AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Life threatening storm headed for Queensland
YouTube - Life threatening storm headed for Queensland
Will it be two 500 year floods in less than 4 weeks?
YouTube - Life threatening storm headed for Queensland
Will it be two 500 year floods in less than 4 weeks?
Wall Street Journal accurate 7% of the time.
93% of WSJ Opinion Pieces Misreport Climate Change
Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College at Long Island, N.Y. has done a topline analysis (on Climate Progress) of Wall Street Journal Editorial and Op-Ed (the "Opposite Editorial" Opinion Page) coverage of climate change and finds that the paper tells the truth seven per cent of the time.
The WSJ's defence for this performance would undoubtedly be twofold. First, the pages Mandia analysed are for opinion, not news. Second, there really ARE a couple of deluded "experts" out there who challenge the majority view on climate change: the Journal has a right and responsibility to give voice to those views.
Fair enough. But the National Academy of Sciences has found that the proponderance of climate scientists who are worried about global warming is 97 per cent - not seven per cent, so the Journal is a bit off the mark. And while the paper is entitled to its opinions, it is beyond irresponsible to be setting its wishful thinking forth as fact. Bull**** is still bull****, even if it's in an editorial.
93% of WSJ Opinion Pieces Misreport Climate Change
Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College at Long Island, N.Y. has done a topline analysis (on Climate Progress) of Wall Street Journal Editorial and Op-Ed (the "Opposite Editorial" Opinion Page) coverage of climate change and finds that the paper tells the truth seven per cent of the time.
The WSJ's defence for this performance would undoubtedly be twofold. First, the pages Mandia analysed are for opinion, not news. Second, there really ARE a couple of deluded "experts" out there who challenge the majority view on climate change: the Journal has a right and responsibility to give voice to those views.
Fair enough. But the National Academy of Sciences has found that the proponderance of climate scientists who are worried about global warming is 97 per cent - not seven per cent, so the Journal is a bit off the mark. And while the paper is entitled to its opinions, it is beyond irresponsible to be setting its wishful thinking forth as fact. Bull**** is still bull****, even if it's in an editorial.
Republicans Aim to Limit EPA Power Through Polluter-Friendly Legislation
Republican U.S. Senators are following in the footsteps of House Republicans in their attempt to strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of their ability to regulate carbon emissions. A total of eleven Republicans have signed onto the Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act that would prohibit the EPA from regulating any global warming pollution without Congressional approval.
Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), a climate change denier who created the bill, claims that it will “shrink Washington's job-crushing agenda and grow America's economy.” Barrasso and his Republican co-sponsors believe that the EPA’s attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are a backdoor effort to enact “cap and trade” policies.
Since he came to Congress in 2007, Barrasso has received $179,750 from oil and gas interests, and another $133,000 from electric utilities, for a total of $312,750 from dirty energy interests.
Seven co-sponsors have joined Barrasso’s bill, including climate change denier Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Since 2005, Inhofe has received $452,050 from oil and gas interests and another $216,654 from electric utilities. Notably Koch Industries is the Senator’s largest contributor since 2005 and has contributed $62,750 to him since 1999.
Kochtopus-funded organizations are lined up to support the legislation as well, including Americans for Tax Reform (which has received more than $60,000 from the Kochtopus), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (which has received close to $500,000), and Americans for Prosperity (which has received more than $5 million). Indeed, American’s for Prosperity’s Director of Government Affairs, James Valvo, already sent a letter commending the Senator’s efforts:
As previous reports have shown, Kerry’s American Power Act would have created as many as 200,000 new jobs. A similar bill that passed the then-Democratic controlled House of Representatives in 2009 was projected to create as many as 1.9 million jobs, showing that the “job killer” mantra that the GOP has placed on emission controls rings hollow.
But don’t expect the facts to get in the way of Barrasso’s crusade against the EPA. Barrasso is in a very powerful position in Washington, serving on both the House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Environment and Public Works. His role on these committees makes him a major threat to climate progress. As On The Issues has reported, Barrasso has consistently voted in favor of expanding fossil fuel development and exploration, while voting against almost every major piece of progressive environmental legislation that has come before him. According to his 2008 campaign website:
Even if his current legislation fails, it would be wise to keep an eye on Barrasso in the coming months. I imagine we’ll be hearing a lot more from him.
