Leading Climate Scientist, Dr Peiser, "we Should All Be Relieved That It Isn’t Such A Big Problem A

[Crick]

Losing? To you? Man, have you suffered a disconnect.

 

[SSDD]

Nah...your side is losing. Did you hear that NPR has gutted its environmental section. People, even liberals tune off when the global warming lie is broadcast these days. Only the real nut jobs still believe and contrary to your belief, you are in a very small minority...not really worth note even at NPR. How does it feel?

 

[Bfgrn]

Just in...a blogger is the k00k's source...

Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)
Credentials

• Bachelor of Science.
• Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.

Source: [1]

Background
Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute. [2]

Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]

Goddard operates a blog titled “Real Science” blog, originally Real-Science.com, and now as the Wordpress blog Real Science. Goddard has gone to some lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying WhoIs information.

Publications
Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject.

Hmmmm..........

My only question then would be.......why is your side losing so decisively???

Math problems k00K?

Percentage of Americans who believe past global warming has been caused by humans or in equal part by humans and natural fluctuations

 

[Bfgrn]

Pew

 

[skookerasbil]

Just in...a blogger is the k00k's source...

Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)
Credentials

• Bachelor of Science.
• Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.

Source: [1]

Background
Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute. [2]

Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]

Goddard operates a blog titled “Real Science” blog, originally Real-Science.com, and now as the Wordpress blog Real Science. Goddard has gone to some lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying WhoIs information.

Publications
Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject.

Hmmmm..........

My only question then would be.......why is your side losing so decisively???

Math problems k00K?

Percentage of Americans who believe past global warming has been caused by humans or in equal part by humans and natural fluctuations

Lots of people believe in Santa Claus too s0n......

Far lefties miss the point completely. There is the science and then there is public policy. Public policy is moved only by significant concerns from the public. The term "green" has been created by the Reality Manufacturing Company. Talked about a lot.......but almost invariably it just that: talk. Not a single AGW nut can post up a single link displaying how the science is mattering outside the realm of the internet and a newspaper or two.......

Fact is, renewable energy continues to be a joke.( see graphs on this thread ). Carbon trading is on life support. Europe has suddenly gone hog wild for fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. Because their economies cant compete without the stuff. The US will become the largest oil producer by years end. China coal use? Off the hook s0ns!! India too. Why? Because nations like cheap energy because they can compete economically. All this stuff might not be important to the typical global warming k00k.......but it matters to all the non-k00ks."Costs" matter in life......but not to the global warming mental cases.

Scores of links can be found in the pages of THIS link >> More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . Its the thread that explodes the heads of the handful of AGW mental cases on this forum.


At the end of the day......."climate science" is nothing but a career for some and an internet hobby for all the rest. Lots of people believe in lots of things. Duh. Measuring behavior is the only thing that matters.

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres the bottom line.......

Fossil fuels are going to dominate the energy landscape for decades and decades and decades.

% chances of the AGW nutters changing that?


ZERO

 

[skookerasbil]

On the big science of WINNING...........

 

[Roadrunner]

Benny Peiser DeSmogBlog

Benny Peiser is a past Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University. He is a “historian and anthropologist with particular research interest in neo-catastrophism and its implications for human and societal evolution.” [3], [4]

Benny Peiser is also the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWFP), a “all-party and non-party think tank and registered educational charity” founded by Nigel Lawson. [5]

The foundation describes it's main purpose as being to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant… . Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and its economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.”

Although the group does not disclose their funding sources, they claim to be “funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.” The organization also claims that it does not “accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”

Peiser is also listed as the co-editor of the skeptical journal Energy and Environment, also edited by Sonja-Boehmer Christiansen.

Energy and Environment has been described as the place climate change skeptics go to when they are rejected by the mainstream peer-reviewed science publications. The journal has also drawn sharp criticism for their abuse of the peer-review process, including one from Michael Mann regarding a questionable study co-authored by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

He is a social scientist, specializing in sports. No way is he an expert in climate. Pure garbage post.

