Koch brothers caught funding attack on science

[Truthmatters]

Documents reveal Koch-funded group's plot to undermine climate science - CSMonitor.com

 

[peach174]

I think we have a right to question their data.
Given that they were so wrong in the 70's about us going into an ice age.

 

[PredFan]

Documents reveal Koch-funded group's plot to undermine climate science - CSMonitor.com

Wow the Koch brothers are fighting back against the largest scam the world has ever seen! They are heroes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no real science to AGW

And there's already a thread on this

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should free speech be allowed when its in opposition to what Obama wants?

 

[Old Rocks]

I think we have a right to question their data.
Given that they were so wrong in the 70's about us going into an ice age.

I suggest that you do a bit of research before you repeat the lies of the right wingnuts.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

 

[Truthmatters]

they just hate science

 

[Old Rocks]

There's no real science to AGW

And there's already a thread on this

LOL. Just because Frankieboy is a right wing fruitloop doesn't mean the rest of the world is blind, deaf, and exceptionally dumb.

For those that want real information from scientists and not flap yap reflecting the views of an obese junkie on the radio, here is real information on the subject;



AGW Observer

 

[Ernie S.]

I think we have a right to question their data.
Given that they were so wrong in the 70's about us going into an ice age.

I suggest that you do a bit of research before you repeat the lies of the right wingnuts.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

You and I both lived through the "coming ace age" scare. It's a shame you don't remember.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no real science to AGW

And there's already a thread on this

LOL. Just because Frankieboy is a right wing fruitloop doesn't mean the rest of the world is blind, deaf, and exceptionally dumb.

For those that want real information from scientists and not flap yap reflecting the views of an obese junkie on the radio, here is real information on the subject;


AGW Observer

How does global warming both causes CO2 to leech out of the oceans in a "Feedback loop", but simultaneously make the oceans absorb more CO2, turning them acidic?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no real science to AGW

And there's already a thread on this

LOL. Just because Frankieboy is a right wing fruitloop doesn't mean the rest of the world is blind, deaf, and exceptionally dumb.

For those that want real information from scientists and not flap yap reflecting the views of an obese junkie on the radio, here is real information on the subject;

AGW Observer

AGWObserver, that's the site with the Giant AGW Squirrels right?

"Look out, squirrels are getting bigger!

Size Increase in High Elevation Ground Squirrels over the Last Century – Eastman et al. (2012)

Abstract: “There is increasing evidence for morphological change in response to 20th century environmental change, but how this relates to fluctuations in geographic range is unclear. We measured museum specimens from two time periods (1902-1950 and 2000-2008) that vary significantly in climate to assess if and how two high elevation contracting species of ground squirrels in the Sierra Nevada of California, Belding’s ground squirrel (Urocitellus beldingi) and the golden-mantled ground squirrel (Callospermophilus lateralis), and one lower elevation, stable species, the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), have responded morphologically to changes in California over the last century. We measured skull length (condylobasal length), an ontogenetically more labile trait, and maxillary toothrow length (MTRL), a more developmentally constrained trait. C. lateralis and U. beldingi, both obligate hibernators, have increased in body size but have not changed in body shape. In contrast, O. beecheyi, which only hibernates in parts of its range, has shown no significant change in either morphometric trait. The increase in body size in the higher elevation species, presumably a plastic effect due to a longer growing season and thus prolonged food availability, opposes the expected direction of selection for decreased body size under chronic warming. We hypothesize that population contraction is related to physiological rather than nutritional constraints.”
"

 

[Truthmatters]

yet one more way the Republican party is commiting suicide

 

[CrusaderFrank]

yet one more way the Republican party is commiting suicide

How does global warming both causes CO2 to leech out of the oceans in a "Feedback loop", but simultaneously make the oceans absorb more CO2, turning them acidic?

 

[Ernie S.]

There's no real science to AGW

And there's already a thread on this

LOL. Just because Frankieboy is a right wing fruitloop doesn't mean the rest of the world is blind, deaf, and exceptionally dumb.

For those that want real information from scientists and not flap yap reflecting the views of an obese junkie on the radio, here is real information on the subject;



AGW Observer

I'll see your AGW Observer and raise you a Schnitt List.
Read a few of the links here. Feel free to comment.

 

[Truthmatters]

rich people fighting sceince to make more money.

and you clowns defend it

 

[Ernie S.]

Rich people fighting lies to keep the wackos from bankrupting the world, is more like it.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think we have a right to question their data.
Given that they were so wrong in the 70's about us going into an ice age.

I suggest that you do a bit of research before you repeat the lies of the right wingnuts.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

You and I both lived through the "coming ace age" scare. It's a shame you don't remember.

For God's sake, not only do I remember, I remember who was pushing that 'scare'. Newsweek and Time. The National Academy of Sciences article in 1975 stated that in their opinion that there was only a 5% chance of descending into an ice age, and that warming was far more likely from the increasing GHGs in the atmosphere. But primarily, what they stated was that the science of that time did not have enough evidence to support either scenerio.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

Cut to Appendix A, "Survey of Past Climates". Go right to the end: "Likelihood of a major deterioration of the global climate in the years ahead", and a discussion of the possibility of th next ice age:
"there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline [nb: colder temperatures is automatically a decline? any change is a decline? WMC] could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years".

So: this is hysterical fears? Well, judge for yourself. Notice, incidentally, that SEPP have misquoted the report in minor ways: they replace "probability" with possibility, and add capitalisation to "earth". [Hey, I typed all this stuff in by hand and its dull: I get to be picky about other peoples errors].

The notion of a "finite probability" is literally vacuous, since probabilities are by definition between 0 and 1, and are thus always finite. They mean, the idea of "not infinitesimal" or "not very very tiny" I suppose: but in practice what non-tiny value they mean cannot be inferred from the above, which goes back to being about meaningless.

However, lower down they add: "The question remains unresolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5% greater chance of encountering its onset If, on the other hand, these changes are more sinusiondal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of thousands of years. [this assumption that the interglacial can only last 10-ish kyr may have been correct from the info of the time; it is now dubious or wrong: WMC].... These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation...

and then goes on to discuss CO2 and aerosols.

They predicted an ice age in the 70's

They predicted an ice age in the 70's
Posted on 24 September 2007 by John Cook
The argument "they predicted an ice age in the 70's" has barnstormed into the Top Ten thanks largely to an Investor's Business Daily article claiming James Hansen believed we were heading for an ice age. This is based on the 1971 paper Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971) that speculated if aerosol levels increase 6 to 8 fold, it could trigger an ice age.

However, James Hansen wasn't an author of the Rasool paper and never made any ice age predictions. So what was his involvement? According to Investor Business Daily, "Aiding Rasool's research was a 'computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen'." [ UPDATE - James Hansen explains in more detail about his program used in Rasool's paper ] As Tim Lambert succintly puts it at Deltoid, "By their logic, if I borrow a pen from you, you must agree with everything I write with your pen."

Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that "climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now" is a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about the current science of anthropogenic global warming. Is it really appropriate to compare a single study in the 70's to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today?

National Academy of Sciences - now and then
The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was by the US National Academy of Sciences. It's basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." Incidentally, this is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rich people fighting lies to keep the wackos from bankrupting the world, is more like it.

Rich lying assholes protecting their investments, no matter what the price to the rest of us. That is the reality.

 

[Truthmatters]

The people we talk to here KNOW the truth.

The people we talk to here and defend this stuff do not have Americas best interests at heart.

 

[Ernie S.]

Did you bother with my link above?