Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Here is an inconvenient truth you won't hear from any of the snake oil terrorists. Humans exhale abut 1/3 of the CO2. This is disingenuously not included in the totals they quote. Consider that the explosion on our population since say-1920 makes our own exhaled CO2 far in excess of the annual industrial output of say-1960.

Using carbon isotope analysis the 40% increase in CO2 from the start of the industrial revolution can be directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Princeton professor Dr. William Happer

Happer is a skeptic for sale or rent. He can also hide the funding source and fake a peer-review for you.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ors-Trust.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

So a professor emeritus from MIT who got all kinds of funding to research the issue but remains a skeptic? But YOU are so convinced that you think further debate is akin to people who refuse to recognize that smoking is bad for one's health?

For the Heartland Institute climate science is as settled as tobacco science. Same tactics, same people.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

] Technically, that can be as little as 51%.

Actually



Home | James Lawrence Powell

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Always respect your opinions & comments Mike, but isn't the overwhelming majority of the money going to the consensus view?

What part of consensus do you not get? Of course, the money goes to the consensus, there is way more of them.

BTW - Skeptics are also government funded.

[CheekyMonkey]

Who cares about GW when the oceans are nearly devoid of fish? Yet, I hardly ever hear anyone address this REAL catastrophe that even the poorest nations are a major participant.

The true solution for all the worlds issues resides in reduction in human population. However, nobody wants to address this ugly truth.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by CheekyMonkey

Who cares about GW when the oceans are nearly devoid of fish? Yet, I hardly ever hear anyone address this REAL catastrophe that even the poorest nations are a major participant.

The true solution for all the worlds issues resides in reduction in human population. However, nobody wants to address this ugly truth.

Don't worry. The Eugenicists are working on this problem.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Happer is a skeptic for sale or rent. He can also hide the funding source and fake a peer-review for you.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ors-Trust.html

Princeton's Dr. Happer is indeed a skeptic -- or Denialist if you prefer -- and believes that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. But your linked e-mail correspondence also shows that he's not OK with the unregulated burning of fossil fuels because of the harmful pollutants. I can't seem to copy & paste, but this can be found in the top, highlighted para. on p. 3. There, he says he

fully support[s] regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.

To support these views on CO2, he started a nonprofit called the "CO2 Coalition," which he says is an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization. As for Dr. Happer being "for sale or rent," here's what he says in your linked document:

My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult. If your client [an energy co., presumably fossil fuels] was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition. * * * The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary.

Reimbursement for travel expenses incurred working on behalf of a nonprofit organization are legitimately reimbursable, btw, as is nondisclosure of donors, foreign or not, except to the IRS. Just ask the Clinton Foundation. I also read the discussion on whether the energy co. should have had Dr. Happer's paper peer-reviewed or not, but couldn't find anything about anyone "faking it" as you assert. Please feel free to fill in any parts of the document you think should be included to support your insinuations that this professor is corrupt.

I don't know much about this man or his scientific theories, and therefore can't make an independent, reasoned judgment on their merits. All that appears from your document is that some of his positions about CO2 in the atmosphere happen to coincide with those of the fossil fuel industry. Does that mean he's a bad guy, or just has views different from your own and the mainstream? Do you not think the pro-CC crowd has lobbyists, industry reps, foreign & domestic govt. entities, nonprofits, all backed up by scientists & other experts? Would you prefer that the side you & the mainstream don't happen to agree with be silenced instead of debated anymore? After all, that's what can happen when unsubstantiated accusations are made against a person as opposed to their professional views, and is exactly what some of the scientists at the recent Congressional hearing were complaining about.

Btw, how did you come upon private e-mail correspondence between private parties, dated as recently as Nov. 13, 2015?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For the Heartland Institute climate science is as settled as tobacco science. Same tactics, same people.

Hmmm . . . I didn't read anything about tobacco science from their web intro, but they certainly take conservative positions and are proud of their CC skepticism. Should we silence them too?

The Heartland Institute is a 31-year-old national nonprofit organization devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Heartland’s Center on Climate and Environmental Policy promotes pro-environment policies based on sound science and economics, not alarmism or ideology. Our strong stand against the politicization of science on matters of public health and the environment have earned us the enmity of many liberal public health and environmental groups and their allies in the mainstream media.

In 2012, The Economist called Heartland “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism about man-made climate change.” The New York Times called us “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.”

Looks like another one of those political disputes. You know, the kind that basic principles of free speech and the US's 1st Amendment were designed to resolve, no?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Actually



Home | James Lawrence Powell

Another interesting link you posted that, as I previously said, totally disputes these consensus numbers. I'll just quote the intro here, and let others who may be interested read the rest (bold emphasis added):

The article below, under review by Environmental Research Letters and submitted Jan. 9, 2015, 11 months ago, appears with the consent of the journal’s editor. It critiques an article by Cook et al. [CEA] which describes the results of their survey of the peer-reviewed literature on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Their article is the basis for the widely believed, but demonstrably utterly false, “97% consensus” on AGW.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What part of consensus do you not get? Of course, the money goes to the consensus, there is way more of them.

BTW - Skeptics are also government funded.

Thanks for confirming that "way more" of the money goes to the pro-CC faction. Just a friendly exchange between me & OReilly about trying to uncover the truth by "following the money."

[Anna09]

I don't know about this I am not an expert on the topic but I sure as hell want to believe it's true. But I don't think it's that easy, do you?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

To support these views on CO2, he started a nonprofit called the "CO2 Coalition," which he says is an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization. As for Dr. Happer being "for sale or rent," here's what he says in your linked document:


Btw, how did you come upon private e-mail correspondence between private parties, dated as recently as Nov. 13, 2015?

I am assuming that you do not know about the Donors Trust

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University

Or the CO2 Coalition

CO2 Coalition | DeSmogBlog


The Happer emails were discussed in some of the media, but not much in the MSM.

Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science | Environment | The Guardian

Another retired academic Frank Clemente, a sociologist from Pennsylvania State University also made a similar agreement.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Another interesting link you posted that, as I previously said, totally disputes these consensus numbers. I'll just quote the intro here, and let others who may be interested read the rest (bold emphasis added):

The article below, under review by Environmental Research Letters and submitted Jan. 9, 2015, 11 months ago, appears with the consent of the journal’s editor. It critiques an article by Cook et al. [CEA] which describes the results of their survey of the peer-reviewed literature on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Their article is the basis for the widely believed, but demonstrably utterly false, “97% consensus” on AGW.

Did you get this far?

For 2013 and 2014, I found that only 5 of 24,210 articles and 4 of 69,406 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming, showing that the consensus on AGW is above 99.9% and likely verges on unanimity.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Hmmm . . . I didn't read anything about tobacco science from their web intro, but they certainly take conservative positions and are proud of their CC skepticism. Should we silence them too?

Hmmm you did not dig very deep. Here is the president of Heartland defending tobacco interests.

Somebody seems to have declared open season on cigarette smokers and their suppliers. On behalf of the 25 percent of the adult population that smokes, may I offer a few words in defense of smoking?

Joe Camel Is Innocent! | Heartlander Magazine