The "experts" in Climate "Science" are all saying, "the Pacific Ocean ate my Global Warming"

Cryptozoologists now blame global warming on the notoriously rancid bigfoot farts.

 

[Thunderbird]

What's interesting about AGW is that so many prestigious organizations have signed on as believers. If they are wrong, it represents a huge indictment of the whole media-academic complex.

 

[skookerasbil]

What's interesting about AGW is that so many prestigious organizations have signed on as believers. If they are wrong, it represents a huge indictment of the whole media-academic complex.

Great post dude!!!


More bad news for the climate obsessed.

 

[Bfgrn]

Just in...a blogger is the k00k's source...

Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)
Credentials

• Bachelor of Science.
• Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.

Source: [1]

Background
Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute. [2]

Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]

Goddard operates a blog titled “Real Science” blog, originally Real-Science.com, and now as the Wordpress blog Real Science. Goddard has gone to some lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying WhoIs information.

Publications
Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject.

Hmmmm..........

My only question then would be.......why is your side losing so decisively???

Math problems k00K?

Percentage of Americans who believe past global warming has been caused by humans or in equal part by humans and natural fluctuations

Lots of people believe in Santa Claus too s0n......

Far lefties miss the point completely. There is the science and then there is public policy. Public policy is moved only by significant concerns from the public. The term "green" has been created by the Reality Manufacturing Company. Talked about a lot.......but almost invariably it just that: talk. Not a single AGW nut can post up a single link displaying how the science is mattering outside the realm of the internet and a newspaper or two.......

Fact is, renewable energy continues to be a joke.( see graphs on this thread ). Carbon trading is on life support. Europe has suddenly gone hog wild for fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. Because their economies cant compete without the stuff. The US will become the largest oil producer by years end. China coal use? Off the hook s0ns!! India too. Why? Because nations like cheap energy because they can compete economically. All this stuff might not be important to the typical global warming k00k.......but it matters to all the non-k00ks."Costs" matter in life......but not to the global warming mental cases.

Scores of links can be found in the pages of THIS link >> More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . Its the thread that explodes the heads of the handful of AGW mental cases on this forum.


At the end of the day......."climate science" is nothing but a career for some and an internet hobby for all the rest. Lots of people believe in lots of things. Duh. Measuring behavior is the only thing that matters.

Significant concern is there to move public policy. And as we continue to use fossil fuels, the days of power plants spewing unabated carcinogens is over. And as I have shown, the concern of the next generation is stronger.

Majority of red-state Americans believe climate change is real, study shows
Study suggests far-reaching acceptance of climate change in traditionally Republican states such as Texas and Oklahoma

A vast majority of red-state Americans believe climate change is real and at least two-thirds of those want the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions, new research revealed on Wednesday.

The research, by Stanford University social psychologist Jon Krosnick, confounds the conventional wisdom of climate denial as a central pillar of Republican politics, and practically an article of faith for Tea Party conservatives.

Instead, the findings suggest far-reaching acceptance that climate change is indeed occurring and is caused by human activities, even in such reliably red states as Texas and Oklahoma.

“To me, the most striking finding that is new today was that we could not find a single state in the country where climate scepticism was in the majority,” Krosnick said in an interview.

States that voted for Barack Obama, as expected, also believe climate change is occurring and support curbs on carbon pollution. Some 88% of Massachusetts residents believe climate change is real.

But Texas and Oklahoma are among the reddest of red states and are represented in Congress by Republicans who regularly dismiss the existence of climate change or its attendant risks.

Congressman Joe Barton of Texas and Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma stand out for their regular denials of climate change as a “hoax”, even among Republican ranks.

However, the research found 87% of Oklahomans and 84% of Texans accepted that climate change was occurring.

Seventy-six percent of Americans in both states also believed the government should step in to limit greenhouse gas emissions produced by industry.

