Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[agentaqua]

Well - the 1st thing I have to say Walleyes - is thank you for allowing us here posting on the forum to become aware of what the mantras the hard-core right-wing business class keep telling themselves - which precipitates all of us getting involved and informed. That is not a bad thing.

I would also add that we all have our experiences and specialties to contribute.

If I was looking for information on a particular tar-sands extraction methodology/industry - I would go to an industry person - such as yourself.

That doesn't make one an expert on climate change nor alternative governance models, anymore than being a recreational fisherman.

The one caveat I would offer is those who deal with natural resources, such as fish or wildlife, over a long period of time generate what is now termed "local knowledge" over the patterns associated with these resources - and changes in those patterns over time.

Both climate change AND industrial pollution can and does affect these resources. People who extract and utilize these resources are normally the 1st to notice these changes in the resources. The PR firms, script writers and lobbyists can't ******** this segment of society - although they seem capable enough of grinding down and corrupting many politicians who often have no real knowledge of the cabinet portfolios they hold. Those links you gave are the carefully-scripted responses by PR firms to lie and mislead the general public and politicians. It seems you are satisfied with parroting that dribble.

Climate change - for example - is largely caused by current and historic burning of hydrocarbons such as fossil fuels. In the science - there is no debate about this. There is debate about the models used to project the consequences of these current and anticipated levels into the future. There are low, medium, and high risk models - each with their own set of assumptions and consequences out the back end of these models.

The science used to generate data for these models is solid, and available to anyone who wishes to look for it. That is the great advantage we have today with our technology and our ability to disseminate that information.

The segment of society stuck in denial about this are largely the religious right in the US, and some people in the petroleum industries. Congratulations - you belong to a very special group of people. Ignorance is still bliss for some.

When you truly want to become informed about our natural resources and past, current and potential impacts to our aquatic resources - we will all still be here to help inform you - should you desire to get informed - rather than get defensive and ignore the rebuttals supported by information on this forum.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Climate change - for example - is largely caused by current and historic burning of hydrocarbons such as fossil fuels. In the science - there is no debate about this.

There is plenty of debate about this Aqua.

You may not recognize it, as your prolific postings show an exceptional slant away from considering empirical evidence in favour of wholeheartedly embracing speculation which aligns with your views - but the debate rages on.

I have no interest in engaging in a drawn out battle of links over this, I just wanted to point out that being prolifically pedantic and long-winded regarding any and all subjects on here doesn't make you any smarter, or more correct than anyone else - it simply shows that you have an incredible amount of time available to express your opinions.

All the while hiding behind a fake name.

Why is that?

 

[GLG]

L.A. Times cuts off climate-change deniers

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/la-times-cuts-off-climate-change-deniers/

For years, scientists have been explaining that our proclivity to burn fossil fuels is causing temperatures to spike and weather to become more extreme, ice caps to melt and the tropics to overheat. All along, an outspoken group of so-called climate-change deniers has countered the science, saying that climate change is a liberal invention with a political agenda. The debate became the subject of documentaries and countless articles. At times, the debate seemed to trump the actual issue.

Last month, a panel of the world's top scientists presented its latest review of the data on climate change. The analysis concluded with 95 percent certainty -- the gold standard in science -- that climate change is manmade.
And with that, as far as "The Los Angeles Times" is concerned, the debate is over. The Times is among mainstream media sources that quietly stopped giving a voice to climate-change deniers. There was no initial policy statement or announcement -- the letters editor simply stopped choosing to print letters from climate change deniers. This weekend, he mentioned the decision as an aside inan editor's note.
"Letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed," Paul Thornton wrote.
Climate-change deniers quickly took to their blogs to criticize the Times.
"It's one thing for a news outlet to advance the as yet unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming; it's quite another to admit that you won't publish views that oppose it," Noel Sheppard wrote on the blog, Newsbusters.
Thornton responded in a Tuesday afternoon op-ed that explained his policy.


