Lining his pockets with green.
American Tradition Institute director of litigation Chris Horner first filed a FOIA request with NASA for records on Hansen’s outside employment in February, but the Obama administration initially fought the request, even litigating the matter in court.
Then, all of a sudden last Friday, the Justice Department sent Horner the documents he had requested.
A January 20, 2009, document shows that the Canadian law firm Ackroyd LLP retained Hansen to prepare a report “regarding the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions from the Joslyn Oil Sand Mine.”
Ackroyd represents the Oil Sand Environmental Coalition (OSEC), a group fighting to stop oil sand development. Federal government employees are not allowed to accept money for expert testimony in proceedings before a court or agency of the United States. But Hansen was testifying before a Candian court, so as long as he disclosed the payments, the agreement should have been legal.
It is still unclear how much money Hansen received from Ackroyd, however, since his 2010 financial disclosure form did not list them as a source of income. Neither does his 2009 form. There is also no record of his disclosing any travel expenses related to his 2010 oil sands testimony in Canada.
Sounds like Jim went to the Tim Geithner school of “tax preparation” AKA “Cheating”
Tom Friedman goes on-point:
What Friedman says is just the plain & simple common-sense truth, ain’t it Bryan?
And that’s why RedState’s respected Erick Erickson is leaning toward Jon Huntsman.
Because as Richard Feynman, Jim Hansen, Republicans for Environmental Protection, and PJ Media’s own Charlie Martin all say: “Nature cannot be fooled.”
And no foolin’ … carbon-based energy economies are a mighty bad idea.
—————————————
Here Comes the Sun
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energy.html
Nice try. How about dealing with the fact that Hansen is cashin’ in with the big green money machine.
Like Hansen, you can be sure that “A Physicist” is being paid to deal with his own cognitive dissonance. That money buys a lot of alcohol, drugs, women (or men), or whatever other vices they need to get to sleep at night.
Say Johnny: Do you ever do any real work? Or does being a tenured university professor mean that you get to hang around online at the taxpayer’s expense? You obviously spend a lot of time roaming the net looking for talking points to continue your AGW fundamentalism at our site.
Just curious, dude. Nothing personal.
I get the feeling that UW probably pays him to do this, or at the very least has a tacit understanding to “look the other way”… otherwise someone would have complained about his massive overuse of university resources on this little project of his.
“And no foolin’ … carbon-based energy economies are a mighty bad idea.” Yes, let’s all stop using carbon-based energy. Let’s see, no electricity, no heat, no food, no commerce, sudden death. Ah, you must love Gaia and hate people.
Folks, nothing will destroy the proud traditions of American engineering and enterprise faster than a faux-conservative brand of politics that combines willful and aggressive ignorance of science and technology, together with a far-ranging contempt for innovation and education, in utter subservience to destructive special interests like Big Carbon.
You are a fanatic. You are evidence-proof. Your “arguments” are invariably fallacious, often mendacious.
Since you think “carbon-based energy economies are a mighty bad idea” I suggest you be the first to show us the way. You should no longer use electricity from the electric company, you should no longer use natural gas or oil to heat your home, you should no longer drive your car or fly in an airplane and you should no longer eat any food (after all, all that food is grown with farm machinery that uses carbon-based energy) and you should no longer frequent places that use carbon-based energy, like school at which you teach. Oh, and I did I forget, the human body is carbon-based energy. Ah, you will need to cease to exist so that Gaia may flourish.
Don’t blame me, blame the IEEE! Hey, it rhymes!
Seriously, even PJ Media’s own Charlie Martin recommends the IEEE’s fact-first reporting.
Politically, the IEEE is enamored with big-government solutions. Since the AGW myth was cooked up to support big-government solutions, it’s no surprise they’ve (stupidly) jumped on the bandwagon.
“willful and aggressive ignorance of science and technology”
HA! HAHA! HAHAHAHAAAAA! ROTFLMAO!!!!
What could better exemplify “willful and aggressive ignorance of science and technology,” than the continued pimping of the pseudo-scientific, nay, science-negating antics of the Warm-mongers, or the preposterous pushing for engineering nonstarters like wind and solar?
If you can come up with ANY energy technology which remotely rcompares to fossil fuels in costt and efficiency, I’d like to hear it. (And no, pixie dust doesn’t count).
Happy to oblige, Bohemond: J***** H***** Speaks Out on Nuclear Energy
Surprised?
