We can go on and on, back and forth, tit for tat, with weather reports and news stories about weather.

The truth is, it has been warmer and colder on earth well before humans were here. And it will be warmer and colder on earth well after we are here.

So why are humans so arrogant to believe that we can make earth not change temperatures the way it has over billions of years?

 

So it's not a big deal if the coal and oil companies see their profits disappear? What would be the logical next step if YOUR company suddenly lost its profit margin? You would raise prices on your goods/services. And, you know what, I just can't seem to think of ANY industry that doesn't rely on the transportation industry (think fuel for the trucks or airplanes). If transportation costs go up, so do consumer prices for EVERYTHING. That leads to less consumer spending (duh), which equals less demand and leads to less production. Less production leads to less workers required to make products, which equals FIRING people. Firing people leads to the economy going into the crapper...

When it comes to funding sources, you'll also find that the studies that DO support the global warm... er climate change results (whenever you people figure out what to call it, let the rest of us know please), are funded by the same EVIL oil and gas companies that fund the other studies.

As for the politician angle, it is much the same as the above response. Most (see R's, D's, and I's) politicians take money from these EVIL companies. Why? Because politicians as a whole (with few exceptions) are sleazebags. They don't care where money comes from. Hell, they don't even care how much money they get as long as they get elected/re-elected.

 

Yo Wheeler - you here?

That data has been out for a couple months now.

 

November’s Scientific American features a profile of Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Judith Curry, who has committed the mortal sin of reaching out to other scientists who hypothesize that global warming isn’t the disaster it’s been cracked up to be. I have personal experience with this, as she invited me to give a research seminar in Tech’s prestigious School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences in 2008. My lecture summarizing the reasons for doubting the apocalyptic synthesis of climate change was well-received by an overflow crowd.

Written by Michael Lemonick, who hails from the shrill blog Climate Central, the article isn’t devoid of the usual swipes, calling her a “heretic,, which is hardly at all true. She’s simply another hardworking scientist who lets the data take her wherever it must, even if that leads her to question some of our more alarmist colleagues.

But, as a make-up call for calling attention to Curry, Scientific American has run a poll of its readers on climate change. Remember that SciAm has been shilling for the climate apocalypse for years, publishing a particularly vicious series of attacks on Denmark’s Bjorn Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist. The magazine also featured NASA’s James Hansen and his outlandish claims on sea-level rise. Hansen has stated, under oath in a deposition, that a twenty foot rise is quite possible within the next 89 years; oddly, he has failed to note that in 1988 he predicted that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would go permanently under water in twenty years.

SciAm probably expected a lot of people would agree with the key statement in their poll that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “an effective group of government representatives and other experts.”

Hardly. As of this morning, only 16% of the 6655 respondents agreed. 84%—that is not a typo—described the IPCC as “a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.”

The poll also asks “What should we do about climate change?” 69% say “nothing, we are powerless to stop it.” When asked about policy options, an astonishingly low 7% support cap-and-trade, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, 2009, and cost approximately two dozen congressmen their seats.

The real killer is question “What is causing climate change?” For this one, multiple answers are allowed. 26% said greenhouse gases from human activity, 32% solar variation, and 78% “natural processes.” (In reality all three are causes of climate change.)

And finally, “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?” 80% of the respondents said “nothing.”

Remember that this comes from what is hardly a random sample. Scientific American is a reliably statist publication and therefore appeals to a readership that is skewed to the left of the political center. This poll demonstrates that virtually everyone now acknowledges that the UN has corrupted climate science, that climate change is impossible to stop, and that futile attempts like cap-and-trade do nothing but waste money and burn political capital, things that Cato’s scholars have been saying for years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Consider the source:

Cato’s Pat Michaels Admits 40 Percent of Funding Comes From Big Oil

Pat Michaels admits 40% of funding is tainted

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, was founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held oil company in the U.S.

The Cato Institute holds regular briefings on global warming with known climate 'skeptics' as panelists...According to People for the American Way, Cato has been funded by: Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corp- oration, Netscape Communications Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Viacom International, American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation.