In addition, the research indicated substantial support for Obama's decision to use the Environmental Protection Agency to cut emissions from power plants. The polling found at least 62% of Americans in favour of action cutting greenhouse gas emissions from plants.

Once again, Texas was also solidly lined up with action, with 79% of voters supporting regulation of power plants.

Guardian

 

[Old Rocks]

I think that a number of people have been hitting the nail on the head with a certain word they keep posting. LOSING.

You see, people in Texas saw the state losing an unacceptable percentage of their trees to a combination of drought and fire a short time ago. Those in Oklahoma have seen precipitation events and droughts reducing their crops. In fact, all over the nation, we have seen financial losses from a changing climate. Alaska is warming to the point that much of their infrastructure is being adversely affected by the very rapid warming there. Yes, we are all losing because of a changing climate, changes that we ourselves, have caused.

We saw the reactions to that in the march in New York and other cities. And we are going to see political reactions, as people wake up to the fact that their own politicians are supporting damaging them.

 

[Bfgrn]

I think that a number of people have been hitting the nail on the head with a certain word they keep posting. LOSING.

You see, people in Texas saw the state losing an unacceptable percentage of their trees to a combination of drought and fire a short time ago. Those in Oklahoma have seen precipitation events and droughts reducing their crops. In fact, all over the nation, we have seen financial losses from a changing climate. Alaska is warming to the point that much of their infrastructure is being adversely affected by the very rapid warming there. Yes, we are all losing because of a changing climate, changes that we ourselves, have caused.

We saw the reactions to that in the march in New York and other cities. And we are going to see political reactions, as people wake up to the fact that their own politicians are supporting damaging them.

Here is a great article about how k00ks have taken over the GOP...

The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change
Science, storms, and demographics are starting to change minds among the rank and file.

May 9, 2013 Kerry Emanuel registered as a Republican as soon he turned 18, in 1973. The aspiring scientist was turned off by what he saw as the Left’s blind ideology. “I had friends who denied Pol Pot was killing people in Cambodia,” he says. “I reacted very badly to the triumph of ideology over reason.”

Back then, Emanuel saw the Republican Party as the political fit for a data-driven scientist. Today, the professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is considered one of the United States’ foremost authorities on climate change—particularly on how rising carbon pollution will increase the intensity of hurricanes.

In January 2012, just before South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary, the Charleston-based Christian Coalition of America, one of the most influential advocacy groups in conservative politics, flew Emanuel down to meet with the GOP presidential candidates. Perhaps an unlikely prophet of doom where global warming is concerned, the coalition has begun to push Republicans to take action on climate change, out of worry that coming catastrophes could hit the next generation hard, especially the world’s poor.

The meetings didn’t take. “[Newt] Gingrich and [Mitt] Romney understood, … and I think they even believed the evidence and understood the risk,” Emanuel says. “But they were so terrified by the extremists in their party that in the primaries they felt compelled to deny it. Which is not good leadership, good integrity. I got a low impression of them as leaders.” Throughout the Republican presidential primaries, every candidate but one—former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was knocked out of the race at the start—questioned, denied, or outright mocked the science of climate change.

Soon after his experience in South Carolina, Emanuel changed his lifelong Republican Party registration to independent. “The idea that you could look a huge amount of evidence straight in the face and, for purely ideological reasons, deny it, is anathema to me,” he says.

Emanuel predicts that many more voters like him, people who think of themselves as conservative or independent but are turned off by what they see as a willful denial of science and facts, will also abandon the GOP, unless the party comes to an honest reckoning about global warming.

And a quiet, but growing, number of other Republicans fear the same thing. Already, deep fissures are emerging between, on one side, a base of ideological voters and lawmakers with strong ties to powerful tea-party groups and super PACs funded by the fossil-fuel industry who see climate change as a false threat concocted by liberals to justify greater government control; and on the other side, a quiet group of moderates, younger voters, and leading conservative intellectuals who fear that if Republicans continue to dismiss or deny climate change, the party will become irrelevant.

