How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Nordic]

[Sounder]

That great for propaganda purposes Nordic, but the 97% is fiction and the oil company's and billionaires are all on board the CC train.


http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18187

....The crème de la crème comes with the work (if that is right term for it) of John Cook, occasionally aided by Stefan Lewandowsky. I’ve written about their ‘contribution’ to science more than once, as here, for example. In 2013 Cook et al and a team of volunteers looked at more than 12,000 abstracts, rated them according to whether or not they implicitly or explicitly endorsed the view that human activity had caused (wait for it) some of the warming, and again found the magic 97 per cent. See — it’s true! Surely those three separate ratings of 97 per cent have something going for them.

On the face of it, no. Unfortunately for Cook, Legates and others later in the same year published a rebuttal. They found that only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% – had been found to endorse the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner and other climate scientists protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. Cook has been trying to defend his results ever since, but more and more scorn has, in my view quite rightly, been poured on the work. You can read some of the objections here, here and here, for starters. As I have said before, this is terrible stuff methodologically, the worst I’ve ever seen in a peer-reviewed journal.

It is a bit amusing to find this subjective disparity between the pro and anti camps, yeah that there is some real objective science that has to fabricate and use 97% as its talisman.

[DrEvil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_o ... ate_change

[DrEvil]

Dr. Legates works for several organizations sponsored by Exxon. He's also a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" which states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

He's not only a paid schill, but also a religious nutjob.

See also the graph I posted above. Cook is not the only one to come to the conclusion he did.

[backtoiam]

This carbon tax thing looks more like a trojan horse for a global income tax instead of anything to regulate the climate. We are to believe that the same PTB that poisoned the planet, the people that live on the planet, the plants and animals, and the water are going to tax the common people and do something that actually benefits the common people with the money? It will be business as usual poisoning the planet and more people will be looted of their earnings so that the money can be stuffed into the pockets of the same people that poisoned the planet in the first place. I see no reason to believe otherwise. Not to mention that it was dreamed up in large measure by The Club of Rome. And now suddenly the same people that are destroying this place and killing people all over the world suddenly care? Color me dubious.

Scientific theories are supposed to be rigorously tested and debated to make sure they hold up. We discover on a regular basis that believed scientific theories of the past are in fact wrong. Happens all the time. If these theories are so solid why do they want to criminalize rigorous debate and testing? And if they want to prosecute the oil industry why not dozens of other industries that are contributing to the "problem?"

Opposition Grows To Liberal AGs Targeting Global Warming Skeptics

Michael Bastasch on April 25, 2016

The opposition to investigations targeting of global warming skeptics is growing as newspapers, scientists and red state attorneys general come out against liberal prosecutors looking to silence those they believe to be misleading the public on climate science.

“Climate change campaigners argue the seriousness of the issue means extreme measures are warranted, but the exact opposite is the case,” reads a recent Financial Times editorial in opposition to investigations by liberal attorneys general into ExxonMobil and others.

“It is precisely because the stakes are so high that all arguments must be heard. The actions by the attorney-generals can only degrade the quality of that debate,” wrote FT’s editorial board.

The Financial Times isn’t alone in their opposition into climate investigations started by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat. The U.K.-based paper joins a growing chorus of critics to Schneiderman’s “witch hunt” — the mantle of which has now been taken up by AGs in California, Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. joined FT in condemning liberal AGs’ probes into Exxon’s global warming stance, which have also ensared a libertarian think tank and a right-leaning PR firm. Pielke, no skeptic of global warming, researched climate issues until Democratic lawmakers targeted him in their own investigation in 2015. After that, he largely stopped publishing on climate.

The @FT gets it right on the poisonous climate debate, now state power used to silence –>
https://t.co/9bmAscYGhb pic.twitter.com/rBjajKFQXO

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) April 24, 2016

Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech University, joined Pielke in condemning government prosecutors going after skeptics and oil companies for disagreements over science. Curry is a well-respected scientist and prominent skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming.

Climate change skeptics must be able to speak out. Govt should not act to suppress views it doesn’t agree with https://t.co/CdYuAlDIM9

— Judith Curry (@curryja) April 24, 2016

Schneiderman and other state AGs recently held an event where they coordinated with top environmentalists on how to go about promoting federal global warming regulations and further their investigation into Exxon’s alleged misleading of the public on global warming.

It was in the wake of that meeting that Virgin Islands AG Claude Walked issued a subpoena to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian think tank, for its alleged ties to Exxon. Walker’s subpoena asked for 20 years of records from CEI, which the think tank is challenging in court.

“Court rulings make it clear that broad subpoenas aimed at restricting speech, especially in the context of policy debates, are invalid,” CEI president Kent Lassman and counsel Sam Kazman wrote in a Washington Post oped. “Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that the remedy for unwanted speech is more speech in response.”

“The chief law-enforcement officers of several states should know better, but their reaction to a dissenting policy position is punitive, coercive and unconstitutional,” they wrote.