Deniers: Cato Institute - ExxonSecrets

 

Carbon Trade Ends on Quiet Death of Chicago Climate Exchange
| Sourced From Suite101 |

Republican mid-term election joy deals financial uncertainty among green investors as the Chicago Climate Exchange announces the end of U.S. carbon trading.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on October 21, 2010 that it will cease carbon trading this year. However, Steve Milloy reporting on Pajamasmedia.com (November 6, 2010) finds this huge story strangely unreported by the mainstream media.

To some key analysts the collapse of the CCX appears to show that international carbon trading is “dying a quiet death.” Yet Milloy finds that such a major business failure has drawn no interest at all from the mainstream media. Milloy noted that a “Nexis search conducted a week after CCX’s announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise.”

Not until November 02, 2010 had the story even been picked up briefly and that was by Chicagobusiness.com (Crain’s). Reporter, Paul Merrion appeared to find some comfort that while CCX will cease all trading of new emission allowances at the end of the year, “it will continue trading carbon offsets generated by projects that consume greenhouse gases, such as planting trees.”

Collapse is Personal Setback for U.S. President

Barack Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX. Professor Richard Sandor, of Northwestern University had started the business with $1.1 million in grants from the Chicago-based left-wing Joyce Foundation enthusiastically endorsed by Obama. When founded in November 2000, CCX’s carbon trading market was predicted to grow anywhere between $500 billion and $10 trillion. Fortunately before its collapse Sandor was able to net $98.5 million for his 16.5% stake when CCX was sold.
Failure of European Climate Market May Follow

Milloy writes, “although the trading in carbon emissions credits was voluntary, the CCX was intended to be the hub of the mandatory carbon trading established by a cap-and-trade law. Trading carbon was, “the only purpose for which it was founded.” But with their resurgence after the mid-terms the Republicans have now put a new cohort of global warming skeptics into the corridors of power.

Unlike the American voluntary scheme, the European cousin of the CCX, the European Climate Exchange (ECX), continues to trade due to the mandatory carbon caps of the Kyoto Protocol. But the future of the ECX will be in doubt unless a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol is introduced. That treaty expires in 2012. But the ineffectual Copenhagen Climate Conference (2009) exposed an inability among international politicians to agree on climate change. If this stalement persists then the European ECX may likely suffer the same fate as Chicago’s CCX.
More Job Losses in Green Trading Sector

Admitting that there will be “deep staff cuts,” Chief Financial Officer Scott Hill of Atlanta-based IntercontinentalExchange Inc. further conceded, “We had about 66 people when we bought the company [CCX]. I think we’ll be closer to 25 by the end of the year. And then we’ll reduce further into the first quarter.” ICE had bought Climate Exchange PLC, which operated CCX, the European Climate Exchange and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange, in April 2010 for around $634.5 million.

U.S. Corporations and Investors in Retreat

Speaking to the New York Times ( March 2010) Kristel Dorion, a developer with 10 years of experience putting together offset projects under the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), foresaw that investors were “quickly shifting focus elsewhere.”

Since its launch in 2003 the CCX succeeded in attracting major players such as Ford, Bank of America, IBM and Intel. By signing up as voluntary contributors these corporations made been making voluntary but legally binding commitment to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets either by cutting emissions or by buying emissions permits sold by other CCX members.

But Dorion warned, “The ones that are pulling out are all the American-based companies.”


Just another money grab that went tango uniform.

Fred

 

And 100% of the "climate change" funding comes from big government. Talk about tainted.

 

Let us also consider the reasoning, which in the end is far more important than a clutched blacklist of alleged deniers or heretics.

Reason will prevail.

Now perhaps you could tell us what you think of the poll in the November edition of the Scientific American.

 

The results are unexpected but irrelavant. I don't care what a magazine poll says - I care a lot what the peer reviewed science says.

Curry has a problem with how scientific uncertainties are translated for public consumption and in her view, the IPCC assumptions always seem to be tilted toward a worst case senario. She's talking about more precisely converting complex scientific language of confidence intervals and probabilities into something the public can use to make good climate policy.

But make no mistake, she not a climate skeptic and when Pat Michaels implys that she is a climate scientist turned denier, that's the oil money he's pocketing doing the talking:

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues: Scientific American

 

So why are humans so arrogant to believe that we can pump shloads of CO2 and pollutants into the air on grand scales that far exceed volcanic emissions without any consequence?