboy hat wearing, old, white, fundie-mental christian male half, then all's right in tha wurld. Yep.

Talk about shills is pretty funny coming from Warmists

but that's what happens when they have nothing real to say. They ignore evidence contrary to their religious dogma. Obviously neither genius bothered to read that the UK Meteorological Office admitted that there has been NO WARMING SINCE 1997.

Too bad the Met Office can't forcast, but then they rely on computer modeling using CO2 as a climate changer. It just goes to show that even using a $65 Million super computer doesn't work without valid input. GIGO anyone?

"The British Meteorological Office has a new weather-forecasting super-computer built at a cost of 41 million pounds sterling (approximately $65 million) . The computer is touted to be more powerful than 100,000 standard PCs, is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second, and uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power a small town. The head of the Met office claims that this new computer “will enable the Met Office to deliver more accurate forecasts, from hours to a century ahead.”

Let’s see how it is doing so far. On 23 March 2012, the computer produced a forecast for the next three months: “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favors drier-than-average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favors April being the driest of the 3 months. With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period.
And here is what happened:"
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10298-british-supercomputer-botches-weather-forecasts

From the horse's mouth

@Judy Cross:

Link to denial sites all you want. There is not a single national or international science body that denies that we humans are warming and destabilizing the climate system. Even the fossil fuel companies admit it now.

For example:

"For us the debate on climate change is over. We are tackling the challenges of a new energy future. We continue to develop technologies to reduce CO2 from our operations and to produce more efficient fuels and lubricants for customers. We are calling on governments to establish policies that will encourage a reduction in CO2 emissions."

Shell Oil, http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/

"Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems."

ExxonMobil, http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/safety_climate.aspx

"Climate change is a major global challenge – one that will require the efforts of governments, industry and individuals
Current forecasts underscore the size of the climate change challenge. BP’s analysis suggests that CO2 emissions could rise by at least 27% by 2030, despite expected tightening in global climate policy. Even assuming that more aggressive policy changes are enacted, carbon emissions are likely to rise by up to 9% by 2030.These are projections, and not propositions for a desired outcome."

BP, http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9036321&contentId=7067103

Further, the science is old and robust

I Was doing some research the other day & came across the book, 'The Discovery of Global Warming'. Here are some of the early highlights in climate science history:

1800-1870

Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.

1824

Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.

1859

Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.

1896

Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

1897

Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.

1870-1910

Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918

World War I. Governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925

Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energy.

1930s

Global warming trend since late 19th century reported.

Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.

1938

Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.

1939-1945

World War II. Grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

1945

U.S. Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change.

1956

Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset.

Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere.

Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.

1957

Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination to climate studies.

Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Do you trust the Canadian military, Judy?

Here are the first three paragraphs of Navy Lieutenant-Commander Ray Snook's article, 'Climate Change and its Implications for the Canadian Forces':

"Without question, climate change is the topic de jour. A veritable rainforest worth of literature now litters the desks of media, scientists, advocates and sceptics. Even Osama bin Laden, in a brilliant information operation in January 2010, placed the United States firmly as part of the problem and by so doing established climate change as a terrorist propaganda tool.1 This leaves the average person wondering how to make sense of this complex subject."

"The reality is that science, unequivocally, is telling us that Earth’s atmosphere is warming at unprecedented rates. This rise in average temperatures is being observed almost everywhere on Earth and its impacts are evident in every region of Canada. There is also near-universal consensus that these changes have been caused by human activities and are beyond natural variation. An overarching contributor to the warming is the increased concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Humans now release just over 1,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every second.

"North America has thus far been insulated from any effects of climate change by wealth, technology and high adaptive capacity. This false feeling of security will not last. Climate change will have a significant impact on human health, and large areas of forest and farmland could be lost to drought. In the Arctic, the rise in temperature is twice the global average. Canadian prairies are becoming particularly susceptible to weather extremes that are reducing water availability. If Canada is feeling the stress of climate change, then other less resilient areas of the world, notably Africa, could experience widespread hunger and malnutrition."

http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/archive/public/vol6num2art3.pdf

Why would I trust any military?

Especially one which talks in 2010 about Osama Bin "Dead since 2001", establishing man-made climate change as a "terrorist tool", and then goes on to say there is "unequivocal warming" when as I keep pointing out....the warming stopped by 1997. Jeez!

The US military put out the same kind of dumb assed report around the same time.