The Physiksist is obviously a true believer in AGW. What a shame.
“To a scientist ‘believing in’ something is anathema. Scientists by the very nature of science are disbelievers. They demand demonstrable truth all day every day. They have ideas that they think can demonstrate how things work, but they challenge and re-challenge these ideas. They also demand that observations be meticulously carried out so as to be as doubt-free as possible. Climatology is a very complex subject. Accurate observations and data are iffy [almost impossible may be a better descriptor] because they only began on a small scale very roughly about 150 years ago, whereas the Earth and Earth’s climate are thought to be about four billion years old.”
Also posted at GatewayPundit 11/4/11.
Folks, nothing will destroy the proud traditions of American engineering and enterprise faster than a faux-liberal brand of politics that combines willful and aggressive ignorance of science based upon skepticism and critical thinking, together with a far-ranging contempt for people asking well-considered questions by challenging incomplete data being presented as “settled science”, in utter subservience to destructive special interests like Big Government.
Say, Johnny: Does somebody write these talking points for you while you’re doing the research you’re ostensibly being paid to do, or do you waste tax dollars being paid to you as a tenured professor to troll the internet looking for new material yourself?
And nothing destroys the reputation of a professor faster than proof that he hasn’t read or understood the very articles he refers to.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/07/us-warming-cooling-dramatically-in-last-decade-noaa-data-shows/#comment-163523
You got taken down big-time, Dr. John Sidles. No wonder you haven’t posted a response to that post yet.
Happy to oblige, CW!
Physicist,
If you’re attempting to advocate for so-called “clean” energy, at least do us the favor of researching and more importantly, understanding the underlying economics of the same.
Solar–and wind–power is an unmitigated joke owing to multiple factors that make it totally impractical, at present. For example, since battery technology does not exist to allow storage of electricity generated by said solar panels, the electricity generated must therefore be used immediately. If not, it’s lost forever. Second, at best, panel efficiency is 19% but which declines about 1% per year every year thereafter. Third, the cost of the end-product relative to oil, gas, coal and/or nuclear sourcing, is roughly 4.5 times that of conventional sources. Fourth, the only, I repeat, the ONLY reasons solar is considered “viable” are these: (1) Political support, i.e. mandated use, and (2) Massive government subsidies, e.g. 100% depreciation of deployed assets in Year 1 of the “investment”; tax loss allowances/expansion up to 10% ROI afforded the “investor”. The manner in which #2 works is this: Company A (which has a tax loss on its books) is able to “invest” monies in the project, say $60 million. Typically, Company A, the equity investor, gets paid first, thereby recouping its investment plus an additional 10% ($6 million). Company A then has $66 million in investment losses it can claim come tax time.
As such, the taxpayer has paid twice: First, it totally subsidized the uneconomic investment initially, and second, government coffers were short-changed by virtue of (in this example) the additional taxes that were avoided, i.e. $6 million more dollars.
So-called “clean” alternatives are not, have not, and at least in the medium-term, will not be comparable substitutes for conventional energy sources. It’s simply a “feel good” ruse that unfortunately, unnecessarily and unforgivably wastes consumer resources, and is otherwise a complete and utter sham.
Charlie Martin’s favorite professional society, the IEEE, and Tom Friedman both done their homework.
Jack L., with respect, you and PJ Media haven’t.
Coal-fired plants with a 40 year payoff no longer make sense, eh?
That is, unless Big Carbon interests squash the IEEE’s green energy research.
Which needless to say, is exactly what Big Carbon’s shills are attempting.
Bottom line: Tom Friedman’s column called it right. Good on him.
———————————————–
IEEE Solar Experts:
Solar Photovoltaics Gaining Momentum and Poised to Challenge Fossil Fuels
URL: http://www.ieee.org/about/news/2011/15june_2011.html
“Nature cannot be fooled.”
But people can. Case in point – you.
Tell us about String Theory A parsons. No experimental proof, yet pushed as “the right path”. Hey what about those many constants that can be… adjusted on a whim. Tell us about the once grand occupation of physicist, and how it has degenerated for the followers into belly crawling for grants and positions. Tell us about the agenda driven state of theoretical science, and how main objective is pleasing power figures, as the positions and money have been drying up. Tell us how original thought is routinely suppressed, if it doesn’t conform to the mainstream of “scientific thinking”. Tell us that the Global Warming Scientific – Gore Wishing Well $$$ driven “community” is not affected.
