Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No. Only Faux News can make this stuff up. Or at least the clickbaity headline.

The guy in question is one signatory of several to a letter "urging lawsuits against companies like Exxon for, the petitioners claim, intentionally misleading about climate change." Companies, not 'skeptics'. You can all rest easy. If a company is intentionally spreading misinformation, damn right they can be sued.

Not exactly, L-E. I think you let your little problem with "Faux News" got in the way of reading the entire article. You see, here in the U.S. we have these ever so annoying constitutional obstacles that have been thwarting efforts by some to suppress the contrary opinions & advocacy of others for about 227 years now. The trouble is that the overly zealous MMGW crowd is trying to convince people that their favored science-du-jour is just as "settled" as, say, the link btwn. tobacco and heart disease/cancer. But wouldn't you know it, ol' Faux News went and asked a well-respected constitutional law professor who also happens to believe in the existence of MMGW:

"'This is certainly a threat to First Amendment liberties, both the freedom of speech and press,' Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told FoxNews.com. 'It's an effort to criminalize dissent on a contentious public policy issue -- and I say that as someone who believes that climate change is a serious problem that warrants serious policy responses, albeit not the same ones pushed by most environmental groups,' he added."


I'm not comfortable with what I'm reading so far about the guy's salaries; if he's cooking the books or double-dipping... I'll be as angry as you about it.

Funny, I didn't read anything about cooking books or double-dipping. Nor did I read anybody disputing this scientist's $333,000/yr. total "compensation" from a mostly US taxpayer-funded non-profit, his wife's $166,000/yr. "compensation" from this same non-profit, and his colleague's $180,000/yr. "compensation" from, yup, this same organization. On the contrary, Prof. Shukla signed off on the non-profit's tax return that lists exactly these same numbers, and wouldn't you know it, Faux News even took the time to verify it and provide a link for us. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...0b7d49e1-9.pdf (p. 7, sect. A). But I did read that this is on top of Prof. Shukla's annual salary of over $250,000 from another US taxpayer-funded organization, namely a public university. And once again, that hated news outlet that posts all of that faux news provided both the verification & the link. Jagadish Shukla | Virginia Employee.

So I suppose it's encouraging that you're not "comfortable" with a total of $750,000 in mostly public money going to this guy & his family in a single year, mostly in exchange for his efforts (and his wife's?) to cement the establishment position on climate science (he does modeling). Oh, and lest we forget, also trying to suppress free speech (bonus $$$ for that??). But I know you don't think Faux News should have linked the two. But if this makes you merely uncomfortable, what exactly does it take to make you angry? How about the $5.6 million he's earned off taxpayers since 2001? How's that modeling program going anyway? Do you think we're getting our money's worth outta the deal? Do you think this is helping get you more converts? And given all your insinuation about the corrupt scientists who are funded by the big oil cos., I wonder if you might be inclined to agree with some who point out that

"Shukla’s financial operations illustrate that government-funded scientists have plenty of incentive to exaggerate the danger of climate change in order to secure more research funding."

Ya think? Have you considered that such obscene amounts of govt. compensation might have something to do with the surface modeling being the only type of evidence which has consistently produced dramatically higher temps? As you & others keep urging, just "follow the money."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

One such thread is quite enough. (one is arguably one too many on a sailing forum , but some might disagree ).

So... one guy. One Guy. In climate skeptic circles, he's more (in)famous than Justin Bieber. It seems that not a single right-wing/skeptic site is missing some mention of this... one guy.

If the intent is to prove that all of climate science is similarly tainted... gonna be a long decade. Best get on with it, then.

Instead of making excuses for your "one guy," why don't you try and substantiate your corruption allegations against scientists who fall in the skeptic camp? As Jack has pointed out, guys like Spencer & Christy also get govt. research grants from NOAA & NASA. They also both work at a public university. I have no idea what they make, or how they are compensated. Go look it up.

[Exile]

Go figure, but it looks like Ken's been right all along with his caveman references. The good news for the believers is that we can still blame humans. The bad news is that we can no longer blame fossil fuels:

Early man's actions caused global warming, study says | Fox News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Jim Hansen, Michael Mann....

Yes - just as soon as they're proven guilty of fraud or misconduct, we'll add them to the list.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

I guess you missed the other similar thread that started at about the same time as this one "The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters”.

I raised this case in posts #42 and 43 in response to Mike's claim that "no one gets rich on government grants" Other links from that thread:

A Climate Extremist Is Taxpayer-Funded | National Review Online
and
Shukla’s Gold « Climate Audit

Looks like it's quite a bit worse than even that faux tabloid Fox News reported. Shukla got a big raise from the taxpayers in 2014 to the tune of $64,000. His wife is the nonprofit's "business manager" -- a tedious, labor-intensive job worthy of $166,000 in compensation. And then there's a daughter pulling down another $90,000 as "ass't business manager" -- obviously to help her overworked mother no doubt, but hard to imagine why this went unreported. And apparently it all violates both university & federal policy -- you know, those pesky concerns about conflicts of interest and all that. Thus the reference to "double-dipping."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Oh, and lest we forget, also trying to suppress free speech (bonus $$$ for that??).

Yes. Let's take up a collection for poor ole Exxon.

Originally Posted by Exile

Have you considered that such obscene amounts of govt. compensation might have something to do with the surface modeling being the only type of evidence which has consistently produced dramatically higher temps? As you & others keep urging, just "follow the money."

One Guy. From One Country (of many). Misconduct (scientific or otherwise) not yet proven, btw. You got some homework.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

One Guy. From One Country (of many). Professional misconduct not yet proven, btw. You got some homework.

You must have missed the story of the $500,000 fraud perpetrated by Dr. Alongi of Queensland, Australia that Reef recently posted about.

Hey, I'm doing my homework. It's easy, just follow the money . . . .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes - just as soon as they're proven guilty of fraud or misconduct, we'll add them to the list.

Passing off "Storms of My Grandchildren" or hockey stick graphs as non fiction should be illegal.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes. Let's take up a collection for poor ole Exxon.

No, not necessary. Exxon has plenty of cash reserves but, with oil prices crashing, would probably prefer not to have to spend it on frivolous lawsuits. Compare that to the US govt., which has no financial reserves whatsoever, but remains free to grossly outspend any private corp. on Earth and add to its debt. The Shukla affair shows that NOAA & NASA, among others, need less politicization and more accountability.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

but remains free to grossly outspend any private corp. on Earth and add to its debt. The Shukla affair shows that NOAA & NASA, among others, need less politicization and more accountability.

"outspend any private corp. on Earth and add to its debt"

My turn to ROFL.

Only government and its institutions are to any serious extent accountable to the public. By law. And the occasional election. Thanks to "Citizens United", corporations in the US can, without accountability or traceability, set up a PAC and spend any amount on influence.

At least they can be sued for misinformation.

[newhaul]

Well exile me thinks a nerve was struck and the Arctic sea ice keeps forming

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Passing off "Storms of My Grandchildren" or hockey stick graphs as non fiction should be illegal.

In my world, it's still ok to publish stuff, even if I don't agree with it (though I might say something ). Sorry about yours.

and... yeah. About that hockeystick...

[newhaul]

Since DEC 2012 to DEC 2015 there has been a net increase of 1731 km3 in Arctic sea ice

[Kenomac]

OK, Let's assume now that the temperature IS going to increase and the seas WILL rise up a an enormous 8 inches over the next 100 years... Who cares?

Why is humanity going to come to an end over the sea rising 8 inches? Seems to me the sea has risen up a lot more than that over the past 10,000 years since the last ice age and our ancestors seemed to handle the apocalypse well enough, they didn't drown or go hungry.

In fact, I believe their land bridge from Asia to the Americas was even cut off by the rising seas, thereby stranding them here in America with the Mammoths, giant beavers and saber tooth tigers. They seemed to get on just fine.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"outspend any private corp. on Earth and add to its debt"

My turn to ROFL.

Only government and its institutions are to any serious extent accountable to the public. By law. And the occasional election. Thanks to "Citizens United", corporations in the US can, without accountability or traceability, set up a PAC and spend any amount on influence.

At least they can be sued for misinformation.

You might wanna get yourself up off the floor and stop laughing.

FY 2015:

U.S. Federal Govt. Gross Spending: $3.7 Trillion
US Government Spending in $ trillion, Total, Federal, State, Local for 2015 - Charts

U.S. Federal Govt. Gross Revenues: $3.2 Trillion
US Government Revenue in $ trillion for Federal, State, and Local for 2015 - Charts

U.S. Federal Govt. Total Deficit: $439 Billion (estimated to increase to $474 Billion for FY 2016)
US Federal Deficit Definition - plus charts and analysis

Last time I checked, if you spend $3.7 trillion in a year, but only take in $3.2 trillion, then you're spending half a trillion more than you're taking in, or $500 billion if you prefer. And you're adding that one-year deficit to the one you've been accumulating, currently estimated at $439 billion. But don't forget to add at least another $500,000 for Prof. Shukla and his growing family.

Now it's your turn to do some homework, which seems likely to be a first I know. Please report which private corps. on the planet can match or even come close to the U.S. govt.'s spending, revenues, and deficit spending for 2015. I'll be anxiously waiting.

Private corps. are accountable by law to their shareholders. Btw, do you have a retirement account? They are also accountable to the govt.'s right to regulate them. You're way off on Citizen's United, but let's see how well you do with the concept of deficit spending before any more time is wasted.

ExxonMobil could be sued if there was evidence that they had proof that MMGW exists, further proof that it would cause the type of catastrophic damage to the human race that you & others so fear, and that they deliberately withheld or manipulated this proof to deceive the govt. & the public. Oh, and you'd also have to prove that their deception caused somebody some harm -- you know, like how CC is causing terrorism. Maybe ExxonMobil has some climate genius they keep locked up in the back who's smarter than all the climate scientists combined, but just in case they don't I'd suggest a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency basis only. Unlike proof that the tobacco cos. knew long ago about the link b'twn smoking & disease but purposely withheld it, having skeptical or denialist views on MMGW is not against the law.