Are we really supposed to be impressed by this kind of tripe?

guys

you are arguing with a bot.

Speaking of bots...where's the proof?

I keep asking the question just about this far down the page in any discussion with the Climateers who hang out here, but nobody ever answers.

Where is the proof CO2 changes climate. I'm still waiting.

Rex Tillerson

I think we have to bring back the 90% marginal tax rate on very high income earners. Don't worry Rex, it'll be fine, you'll adapt.

Pine beetle

The pine beetle could have been an event of over mature trees exposed to warmer than average winters, making them succeptable to pine beetle infestation. Also, with the amount of forest fire suppression we undergo, it's hard to let these infested trees go up in smoke, like they have for centuries.

I have noticed these past few summers to be cooler than normal, which I have even came up with the thought on my own as perhaps a cooling period. Seems far fetched but we will see. Perhaps the salmon runs could be direct proof?

A primer

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/f101.asp

What hubris for Rex T. (yes,

What hubris for Rex T. (yes, the pun is deliberate) to castigate environmental advocates as "illiterate," when in fact the environmental movement draws most of its spokespersons from academia and professional careers, etc.

The "illiterates" he refers to, no doubt, do more intellectual-level reading (on universal & humanistic subjects as well as technological ones) in a single week than many of his cohorts do in an entire lifetime.

Furthermore, members of the general public might not be formally educated, but you can be sure that farmers, for example, will know when their crops are burning up and there's not enough water to go around (or too much, as in BC flooding).

Experience is the best teacher, and we're all just starting to get a taste of it.

Hak

Your link,
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/f101.asp

aside from the fact that it was last revised in 2005,( and a great deal has been published since then,)is pure BS. It is all conjecture and no science.

Is that the best you can do?
Truly pathetic!

Here is some real science:
"The famous experiment by Robert W. Wood, at John Hopkins University, with two carton boxes/greenhouses, in 1909, is being mentioned everywhere, and on many websites,* as simple experimental evidence proving the fallacy of the greenhouse gas effect theory (GHE)."
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9845&linkbox=true&position=3

delusional thinking

A cool wet spring in BC and everyone buries their heads in the sand about climate again. Somehow Exxon CEO's "opinion", based on self-interested oil sales profit projections, is worth as much as say NASA scientist James Hansen? Hansen doesn't think "adaption" on the scale we are now creating for our grandchildren will be a walk in the park. More like a massive dieoff in a world plagued by a whole nexus of unrepairable disasters and conflicts. Adapting to sea level rise alone should be fun for the 3 billion having to move uphill into occupied territory, and all the world's best delta farmland going underwater should be just ducky for the food supply curve. Adapting to starvation so that Exxon can thrive seems like a fair trade, eh?

There really are approaching carbon bomb tipping points like methane release from Arctic clathrates, runaway forest fires, acidic ocean dieoff, yada yada read all about it. These aren't so much speculation of if as just when. And when they do happen, there is no undo button.

Historians who might still be alive in the next century will consider CEO's like Rex Tillerson to be the Adolf Eichmanns of the 21st century. And we are just the Good Germans for letting them run the planet into hell.

Hansen? He's now a joke!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/

And he got caught twice altering, er, excuse me "adjusting" the temperature records. He tends to "adjust" early temperatures down and present temperatures up.

http://vocalminority.typepad.com/blog/2008/11/al-gores-righthand-man-james-hansen-caught-fixing-climate-data-again.html

Methane cladrates may sink ships and take out aircraft, but they have no effect on climate. Why?
THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE COVERING THE EARTH.

The ocean is alkaline and pH varies with the seanson, the time of day and with how close to shore the sample is taken.
Ocean "acidification" is just another example of Warmists taking advantage of the scientific illiteracy of the average citizen.

wiley:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/29/while-colorado-burns-washington-fiddles

Laughable

And this is the kind of fantasy world oil executives live in. Not to mention a grossly paternalistic and deceitful one.

I'd say we're facing more of a scenario Wiley describes, events of which have already begun today.

Andrew Weaver?

Andy Weaver is only a geographer so math, mathematical models and science are not his strong points. He always has trouble explaining how his models work and seldom looks at variations and statistics from the model runs.

Sure the models give ideas on direction but may not give any idea of extent. The EXXON guy is an engineer and has seem science solve many problems.