You can’t. You’ll lose your gig and the feel good “respect” that come with it. So make do with the narrow thinking of a corrupted scientific establishment.
Now link to something. Quick! You may have an unacceptable sentient original thought. Suppress it for the “good” of groupthink! Find authority. Hurry! Bow down and bootlick your nearest “superior”. Paul Krugman? Oh boy. Great choice.
Parsons — Winston’s naïve neighbour, and an ideal member of the Outer Party: an uneducated, suggestible man who is utterly loyal to the Party, and fully believes in its perfect image.
Appeals to false authority.
Yo, Johnny: So far, you have only tried to take the original post off-topic a la Saul Alinsky. But you never bothered addressing the original post. Is this another fine example of our tax dollars in action, since you’re a tenured professor of a public university? If so, don’t you think your actions indicate the failure of big government to provide anything useful in addressing the woes that beset modern society?
“A physicist,” a question:
When did the global warming trend begin, historically? How far back have temperature increases been rrecorded?
Thanks!
The answer’s on this page … enjoy!
I’m sorry “A physicist,” but that page is too broad in its coverage and confusing, and has a different modern timeline than other sites, which also are pro-AGW. That is the problem I have with any timelines that purport to pinpoint when a warming trend is supposed to have started. Was it 1850, which was a popular assumption a few years ago, or was it 1880 as the page you sent me to says. Or was it 200 years ago, which the “BEST” study and chart maintains was the beginning of a modern warming trend?
The problem with AGW activism is that it is demanding draconian emergency action based on insufficient data. I’m not saying that warming isn’t happening, or even arguing that there isn’t AGW, but I am saying that the “evidence” presented is all over the map. What the world needs is a lot more data that is also a lot more comprehensive.
Also, much of the “evidence” seems “tainted,” and I’m not even talking about Climategate. There are either 7,000 climate “stations” (according to Nat Geo), or 20,000, according to some other source. Which is it? And why do so many of these studies and “models” use sample data from selected monitoring stations instead of the whole lot of them? And why are so many of these stations compromised by urban buildup around their locations, and why are so many of them in an appalling state of disrepair?
See my point? The climatological data-gathering systems are significantly compromised, and the data collected is not sufficiently comprehensive to be able to come to the sweeping conclusions I see on the pages you love to cite. I would love for it to be more comprehensive, more complete, and more robust, but it isn’t.
If this were a trial, a judge would have to either declare a “mistrial,” because of some scientific misconduct or “dismiss the case” for insufficient evidence, or “acquit” (the defendant being humanity itself) due to tainted evidence. Contrary to what you’re saying, there is “reasonable doubt” as to to “human guilt” in all this, and even reasonable doubt as to whether any warming that may be going on is either: 1) actually happening, 2) catastrophic in nature, or 3) has a human-generated component.
When NASA and its government only just now decides to launch a climatology-dedicated satellite even though this debate has been going on for decades, then there is a problem of integrity in the scientific community, as well as among politicians and activists.
Inquisitive, you’ve got a mighty bad case of what the USMC calls “paralysis by analysis”.
Do as the Marines do: study history, set goals, make strategy, take action.
———————————————————
American Institute of Physics:
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
URL: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Sorry, but with the entire economy of the developed world at stake, I’m not going to accept draconian measures based on incomplete evidence gathered and presented in a shoddy manner. Nice try with the cutsie “Marine” bit.
What you resorted to in the “do like the Marines” comment is the “buffaloing” mentality of the IPCC and other powers-that-be.
What I enumerated was not a case of “paralysis by analysis,” OK? We’re not on a battlefield with only hours or minutes to spare. What i’m asking of the scientific community is both reasonable and desirable. And, guess what? The scientific community would like to do a more robust research job on climatology, because they want more complete answeres as well.
That is a very well-reasoned post, Inquisitive.
This forum could use more like it.
Decision processes always are incremental, though.
At what point in the Iraq war should we have recognized that the neocon strategy of free-market reconstruction was destined to fail?
The correct answer is: before invading. Because in GWOT as in AGW, severe penalties are associated to being late with the right answer.
” carbon-based energy economies are a mighty bad idea.”
Maybe in Never-Neverland. Here in the real world, they are the *only* basis for the prosperity we enjoy.
Might as well get it over with.
Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice!
PJ Media seems to imagine that witch-hunts are a substitute for energy policy.
Which is dumb, eh?
Kudos to Jon Huntsman for his principled conservatism.