Republican U.S. Senators are following in the footsteps of House Republicans in their attempt to strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of their ability to regulate carbon emissions. A total of eleven Republicans have signed onto the Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act that would prohibit the EPA from regulating any global warming pollution without Congressional approval.
Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), a climate change denier who created the bill, claims that it will “shrink Washington's job-crushing agenda and grow America's economy.” Barrasso and his Republican co-sponsors believe that the EPA’s attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are a backdoor effort to enact “cap and trade” policies.
Since he came to Congress in 2007, Barrasso has received $179,750 from oil and gas interests, and another $133,000 from electric utilities, for a total of $312,750 from dirty energy interests.
Seven co-sponsors have joined Barrasso’s bill, including climate change denier Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Since 2005, Inhofe has received $452,050 from oil and gas interests and another $216,654 from electric utilities. Notably Koch Industries is the Senator’s largest contributor since 2005 and has contributed $62,750 to him since 1999.
Kochtopus-funded organizations are lined up to support the legislation as well, including Americans for Tax Reform (which has received more than $60,000 from the Kochtopus), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (which has received close to $500,000), and Americans for Prosperity (which has received more than $5 million). Indeed, American’s for Prosperity’s Director of Government Affairs, James Valvo, already sent a letter commending the Senator’s efforts:
“The federal government should not undertake efforts to stem GHG emissions unless Congress instructs them to do so.”
“Your bill goes beyond the obvious threat of EPA action under the Clean Air Act and prohibits more clandestine—and thus more insidious—GHG regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.”
Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who last year sponsored the ill-fated American Power Act in the Senate, issued a statement saying that Barrasso’s proposal to limit the EPA’s power would “put the public health at risk and encourage the outsourcing of American jobs.” “Your bill goes beyond the obvious threat of EPA action under the Clean Air Act and prohibits more clandestine—and thus more insidious—GHG regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.”
As previous reports have shown, Kerry’s American Power Act would have created as many as 200,000 new jobs. A similar bill that passed the then-Democratic controlled House of Representatives in 2009 was projected to create as many as 1.9 million jobs, showing that the “job killer” mantra that the GOP has placed on emission controls rings hollow.
But don’t expect the facts to get in the way of Barrasso’s crusade against the EPA. Barrasso is in a very powerful position in Washington, serving on both the House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Environment and Public Works. His role on these committees makes him a major threat to climate progress. As On The Issues has reported, Barrasso has consistently voted in favor of expanding fossil fuel development and exploration, while voting against almost every major piece of progressive environmental legislation that has come before him. According to his 2008 campaign website:
“Every bit of energy we produce here at home decreases the need for us to look overseas to supply our critical energy needs. I believe in smart, balanced energy policy that recognizes the importance of domestic energy production and reducing our reliance on foreign oil, as well as protecting our natural environment. With smart policy choices and wise investment, Wyoming will continue to be a world leader in coal production, natural gas, and other renewable energy sources.”
Barrasso has also voted against providing tax incentives for companies that practice energy conservation and the production of renewable energy sources – specifically hydroelectric power. He also voted in the past to open up the outer continental shelf for oil and gas drilling. His voting record and legislative priorities should come as no surprise given his extensive financial support from coal, oil, gas, and electric utilities. Even if his current legislation fails, it would be wise to keep an eye on Barrasso in the coming months. I imagine we’ll be hearing a lot more from him.
Let companies that practice energy conservation and the production of renewable energy sources sink or swim on their own. If what they develop works, companies will swarm to the technology if only to make a profit Subsidized jobs will not create more jobs and that is what is needed now. Carbon tax will only impose a burden upon those who can't afford it. (we have a big world population to support now)
A Carbon Tax is just another wealth distribution scam. Just another way for people to get hold of other peoples earnings.
Here it is folks winter version of Global Warming effects upon the Earth. All that moisture that has been sucked up in the atmosphere by the warming effects is coming down and it doesn't care what season were in.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1353169/Winter-storm-Bomb-scene-blizzard-ice-snow-killed-12-crushed-buildings.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1353169/Winter-storm-Bomb-scene-blizzard-ice-snow-killed-12-crushed-buildings.html
Here's how it happens.