"When deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review," wrote Thornton.
"The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us."
Last month, another mainstream source of science news, the magazine "Popular Science," took an even more direct approach to removing the deniers from the climate change discussion. On Sept. 24, PopSci announced that it is shutting off comments on its website.
PopSci's online content director Suzanne LaBarre wrote, "Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to 'debate' on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science."
In May, "Mother Jones" reported that researchers at George Mason University found that "when it comes to online commenting, throwing bombs gets more attention than being nice, and makes readers double down on their preexisting beliefs." The magazine mentioned climate change articles as the main platform for these comment bombs.
The L.A. "Times" has not gone as far as cutting off comments (something the deniers clearly noticed, based on the more than 100 comments posted to Tuesday's op-ed). But when it comes to what the paper's editors will print, letters from climate change deniers are no longer under consideration.
"Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published," said Thornton. "Saying 'there's no sign humans have caused climate change' is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy."

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[GLG]

Hunters, Anglers, and Climate Change

[eEMt8Mf6NGU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEMt8Mf6NGU

Todd Tanner has an offer for you. Convince him that climate change is not real, and he’ll give you his gun.
Field and Stream:

The Conservation Hawks is a new group dedicated to harnessing the power of sportsmen to address climate change. Stop. Before you give in to anger, or to the “conservation fatigue” that can fall upon us like a giant wet carpet whenever climate change is mentioned, consider this: If you can convince Conservation Hawks chairman Todd Tanner that he’s wasting his time, that he does not have to worry about climate change, he will present to you his most prized possession: A Beretta Silver Pigeon 12 gauge over/under that was a gift from his wife, and has been a faithful companion on many a Montana bird hunt. I know the gun, and I’ve hunted and fished with Todd for years. He’s not kidding. You convince him, he’ll give you the gun.

Conservation Hawks has an all-star board of directors, including my friends Bill Geer and Katie McKalip, who both work for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and have a deep understanding of the issues we face as sportsmen. I talked with Todd Tanner recently about what the Conservation Hawks hope to accomplish.
Hal Herring: First, are you serious about the Beretta?
Todd Tanner: I am serious. If somebody can convince me that I don’t have to worry about climate change, I’ll give it them. Or I’ll auction it off and donate the proceeds to the charity of their choice. But it will have to be a real argument, with real facts. I don’t think that argument exists, but I’m willing to be surprised.

HH: Why the Conservation Hawks?
TT: Let’s say you are walking down a trail in the wilderness with your wife and kids, and you come upon a grizzly sow, standing on a carcass. She charges, flat out. You’re in front of your family. What do you do? Just give up? Pretend it’s not happening? Let her maul you and everything your care about? Of course you don’t. You take action. That is how I see climate change. It’s real, it’s threatening everything we love. Not taking action is not an option.

HH: Why now?

TT: This is the point where we can still stand up and have an effect. Maybe it’s the last point. I want that freedom we’ve enjoyed to fish and hunt to continue. Maybe most important, I have a son. I cannot be complicit in surrendering all this that I’ve had and loved for my whole life—just say, sorry, I gave up and let it be taken from him. When I knew the science, and the facts.

HH: What percentage of sportsmen do you think really care anything about this issue?
TT: I’d say maybe 50 percent. But that’s a tricky question. Bill Geer spent a lot of time giving presentations about the effects of climate change to sportsmen’s groups around Montana. He was in Eureka, talking to a group of guys that really didn’t believe the conventional take on climate change. Bill just said, “No problem, what I’m more interested in anyway is what changes have you guys witnessed, firsthand, in your lifetimes.” Well, that set off the conversation, then. Everybody had a story about that. And everybody I know does, too. Because these days, it’s fishermen and hunters who are the ones who notice these things. It used to be that so many more people were outdoors, nowadays it is just us. And it seems like we should be the ones to take the lead on this. We have the most at stake.

HH: What about those sportsmen who will say that this is just not a problem, or not a problem that we can do anything about?
​

I had several lengthy conversations with Todd about the hunting and angling community’s reaction to climate change. First of all, the idea that the sporting community does not get climate change is flat out wrong. This group includes some of the world’s keenest and most observant naturalists, as Field and Stream columnist Bob Marshall recently pointed out to me. Marshall has been observing rapid changes due to environmental pressure and sea level rise on his beloved Mississippi delta marsh lands for decades, and that, plus the science, has made him outspoken on the issue – for which he regularly draws the wrath of climate denying trolls for his online columns.
I interviewed these men, along with Montana outdoor writer Ken Barrett, for this video, which looks at how Americans who carry traditional knowledge of nature and its creatures view onrushing environmental changes.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/27/new-video-hunters-anglers-and-climate-change/

​

 

[agentaqua]

CK - like you - I don't have a lot of time to post all of the available climate science - even though you think I have much time to post. If you don't wish to avail yourself of your internet and the science journals - that is your decision. Arguing about anthropological sources of climate emissions is like arguing that the earth is flat. I see GLG however has started giving you some info. Was it the word "models" that threw you off CK?