“There is a divide within the party,” says Samuel Thernstrom, who served on President George W. Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality and is now a scholar of environmental policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “The position that climate change is a hoax is untenable.”

more

 

[SSDD]

Heres the bottom line.......

Fossil fuels are going to dominate the energy landscape for decades and decades and decades.

% chances of the AGW nutters changing that?


ZERO

Did you hear about NPR gutting its environmental reporting staff? Seems that even liberals stop listening when the reporting turns to climate change. It must be terrible for them to have even NPR say that their cult isn't really worth reporting on any more.

 

[mamooth]

I see both Thunderbird and Skook fell hard for yet another denier data-fudging scam, that one from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation". That's a British denier thinktank, a "charity" that keeps its funding source secret. "Leading climate scientist" Dr. Peiser works for the GWPF. It's important to identify sources, because deniers so rarely do. They just pass the fudged data down the line until nobody remembers the source, considering each fudged image to be a sort of religious iconography that can't be questioned.

The sad thing is, they never learn. All the denier leaders get caught fudging everything over and over, and the rubes just run back for more. The denier rubes all want to be lied to so very badly, hence they'll believe anything.

If any actually cares about the data ... meaning deniers will refuse to look ... the problems with that graph are an unmentioned baseline shift, and deliberately using the wrong emission scenario. Tamino gives a detailed overview of it.

Hansen 8217 s 1988 Predictions Open Mind

 

[Thunderbird]

I see both Thunderbird and Skook fell hard for yet another denier data-fudging scam, that one from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation".

That's a British denier thinktank, a "charity" that keeps its funding source secret.

The sad thing is, they never learn. All the denier leaders get caught fudging everything over and over, and the rubes just run back for more.

If any actually cares about the data ... meaning deniers will refuse to look

Not sure what your point is, the NASA GISS data also shows a "pause".

Do you deny:

1) There has been a "pause" in global warming.
A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism
Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months

2) AGW devotees have made climate predictions which turned out to be wrong.
The big list of failed climate predictions

3) AGW devotees are making fortunes off AGW.
Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire?
Rolling Stone exposes Goldman Sachs and the carbon credit scam

Yes or no?

 

[skookerasbil]

I see both Thunderbird and Skook fell hard for yet another denier data-fudging scam, that one from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation".

That's a British denier thinktank, a "charity" that keeps its funding source secret.

The sad thing is, they never learn. All the denier leaders get caught fudging everything over and over, and the rubes just run back for more.

If any actually cares about the data ... meaning deniers will refuse to look

Not sure what your point is, the NASA GISS data also shows a "pause".

Do you deny:

1) There has been a "pause" in global warming.
A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism
Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months

2) AGW devotees have made climate predictions which turned out to be wrong.
The big list of failed climate predictions

3) AGW devotees are making fortunes off AGW.
Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire?
Rolling Stone exposes Goldman Sachs and the carbon credit scam

Yes or no?

Thunderbird.........only the real hard core AGW nutters reject what the rest of the science community is saying. They have to or else their heads would explode.

 

[Crick]

Do you actually believe that the rest of the science community agrees with the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Talk about someone's head exploding...

 

[Crick]

The idea that GWPF is any part of the mainstream science community is absolutely laughable.