Weaver is a MATHEMATICIAN and computer modeler

"Andrew Weaver received his B.Sc (Mathematics and Physics) from the University of Victoria in 1983, a Certificate of Advanced Studies in Mathematics from Cambridge University in 1984, and a PhD in Applied Mathematics from the University of British Columbia in 1987. He is a Professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modelling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria."

and that's just the problem. He makes models and then pretends that is reality.
\
What else are you misinformed about, Sask Res?

ready for more warmism?

Arctic Ocean Update - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

On June 18, the five-day average sea ice extent was 10.62 million square kilometers (4.10 million square miles). This was 31,000 square kilometers (12,000 square miles) below the same day in 2010, the record low for the day and 824,000 square kilometers (318,000 square miles) below the same day in 2007, the year of record low September extent.

Judy it must be the heat of all those computers working overtime trying to model our impending demise. So blame it on the Black Swan of Runaway Number Crunching, not on the billion barrels of black goo we incinerate every week.

The Arctic has cycles of warming

Arctic Cycles – Related to AMO/PDO, Not CO2

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArcticCycles.htm

The crazy thing is that while there proof that CO2 does not cause heating, everything that happens in the way of weather or climate is made out to be connected to a few more PPM of it.

It's insane, but it sure enables governments to put the squeeze on their people. This latest from Thailand shows how evil the Climatecrazies can be.

Bizarre:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/29/bizarre-farm-workers-threatened-at-gunpoint-for-causing-global-warming-by-harvesting-crops/

Some things never change

As Tiny Tim sang in 1968:

The ice caps are melting, oh ho ho ho!
All the world is drowning, oh ho ho ho ho.
The ice caps are melting,
The tide is rushing in.
All the world is drowning,
To wash away the sin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc

so many Texans here

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/no-comment-necessary-texas-gops-2012-platform-opposes-teaching-critical-thinking-skills/

The usual snappy but shallow response.

I think this comment on the "critical-thinking skills" in Texas schools is probably close to what is really going on.
Often people are deceived by names, and often what something pretends to be is the very opposite from the real outcome wanted.

Pip Hansen
"Readers should know that in all of these things, particularly curriculum, the devil is in the details. The 'plank' clearly states that "(HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs".

The key factors include 'values clarification' (which generally attempts to invalidate conservative viewpoints) and 'behavior modification' (which means attempting to turn kids with core Judo-Christian ethical values into young atheistic liberals).

This battle has been going on in the educational world for years and years -- since my kids were in elementary school. One such program back in the 1980s explicitly and intentionally attempted to teach that there is 'no such thing as Right and Wrong', that such an idea was 'outmoded' and 'old-fashioned' -- and that kids should be taught that some things might be better than others, but nothing was really wrong.

I suspect that the Texas plank is fighting issues such as these."

Perhaps Hakuin, you haven't heard about the deliberate dumbing down that has gone on for the last 70+ years in the US. Now, it is obviously a world-wide program, since AGW was so easily accepted. China and India seem to have escaped, so far.

Charlotte Iserbyt - Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World

"Charlotte Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

uh-huh

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/30/eastern-united-states-sto_n_1639745.html

So?

What's the connection to CO2?

There isn't any!

"The claim: Among the many highly-publicized catastrophic consequences that climate alarmists contend will attend the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content are predicted increases in the frequency and severity of a variety of different types of storms.

In an effort to determine if this contention has any validity, many scientists have examined historical and proxy storm records in an attempt to determine how temperature changes of the past millennium may have impacted the storminess of earth's climate. Noting that the planet's mean temperature had risen by about 0.6 °C over the 20th century, for example, Easterling et al. (2000) looked for possible impacts of this warming on extreme weather events that they said "would add to the body of evidence that there is a discernable human affect on the climate." In doing so, however, they found few changes of significance, and -- as might have been expected -- that "in some areas of the world increases in extreme events are apparent, while in others there appears to be a decline," so that the overall global response was pretty much of a wash."

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/ch5.php

right

http://www.wawataynews.ca/archive/all/2012/6/14/forest-fires-and-global-warming_22938

It is hard to pin forest fires on "global warming"

when there hasn't been any "global" warming for years.

Myths / Facts

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Sure

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/29/us-wildfires-global-warming-scientists?newsfeed=true

Judy

You've spent quite a bit of time saying that you don't think the 'science' around global warming is credible. You also, I think, refer to some groups, pejoratively, as 'warmists'; and you refer to the theory of global warming as the new religion.