This enhanced image from Google Earth via NASA (Posted January 26, 2011).
Readers may remember Dr. Jeff Master’s message from the American Geophysical Union meeting back in December. Scientists are now asking if reduced ice cover in the arctic may make winters like this one more common.
Per NASA Image of the Day: Arctic Oscillation Chills North America, Warms Arctic
Snow fell in the U.S. Deep South, severe storms battered the East Coast, and International Falls, Minnesota, set a new temperature record: -46 degrees Fahrenheit (-43 degrees Celsius) on January 21. But in areas north of the United States and southern Canada, temperatures were above normal. In fact, unusual warmth forced residents of Iqaluit, capital of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, to cancel their New Year’s snowmobile parade.
This map of the United States, Canada, eastern Siberia, and Greenland shows temperature anomalies for January 9 to 16, 2011, compared to the same dates from 2003 through 2010. The anomalies are based on land surface temperatures observed by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Areas with above-average temperatures appear in red and orange, and areas with below-average temperatures appear in shades of blue. Oceans, lakes, and areas with insufficient data (usually because of persistent clouds) appear in gray.
Because this image shows temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures, red or orange areas are not necessarily warmer than blue areas. The reds and blues indicate local temperatures that are warmer or colder than the norm for that particular area. The overall configuration of warmer-than-normal temperatures in the north and cooler-than-normal temperatures in the south probably results from a climate pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation (AO).
The AO is a pattern of differences in air pressure between the Arctic and mid-latitudes. When the AO is in “positive” phase, air pressure over the Arctic is low, pressure over the mid-latitudes is high, and prevailing winds confine extremely cold air to the Arctic. But when the AO is in “negative” phase, the pressure gradient weakens. The air pressure over the Arctic is not quite so low, and air pressure at mid-latitudes is not as high. In this negative phase, the AO enables Arctic air to slide south and warm air to slip north.
The AO went into negative phase in the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2009–2010. The AO was in negative mode again in the winter of 2010–2011, affecting temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere as early as December 2010.
The AO can change from positive to negative mode, and vice versa, sometimes in a matter of weeks. Forecasts from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicated that the AO might return to positive mode in February 2011, although the possibility of a lingering negative mode remained.
- References
- Garriss, E.B. (2011, January). Blame the Arctic Oscillation! The Old Farmer’s Almanac.Accessed January 25, 2011.
- Gillis, J. (2011, January 24). Cold Jumps Arctic “Fence,” Stoking Winter’s Fury. The New York Times. Accessed January 25, 2011.
- NOAA Climate Prediction Center. (2011, January). Monitoring Weather and Climate.Accessed January 25, 2011.
- O’Carroll, Staff. (2011, January). The Five Coldest Places on Earth. Christian Science Monitor. Accessed January 25, 2011.
Ahhhh... so that is how they are explaining all of this frigid NON STOP temperatures. All of this snow and ice that simply will not melt.
But I think I read somewhere that it is supposed to get warmer... that is where the "Global WARMING" part comes from.
Global Warming was cancelled 4 years ago and the term "Climate Change" slippped in it's place which leaves the option for temp drop open.
You can't cast a spell on people without using words. Just don't make any "spelling" errors.
Oil Industry spins subsidies.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama urged Congress to stop subsidizing oil companies and set a goal for 80% of electricity generated by 2035 to come from "clean" energy sources. While there is much dispute over some of the technologies included in the "clean" category, the President is proposing some wise investments in genuine cleantech. To pay for low-carbon energy alternatives, the President proposed $302 million for solar energy research and development (up 22 percent); $123 million for wind energy (a 53 percent increase); and $55 million for geothermal energy (up 25 percent).
But fossil fuels subsidies are holding back growth in burgeoning clean energy industries, which face a momumental challenge to compete with entrenched industries that receive far greater government subsidies.
And when it comes to oil subsidies, the President says enough is enough:
That's a great move to cut truly wasteful spending on a mature industry that is collecting massive profits on its own. But this figure only scratches the surface of dirty energy subsidies. In September 2009, the Environmental Law Institute released a study [PDF] stating that from 2002-2008, federal subsidies for fossil fuels and 'renewable' energies with high global warming pollution content totaled some $72 billion.