 

[fishnwhenIcan]

I don't even understand why CK is posting right now. What with the Mount Polley disaster and this discussion, the spotllght has been off the Salmon Feedlot Industry that employs him. I'm pretty sure they are happy about that! What do you have a post quota you are struggling to make?

 

[Englishman]

CK - like you - I don't have a lot of time to post all of the available climate science - even though you think I have much time to post. If you don't wish to avail yourself of your internet and the science journals - that is your decision. Arguing about anthropological sources of climate emissions is like arguing that the earth is flat. I see GLG however has started giving you some info. Was it the word "models" that threw you off CK?

Agent,
There is no point in posting any links to scientific websites for CK or Walleyes as both myself and others have done so many times (IPCC, NASA etc.)
CK and Walleyes are two peas from the same pod. They absolutely refuse to recognise the huge amount of scientific evidence about climate change. Worse, they really believe their "opinions" carry the same or a bigger weight than the entire scientific panel of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They heap contempt and derision on the scientific reports from this body because they have no knowledge of the scientific process or peer reviewed publication in journals, and are both "conspiracy theorists" i.e. they believe climate change reporting is some sort of global socialist plot. Making these things up to "explain away" awkward facts is the proof of an illogical mindset. It is totally pathetic really and demonstrates their willful ignorance, boundless arrogance, and unbelievable blindness to any facts that challenge their world view.

 

[fishnwhenIcan]

Oops, almost missed that. CK would like to discredit AgentAquas wherever he can. Better yet, on a thread he's not openly defending for his Norwegian
masters. The spin goes on and on and on....

 

[Whole in the Water]

Oops, almost missed that. CK would like to discredit AgentAquas wherever he can. Better yet, on a thread he's not openly defending for his Norwegian
masters. The spin goes on and on and on....

You got that right! The more they post, the more their credibility decreases and they end up looking pretty foolish, yet as you say, the spin goes on and on...

 

[seadna]

Agent,
There is no point in posting any links to scientific websites for CK or Walleyes as both myself and others have done so many times (IPCC, NASA etc.)
CK and Walleyes are two peas from the same pod. They absolutely refuse to recognise the huge amount of scientific evidence about climate change. Worse, they really believe their "opinions" carry the same or a bigger weight than the entire scientific panel of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

And that's why I keep referring Walleyes to this link http://desmog.ca/2014/08/25/no-youre-not-entitled-your-own-opinion. CK would do well to read it also.

They heap contempt and derision on the scientific reports from this body because they have no knowledge of the scientific process or peer reviewed publication in journals, and are both "conspiracy theorists" i.e. they believe climate change reporting is some sort of global socialist plot. Making these things up to "explain away" awkward facts is the proof of an illogical mindset. It is totally pathetic really and demonstrates their willful ignorance, boundless arrogance, and unbelievable blindness to any facts that challenge their world view.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

PLENTY of debate out there on this one guys.

There's a whole world out there full of people who have different interpretations of the data, and who do not put their faith into projections created by others which do not align with observations.

I try to stay away from generalizations and name calling, but there is a common theme of ALARMISM I see with many of the posters on here - be it climate, salmon aquaculture, or otherwise.

The Earth is a complex combinations of systems, and the tendency for some to seemingly identify man's impact and thereby transform bits and pieces of what they see into doom and gloom projections (which lucky for all of us continue to be dis-proven by Nature as time marches on) only serves to prop up their world-views and solidify their self-righteousness in their endless condemnation of those who dare to disagree.

Par for the course here I guess.

You guys wring your hands and neatly compartmentalize everyone else into little "Shill", "Ignorant", or, "Capitalist" boxes while fighting "Evil" on the side of "Good" - thereby eliminating the need to actually consider differing interpretations or opinions.

I don't have to just comment on aquaculture related issues here, I am free to express myself anywhere I like.

Being neatly lumped into the opposite corner from the likes of you guys actually solidifies my impression of your ability to fully digest the volumes of information available out there.