Perhaps you could try and explain what is motivating all this public, political, and institutional support for something that, according to your sources, is a complete fantasy.

Who benefits from all of this?

Sources versus sources

I find it a little hilarious (if also sad) that Judy Cross's sources include a website by a disgruntled weatherman, Watts, who was recently caught talking money from the right-wing propaganda organ, The Heartland Institute, and another blog (Friends of Science) run by former employees of the petrochemical industry, mostly retired geologists without any qualifications at all in climate science.

She prefers this fringe evidence to the consensus opinion of 97% of practicing climate scientists, and of every major scientific organization of the plane--which are unanimous in endorsing the standard scientific view that the planet is warming and our fossil fuel use and deforestation are causing it.

And no, Judy, there has been no abatement of warming. The oceans have continued to accumulate heat at the rate of one Hiroshima bomb every minute, just the same as they have for the last forty years. Wonder where all that heat is coming from, huh?

The Fifty Cent Party

can be a blueprint.

Horsefeathers and Hypocrisy, Fr. Theo

You point to the pittance the Skeptics get and ignore the BILLIONs that governments and foundations have poured into pushing the Warmist Agenda. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9271/have-western-governments-spent-100billion-on-global-warming-research-and-advoca
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/17/federal-government-spent-nearly-70-billion-on-climate-change-activities-since-2008/

Der Spiegel Skewers the World Wildlife Fund

A splendid and disturbing investigative feature in Der Spiegel explains why the WWF doesn’t deserve your charitable donations.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/30/der-spiegel-skewers-the-world-wildlife-fund/

A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.
nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/08/masters-of-hypocrisy-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/

http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/29/meteorologist-dr-wolfgang-thune-calls-potsdam-institutes-science-pure-voodoo-magic-for-spreading-fear-among-the-public/

gnam...just do a search for Global Governance, the Green Agenda, Agenda 21. I'll start you out....
http://www.iisd.ca/uncsd/rio20/unepwc/

Global Governance - EU President Admits One-World Government is Here - NWO - New World Order
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEqFtVrAgSo

SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION...OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY...BUT IT ISN'T.

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

that's the only explanation:

paid by the post.

as well as trying to buy the American election;

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/03/koch-brothers-funding-climate-change-denial-machine/

and further

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/heartland-institute-leak-climate-attack

Judy you're no judge...

So here's the problem Judy: you've cited articles detailing how much money goes into what some of your sources refer to as 'climate research bureaucracy and advocacy'. But you fail to name the actual beneficiaries of these funds or detail how these funds are spent, except in the Der speigel article, which basically says that WWF is more of a business that a conservationist. But a lot of money goes into funding Canadian research of all sorts. For example nearly 700 million went into research in the social sciences and humanities last year alone. Does this mean that there is a conspiracy amongst the 'bookists'?

The implication of your claims seem to be that anyone who benefits from funding for climate research must be in cahoots with everyone else who receives funding for climate research... ergo... massive conspiracy to hoodwink the public and brainwash them into needlessly funding research that obviously has no basis in reality.

But your only evidence to support your claim here seems to be that people spend money on this stuff. By the same kind of logic we could look at US welfare spending which (according to this site http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_chart_40.html) amounts to 30 times more than us government climate expenditures on an annual basis. Obviously there is an even bigger conspiracy to convince the American public that there are poor people in the USA, people who might need help. Furthermore another 23.5 billion annually gets spent on foreign aid, which is obviously a 'poorist' conspiracy designed to get us all to buy into the fabrication that people in the world are starving and without proper access to water, clothing, and shelter. After all, have you ever personally witnessed a famine? I didn't think so. TV? All part of the liberal Hollywood conspiracy.

Judy you're no judge... Cont'd

As for the Der Spiegel article, a brief skim of the article reveals that it is about the fact that money donated to green initiatives can be traced to some unsavory sources and that money is often mis-spent. So, you mean the environmental groups aren't all staffed by angels? Well they should pray for forgiveness, or maybe just send money to Jimmy Bakker and he'll pray for them. In other words, some corruption doesn't mean totally corrupt.

Finally... the global governance thing. What does the fact that government has gone global have to do with climate research? So has the economy, communication and information networks, the food supply, etc. If it's because of the fact that climate change is claimed to have effects on a planetary scale, and you think that this is somehow going to convince people to hand over their sovereignty to some nefarious globally powerful governing entity, then you're too late. One of your links claims that 100 billion has already been invested in climate research, well 700 billion went into bad loans with the EESA in 2008. Your global governance is already here, in the form of global capital. It demands tribute from even the world's most powerful national governments, and they hand it over willingly.

I guess this is a long way of saying, you've picked the wrong target. And no matter how strenuously you object to the prevailing claims of climate scientists, citing websites with 3-person staffing levels that are basically a resume/CV for getting work in the Shill business isn't really fooling anyone... except maybe you.

Sophistry will get you nowhere

I was responding to a taunt that somehow money from the tiny Heartland Institute to Watt of Watt's Up With That was illegitimate and nobody notices the government and foundation money flowing to NGOs which push the Climate Agenda.

How effing naive are you? "We" aren't handing it over sovereignty...our politician are with every trade agreement they sign.

Which target is wrong,...the Climate Agenda or the whores pushing it?

Heartland is Libertarian

and they were the target of a smear plan by someone who not only headed his own dear little foundation (which just re-instated him ), but was the Chair of its Ethics Committee.ROTFLOL!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/21/peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-documents/

"On February 20th activist scientist Peter Gleick issued a public statement. He admitted to creating a false identity in order to steal the property (confidential documents) of a private think tank. There is a sound argument that, by doing so, Gleick has confessed to committing a federal felony called wire fraud.

According to Gleick himself, his actions demonstrated:

a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics…

In his own opinion, his “judgment was blinded,” his behaviour is something to be deeply regretted, and apologies were appropriate and necessary. In the opinion of the New York Times‘ blogger Andrew Revkin, Gleick had “admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins” (for more info see here).

So how long did it take Gleick’s community to forgive and forget? A grand total of 17 days."
continues:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/09/17-days-later-peter-gleick-is-back-in-the-saddle/

Also spake Gleick:
" Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

…My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate… [bold added'

Right. So after more than a decade of declaring that the debate is over Gleick now claims he’s all in favour of it. He also has the chutzpah to suggest that it’s those on the other side of the fence who are preventing such a debate from taking place.

Now let’s add one more detail to the mix. In late January Gleick turned down an invitation to debate a climate skeptic even though a $5,000 donation would have been made to a charity of his choice."

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/24/peter-gleick-then-and-now/

yes

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf_blogging

That has nothing to do with Donna Laframboise

She is one of the brave Canadians we should be proud of.

She worked tirelessly "when other journalists lost interest in the notorious Guy Paul Morin case after he was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1992, she used her freelance column in the Star to expose the flawed forensic science that led to his conviction.

She is also a former member of the board of directors for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association between 1993 and 1998 – and served as a Vice-President from 1998-2001."
http://helplessbyblatchford.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/donna-laframboise-former-vp-of-ccla-offers-unique-perspective-on-blatchford-uow-incident/

She has exposed the IPCC for the unscientific boondoggle it is in a book which Peter Gleick reviewed on Amazon by saying he hadn't read it, and nobody else should either.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/

ah so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spambot

UK Confernce of Science Journalists

‘institutions unlikely to fairly investigate allegations of fraud made against their own’

A report by radio carbon dating expert Douglas J. Keenan sums it up with:
"For me, the take-home message from the conference is that a large majority of science journalists are extremely naive about scientists. The naivety is so extreme that I suspect it must be partially willful.

For global-warming skeptics, something else should perhaps be mentioned. Many global-warming skeptics seem to think that there is something special about the prevalence of bogus research in global warming. There is not. Anyone who has looked at other fields of science knows that there are fields that are worse than global warming. This tells us something important: the underlying cause of the problem is not specific to global warming.

I mention this especially because some skeptics seem to believe that what is needed is reform of the IPCC. Yes, the IPCC could benefit from reform. But that would not solve the problem.

We have known for millennia that prerequisites for integrity in human affairs include things like transparency and accountability. Those things should be in all scientific research. "

Read it all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/01/uk-conference-of-science-journalists-institutions-unlikely-to-fairly-investigate-allegations-of-fraud-made-against-their-own/#more-66554

Judy

In response to your post I have some questions.

1. you say: and they were the target of a smear plan by someone who not only headed his own dear little foundation (which just re-instated him ), but was the Chair of its Ethics Committee.

OK... So what?

2. Regarding Gleick's indiscretions... Um... so what?

3. You say: Right. So after more than a decade of declaring that the debate is over Gleick now claims he’s all in favour of it. He also has the chutzpah to suggest that it’s those on the other side of the fence who are preventing such a debate from taking place.

Uh, huh... so?

4. How effing naive are you? "We" aren't handing it over sovereignty...our politician are with every trade agreement they sign.

Ummm... not all that naive I don't think, but I could be wrong. I said: Your global governance is already here, in the form of global capital.

and then you said that signing trade deals undermines sovereignty (I assume you are referring to 'ours', but it's not clear from your post really). It sounds like you're agreeing with me, at any rate. Anyway, what does this have to do with climate 'science'?

5. Then you said: Which target is wrong,...the Climate Agenda or the whores pushing it?

Well... which one is your target, exactly? Further to that, I guess I can ask one final question to 'rule them all' so to speak (sorry I had to geek out there for a second): again, what exactly do you think the 'climate agenda' is?

lookit that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pLydHWUKrbc

Global Capital Loves Global Warming

Yes, the net is closing and Global Warming has morphed to "Sustainability" and the IMF wants $100 Billion a year to run it all.

I posted a link to a critique of Agenda 21. Read it.
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

This one is good too:
"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth, (this is the same guy who bragged about opening the windows in the air conditioned hearing room during a DC heatwave the night before James Hansen delivered his the Earth is Gonna Burn testimony to a Congressional Committee hearing"
President of the UN Foundation (started and funded with $1 Billion by Ted Turner, and the org that runs and funds the IPCC. Sweet connections, eh? )

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
There are more quotes here:
http://www.green-agenda.com

hmmm

[OFFENSIVE CHARACTERIZATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Judy

I took a look at your links.

So let me get this straight...

You think that a bunch of people, who've made careers in governance, getting together to try and identify a set of interests that is (or might be seen to be) global in nature in order to try and establish a basis on which to claim legitimacy for a system of global government is... new? a threat? a conspiracy? etc?

I dunno, I browsed through some of the quotes on the green agenda website you suggested. My first reaction was ~yawn~ So?

Then I took a look at the agenda 21 thingy and, again, I had to stifle a yawn. Why should I care that some white bourgie fear-monger is all in a snit that some of the people around her might tell her what to do from time to time, that some of the time community interests might just trump property interests?

I have no problem with social planning. My problem is with people who 'plan' to screw most of the folks whose interests they're supposed to represent. The latter of these two situations is already in place. It's called capitalism. If a few of these hacks have trouble sleeping at night and want to build bike lanes or something to help themselves feel better, well... so much the better. Beats having to wander round sucking exhaust fumes all the time. And further to that, if it becomes more difficult for some folks to ride around willy nilly in whatever gas guzzling monstrosity the feel like they 'want'... well, who cares? Petition for rail service to a neighborhood near you. Or, take the bus... like many of us. Or walk. Or whatever.

oh what the hell...

I must as well just come to the point. You're whole neoliberal individualism bit is silly too.

Here's a primer: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm

Section 1 should be enough. But you can read the 800 pgs if you want. At least you know where I stand.

cheers
g.

Oh Yeah... Judy

If you wanted the article by Lomborg it's here:

http://ifile.it/pt92f7n/Environmental Alarmism, then and now.docx

A Marxist yet!

No wonder you seem to lack a grasp of basic morality.

Judy

on what grounds do you claim any relationship between my basic grasp of morality and the first few pages of Marx's Grundrisse?

:)

botbotbotbot

Marx was a Bankster sponsored fraud

and what I've noticed about doctrinaire folks like yourself, is your self inflicted blinders prevent you from noticing anything that is inconvenient to your dogma.

The attempted revival of Marxist thought after what Russia, East Germany, Romania and China have been through, has got to be the sick joke of this century.

You might be interested in this footnote to the Marxist Revival, Obummer was a red-diaper baby and, as it turns out, Kenya had nothing to do with it.

http://cofcc.org/2012/06/dreams-of-my-real-father/

OK Judy ...

I call b.s.

please provide the source detailing the Engels family's involvement in the financial sector. I thought they were in manufacturing.

also, please be specific about what part of your argument / reality you think I am blind to or have dismissed out of hand as a result of my "dogmatic beliefs". I will do my best to redress those oversights.

finally, what, precisely, do you think the contemporary re-awakening of interest in critiques of capitalism - Marx wrote these - have to do with the countries you named? I thought the recent interest in Marx's critique of capital had more to do with neoliberalism and the global financial instability of recent years than anything else. do you have some other relevant evidence about this you'd like to share?

Judy I just looked at your link...

Seriously??

This is great! keep writing and posting. This is really good stuff.

I especially like the comment board on the link you just posted.

Check out these little gems where some of your 'friends' over at the council blame Obama's mother's untimely death (due to cervical cancer) on her 'loose morals' and 'promiscuity', among other things.

George writes: "She died of cervical cancer and one of the contributing factors of this cancer can be promiscuity."

a g writes: "Obama's mother appeared to be a woman of very loose morals and poor judgement."

and J B writes: "it's possible his mother laid with all these questionable people and she didn't know who the father really was."

Seriously? You're directing me to a site where people are resorting to the most vile sexism as an ad hominem attack on a woman's son? And you claim that I have a problem grasping the basics of morality?

I engaged in a discussion with you, in part, because I suspected that, given enough rope, you'd hang yourself (I also thought that maybe, just maybe, you'd say something interesting). Anyway, keep talking... it looks like you're about to swing.

Suddenly your morality is offended?

But you have no problem with Peter Gleick's actions!.

"In November 2009, in the wake of the first release of Climategate documents, I found myself asking rhetorical questions:

To those minimizing ClimateGate: How badly do people have to behave? What line must they cross before you’ll stop excusing them?

I am now pondering similar questions regarding the Peter Gleick affair. Two weeks have passed since this story broke. This is what we know:

Gleick acquired confidential documents by impersonating a board member of the Heartland Institute. That was falsehood #1.

By calling himself “Heartland Insider,” Gleick misrepresented his relationship to that organization when he leaked these documents to 15 individuals. That was falsehood #2.

One of the documents – a two-page strategy discussion that became the most widely-cited of the package and was swiftly dismissed as a forgery by the Heartland Institute – was not like the others. It was not e-mailed to Gleick after he tricked the Heartland into thinking he was someone else. He now says that this document (the only one in which he is mentioned) was mailed to him anonymously. When he implied that all of these documents came from the Heartland he misled the 15 souls to whom he was leaking this material. That was falsehood #3.

Several days before Gleick admitted to having any connection to this matter, Steven Mosher noticed that the writing style of the strategy document is similar to Gleick’s own writing style (see here, here, and here). In many people’s minds, it now seems likely that this document was faked by Gleick himself (see here, here, and here).

In Gleick’s own words, the above demonstrates “a serious lapse” of “professional judgment and ethics.” There are many ways to win the hearts and minds of the public. Anyone who feels the need to resort to phishing or forging would seem to have little faith in their own evidence.

Two weeks later I remain horrified by the moral vacuity demonstrated by the many, many people who think Gleick’s behaviour is no big deal. An alarming number of them appear to be employed in the sciences" more@

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/28/where-do-gleicks-apologists-draw-the-line/

An Experiment for Judycross

Empirical evidence by direct experimentation works wonders for changing opinions. Try starting your car in a closed garage and observe how the climate begins to change around you. Probably it would be wise to have someone who cares about you to keep a careful eye on you from a safe distance so that when you collapse they can enter the contained environment, turn the car off, open some windows and administer first aid. This analogy of our current environmental vandalism in the form of pollution from burning oil and coal applies on the global scale as well but obviously takes a little longer to play out. I am all for burning all the oil on the planet, but let's take 10,000 years to do it rather than 50 or 100.
Good luck with the experiment!

The experiment was done in 1909

and then replicated last year.

"Professor Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico backed by a team of international scientists has faithfully recreated a famous experiment from 1909 to confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.

Astonishingly, the 1909 greenhouse gas experiment first performed by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University hadn’t been replicated for a century. This despite over $100 billion spent by the man-made global warming industry trying to prove its case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous atmospheric pollutant.

The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.

At the Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle was able to confirm the astounding findings: Wood was right all along. After peer-review the results confirm that the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained i.e. as in this case, a lab flask.

Indeed, it is the glass of the lab flask (or ‘greenhouse’) that caused the “trapped” radiation all along. The flask (or greenhouse) being what scientists refer to as a ‘closed system’; while Earth’s atmosphere isn’t closed at all but rather open to space allowing heat energy to freely escape.

Nahle’s findings shoot holes in claims of Professor Pratt of Stanford University whose own replication of Wood’s experiment was touted as the first official reconstruction of Wood’s test for a century. Pratt claimed he had disproved Wood’s findings.

“This is the reason that I decided to repeat the experiment of Professor Pratt to either falsify or verify his results and those of Professor Wood,“ says the Mexican professor at the Biology Cabinet.

The Monterrey science research institute also recreated Wood’s test into the effect of longwave infrared radiation trapped inside a greenhouse. Unlike Pratt it found that Wood’s findings were correct, absolutely valid and systematically repeatable. The Bio Cab man affirms, “ the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.”

Put simply, one of the aforementioned professors has their reputation perilously on the line and Nahle is gunning for an explanation from his U.S. Rival. A clue to the outcome: Pratt isn't even qualified in science - he's a (warmist) mathematician specializing in computers.

Much more HERE
http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073

Hah! John O'Sullivan?

See here: http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.ca/2011/09/john-osullivan-look-ma-no-brain.html

and from a commenter here: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/

Thanks for not deleting Mr. O’Sullivan’s hilarious demonstration why he is (or claims to be) the world’s most popular science writer on the “global warming hoax.” His work indeed is followed by hordes of global warming deniers, who would rather live in a world governed by the laws of comic book science.

For the last 6 months, I’ve been unraveling the huge web of lies this humbug has been weaving across the Internet. Now that a formal inquiry by the Law Society of British Columbia has been completed, I will be placing on my web site the evidence I’ve gathered that shows Mr. O’Sullivan is an utter humbug who’s been promoting himself and his gang of “Sky Dragon Slayer “scientists” through fraudulent academic and professional credentials. For example, Mr. O’Sullivan is:

NOT an attorney employed by Pearlman Lindholm as a legal consultant;

NOT an attorney representing fellow humbug Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia;

NOT an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal 2nd District Courts;

NOT a member of the American Bar Association;

NOT a member of the New York County Lawyers Association;

NOT the author of the two climate articles he claims to have written in the National Review;

NOT the author of articles in Forbes magazine;

NOT now or was ever licensed to practice law in New York courts;

NOT licensed to practice law in British Columbia;

NOR apparently in any other courts.

cont'd from previous quote

In addition, Mr. O’Sullivan first reported he earned his law degree from University College, Cork, Ireland. He now contradicts that by claiming he earned his law degree from the University of Surrey in the UK — while he actually was earning a degree in art from another — West Surrey College of Art and Design!

After earning his degree from West Surrey, he went for teacher training to become a gym, sports, or athletics teacher and worked for some 20 years as a school teacher teaching presumably gym or athletics (and/or possibly art).

Around 2009-2010, Mr. O’Sullivan launched his “new career” as a “science writer” and “legal analyst.” He found his niche as a high-profile hit man seeking to destroy the reputations and careers of climate scientists and soon began awarding himself academic and professional credentials to help sell himself and his shamelessly false, often defamatory attacks.

The quote you saved above shows why he really should be calling himself a “science re-writer” — since for the past 2 years he has been quite busy rewriting the laws of science.

The “rewrite” above is nearly as funny as the discourse he gave to LinkedIn’s Science and Technology Writers Group, in which he lectured how a scientific theory becomes a law of science after it’s repeatedly tested and proven true.

That guffaw-inspiring puffery is almost matched by his pontification below about how a scientific “theory must provide the proof.” It’s a good thing no one told Einstein that, since he never, ever provided any of the proof that firmly established his revolutionary theories of Relativity.

And then he ignoramusly twists the relationship between hypothesis and theory: “If the theory makes a prediction, which it must to not simply be a hypothesis, and the prediction is wrong then the theory is discarded.”

As disreputable and harmful as Mr. O’Sullivan is, I have to admit he is great entertainment.

interesting bunch of 'info' you've posted Judy,

if you like listening to a bunch of people who know almost nothing about what they're talking about engage in pointless posturing.

see ya,

you're a troll... I'm done.

g

gnam, Pretending that there is a Greenhouse Effect

on the grounds that you disapprove of the reporter...and who the H are you anyway....doesn't cut any ice at all.

Then to quote greengorpe aka greenfyre as an authority is really pathetic.

Your ignorance is compounded because there are numerous ways OF skinning the skanky cat that is the Greenhouse Theory.

This one works too: Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Withing The Framework of Physics
Published in 2009 AND NEVER REFUTED

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

Read it and weep, Marxist!