8 thoughts on “Climate Denial Finally Pays Off”

  1. See the GeoEthics Conference in London on 8-9 Sept 2016:

    https://geoethic.com/london-conference-2016/

    My paper, a tribute to my mentor, Paul Kazuo Kuroda, shows humanity’s total and continuing dependence on the Sun:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_Earth_Climate.pdf

    Humanity lives every moment at the mercy of the pulsar remnant of a supernova (1 AU away) that:

    1. Made all of our chemical elements;

    2. Birthed the solar five billion years ago;

    3. Sustained life’s origin and evolution on Earth after ~3.8 Ga ago;

    4. Sustains every atom, life and planet in the solar system today; and news reports in Nature & Science now admit . . .

    5. Resets the stage of human civilization and restores human contact with reality with a super-solar eruption (every ~1,000 years):

    http://sciencenordic.com/sun-can-emit-superflares-every-1000-years

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/could-earth-be-fried-superflare-sun

    Major religions and sciences agree: A Higher Power than politicians and scientists controls human destiny.

  2. Everyone should read the novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Written in 2004 it projects the actions of the enviro terrorists. Particular attention should be given to Appendix 1 at the back of the book about a new scientific theory that arose at the start of the last century and how leading lights bought into it until it was proved it had no scientific basis.

  3. Climate change was what they hung their hat on because it was global in theory and huge taxes could be enacted to save the earth and some could be transferred to third world sxxx holes. The long time frame let them enact dozens of $100million rip offs like Solyndra totaling billions of dollars that a percentage was rolled back as campaign contributions.

  4. I read the anti-Crichton article. First, there is no evidence it was written by a scientist, real or not. Second it several logical errors, including appeal to authority, and third, it doesn’t even respond to most of it’s self-imposed (straw man) questions!

    The latter is particularly revealing because to actually fully answer some of their faux questions, they’d have to admit to manipulating data.

    One point that isn’t refuted is that temperatures in several cities showed a real, unadjusted decline. Yet, the response is an argument the heat island effect accounts for only 6% of an locale’s increase of temperature. So why are so many temperatures adjusted upward by Mann, et. al.?

    Another silly answer starts: “Over a century ago, scientists researching CO2 discovered that the earth’s temperature is very sensitive to small changes in atmospheric CO2.” The very next paragraph starts, “The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth’s orbit.”

    Bottom line is the so-called article is nothing more than a cherry picked, unattributed opinion piece with a bunch of equally cherry picked footnotes.

    (I actually don’t want to defend Crichton’s novel since I thought it was awful. I also do believe Crichton cherry picked some of his data, though not all. However, the rebuttal is, at best week, extremely disingenuous and quite inaccurate. Unfortunately, that seems to be often the case with the so-called “Union of Concerned Scientists”, which is anything but.)

  5. The Crichton article is on a website urging people to take action against ExxonMobil and co for “peddling climate science disinformation”

    Might not be the most impartial website…

  6. When I worked in a research lab, we called correction factors “fudge factors”. Using them without including original data and a full explanation would get you fired. Government scientists seem to have no qualms about doing things of that nature and no fear of retribution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.