Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[jc456]

You obviously do not understand

Oh, we understand very clearly. You don't have any science on your side, so you go with political conspiracy theories instead. The rational people here are talking about the science. The irrational cultists are raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bzzzzzt. Myth alert. The CRA affected a tiny portion of the real estate market, and CRA loans didn't fail at a rate any higher than other loans. Most of the failed banks weren't covered by the CRA at all. The CRA wasn't involved in commercial real estate, yet that crashed just as hard as residential. And Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble, they just chased the tail end of it and got burned.

It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

So obviously it was the removal of government regulation that caused the problem, as it allowed private lenders to pervert the lending marketplace. You almost were willing to state that historical fact, but I think the fear of being cast out of your political cult stopped you short.

^ that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity


Now. Where were we? Oh Yes!!!-- deniers keeping their heads in the sand

It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics. Let's start from the beginning.

Is it warming? Maybe, maybe not. For 4.5 billions years there has never been a time when the temperature of earth was static. That is why the true believers went from global cooling in the 70s to global warming and now schucks, it's just climate change.

Is it greenhouse gases? Who knows. Certainly not the clowns that give us nothing but computer models that don't work. Although here, one should treat this like any other experiment and do double blind experiments that eliminate other factors like, I don't know, the sun? Cloud cover? Ocean currents? Show me these, and many others, being eliminated through scientific experiments.

If greenhouse gases, is it CO2? Show me the double blind studies eliminating nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water among others. And at .04% of the atmosphere, why do you guys cling bitterly to CO2?

If CO2, is it man made? Show me the experiments. And your still calling people deniers. Not too scientific. In fact, rather political.

go read the Herr Koch experiment in 1901. He shoves their shit in their face quite well with that one. To date, no one has disproved it.

 

[jc456]

You obviously do not understand

Oh, we understand very clearly. You don't have any science on your side, so you go with political conspiracy theories instead. The rational people here are talking about the science. The irrational cultists are raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bzzzzzt. Myth alert. The CRA affected a tiny portion of the real estate market, and CRA loans didn't fail at a rate any higher than other loans. Most of the failed banks weren't covered by the CRA at all. The CRA wasn't involved in commercial real estate, yet that crashed just as hard as residential. And Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble, they just chased the tail end of it and got burned.

It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

So obviously it was the removal of government regulation that caused the problem, as it allowed private lenders to pervert the lending marketplace. You almost were willing to state that historical fact, but I think the fear of being cast out of your political cult stopped you short.

^ that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity


Now. Where were we? Oh Yes!!!-- deniers keeping their heads in the sand

It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics. Let's start from the beginning.

Is it warming? Maybe, maybe not. For 4.5 billions years there has never been a time when the temperature of earth was static. That is why the true believers went from global cooling in the 70s to global warming and now schucks, it's just climate change.

Is it greenhouse gases? Who knows. Certainly not the clowns that give us nothing but computer models that don't work. Although here, one should treat this like any other experiment and do double blind experiments that eliminate other factors like, I don't know, the sun? Cloud cover? Ocean currents? Show me these, and many others, being eliminated through scientific experiments.

If greenhouse gases, is it CO2? Show me the double blind studies eliminating nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water among others. And at .04% of the atmosphere, why do you guys cling bitterly to CO2?

If CO2, is it man made? Show me the experiments. And your still calling people deniers. Not too scientific. In fact, rather political.

the newcomer has the obvious quality of common sense.

I like him, reminds me of me.

 

[jc456]

It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics. Let's start from the beginning.

Is it warming? Maybe, maybe not.

There is no question about it. For the last 150 years, the world has been getting warmer. No one doubts that, even on your side of the argument.

For 4.5 billions years there has never been a time when the temperature of earth was static.

Human civilization hasn't been around for 4.5 billion years. We've been around for about 12,000. During that period, temperatures HAVE been quite stable. Civilization developed under those conditions. We have built an enormous infrastructure under those conditions. Now those conditions are changing and at an unnaturally rapid rate.

That is why the true believers went from global cooling in the 70s to global warming and now schucks, it's just climate change.