Kudos to RedState’s Erick Erickson for walking back his opposition to Huntsman.
Who knows? Perhaps someday PJ Media’s pundits will get a clue too.
A parsons, so Al Gore is right? That means you are too. Of course.
The science is settled?
Science is never settled. Skepticism is the cornerstone of scientific thinking. Certainly skepticism of one’s own thinking.
Address this contradiction? You can’t, because the issue Global Warming aside, you have abandoned the core principle of scientific thinking. Therefore your voice has nulled itself.
And you’ve been all over with this. A perfect illustration of what science should not do. You are providing a service that no amount of your public bootlicking jones can. You’ve shown in your own words, that you are liar. You shown in no uncertain terms why one should be skeptical of “authoritative” claims.
It’s difficult to tell what’s worse, the liar with parchment or the predators of OWS.
Coward.
Giant ball of irrelevant knuclear fire…
Y’all keep talking to this guy as if he really believes the AGW crap he says. He no more believes it than I do.
AGW is the path to more research dollars, statist control of society, redistribution of wealth (social and economic justice), and most importantly population reduction. Those are the reasons this scam was cooked up in the first place, and the reason so many are pushing it. Those are the reasons it has such a strong appeal for those on the left.
The problem is that it just isnt true, and the data bears that out. So, in Geobbels’s fashion it’s proponents have to keep hammering away at the lies in hopes that eventually everyone will buy in. That is exactly what Aphysicist is doing. He and his ilk are unmitigated liars. All you are doing is feeding a troll. Troll food = Troll shit. Every time there is a decent article here dealing with the AGW scam, he shows up and shits all over the thread. Please stop feeding the troll.
You’re right on target, LaSuthenboy! “a physicist” is an AGW troll who specializes in taking over PJ threads to promote his psuedo-scientific screed. Anyone who drops names like Thomas Friedman, James Hansen, Jon Huntsman, Big Carbon,and IBM’s PowerUp game is just gaming you, folks. Kudos to Howard Nemerov, who always nails “Johnny” within minutes of his opening gambit! Howard doesn’t feed him any more; he just makes sure that “a physicist” doesn’t sneak on unnoticed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dD1wXNhJco
Right back at’cha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5rceMe-kt4
*Someone* needs to play IBM’s free-download PowerUp game:
`Cuz it ain’t just the lefties who see this, LaSuthenboy. The foresighted CEOs of the world — Apple’s Steve Jobs and IBM’s Sam Palmisano most especially — appreciate that AGW is the single greatest enterprise opportunity of the 21st century.
So whenever PJ Media’s pundits choose to advocate witch-hunts instead of enterprise, that’s not any kind of conservatism, but rather the dumbest kind of short-sighted politics-first ideology.
Anyone for di-lithium crystals?
Cuz it ain’t just the lefties who see this, LaSuthenboy. The foresighted CEOs of the world — Apple’s Steve Jobs and IBM’s Sam Palmisano most especially — appreciate that AGW is the single greatest enterprise opportunity of the 21st century.
Right. Government-funded boondoggles that can be passed off as “free enterprise.”
Can you say “Solyndra?”
Dude, we’re not stupid rubes, and we know what game these modern “captains of industry” play when they see oodles of taxpayer cash subsidized by China tossed their way. There’s an infamous photo of a whole bunch of these uber-parasites toasting Obama from around a big table.
“Bozo”, what you think an’ I think is far less important …
… than what Nature thinks, or the marketplace thinks.
And what Nature and the marketplace both think that IBM has nailed it.
IBM CEO Sam Palmisano for President!
————————————————–
You’re not just imagining a greener business:
You’re ready to make it happen.
URL:http://www-07.ibm.com/ibm/au/green/index4.html
Nice try trying to pertend you believe in “free markets.”
Maybe you do, and that’s fine, but IBM, GE, GM, and the entire military/industrial complex actually don’t these days. Green technology on a grand scale cannot survive in the current or near-term marketplace. Low-key green tech for homes and buildings has a large niche to work with, but using “renewables,” etc., to power large systems and cities? Fuggeddaboudit.
All these big guys in the “green” industry are simply glomming on to obscenely huge taxpayer-funded subsidies, and, typically, their primary income sources are in existing, mature industrial fields.
“Bozo”, you seem to think that companies like IBM, GE, and GM are American, and know patriotism.
Breaking news: They aren’t American and never again will be. That’s no secret: their CEOs are upfront about it. These leaders understand that the 20th century is gone and never coming back.