I guess we may just have to agree to disagree.

And, BTW, you may actually want to look a little further into what the IPCC has really brought forward, you may be surprised.

 

[seadna]

CK - when you get your Ph.D. and/or spend years doing and studying climate research, I'll start to listen to you on climate science. Until then, I'll listen to the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and other knowledgeable bodies. Amongst groups such as that there is general agreement that man made emissions of CO2 are contributing to increased global temperatures AND ocean acidification. Period. Yes, there's "plenty of debate out there" but not really amongst those who actually understand and study the science. There are a LOT of media and political sources that work very hard to amplify minor points and disagreements about magnitude, timing etc. but the general scientific consensus remains.

 

[Whole in the Water]

PLENTY of debate out there on this one guys.

There's a whole world out there full of people who have different interpretations of the data, and who do not put their faith into projections created by others which do not align with observations.

I try to stay away from generalizations and name calling, but there is a common theme of ALARMISM I see with many of the posters on here - be it climate, salmon aquaculture, or otherwise.

The Earth is a complex combinations of systems, and the tendency for some to seemingly identify man's impact and thereby transform bits and pieces of what they see into doom and gloom projections (which lucky for all of us continue to be dis-proven by Nature as time marches on) only serves to prop up their world-views and solidify their self-righteousness in their endless condemnation of those who dare to disagree.

Par for the course here I guess.

You guys wring your hands and neatly compartmentalize everyone else into little "Shill", "Ignorant", or, "Capitalist" boxes while fighting "Evil" on the side of "Good" - thereby eliminating the need to actually consider differing interpretations or opinions.

I don't have to just comment on aquaculture related issues here, I am free to express myself anywhere I like.

Being neatly lumped into the opposite corner from the likes of you guys actually solidifies my impression of your ability to fully digest the volumes of information available out there.

I guess we may just have to agree to disagree.

And, BTW, you may actually want to look a little further into what the IPCC has really brought forward, you may be surprised.

Once again CK you just offer irrelevant, personal opinions and observations. Back up what you say with some credible, peer reviewed scientific research of the same quality and quantity of those hundreds of scientists and scientific organizations that state human activity is influencing climate change. If you can't then you are wasting your and other people's time by going on about your personal opinions and observations on scientific issues. In other words, who cares what another climate change denier says, it is like listening to goofy UFO and Sasquatch believers - where's the credible and substantial scientific proof to back up what they say?

Off course you are free to post all sorts of opinions and beliefs but this is not the point here, We are talking about science, the scientific process and scientific research in this case. Expressing personal opinions and beliefs when discussing scientific matters is irrelevant and makes one look foolish and ignorant.

 

[agentaqua]

CK: Interesting how quickly you attempt to reframe the inaccuracies in your last posting, so that it appears you weren't wrong.

I wrote:

" Climate change - for example - is largely caused by current and historic burning of hydrocarbons such as fossil fuels. In the science - there is no debate about this. There is debate about the models used to project the consequences of these current and anticipated levels into the future. There are low, medium, and high risk models - each with their own set of assumptions and consequences out the back end of these models.

The science used to generate data for these models is solid, and available to anyone who wishes to look for it. That is the great advantage we have today with our technology and our ability to disseminate that information.".

Your rebuttal:

"You may not recognize it, as your prolific postings show an exceptional slant away from considering empirical evidence in favour of wholeheartedly embracing speculation which aligns with your views..."

CK: I was talking about the data, and I acknowledged there was debate on the accuracy of projecting that trend in the data into the future, and that is where the debate is in the science - NOT the fact that the past few hundred years that the largest cause of increases in things like CO2 emissions are human-induced.

Then you rather immaturely try to paint yourself as some sort of a online hero - one of those who "dare to disagree", as the rest of the people who have read the science are only serving to "prop up their world-views and solidify their self-righteousness". I believe you were already called on this approach by somebody with a PhD, were he posted a pot and a kettle to bring visual context to your unsupported and immature allegations.

You can argue with the many dozens of peer-review projects and data over things like CO2 levels - if that is your interest - but so far - I have not seen any single piece of evidence from you to argue in a cohesive, defensible way over your views on this one - let alone any understanding of science. Argue over the attached images - if you want. Maybe try using your big, science words this time and provide some actual defensible arguments.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

History will soon show that the trace concentration of C02 in the atmosphere does not control the Earth's climate.