Assuming the President follows through with his suggested oil subsidy cuts, this will build on his earlier efforts to do the same thing in last year’s budget, as well as international momentum sustained at the G20 Summits in Pittsburgh (2009) and Toronto (2010). In Pittsburgh, Obama and other world leaders noted that:
According to Reuters, removing the subsidies will not have significant financial impact on energy companies, with $36.5 billion accounting for a mere 1% of expected domestic oil and gas revenues in the 10-year period.
Not surprisingly, in spite of the negligible implications for energy companies, the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists came out against the President’s proposal.
Devon Energy Corporation spokesman Bill Whitsitt said that repealing the tax breaks would "slow down a real revolution" in natural gas exploration – not such a bad thing according to EPA figures.
Charles Drevna, President of the Oil Refiners Trade Group said:
In his State of the Union address, President Obama urged Congress to stop subsidizing oil companies and set a goal for 80% of electricity generated by 2035 to come from "clean" energy sources. While there is much dispute over some of the technologies included in the "clean" category, the President is proposing some wise investments in genuine cleantech. To pay for low-carbon energy alternatives, the President proposed $302 million for solar energy research and development (up 22 percent); $123 million for wind energy (a 53 percent increase); and $55 million for geothermal energy (up 25 percent).
But fossil fuels subsidies are holding back growth in burgeoning clean energy industries, which face a momumental challenge to compete with entrenched industries that receive far greater government subsidies.
And when it comes to oil subsidies, the President says enough is enough:
"...I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s."
Building on that speech, in about two weeks, President Obama will release his 2011 budget (which covers the 2012 fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2011), which is expected to include the end to some $4 billion a year in oil and possibly gas subsidies. A fossil fuel subsidy, according to the NY Times, colloquially refers to incentives, tax credits, preferences and loan guarantees. Over a 10-year period, if the President succeeds in eliminating both oil and gas subsidies, the US will save approximately $36.5 billion.
That's a great move to cut truly wasteful spending on a mature industry that is collecting massive profits on its own. But this figure only scratches the surface of dirty energy subsidies. In September 2009, the Environmental Law Institute released a study [PDF] stating that from 2002-2008, federal subsidies for fossil fuels and 'renewable' energies with high global warming pollution content totaled some $72 billion.
Assuming the President follows through with his suggested oil subsidy cuts, this will build on his earlier efforts to do the same thing in last year’s budget, as well as international momentum sustained at the G20 Summits in Pittsburgh (2009) and Toronto (2010). In Pittsburgh, Obama and other world leaders noted that:
"Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, distort markets, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with climate change. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the IEA have found that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 by ten percent."
At that meeting, they committed to:
"Rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption."
The US submission to the G20 in Toronto also included a phasing out process of fossil fuel subsidies.
According to Reuters, removing the subsidies will not have significant financial impact on energy companies, with $36.5 billion accounting for a mere 1% of expected domestic oil and gas revenues in the 10-year period.
Not surprisingly, in spite of the negligible implications for energy companies, the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists came out against the President’s proposal.
Devon Energy Corporation spokesman Bill Whitsitt said that repealing the tax breaks would "slow down a real revolution" in natural gas exploration – not such a bad thing according to EPA figures.
Charles Drevna, President of the Oil Refiners Trade Group said:
"We applauded the president last week during his State of the Union address for stating his desire to increase domestic energy production."
"The additional taxes on our businesses run counter to those stated objectives, however, and will do nothing to stimulate increased investment.”
Jack Gerard, President of the American Petroleum Institute, also opposed the end of subsidies to his industry. He, however, offered some spectacular spin on the subject:"The additional taxes on our businesses run counter to those stated objectives, however, and will do nothing to stimulate increased investment.”
“This is a tired old argument we’ve been hearing for two years now…”
“The federal government by no stretch of the imagination subsidizes the oil industry. The oil industry subsidizes the federal government at a rate of $95 million a day.”