Meaningless nonsense. A minority of experts were concerned about possible cooling in the 1970s. They were never a majority and the majority of the experts even then were concerned about warming from human GHG emissions. Reviews of the literature showing precisely that have been posted here repeatedly. Global warming and climate change are different terms with different meanings. If that's what you've got as an argument, you've got nothing.

Is it greenhouse gases? Who knows. Certainly not the clowns that give us nothing but computer models that don't work.

Is what a greenhouse gas? CO2? That's been accepted science for well over a century and their were no computer models a century ago. The GCMs of today work far better than the misinformation you've apparently received and if you think assumptions of anthropogenic greenhouse warming make them inaccurate, try to remember that NO ONE has produced a functioning GCM that stays within miles of reality WITHOUT assuming anthropogenic global warming. No one.

Although here, one should treat this like any other experiment and do double blind experiments that eliminate other factors like, I don't know, the sun? Cloud cover? Ocean currents? Show me these, and many others, being eliminated through scientific experiments.

Show me another Earth to use as a control.

If greenhouse gases, is it CO2? Show me the double blind studies eliminating nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water among others. And at .04% of the atmosphere, why do you guys cling bitterly to CO2?

Why do you cling bitterly to such nonsense? The greenhouse warming from all the other constituents of the atmosphere have been heavily studied for over a century. For starters, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are not greenhouse gases, as has been amply demonstrated in numerous laboratory experiments. Water, of course, is one. The greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and the chlorofluorocarbon group. They exhibit the defining property of greenhouse gases: they absorb infrared radiation within the frequency band radiated by the Earth - a property easily tested in the lab. Despite what may seem the small proportion that CO2 makes up in the Earth's atmosphere, it has been well demonstrated to be capable of doing precisely that with which it is credited. The human emission of methane has also had a warming effect, though methane does not have the lifetime of CO2. Water vapor levels are controlled almost entirely by temperatures, so as the Earth's temperature rises, water vapor will enhance the warming effect our CO2 emissions produce. Water vapor has an atmospheric lifetime measured in single digits of days while CO2 will last 30-95 years. There is also the point that the final release of IR radiation to space takes place in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere, an area almost devoid of water vapor.

THAT is why scientists "cling bitterly" to CO2 as the primary causation of the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

If CO2, is it man made?

Yes.

Show me the experiments.

isotopic analysis of carbon dioxide - Google Scholar

Enjoy yourself

And your still calling people deniers. Not too scientific. In fact, rather political.

It isn't the least bit political. You claimed that your observations showed we had nothing but political motivations for a belief in mainstream climate science, yet you showed not a single iota of evidence supporting that charge. What you did show was a abysmal weakness in science and a small collection of out-of-date denier memes.

I call people "deniers" when they deny an argument without valid cause. Mountains of evidence and the opinions of the vast majority of the experts tell us that the primary cause of the warming we've experience over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. If you deny that, I would call you a denier. Simple enough. And no politics involved.

still no evidence of back radiation. so greenhouse gas is a really still in question. Oh wait, you have proof? oh dear lord, let's see this one. Don't go back to the other thousand you tried which do nothing to support or validate your position. Just one of them friend.

 

[Dot Com]

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate. How do you "create" a better world with: More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any. Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie. For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants. Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms. This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier". It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial. You sound like a 15th century pope.

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them. They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will. Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs". Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace. For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.

and 2008 Wall St is an example of "letting the markets regulate themselves"

FAIL!!!

You obviously do not understand what happened with the 2008 collapse. And, one would think we are getting far afield from the global warming debate but this is really at its core. That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism. This is at its heart since all of its proposed solutions are anti-capitalistic and most of its proponents are anti capitalists, as you are proving. Therefore, the many of the socialists, with nowhere to go after the collapse of the Soviet Union, went to environmental movements. As they say, they old red is the new green. Now, the 2008 collapse.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act which forced (yes, forced) banks to lend mortgages to primarily minority and primarily poor risk investors. If they didn't, they were labeled racist. This was started under Carter and expanded under Clifton. It got to the point that the only way to effect lending was to eliminate down payments, altogether. (please google Barnie Frank and Fannie Mae where Bush tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Frank said it would be racist to do so) That is when people all over the country were buying homes that they couldn't afford. It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

the US govt, and that includes Bush not just Clinton, caused the 2008 meltdown that cost us all a lot of money (and Im not even American). conforming to political correctness at the expense of ignoring reality never works out well.

neither does lax enforcement by Executive Agencies. In this case the SEC

 

[jc456]

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians

Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them. They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will. Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs". Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace. For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.

and 2008 Wall St is an example of "letting the markets regulate themselves"

FAIL!!!