It hasn't in the past, and there is no reason it would today, or into the future.

"Climate alarmism is like one of those pop-up Bozos. No matter how many times you bop it, up it springs. In fact, the only way to stop it, as most kids learn, is to deflate it. In this case, the air inside Bozo is your and my tax money.

Two scientific papers released last week combine for a powerful 1-2 haymaker, but, rest assured, Bozo springs eternal. The first says that human aerosol emissions are not that responsible for offsetting the warming influence of greenhouse gas emissions, while the second finds that the observed warming from human greenhouse gases is less than a lot of people think.

We aren’t at all surprised by the first result. The cooling effect of sulphate particulates, which go into the air along with carbon dioxide when fossil fuels (mainly coal) are combusted, was only invoked in the mid-1980s, when the lack of warming predicted by computer models was embarrassingly obvious.

This is the kind of thing that the iconic historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, predicted in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. When a scientific “paradigm” is assaulted by reality, increasingly ornate and bizarre explanations are put forth to keep it alive. Sulfates smelled like one of those to us back in the 1980s, and now it looks like the excuses are finally getting comeuppance.

The second result also comes as little news to us, as we have been saying for years that the human carbon dioxide emissions are not the only player in the climate change game.

The two new papers, in combination, mean that the human influence on the climate from the burning of fossil fuels is far less than what the IPCC’s ensemble of climate models says it is. This also goes for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the EPA ,and the White House.

Rest assured, though, Bozo will rise again—despite a near-continuous barrage of blows supporting the idea that the climate’s sensitivity to human greenhouse gas emissions is far too low to justify any of the expensive and futile actions emanating from Washington and Brussels.

The aerosol paper describes research by a team of Israeli scientists led by Gerald Stanhill (from the ARO Volcani Center) who examined the causes of “solar dimming” and “solar brightening” that have taken place over the past half-century or so. Solar brightening (dimming) refers to multidecadal periods when more (less) solar radiation is reaching the surface of the earth. All else being equal (dangerous words in Science), the earth’s surface would warm during periods of brightening and cool during dimming. Solar dimming has been reported to have taken place from the 1950s through the 1980s and since then there has been a period of recovery (i.e., brightening). These patterns have been linked by many to human aerosol emissions caused by pernicious economic activity, with heavy emissions leading to global cooling from the 1950s (witness the opaque air of Pittsburgh and London) through the late 1970s and then, as air quality was cleaned up and aerosol emissions declined, an unmasking of the warming impact from greenhouse gas emissions.

This is an essential storyline that might as well have been written by Kuhn. Without invoking the previously undiscovered masking impact of human aerosols, climate models predict that far more global warming should have happened as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions than has been observed, even by the 1980s. Behaving more predictably than the climate, federal climatologists, led by Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (hey, we couldn’t make up the name of that exclusively taxpayer-funded monster), relied on the aerosol “knob” to try to keep climate models from overheating.

Stanhill et al. have bad news for the feds. In their new paper, they examine the records of sunshine duration as recorded at five observation sites with long-term observations. When comparing these sunshine histories with fossil fuel use histories (a proxy for aerosol emissions) from nearby areas, they find very little correspondence. In other words, human aerosol emissions aren’t to blame for much of the solar dimming and brightening.

What may be the cause? Variations in cloud cover.

According to Stanhill and colleagues:

It is concluded that at the sites studied changes in cloud cover rather than anthropogenic aerosols emissions played the major role in determining solar dimming and brightening during the last half century and that there are reasons to suppose that these findings may have wider relevance.

Admittedly, there are only a small number of stations that were being analyzed, but Stanhill et al. have this to say:

This conclusion may be of wider significance than the very small number of sites examined in this study would suggest as the sites sampled Temperate - Maritime, Mediterranean, Continental and Tropical climates,… and covered a wide range of rates of anthropogenic aerosol emission.

The implications are that human aerosols have played a lot smaller role in the global temperature variability of the past 50 years than is generally taken to be the case. And if human aerosols are not responsible for muting the expected temperature rise from greenhouse gas emissions, then it seems that the expected rise is too much. That is, the earth’s temperature is less sensitive to rising greenhouse gas concentrations than forecasted by governmental climate models, and therefore we should expect less warming in the future.