Despite the oil industry's rhetorical gymnastics, nothing could be further from the truth. The oil industry has received immense support from taxpayers, all while polluting our air and water as we saw with the Exxon Valdez disaster and the BP blowout, to name just a few examples.“The federal government by no stretch of the imagination subsidizes the oil industry. The oil industry subsidizes the federal government at a rate of $95 million a day.”
You're right Avro. $5.00 a gallon isn't enough. It shouold be $10 and lets close our oil sands until there are no more Madgascars or Orinocos oil sands around in 500 years.
YouTube - What the Ice Cores Tell Us
Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson gave voice to Tea Party science when he told an interviewer, “There’s a reason Greenland was called Greenland,” he said. “It was actually green at one point in time. And it’s been, since, it’s a whole lot whiter now.”
But to find a greenland without glaciers and an ice sheet, you have to go back a little further in time, 65 million years ago, when reptiles swam and hunted there.
The more recent past was less idyllic. Ice core data indicates the the greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 years old.
While Greenland ice cores tell us much about the past, they are not the only ice cores available
For some 30 years, ice from tropical glaciers has also been examined by Scientists from the Byrd Polar research Center, at Ohio State university, who have packed heavy equipment up some of the highest mountains in the world to preserve a vanishing record.
Ellen Mosley Thompson, and her husband Lonnie Thompson, have been among the leading pioneers in this heroic scientific effort - organizing and leading the transport, often by pack animals, of cutting edge scientific teams to some of the world’s most remote regions.
In December of 2010, Ellen Mosley Thompson explained some of their key findings to American Geophysical Union.
So, hard evidence from tropical ice cores and other records is showing us empirically that the medieval period that climate deniers like to talk about was indeed regionally warm, but not a global phenomenon, like today.
Climate deniers love to tell you that the science of global warming depends on abstractions and computer models, but the evidence for man caused warming in fact has been painstakingly built up by some of the hardest of of the hard sciences – the real, boots on the ground grunt work of courageous and dedicated professionals – the spiritual heirs of bold viking explorers of the past.
The tiny colonies that survived in greenland during a brief, regional mild period must indeed have been tough and resourceful people, but not the thriving high culture of climate denier imagination.
More About Medieval Warming:
YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"
YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - That 1500 Year Thing
Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson gave voice to Tea Party science when he told an interviewer, “There’s a reason Greenland was called Greenland,” he said. “It was actually green at one point in time. And it’s been, since, it’s a whole lot whiter now.”
But to find a greenland without glaciers and an ice sheet, you have to go back a little further in time, 65 million years ago, when reptiles swam and hunted there.
The more recent past was less idyllic. Ice core data indicates the the greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 years old.
While Greenland ice cores tell us much about the past, they are not the only ice cores available
For some 30 years, ice from tropical glaciers has also been examined by Scientists from the Byrd Polar research Center, at Ohio State university, who have packed heavy equipment up some of the highest mountains in the world to preserve a vanishing record.
Ellen Mosley Thompson, and her husband Lonnie Thompson, have been among the leading pioneers in this heroic scientific effort - organizing and leading the transport, often by pack animals, of cutting edge scientific teams to some of the world’s most remote regions.
In December of 2010, Ellen Mosley Thompson explained some of their key findings to American Geophysical Union.
So, hard evidence from tropical ice cores and other records is showing us empirically that the medieval period that climate deniers like to talk about was indeed regionally warm, but not a global phenomenon, like today.
Climate deniers love to tell you that the science of global warming depends on abstractions and computer models, but the evidence for man caused warming in fact has been painstakingly built up by some of the hardest of of the hard sciences – the real, boots on the ground grunt work of courageous and dedicated professionals – the spiritual heirs of bold viking explorers of the past.
The tiny colonies that survived in greenland during a brief, regional mild period must indeed have been tough and resourceful people, but not the thriving high culture of climate denier imagination.
More About Medieval Warming:
YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"
YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - That 1500 Year Thing
Greenland was named Greenland because it was green when the Danes got there sixty five million years ago and started farming. What does the ice core say about years when it dosn't snow?
The global warming nuts want us to save old ice and they want us to pay taxes to save the revered old ice. If god had wanted old worn out dirty ice saved she wouldn't have made it out of water.