From SourceWatch.org
Global Warming Policy Foundation
Start Up
The GWPF was founded, curiously, at the same time as the climategate emails were released on the University of Tomsk's server. At the time of its foundation the average age of its trustees was 74. Chairman Nigel Lawson stated "We will certainly be actively involved in monitoring what is being said, in correcting errors where the are errors. The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that."[5]

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

Charitable Status
The GWPF is a registered charity (Number 1131448), which gives it certain tax advantages. Its charitable objectives are stated as: "To advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it, including by means of the dissemination of the results of the study of and research into (a) the sciences relevant to global warming (b) its impact upon the environment economies and society (c) and the above mentioned measures."[10]

In 2014 the GWPF announced it would be setting up a separate lobbying arm, the Global Policy Warming Forum, after advice from the Charity Commission on the conflict between charitable status and political campaigning.[11]

Actions
CRU email theft - call for enquiry
In an op-ed announcing the GWPF launch and hopefully predicting failure of the December 2009 United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen, Nigel Lawson called for a high-level independent inquiry into the content of the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.[12]

After 3 govt enquiries cleared climate scientists, a denialist "enquiry" by skeptic Montford
When the three British Government enquiries into the CRU email saga were completed Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation immediately announced it would to stir the issue up once more.[13] Andrew Montford was commissioned to write an "enquiry" into the climategate emails claims and was paid £3000 for his efforts. The results were released in September 2010.

The choice of Montford was ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book, The Hockey Stick Illusion.[14] Furthermore the Global Warming Policy Foundation's own funding is mired in controversy whilst it enjoys charitable status, yet Montford himself is critical of what he calls 'fake charities'.[15] In his "enquiry" Montford criticized the official enquiries for not including known skeptics on their panels. This is a distortion of the truth however, since the Parliamentary Enquiry at the least included Graham Stringer Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, a man who has consistently voted very strongly against laws to stop climate change.[16] [17] Montford knows this and records a cosy chat with Stringer on his blog.[18]

"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[19] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -

• 9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
• "prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
• the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[20]

Location
The GWPF is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.[1]

Personnel
In November 2009, the GWPF listed:

Director

• Benny Peiser, Director; a social anthropologist.[21]
• Sir James Spooner is Honourary Treasurer

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees includes:[22]

• Lord Barnett
• Peter R. Forster (the Bishop of Chester)
• Lord Donoughue
• Lord Fellowes
• Martin Jacomb
• Lord Lawson (Chairman)
• Henri Lepage
• Baroness Nicholson
• Lord Andrew Turnbull

Academic Advisory Council
Academic Advisory Council members need not hold academic positions, Benny Peiser reports.[23]

As of February 2013, members are: [24],

• Adrian Berry, Viscount Camrose
• Samuel Brittan
• Ian Byatt
• Bob Carter
• Vincent Courtillot
• Freeman Dyson
• Christian Gerondeau
• Indur Goklany
• William Happer
• David Henderson
• Terence Kealey (Buckingham University)
• Anthony Kelly (GWPF)
• Deepak Lal
• Richard Lindzen
• Ross McKitrick
• Robert Mendelsohn, economics professor at Yale University
• Alan Peacock (Buckingham University)
• Ian Plimer
• Paul Reiter
• Matt Ridley, writer (Buckingham University Honourary Degree, 2003)
• Alan Rudge, electrical engineer
• Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
• Richard Tol
• David Whitehouse, writer

Former members include:

• Hal Lewis (d. May 26, 2011[25])
• Gwyn Prins
• B P Radhakrishna

Others involved
The following persons have written reports published by the GWPF, or given lectures sponsored by the GWPF, but are not otherwise part of the group's formal structure.

• Phillip Mueller
• Indur Goklany
• Gordon Hughes
• Peter Lilley
• Fritz Varenholt
• Andrew Montford
• Christopher Booker
• Cardinal George Pell

 

[skookerasbil]

Do you actually believe that the rest of the science community agrees with the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Talk about someone's head exploding...

s0n......youre not getting it.

Back in the 30's, we had the "HeMan Woman Haters Club". It was chaired by this guy named Spanky. Very closed society. The people who supported it felt very strongly about it. Run by kids......they were going to change the world. But nobody outside their little corner of the neighborhood cared.

".....rest of the science community agree's"........

And?


So your closed society of scientists rejects any information that doesnt match their science.......the club prevails because they says it does!!!


Take a bow!!!



Nobody else is caring!!!