The second paper, published last week in Science, is yet another study trying to explain the “pause” in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Using annual data from the University of East Anglia temperature history—the one that scientists consult the most, we are now in our 18th year without a warming trend.

(For a revealing exposé on how even this data is being jimmied to fit the paradigm, see what just showed up in the most recent Weekend Australian.)

University of Washington’s Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung found that a naturally occurring change in ocean circulation features in the Atlantic Ocean can act to enhance or suppress the magnitude of heat that is transferred from the surface into the ocean depths. The authors find that this natural cycling was responsible for burying additional heat since the late 1990s while maintaining surface heating during the previous three decades. Coupled with earlier research (Tung and Zhou, 2013), they figure that a substantial portion (~40%) of the rise in the global surface temperatures that has occurred since the mid-20th century was caused by natural variability in the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean.

The implication here is pretty clear—the role that human greenhouse gas emissions play in the observed warming isn’t what it was cracked up to be. And, with a little nudge from other variables—like the sun—the quaint myth that “all scientists agree that the majority of warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity” does look more and more like another pop-up Bozo.

Taken together, the two paper combination strikes a haymaker to the alarmist mantra—that dangerous climate change will result from greenhouse gas emissions. The Stanhill paper suggests that the projected warming wasn’t so masked by sulfate aerosols, and the Chen and Tung paper argues that less of the warming is due to a human influence anyway. This combination—greater warming pressure and less temperature change—means that the IPCC and federal climate models are just way off.

Going forward, we should expect much less human-induced global warming than government-fueled climate models project.

If this refrain sounds familiar, it is because we find ourselves frequently reporting on the subject of the earth’s climate sensitivity (how much warming results for a given input of carbon dioxide). This issue is the biggest key to understanding anthropogenic climate change, and, because evidence continues to mount that the climate sensitivity is much less than advertised, there will be much more where this came from.

But Bozo, inflated by public monies, will spring eternal.
References

Chen, X., and K-K Tung, 2014. Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration. Science, 345, 897-903.

Kuhn, T. S., 1962 (and reprints). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press„ 174pp.

Stanhill, G., et al., 2014. The cause of solar dimming and brightening at the Earth’s surface during the last half century: evidence from measurements of sunshine duration. Journal of Geophysical Research, doi: 10.1002/2013JD021308

Tung, K-K., and J. Zhou, 2013. Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 2058-2063."

 

[agentaqua]

Although CK neglected to reference were he got this from (plagiarism?) - an interesting cut and paste from: http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-alarmism-when-bozo-going-down

The lead author - Patrick J. Michaels - was "the founder of a consulting firm titled New Hope Environmental Services. Michaels described (PDF) the firm's purpose as to “publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary.” [2]

SourceWatch describes New Hope Environmental Services as “in effect … a PR firm.” New Hope is secretive about its funding sources, and fought a Greenpeace motion seeking disclosure. It is known to have received funds from electrical utilities in the past.

New Hope Environmental Services also ran a climate change bulletin titled The World Climate Report which was edited by Patrick Michaels and funded by coal group Western Fuels Association.

Analysis of the tax records of the Cato Institute found that in 2006 and 2007 the think tank paid Michaels' New Hope more than $240,000 in fees.

Michaels once estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. [3] He was also a “member scientist” at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition - an organisation created and funded by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation.".

above from: http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels

Here is a critique of the work posted above by CK, available at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-history-getting-climate-wrong.html

Oh, and the supporting organization CATO - funded by the oil billionaires Koch brothers - are a "Tax-Exempt" organization: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

 

[agentaqua]

An industry pundit posting on a topic where he has not demonstrated any knowledge of the subject, meanwhile refusing to acknowledge the available science - but gets hired as a "Sustainability Officer" for a major Corporation. Sound familiar?

 

[dougthefisher]

lol I may be the dumb butt in the class but I have seen changes in the last 50 years. if they are for the better I will be very very surprised. I don't worry though because I will be dead and gone and I think the earth will die and not much past my time. if you think humans have nothing to do with it and we are not causing change, well you have your head stuck way to far up your ... and I feel sorry for your childrens children.

 

[GLG]

I see pat is up to his old tricks and CK took it hook line an sinker......
Check out this link...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kert-davies/rep-waxman-presses-for-in_b_813251.html

Follow the money....

 

[agentaqua]

"A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm