Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

[Billy_Bob]

What is Judith curry?

A human female

Wow way to avoid the thread

IF he had said she was a Female who holds a PHD in several fields of study and questions the validity of climate change science showing it fraudulent, he would have to go wash his mouth out with soap for stating the truth.

But it reminds me of this:

 

[Pogo]

AngelSoft and Brawny.. Good products.. Would you rather they got made in China? Would you rather get your oil from tar sands in Canada or Iraq? You leftists are silly conspiracy nuts. Even I don't go that far to hate GranPa Soros..

No value judgment on the products themselves was implied here. The point was that advertising for them is part of what fuels Fox Noise, which was the question at the time.

As far as where I get my oil from, that's not even up to me. That comes from traders on the international market. And it's equally irrelevant here.

 

[bripat9643]

AngelSoft and Brawny.. Good products.. Would you rather they got made in China? Would you rather get your oil from tar sands in Canada or Iraq? You leftists are silly conspiracy nuts. Even I don't go that far to hate GranPa Soros..

No value judgment on the products themselves was implied here. The point was that advertising for them is part of what fuels Fox Noise, which was the question at the time.

As far as where I get my oil from, that's not even up to me. That comes from traders on the international market. And it's equally irrelevant here.

Those products are advertised on all the major networks, numskull.

 

[Pogo]

AngelSoft and Brawny.. Good products.. Would you rather they got made in China? Would you rather get your oil from tar sands in Canada or Iraq? You leftists are silly conspiracy nuts. Even I don't go that far to hate GranPa Soros..

Every other network advertises these products. What the F? that dude is a punk and useless.

It's a conspiracy quality case against the Kochs. All dressed-up in anti-corporate, anti-capitalistic rhetoric. LITERALLY, without Koch products, those leftists would be cleaning their asses with leaves. Some of our Koch-haters are simply swept up in the narrative and are being useful tools. No real thought or reason applied. OF COURSE, Koch Ind is a target for environmentalists -- because they make vital products out of trees... Just like in the energy debate tho -- they have NO VALID alternatives.

Wrong again. The topic of that stream wasn't Koch; it was the dissemination of climate change disinformation. Specifically, way back here, a week ago:

Perhaps if "scientists" would stop fudging data so they can continue to receive funds people would take this more serious.

Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously.

-- post 24, which Finger Boy, for reasons only he knows, took up with another poster, which is why it took me a while to react. Finger Boy took issue with the idea that Koch (the only one of my entities he mentioned) does that sort of funding -- which I then spelled out in post 171. And here we are.

 

[flacaltenn]

AngelSoft and Brawny.. Good products.. Would you rather they got made in China? Would you rather get your oil from tar sands in Canada or Iraq? You leftists are silly conspiracy nuts. Even I don't go that far to hate GranPa Soros..

No value judgment on the products themselves was implied here. The point was that advertising for them is part of what fuels Fox Noise, which was the question at the time.

As far as where I get my oil from, that's not even up to me. That comes from traders on the international market. And it's equally irrelevant here.

Delving further into your neurosis here.... So if you're mad at Fox advertisers, the reason you selected Koch products only is ???????? I assume that you only buy some phony Green Eco brand at Trader Joes that donates to progressive causes to wipe with????

So -- if we checked the record on your oil -- we'd never catch you whining about MidEast actions being because of oil company interests? Or that nonsense about blood for oil? You are probably clean enough there, but the folks you have to hang with to really hate the Koch Bros is pretty disgusting.

 

[flacaltenn]

AngelSoft and Brawny.. Good products.. Would you rather they got made in China? Would you rather get your oil from tar sands in Canada or Iraq? You leftists are silly conspiracy nuts. Even I don't go that far to hate GranPa Soros..

Every other network advertises these products. What the F? that dude is a punk and useless.

It's a conspiracy quality case against the Kochs. All dressed-up in anti-corporate, anti-capitalistic rhetoric. LITERALLY, without Koch products, those leftists would be cleaning their asses with leaves. Some of our Koch-haters are simply swept up in the narrative and are being useful tools. No real thought or reason applied. OF COURSE, Koch Ind is a target for environmentalists -- because they make vital products out of trees... Just like in the energy debate tho -- they have NO VALID alternatives.

Wrong again. The topic of that stream wasn't Koch; it was the dissemination of climate change disinformation. Specifically, way back here, a week ago:

Perhaps if "scientists" would stop fudging data so they can continue to receive funds people would take this more serious.

Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously.

-- post 24, which Finger Boy, for reasons only he knows, took up with another poster, which is why it took me a while to react. Finger Boy took issue with the idea that Koch (the only one of my entities he mentioned) does that sort of funding -- which I then spelled out in post 171. And here we are.

Fox News is really no better at the Global Warming public awareness and actually not any worse. They are not the reason that cult got busted. Fox never had a true Anti-Warming campaign on. Certainly no where near the PRO side incidents where CBS showed a graphic with ocean temperatures at the boiling point.

The only way you could possibly understand how much deception and hype occurred in the AGW campaign is to really investigate it yourself. Or just sense the desperation of lately from the politicians that can no longer get any traction for the issue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

If billions are being wasted you would have posted several sources to prove your statement. I'm sure some conservative sit posted such in a headline, read only by the few and the brainwashed. But, please, prove me wrong - post the facts and figures.

I guess the green agenda and the 87 billion dollars wasted on companies like Solyndra are just a figment of our imagination..

"



It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. "

Source

How many failures before heavier than air crafts succeeded? How many vaccines were tested before polio was defeated? How many surges did it take to pacify Iraq and turn it into a Western Democracy, ah.... skip that one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

If billions are being wasted you would have posted several sources to prove your statement. I'm sure some conservative sit posted such in a headline, read only by the few and the brainwashed. But, please, prove me wrong - post the facts and figures.

I guess the green agenda and the 87 billion dollars wasted on companies like Solyndra are just a figment of our imagination..

"



It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. "

Source

How many failures before heavier than air crafts succeeded? How many vaccines were tested before polio was defeated? How many surges did it take to pacify Iraq and turn it into a Western Democracy, ah.... skip that one.

How many failures before....

Obama stops subsidizing failures?

 

[rdean]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

If billions are being wasted you would have posted several sources to prove your statement. I'm sure some conservative sit posted such in a headline, read only by the few and the brainwashed. But, please, prove me wrong - post the facts and figures.

I guess the green agenda and the 87 billion dollars wasted on companies like Solyndra are just a figment of our imagination..

"



It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. "

Source

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit - Bloomberg Business

Oops.

 

[rdean]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Because most scientists are liberal and most Republicans are ignorant.

What is Judith curry?

Corrections to Curry s Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating

Curry's main and most flawed argument was that information in the latest IPCC report should decrease our confidence in human-caused global warming; an argument she based in large part on the supposed global warming 'pause', which is itself a fictional creation. While the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed (thoughnot nearly as much as previously believed), the overall amount of heat accumulated by the global climate has not, with over 90 percent being absorbed by the oceans.

A few days after her Senate testimony, Curry took to her blog to dispute these data, essentially arguing that the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans has also 'paused', which would then support her arguments. However, in evaluating the ocean heat content data and scientific literature, Curry made a number of mistakes. This gives us an excellent opportunity to properly evaluate the science on rising ocean heat content and see what it tells us. The key points are:

• The deep oceans are warming rapidly in every data set that measures them (including those referenced by Curry).

• Sea levels are rising consistent with rapid ocean warming.

• The rate of ocean warming is consistent with the global energy imbalance.

• The geographic distribution of ocean warming is consistent with natural variability superimposed on a warming background state forced by the increased greenhouse effect.

• The global warming 'pause' is a fictional product of wishful thinking.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

If billions are being wasted you would have posted several sources to prove your statement. I'm sure some conservative sit posted such in a headline, read only by the few and the brainwashed. But, please, prove me wrong - post the facts and figures.

I guess the green agenda and the 87 billion dollars wasted on companies like Solyndra are just a figment of our imagination..

"



It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. "

Source

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit - Bloomberg Business

Oops.

Catch up with the accounting Dude. The GAO corrected that optimistic statement in April this year..

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669847.pdf

The good news is that taxpayers are only on the hook for $2.5B. But that's just ONE program. Doesn't count subsidies and research investement. We're paying a billionaire to build cars for millionaires and giving them cash back ---- STILL...

 

[flacaltenn]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Because most scientists are liberal and most Republicans are ignorant.

What is Judith curry?

Corrections to Curry s Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating

Curry's main and most flawed argument was that information in the latest IPCC report should decrease our confidence in human-caused global warming; an argument she based in large part on the supposed global warming 'pause', which is itself a fictional creation. While the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed (thoughnot nearly as much as previously believed), the overall amount of heat accumulated by the global climate has not, with over 90 percent being absorbed by the oceans.

A few days after her Senate testimony, Curry took to her blog to dispute these data, essentially arguing that the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans has also 'paused', which would then support her arguments. However, in evaluating the ocean heat content data and scientific literature, Curry made a number of mistakes. This gives us an excellent opportunity to properly evaluate the science on rising ocean heat content and see what it tells us. The key points are:

• The deep oceans are warming rapidly in every data set that measures them (including those referenced by Curry).

• Sea levels are rising consistent with rapid ocean warming.

• The rate of ocean warming is consistent with the global energy imbalance.

• The geographic distribution of ocean warming is consistent with natural variability superimposed on a warming background state forced by the increased greenhouse effect.

• The global warming 'pause' is a fictional product of wishful thinking.

That "assessment" of what Curry said is from the pond scum cartoonists at Skeptical Science. The folks with the "atom bomb" counters equating GW to Hiroshima on their pages. It's a no-go zone for anything that would survive debate.

Not a valid review of her scientific observations. With her incredible credentials, it would be hard for 2 non-science charlatans to even COMPREHEND what she does for a living.

 

[flacaltenn]

That Skep Science hit piece is just too funny. What's NOT funny is having folks rely on them for their GWarming information.. They are ones that crafted that flawed 97% study and plotted to attack specific personalities who were on a hit list of "deniers".

 

[orogenicman]

Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

Money....power.
If they were really worried about CO2, they'd support building 100 new nuke plants.

-- because when you're generating energy, there's just nothing like having a good waste product that's going to sit around and be lethal for a period longer than humans have existed. What could possibly go wrong....

There's tons of radioactive materials lying all around in nature, numskull.

Just lying around? Willy nilly? Well, that might explain how you managed to effortlessly fry your own brain.

 

[orogenicman]

Global warming

Scientist first came up with a theory that because burning fossil fuels produces CO2 gasses then the CO2 will produce a greenhouse effect on earth raising temperatures.

That was a valid theory. They even looked at preliminary data that showed a rough correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and world wide temperatures and it showed a rise in both.

However, then is where the real science began to fall apart and the scam began.

Because the initial correlation showed rise in CO2 levels and temperature there was a lot of money put into research. The research mostly consisted of computer modeling.

The science was distorted in order to provide the computer models with the data to support the theory to continue with the funding sources.

For instance, the data that shows historically that CO2 levels lag temperature was ignored. The lag was both in the increase in temperature and the decrease sides.

Data showing that in the past the CO2 levels were ten times higher but yet the earth was much cooler and data showing that at times the CO2 levels were lower but yet the earth was warmer were mostly ignored in the computer models.

World wide temperature data was manipulated like we saw in Al Gore's hockey stick picture where data was cherry picked. When the scientist used all the data then the picture was different.

Assumptions were made about historical temperatures that were indefensible based upon the sparse data collected. “World wide temperature data” was based upon some very flimsy tree ring and ice samples in just a few locations and temperature measurements, mostly in the universities in Europe and North America, in the last couple of hundred years at best. Southern Hemisphere data was very sparse and large areas like Siberia and Asia were mostly ignored not to mention most of Africa and South America.

The empirical data about how CO2 really chemically reacts in the atmosphere were mostly ignored. CO2 does not react the same in real life that it does in the theoretical computer models. The chemistry in the atmosphere is much more complex than the computer models forecast.

Then there was the Climategate revelations that data was manipulated by the scientists in order to prove what could not be proven with real data. This really blew the whistle on the scam.

Then you have the fact that after 30 years of this theory there is no credible evidence that the climate on earth is getting warmer due to man made influence. In fact the climate has been relatively stable for the last 15 years despite counties like China putting out tremendous more amounts of CO2 gasses. There is very credible evidence that the earth may be moving back into another mini ice age like happens every few hundred years. The last one was in medieval times.

We also need to understand that the “normal” temperature of the earth has been warmer than now with little permanent ice on the planet. That is the way it has been for a substantial part of the existence of the earth. This age of ice that we are in now is only about 2.7 million years old. However, there were other times in the Cryogenian period and the Late Ordovician Period where we had “snowball earth”.

AGW is just bad science because it has become a political issue. It has nothing to do with real science and more to do with the redistribution of wealth from the industrialized countries to the Third World. That is the real root of the scam.

Actually, very little of that is true. In fact, given the wealth if information that has been posted in the environmental forum to show that so much of the above is untrue that there isn't any point in going blow by blow to point out where and why so much of it is wrong. All that is left to say is to suggest you take your conspiracy theory to the conspiracy theory forum where it belongs. At least there, you might find an audience that gives a shit.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

Money....power.
If they were really worried about CO2, they'd support building 100 new nuke plants.

-- because when you're generating energy, there's just nothing like having a good waste product that's going to sit around and be lethal for a period longer than humans have existed. What could possibly go wrong....

There's tons of radioactive materials lying all around in nature, numskull.

Just lying around? Willy nilly? Well, that might explain how you managed to effortlessly fry your own brain.

Hmmm . . . yes, they dig uranium out of the ground. Even school children know that.

Who's brain is fried?

 

[orogenicman]

Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

Money....power.
If they were really worried about CO2, they'd support building 100 new nuke plants.

-- because when you're generating energy, there's just nothing like having a good waste product that's going to sit around and be lethal for a period longer than humans have existed. What could possibly go wrong....

There's tons of radioactive materials lying all around in nature, numskull.

Just lying around? Willy nilly? Well, that might explain how you managed to effortlessly fry your own brain.

Hmmm . . . yes, they dig uranium out of the ground. Even school children know that.

Who's brain is fried?

None of it is reactor grade. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[mamooth]

That "assessment" of what Curry said is from the pond scum cartoonists at Skeptical Science.

Some fine Cook Derangement Syndrome.

As it was used in this case, CDS is usually invoked to avoid talking about the issues. The issue was Curry's bad science, so CDS was invoked here to avoid the topic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

If billions are being wasted you would have posted several sources to prove your statement. I'm sure some conservative sit posted such in a headline, read only by the few and the brainwashed. But, please, prove me wrong - post the facts and figures.

I guess the green agenda and the 87 billion dollars wasted on companies like Solyndra are just a figment of our imagination..

"



It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. "

Source

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit - Bloomberg Business

Oops.

Only after being BAILED OUT by government AGAIN... You fools are so easily swayed...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Because most scientists are liberal and most Republicans are ignorant.

What is Judith curry?

Corrections to Curry s Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating

Curry's main and most flawed argument was that information in the latest IPCC report should decrease our confidence in human-caused global warming; an argument she based in large part on the supposed global warming 'pause', which is itself a fictional creation. While the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed (thoughnot nearly as much as previously believed), the overall amount of heat accumulated by the global climate has not, with over 90 percent being absorbed by the oceans.

A few days after her Senate testimony, Curry took to her blog to dispute these data, essentially arguing that the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans has also 'paused', which would then support her arguments. However, in evaluating the ocean heat content data and scientific literature, Curry made a number of mistakes. This gives us an excellent opportunity to properly evaluate the science on rising ocean heat content and see what it tells us. The key points are:

• The deep oceans are warming rapidly in every data set that measures them (including those referenced by Curry).

• Sea levels are rising consistent with rapid ocean warming.

• The rate of ocean warming is consistent with the global energy imbalance.

• The geographic distribution of ocean warming is consistent with natural variability superimposed on a warming background state forced by the increased greenhouse effect.

• The global warming 'pause' is a fictional product of wishful thinking.

Judith Curry is correct. John Cook on the other hand is a lying sack of poo.. Every one of your bullet points is simply a lie that can not be supported with empirical evidence. Cook supports his lies by using models, failed models which can not predict anything.. Using SKS (Skeptical Science blog) John Cooks blog for anything related to true science is laughable.. Cook is a lying piece of shit and his blog is nothing more than a left wing hack site designed to slander and smear real scientists.