How Bad Is Global Warming?

[wintler2]

Bored now. I finally suspect you want me to admit that it was warmer in the Eemian - happy to do so, it apparently was. Fini?

[seemslikeadream]

Exclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science
Audit trail reveals that donors linked to fossil fuel industry are backing global warming sceptics
STEVE CONNOR THURSDAY 24 JANUARY 2013

A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.

The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.

However, an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.

Millions of dollars has been paid to Donors through a third-party organisation, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.

Some commentators believe that such convoluted arrangements are becoming increasingly common to shield the identity and backgrounds of the wealthy supporters of climate scepticism – some of whom have vested interests in the fossil-fuel industry.

The Knowledge and Progress Fund, whose directors include Charles Koch and his wife Liz, gave $1.25m to Donors in 2007, a further $1.25m in 2008 and $2m in 2010. It does not appear to have given money to any other group and there is no mention of the fund on the websites of Koch Industries or the Charles Koch Foundation.

The Donors Trust is a "donor advised fund", meaning that it has special status under the US tax system. People who give money receive generous tax relief and can retain greater anonymity than if they had used their own charitable foundations because, technically, they do not control how Donors spends the cash.

Anonymous private funding of global warming sceptics, who have criticised climate scientists for their lack of transparency, is becoming increasingly common. The Kochs, for instance, have overtaken the corporate funding of climate denialism by oil companies such as ExxonMobil. One such organisation, Americans for Prosperity, which was established by David Koch, claimed that the "Climategate" emails illegally hacked from the University of East Anglia in 2009 proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world has ever seen".

Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate change, with much of the money donated anonymously through third parties.

The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

Dr Brulle said: "We really have anonymous giving and unaccountable power being exercised here in the creation of the climate countermovement. There is no attribution, no responsibility for the actions of these foundations to the public.

"By becoming anonymous, they remove a political target. They can plausibly claim that they are not giving to these organisations, and there is no way to prove otherwise."

[Ben D]

Exclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science

A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.

Without specifics, these sorts of claims will be seen as just froth and bubble.

[Sounder]

Yeah and so what, we also have B-P, those paragons of integrity and Exxon who support AGW, (because they sell their product on a cost plus basis), but nobody gets to say AGW is false on that account.

Its similar to the weather not being the same as climate, but never mind I suppose, it's not like anybody's keen on maintaining that distinction either.

[wintler2]

Exclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science

A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.

Without specifics, these sorts of claims will be seen as just froth and bubble.

..by habitual AGW deniers who wont bother to read the article or consider the very long established history of AGW denial being funded by the same planet fuckers who are profiting most from it, eg.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34038
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27699
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32955
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32568

-

Looked out the window lately BenD?
Rescues, inundations and wreckage across Central Queensland as rainfall records go under. Did you know that more high intensity rainfall events are predicted with warmer (=more evap) climate? When were s.qlds last major floods ... 2010-11 wasn't it? At least yr not in Roma, could be fourth year in a row, ouch!

OT - guess who lives in the lowlying bits that should never have been built on? Thats right, the poor folks, that'll teach them for voting Tory.

FOT - banner outside local xtian shopfront: 'Jesus is the reason for the season'. [its been v.hot]. Does your Lord Monkton have an explanation?

[Ben D]

Wintler2, face it, if skeptical climate science can prove that the AGW climate science based on human produced CO2 forcing is flawed, then it all over for those who have fallen for it. That's all there is to it.

That's science in action. Scientific theories only last as long as they are not falsified, when falsification does occur, then everyone moves on and further and deeper understanding ensues.

AGW science is under pressure, not due to moneyed interests providing money for opposition propaganda purposes, but because it appears to be flawed and skeptical AGW climate science is active in revealing the perceived flaws.

Because of the powerful political and financial vested interests in the AGW position on climate change, there is a lot of resistance to the claim of many scientists that CO2 is not the main driver of global warming, but time will reveal all.

May the truth prevail...

[wintler2]

The current extreme rainfall on Aus east coast is due to large and slow moving tropical lows. Usually these get barrelled along distributing rain across a large area, but these are (like 2010-11) dawdling, stopping and starting, and so concentrated areas are getting [i]alot[i] of rain, 1 meter /1000mm / over 3 feet in Gladstone according to news report on ABC24. Hopefully wont get as many deaths as that last 1 in 100 year flood (3 years ago), but it does support the wavering-jetstreams theory of current climate change. Just like recent heatwave, strong pressure systems in mid-latitudes are not being moved on, they are parking.

[compared2what?]

Exclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science

A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.

Without specifics, these sorts of claims will be seen as just froth and bubble.

There are so many specifics in the public record regarding which billionaires use which non-profits to persuade you that global warming either isn't happening or isn't anthropogenic that the accounts of them are practically only a few specificity degrees away from having a "Ben D; opinion-influencing" line item under "Expenditures." Just practically, though. To be fair.

Anyway. I don't know exactly what audit that article's referring to. But there's a massive .pdf outlining the money trail available for download here, plus an update/revision here.

[Ben D]

There are so many specifics in the public record regarding which billionaires use which non-profits to persuade you that global warming either isn't happening or isn't anthropogenic that the accounts of them are practically only a few specificity degrees away from having a "Ben D; opinion-influencing" line item under "Expenditures." Just practically, though. To be fair.

There is no one that I am aware of that believes that AGW skeptical science gets more funding then the AGW team science, by a very large factor.

But regardless of whether you think otherwise, in the end it is not going to be the amount of funding, or the propaganda that persuades the world that global warming is or isn't caused by humans, but science! Watch this space....

[Iamwhomiam]

"Without specifics, these sorts of claims will be seen as just froth and bubble."

Right from the Horse's 'mouth'.

Think we'll ever hear something like this from Ben or his disbelieving buddies?:

Climate Skeptic, Koch-Funded Scientist Admits Global Warming Real and Humans the Cause

Note the date, Ben.

You're an oblivious endangered species.

[Ben D]

"Without specifics, these sorts of claims will be seen as just froth and bubble."

Right from the Horse's 'mouth'.

Think we'll ever hear something like this from Ben or his disbelieving buddies?:

Climate Skeptic, Koch-Funded Scientist Admits Global Warming Real and Humans the Cause

Note the date, Ben.

On Edit.
Oh got it....the so called conversion by Muller...8-3-12 and his funding by the Koch brothers.

Do you know the background of this?

Here is his position from 12-17-2003...

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

As far as I know, Mr. Muller has never recanted his position on AGW CO2 global warming, so his so called conversion was an AGW publicity stunt that was seen through by Der Speigal at the time (8-6-12). And of course by skeptics.

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/noerdlichstes-korallenriff-entdeckt-vulkankatastrophe-im-mittelalter-a-848547-3.html

Mr. Muller, a self professed believer in AGW, and a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) in 2010. BEST was partially funded by the Koch brothers. In 2012 he was presented to the world as a conversion from being a AGW skeptic to pro AGW climate change. Those who have taken this story that appeared all over MSM at face value were deceived. Mr Muller has always been AGW. His known difference with the AGW team solidarity include Mann's hockey stick graph for example and the unethical behavior reflected in the Climategate emails, and one would suppose these are his so called skeptic credentials?.

[Iamwhomiam]

Dr. Muller, disrespectful asshole.

Mr Muller's a mailman.

I'll be sure to post my reference links in Swahili.

And here's a shitload of references that reveal his true skeptism before his studying the science.

So how's the ice age progressing down there this summer, things warm up any?

[Ben D]

Googling "Skeptic admits global warming" doesn't help your case unless it shows that he was not a believer in CO2 AGW at the time preceding this event in August 2012 when he is supposed to change his stated position on anthropogenic cause of CO2 global warming as recorded in December 17, 2003 MIT Technology Review.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

Now unless you can find some persuasive evidence of him recanting this position, the case is closed so far as any reasonable person is concerned.

[justdrew]

ben, if AGW is wrong the cost is we've converted to modern energy infrastructure and will reserve remaining petroleum for non-burning uses. If you're wrong and we've done nothing, the future of the human race is non-existent. Doesn't really seem to balance out too well does it?

[compared2what?]

Googling "Skeptic admits global warming" doesn't help your case unless it shows that he was not a believer in CO2 AGW at the time preceding this event in August 2012 when he is supposed to change his stated position on anthropogenic cause of CO2 global warming as recorded in December 17, 2003 MIT Technology Review.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

Now unless you can find some persuasive evidence of him recanting this position, the case is closed so far as any reasonable person is concerned.

Unless he or she is a reasonable person whose reading comprehension skills are sufficiently robust not to be compromised when primed by exposure to a cherry-picked paragraph.

Because that reasonable person would have no trouble at all seeing that the position he takes there on an anthropogenic cause of CO2 global warming is that it's an open and unsettled question. Because he says so. Quite plainly. And repeatedly, too. It's the sole point of just about every line he writes, in one way or another.

Furthermore, the same reasonable reader would have equally little trouble understanding that in view of the context, timing and place of publication, "it's an open and unsettled question" was really just a polite and scientifically reputable way of saying "I disagree with the consensus."

In short: He wasn't down with anthropogenic global warming as a demonstrated reality or scientifically established truth when he wrote that. Far from it. He thought it was an extremely questionable proposition and was actively questioning it.

So unless you can find some persuasive evidence that he had some other position prior to renouncing that one, the case is closed as far as any reasonable person in concerned.