You obviously do not understand what happened with the 2008 collapse. And, one would think we are getting far afield from the global warming debate but this is really at its core. That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism. This is at its heart since all of its proposed solutions are anti-capitalistic and most of its proponents are anti capitalists, as you are proving. Therefore, the many of the socialists, with nowhere to go after the collapse of the Soviet Union, went to environmental movements. As they say, they old red is the new green. Now, the 2008 collapse.

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act which forced (yes, forced) banks to lend mortgages to primarily minority and primarily poor risk investors. If they didn't, they were labeled racist. This was started under Carter and expanded under Clifton. It got to the point that the only way to effect lending was to eliminate down payments, altogether. (please google Barnie Frank and Fannie Mae where Bush tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Frank said it would be racist to do so) That is when people all over the country were buying homes that they couldn't afford. It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government. Period.

the US govt, and that includes Bush not just Clinton, caused the 2008 meltdown that cost us all a lot of money (and Im not even American). conforming to political correctness at the expense of ignoring reality never works out well.

neither does lax enforcement by Executive Agencies. In this case the SEC

credit boston.com for this link:

Frank haunted by stance on Fannie Freddie - The Boston Globe

Barney Frank, key person responsible for failed housing markets.

 

[Crick]

That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.

What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?

 

[Davey T]

That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.

What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?

Cap and trade policies are nothing more than taxing and controlling the production of energy and development. Proponents even admit that cap and trade will not reduce greenhouse gases other than marginally and affect temperatures even less so. So it is all about taxing and control.

Further, it is common knowledge that organizations and governments hire people to flood the blogoshere and advocate in their sttead. This is true only for climate change. There are no hired guns in the blogoshere for string theory or water on Mars. Only climate change. I wonder why. I debate here as a private citizen concerned about our nation. Who do you work for?

 

[Crick]

My children asshole.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.

What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?

The whole AGW scam is socialist

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC

 

[jc456]

That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.

What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?

You have no proof! I thought I've told you over and over

 

[Crick]

The whole AGW scam is socialist

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC

Redistributing the world's wealth - even were that what climate policy intends to accomplish, is not socialism. I suggest you go do some reading.

 

[Crick]

That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.

What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?

You have no proof! I thought I've told you over and over

You appear to be babbling jc. Who has no proof of what?

 

[Old Rocks]

That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.

What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?

Cap and trade policies are nothing more than taxing and controlling the production of energy and development. Proponents even admit that cap and trade will not reduce greenhouse gases other than marginally and affect temperatures even less so. So it is all about taxing and control.

Further, it is common knowledge that organizations and governments hire people to flood the blogoshere and advocate in their sttead. This is true only for climate change. There are no hired guns in the blogoshere for string theory or water on Mars. Only climate change. I wonder why. I debate here as a private citizen concerned about our nation. Who do you work for?

Cap and trade did a pretty good job of reducing the pollution from the coal fired generators.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The whole AGW scam is socialist

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC

Redistributing the world's wealth - even were that what climate policy intends to accomplish, is not socialism. I suggest you go do some reading.

Paid poster sez wha?

It's not Socialism? LOL

It's a fraud

 

[Davey T]

My children asshole.

Does you boss, Mr. Soros, know you are using these big words?

Like I said, AGW proponents try to malign their opponents, use slander, vilification and cuss words. All in the name of science, of course.

 

[Old Rocks]

But worst of all, we use publications from peer reviewed scientific journals, rather than the rants of obese junkies on the AM Radio, and bonkers fake British Lords.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But worst of all, we use publications from peer reviewed scientific journals, rather than the rants of obese junkies on the AM Radio, and bonkers fake British Lords.

Peer review = other people paid to agree with the AGW models

 

[Crick]

That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.

What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?

Cap and trade policies are nothing more than taxing and controlling the production of energy and development.