Pretending otherwise is futile, right Bozo?
And that’s why PJ Media’s witch-hunts are pointless, eh?
———————————————————-
Sam Palmisano: Thoughts on the Future of Leadership
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLjVEmXV-_Y
Palmisano, as quoted by A Phy: “You must keep moving to the future.”
Words of wisdom, Lloyd, words…of…wisdom. This is called The Arrow of Time, I believe. And we have no choice but to move to the future. The question isn’t shouldn’t we keep moving to the future. The question is while we move to the future what energy can we use today until future types of energy are practical and available? Fossil fuels anyone?
I haven’t heard anyone here say we should not continue working on new kinds of energy.
Here yah go, Fred Beloit.
Yeah, America’s thoughtful CEOs are fed-up with PJM-style “witch-hunt conservatism.”
—————————-
Entergy CEO steps up demand that the industry deal with global warming
URL: http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2011/11/entergy_ceo_steps_up_demand_th.html
A good example of the political forces behind the ‘use only green energy’ can be found in the Pacific Northwest.
In Washington State, an initiative was passed that defined that the existing hydropower plants were NOT RENEWABLE, and that a certain minimum amount of the power on the grid had to come from ‘renewables.’ Care to hazard a guess why?
I’ll give you a hint…
Ever heard of “GREEN POWER” SUBSIDIES?
And you rant and squawk about the ‘carbon lobby.’
It is about CONTROL of the people. Nothing else.
Steve
Why must we we endure the rantings of A Propagandist every time a post on this general topic is put up? Seriously, its boring and akin to discussion with an idealist teenager.
“…..akin to discussion with an idealist teenager.”
I think you just nailed it perfectly Rick U.
The following link (from Watts Up With That) get to the underlying economics of reducing global carbon emissions, something A Physicists has no clue about. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/08/the-durban-game/#more-50828
(Economists are said to know the price of everything and the value of nothing; A Physicists can be said to know whatis hypothetically true, not what is actually true.) Let me point out, as well, the end part of the graph in Figure 1 which shows carbon emissions accelerating. Now, how does that square with the absence of warming in the same period? A conundrum.
Jack, don’t blame me, blame the IEEE!
America’s massive debt to China being a major cost that Big Carbon sweeps under the carpet (duh).
Or would yah rather put your faith in a weatherman like Anthony Watts and the “witch-hunt conservatism” of radio pundits?
——————————–
IEEE Spectrum: the End of Energy Policy (Part II)
URL: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/policy/end-of-energy-policy-2
Hey A parsons, is science ever settled?
What about that “fact” that you promote?
Need a link to Al Gore’s mantra? Go buy some sausage. And hide behind it.
Coward. Liar.
Pea-brain me – they tell me the CO2 increases are causing global warming (forget that they don’t share their data and they act like thugs in the peer-review process) and I see a chart showing accelerating increases in CO2 in a period when temperatures are either stable or declining, and I think there’s no relationship. Hmmm … there is a deep relationship which we pea-brains simply cannot see, but it’s there somewhere.
Seriously, I am reading a paper by Horst-Joachim Ludecke, “Long-term Instrumental and Reconstructed Temperature Records Contradict Anthropgenic Global Wamring,” which is a supplemented version of an article published in Energy & Environment, Vol. 22, No. 6 (Sept. 2011). He finds cooling from 1791-1890, and warming for 1901-2000. Ludecke makes the following point (p. 10): “We do not know what caused these centennial occurrences in opposite directions. Consequently, if we could suppose anthropgenic CO2 as an agent for the recent warming we are faced with the problem when we look for the agent of cooling in the period 1791-1890.”
Seriously Jack, the article you want to read (available free) is in this month’s Notices of the American Mathematical Society and is titled “Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective”.
Because your instinct is correct that our overall scientific confidence that AGW is real is greatly boosted by our solid mathematical and physical knowledge of how AGW works. And this hard-gained knowledge is wholly public: the Notices of the AMS takes care to explain it very thoroughly.
The power of science comes by combining observations, experiments, and theory. Focusing exclusively on imperfections in observation is a mistaken tactic of the peculiar “witch-hunt conservatism” that Big Carbon works so hard to foster.
———————————————-
Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective
URL: http://www.ams.org/notices/201110/
Math is very good, but empirical observation is better. The second article to which I pointed you raises a serious point: If CO2 is the forcing agent causing the warming in the 20th century, what is the forcing agent causing the cooling in the 19th century? Tell me.