Schneiderman’s and Walker’s investigations were prompted by reports by InsideClimate News and Columbia University alleging Exxon was misleading the public about global warming. Reports claim to show Exxon knew oil production would make global warming worse, but continued to conduct business and fund groups skeptical of global warming regulations.

InsideClimate and Columbia reports are meant to draw parallels between fossil fuel companies and the tobacco industry. In 1999, the federal government filed suit against tobacco companies, which eventually led to a conviction and millions of dollars in fines.

Democratic politicians and environmentalists have been calling for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to launch a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, investigation into groups they see as casting doubt on the theory of catastrophic global warming.

RICO is what the DOJ used to go after the tobacco industry for misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. Now, Democrats and activists want this law, created to take down organized crime rackets, to prosecute their political opponents.

Republican attorneys general have come out against investigations into skeptics, and constitutional lawyers have cautioned that these probes could be used to restrict free speech.

“Democrats — in the US the climate debate has become rigidly partisan — might applaud the attorney-generals’ actions now, but would be appalled if similar tactics were used by Republican officials in debates over abortion or gun control,” wrote FT’s editorial board.

“Opponents of action on climate change have also used the law to harass their opponents, for example in the investigation into the University of Virginia launched by the state’s attorney-general in 2010, but that is no defence. It is not in anyone’s interest for such tactics to be legitimised,” the editorial board wrote.

http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/20 ... -skeptics/

[backtoiam]

Dr. Evil wrote:
He's not only a paid schill, but also a religious nutjob.

As opposed to what? Those lying conniving looting murdering Democrats? At this point in history i'm pretty sure I can stomach people that go to church on Sunday easier than the Democrats.

[backtoiam]

Obama’s Global Warming Plan Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raises Taxes By 166%

President Obama’s global warming plan would cost America’s poorest families billions annually, according to a report published Thursday by the Manhattan Institute.

The study estimates that Obama’s global warming plan would increase the costs of living for the poorest American families an additional $19 billion per year, equivalent to increasing their taxes by 166 percent. The tax increase would also raise taxes on other poor families by an extra $25 billion, equal to a 33 percent tax increase. Living costs for the richest households would only increase by 4 percent.

Obama wants to implement the Enviromental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which would effectively tax four-fifths of American carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and be similar in scope to an economy-wide carbon tax. In addition, Obama has proposed a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax.

Neither plan would have a large impact on global warming. Data modeling created by the EPA and run by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that the Clean Power Plan would only have adverted 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small it couldn’t be detected.

“The greatest tragedy of the Democrats’ climate agenda is not how little it will accomplish but rather how costly it will be for those least able to afford it,” Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who authored the study, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The study determined that taxing CO2 emissions or gasoline inherently hurts the poor more than the rich because the lowest-income U.S. households spend roughly 35 percent of their annual income on energy, while the highest income households spent less than 3 percent of their income on energy.

Though the study is based on projections of future tax increases, the average American’s electric bill has gone up 10 percent since Obama took office in January, 2009, due to federal regulations.

The amount spent to meet global carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals could be as high as $16.5 trillion between now and 2030, when energy efficiency measures are included, according to projections from the International Energy Agency. To put these numbers in perspective, the U.S. government is just over $19 trillion in debt and only produced $17.4 trillion in gross domestic product in 2014.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/23/obama ... z46kmNUkdh

[Iamwhomiam]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

[brainpanhandler]

Dr. Evil wrote:
He's not only a paid schill, but also a religious nutjob.

As opposed to what?

As opposed to actual climate scientists with no agenda but creating the most accurate map of reality as possible.

Or just insert whatever unrelated-to-context-distraction you prefer:

Those lying conniving looting murdering Democrats?

At this point in history i'm pretty sure I can stomach people that go to church on Sunday easier than the Democrats.

For awhile I thought you were sort of clever playing someone so dumb.

[backtoiam]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

http://www.wiki-rath.org/thesorosconnection.html

[Iamwhomiam]

Yup! Ol' Georgie hisself sits up nights writin that shit.

Clearly, the government has fucked with your mind, you poor fellow!

I think I shall henceforth call you Mr. Fox, btia.

Or would you prefer I call you Mr. Natural Newsboy?

Because you ain't never going back to who you were.

Maybe it's about time I addressed your last bit of wit thrown my way...

[backtoiam]

no wit involved. i have a hard time trusting the benevolence of billionaires that are heavily involved in social matters no matter who they are.

[seemslikeadream]

now you are in this thread linking to the Daily Caller??

why are you linking to all these right wing racist websites?

Daily Caller Uses Mariachi Photo To Represent Undocumented Immigrants

[Luther Blissett]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Uybj7pnBI

[DrEvil]

He's either a racist or too ignorant to realize he's posting racist tripe. I'm leaning towards the latter seeing as he threw a hissy fit when I recommended he check his sources before posting.