That is incorrect. Cap and trade policies are intended to provide an incentive to reduce carbon emissions. Utilities are free to completely ignore them should they so choose. Under socialism, the government would be taking ownership of the utilities and their revenues. Cap and trade creates a competition to reduce emissions at the lowest possible price. It is, in that sense, a capitalist strategy.

Proponents even admit that cap and trade will not reduce greenhouse gases other than marginally and affect temperatures even less so.

What proponents?

So it is all about taxing and control.

No it is not. And even if it were, that would not be socialist.

From Wikipedia
"Emissions trading or cap and trade ("cap" meaning a legal limit on the quantity of a certain type of chemical an economy can emit each year)[1] is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economicincentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.[2] Various countries, groups of companies, and states have adopted emission trading systems as one of the strategies for mitigating climate-change by addressing international greenhouse-gas emission.[3]"

References

1. "Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change"(PDF). Cap and Trade. January 2011.
2. Stavins, Robert N. (November 2001). "Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments" (PDF). Discussion Paper 01-58 (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future). Retrieved 2010-05-20. Market-based instruments are regulations that encourage behavior through market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control levels or methods
3. "Tax Treaty Issues Related to Emissions Permits/Credits" (PDF). OECD. Retrieved25 Oct 2014.

Further, it is common knowledge that organizations and governments hire people to flood the blogoshere and advocate in their sttead.

"Common knowledge" or Argumentum ad Populum, is a logical fallacy. Millions of people publish their opinions on the web. Even were this practice common - which I reject, the odds of you actually running into such a person, particularly on a site a poorly visited as this one, would be microscopic.

This is true only for climate change.

That is a completely unsubstantiated assertion and nonsense in every other regard. The fossil fuel industry has been shown to have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists, journalists, pseudo scientists, bloggers and pundits in an attempt to discredit AGW.

From Climate change denial - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[18] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.[19][14][20][21][22][23][24][25] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[26] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[27]

and from http://www.fossilfreemit.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FossilFreeMIT-Lobbying-Disinformation.pdf

Lobbying and Political Donations by the Fossil Fuel Industry The fossil fuel industry continues to lobby against climate change legislation on a scale that dwarfs even that of Big Tobacco at its peak7,8 . In 2012 alone, individuals and political action committees associated with the oil and gas sector donated $70 million to US candidates and political parties, in addition to funding over 800 lobbyists at a cost of more than $149 million7,9 . The coal-mining sector spent another $13 million in donations and $18 million in lobbying7,9 . All told, the fossil fuel industry spends an order of magnitude more than those advocating alternative energy sources, who spent $2.5 million on donations and $28 million on lobbying in 20129 . This spending disparity appears to have profoundly impacted the climate change debate in Washington, as discussed below.

There are no hired guns in the blogoshere for string theory or water on Mars. Only climate change.

There are "hired guns" on the web advocating the prevention of forest fires, the use of seat belts, the conservation of energy and water, not drinking and driving, not leaving infants in hot cars, getting our pets neutered and spayed and so forth. I find these causes have a great deal more in common with mitigating AGW than water on Mars.

And, as we can see, there are a plethora of "hired guns" working for the fossil fuel industry to sell precisely the position you yourself appear to hold.

I wonder why. I debate here as a private citizen concerned about our nation.

Because you don't have to meet any intellectual requirements to post here.

Who do you work for?

You implication that no one would argue as I have without doing so mercenarily is offensive. I suppose I should be flattered that you think I do this well enough that someone would pay me for it, but that doesn't come near offsetting the offense. I accept the expertise of mainstream science on this issue. The vast majority of the world's scientists accept that the greenhouse effect, acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which threatens our future. I have children. I argue with you because I believe you and your denier compatriots directly threaten the welfare of my chlidren and their children and their children - and everyone else on this planet of course. I think you argue out of ignorance and an antipathy towards science. I think it likely that you believe there is a political facet to this argument and that as a conservative, you need to oppose it. You have been fed a great deal of misinformation designed to fit with your knowledge and mindset and you have sucked it all up, apparently unexamined. That is who I work for. Asshole.

 

[jc456]

My children asshole.

My children and grandchildren

 

[jc456]

That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.

What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?