Also, from the first article, I pointed out to you that global carbon emissions are increasing rapidly, yet there has been no further warming. I know, correlation is not causation, but the abence of correlation should raise serious doubts in any one’s mind as to whether there is causation. Finally, as that first article makes abundantly clear, if the entire industrial world stopped using carbon, it would have almost no effect on carbon emissions. So, let me understand, we give up electricity, we give up heating and cooling, we give up transportation and food, and what do we get in return? Almost no effect on carbon emissions? Your hypotheses may be interesting, but right now they have precious little to do with reality.
Jack, no scientist claims significance for decade-by-decade fluctuations in individual climate measures.
But the witch-hunters and cherry-pickers sure do.
Which is like saying “My grandma smoked cigarettes, and she lived to be 77!”
That’s why the world’s CEOs and military strategists pay no attention.
Their business strategy is called “ignore witch-hunters and cherry-pickers.”
——————————————–
Businesses commit to combat climate change
URL: http://www.tuoitrenews.vn/cmlink/tuoitrenews/business/businesses-commit-to-combat-climate-change-1.50552
Aside from the first and third points I make (cooling in the 19th century and the inconsequential effect of the industrialized world eliminating all carbon usage) I would submit that you are right: 10 years don’t make a difference, but then, if that is so why should fifteen or so years years make a difference? If I remember correctly, in 1976 we were being given dire warnings about the upcoming ice age; then sometime in the mid-80s it started to warm, and it warmed for fifteen years. So if 10 years do not make a difference, than neither does 15.
Perhaps part of answer is simple, Jack in Silver Spring.
Namely, you don’t remember correctly.
This process is called “confabulation” (see Wikipedia)
———————————————–
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
OK – So, a majority of scientists said there would be warming trend, but as the article says: “In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend.” And, as I pointed out there has been no warming, and possibly some cooling over the past ten or so years, and the warming that did occur started in the mid-80′s. So, we’re still talking all of about 15 years of warming. So, if 10 years isn’t a big deal, neither is 15. I should point out that while a majority of scientists thought there would be warming, and there was for a while, the fact that it stopped suggests something is wrong with their forecasts. (I know, you’ll tell me it hasn’t stopped, but it has.) To make a final point on this that others have made, science is not a popularity contest.
Finally, in all your worries about warming, you never address the economic issues. To wit, even if our cutting back on CO2 emissions would lead to more than marginal reduction in total emissions, what would be the costs to the well being of humanity and what would be the benefits? Indeed, did ever occur to you that more carbon might be beneficial because of increased plant growth, more agricultural output and warmer winters?
Overview of the literature on agricultural impacts of AGW.
For a supposedly smart guy, that was really stupid.
Quantitative analysis supports it.
———————————————
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
Big Carbon’s disinformation methods of cherry-picking and witch-hunting have seldom been more hilariously exposed in this animated graphic.
Comically recommended for serious-minded conservatives.
A Google search for simple phrase “Going down the up escalator” will find the whole story (thoroughly documented) at the site Skeptical Science. Prominent skeptics Roger Pielke Sr., Judith Curry, and Roy Spencer are being “taken to the woodshed” on this — and rightly so.
Conclusion: Cherry-picking and witch-hunting make for bad science and worse conservatism.
That’s the plain-and-simple reason why leading business CEOs around the world are rejecting PJ Media’s style of AGW skepticism.
————————————————-
Skeptical Science: Going Down the Up Escalator
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
What about your support for the concept that “the science is settled”?
Failure to address this fundamental issue is cowardice, and makes your a liar, by your own words.
Tell us about your agreement with Al Gore, a “leading climate scientist”. Or any other Tom Dick and Harry who support your wishful “thinking”.
You can’t, you won’t. Coward.
You’ve bought into a consensus and abandoned the basic scientific principle. The science is never settled. Your case rests on that. That is beyond doubt. The lack of free thought fits you well A parsons. Your simple circular reasoning is a product of willful ignorance, and the very thing that you claim to decry, you practice with dogmatic blindness.
No wonder the scientific establishment has lost so much credibility. You do an incredible disservice to science in general. For what? Personal feel goodism.
You are one of many reprehensible “scientists” who have become caricatures of what was once a discipline that once thrived on skepticism, and self checking thought that never rested.
3+1=4. 4-1=3. Remember that. No, you don’t.
Coward.