Cap and trade policies are nothing more than taxing and controlling the production of energy and development.

That is incorrect. Cap and trade policies are intended to provide an incentive to reduce carbon emissions. Utilities are free to completely ignore them should they so choose. Under socialism, the government would be taking ownership of the utilities and their revenues. Cap and trade creates a competition to reduce emissions at the lowest possible price. It is, in that sense, a capitalist strategy.

Proponents even admit that cap and trade will not reduce greenhouse gases other than marginally and affect temperatures even less so.

What proponents?

So it is all about taxing and control.

No it is not. And even if it were, that would not be socialist.

From Wikipedia
"Emissions trading or cap and trade ("cap" meaning a legal limit on the quantity of a certain type of chemical an economy can emit each year)[1] is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economicincentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.[2] Various countries, groups of companies, and states have adopted emission trading systems as one of the strategies for mitigating climate-change by addressing international greenhouse-gas emission.[3]"

References

1. "Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change"(PDF). Cap and Trade. January 2011.
2. Stavins, Robert N. (November 2001). "Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments" (PDF). Discussion Paper 01-58 (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future). Retrieved 2010-05-20. Market-based instruments are regulations that encourage behavior through market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control levels or methods
3. "Tax Treaty Issues Related to Emissions Permits/Credits" (PDF). OECD. Retrieved25 Oct 2014.

Further, it is common knowledge that organizations and governments hire people to flood the blogoshere and advocate in their sttead.

"Common knowledge" or Argumentum ad Populum, is a logical fallacy. Millions of people publish their opinions on the web. Even were this practice common - which I reject, the odds of you actually running into such a person, particularly on a site a poorly visited as this one, would be microscopic.

This is true only for climate change.

That is a completely unsubstantiated assertion and nonsense in every other regard. The fossil fuel industry has been shown to have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists, journalists, pseudo scientists, bloggers and pundits in an attempt to discredit AGW.

From Climate change denial - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[18] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.[19][14][20][21][22][23][24][25] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[26] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[27]

and from http://www.fossilfreemit.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FossilFreeMIT-Lobbying-Disinformation.pdf

Lobbying and Political Donations by the Fossil Fuel Industry The fossil fuel industry continues to lobby against climate change legislation on a scale that dwarfs even that of Big Tobacco at its peak7,8 . In 2012 alone, individuals and political action committees associated with the oil and gas sector donated $70 million to US candidates and political parties, in addition to funding over 800 lobbyists at a cost of more than $149 million7,9 . The coal-mining sector spent another $13 million in donations and $18 million in lobbying7,9 . All told, the fossil fuel industry spends an order of magnitude more than those advocating alternative energy sources, who spent $2.5 million on donations and $28 million on lobbying in 20129 . This spending disparity appears to have profoundly impacted the climate change debate in Washington, as discussed below.

There are no hired guns in the blogoshere for string theory or water on Mars. Only climate change.

There are "hired guns" on the web advocating the prevention of forest fires, the use of seat belts, the conservation of energy and water, not drinking and driving, not leaving infants in hot cars, getting our pets neutered and spayed and so forth. I find these causes have a great deal more in common with mitigating AGW than water on Mars.

And, as we can see, there are a plethora of "hired guns" working for the fossil fuel industry to sell precisely the position you yourself appear to hold.

I wonder why. I debate here as a private citizen concerned about our nation.

Because you don't have to meet any intellectual requirements to post here.

Who do you work for?

You implication that no one would argue as I have without doing so mercenarily is offensive. I suppose I should be flattered that you think I do this well enough that someone would pay me for it, but that doesn't come near offsetting the offense. I accept the expertise of mainstream science on this issue. The vast majority of the world's scientists accept that the greenhouse effect, acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which threatens our future. I have children. I argue with you because I believe you and your denier compatriots directly threaten the welfare of my chlidren and their children and their children - and everyone else on this planet of course. I think you argue out of ignorance and an antipathy towards science. I think it likely that you believe there is a political facet to this argument and that as a conservative, you need to oppose it. You have been fed a great deal of misinformation designed to fit with your knowledge and mindset and you have sucked it all up, apparently unexamined. That is who I work for. Asshole.

Reduce carbon emissions or pay for the emissions?