Accuracy in Media

One of my duties at Accuracy in Media (AIM) has been to expose left-wingers in the media and Congress who were soft on the old Soviet Union and are now acting like hard-liners on Vladimir Putin’s Russia. It is a fascinating topic which exposes the duplicity of the left-wing obsession with Russia.

These people, who were soft on the Soviet Union and now hard on Russia, are the worst kind of hypocrites. Their hypocrisy is further demonstrated by the abundant evidence that the global warming or climate change theory, which they now embrace, was conceived by Soviet communists as a means by which to destroy the industrial base in the United States. This disinformation theme has been embraced by the liberals now claiming to be tough on Russia.

Don’t take my word for it. When Natalie Grant Wraga died in 2002 at the age of 101, The Washington Post recognized her expertise as a Soviet expert, noting that she was “born in czarist Russia, saw great upheaval in her native land and became an expert in unmasking Soviet deception methods for the State Department…”

But the Post would not admit that fact in today’s political climate.

The liberal Economist magazine wrote, “She was perhaps the only person alive in the West who could claim such an intimate knowledge of Russian political thinking, from tsarist times to the collapse of the Soviet Union.” She commented, “Many people are studying the past, but very few are studying the present. Keep your eyes open and your ears open.”

This is good advice. One of the great Soviet/Russian deceptions, Wraga wrote, was the idea that humans were changing the climate and that humans could save the earth through socialism. She said, “…protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West.”

In her 1998 article, “Green Cross: Gorbachev and Enviro-Communism,” Wraga, who dropped her last name and wrote under the byline Natalie Grant, explains in detail how the Soviet deception campaign, using the climate as an organizing tool, was developed. It was launched after the so-called collapse of the Soviet state, when Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet president, embarked on an environmental crusade, using the United Nations and other international organizations.

The veteran journalist Wes Vernon wrote about Grant’s research in this area, in an article entitled, “The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare.”

The big event, as Grant called it, was a Moscow conference in January, 1990. As Time magazine described it, “At a meeting of the Global Forum in Moscow in 1990, when he was still Soviet President, Gorbachev proposed an organization roughly analogous to the International Red Cross to contend with environmental problems that cross national boundaries.” Among the guests and speakers was then-U.S. senator and future vice president Al Gore.

Talk about “collusion” with the Russians! Where was the FBI investigation?

The collusion took place through the Global Forum and various United Nations conferences, including the Earth Summit of 1992, giving rise to the concept of “sustainable development,” another way to describe socialism.

Grant wrote, “Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values.”

Grant predicted how this campaign would proceed, using “nightmarish” pictures of floods, scorched earth, disease and death, unless drastic action was taken at the international level to curb industrial activity in the capitalist West.

She said the campaign would be driven by Moscow’s sympathizers or dupes in “science,” academia, “and the slavishly obedient Establishment media,” all for the purpose of forcing the United States and other Western countries “to accept measures and regulations harmful to the Western world.”

In short, for communism to succeed, capitalism would have to be portrayed as based on exploitation—but not of man, as the old Marxist theory held. Rather, capitalism was now exploiting the earth! The whole purpose of this dogma has been to inhibit global capitalism, the only system that has proven capable of meeting the growing needs of expanding populations. But this time the claim was that human economic progress threatened the environment because of the capitalist model on which it was based.

Hence, President Obama’s Paris climate change agreement was designed to curtail U.S. industrial expansion while sending foreign aid to the rest of the world. It was a Marxist plan that benefited Russia, a major oil and gas producer.

On June 1, when he announced pulling out of the climate change agreement, President Donald Trump put his finger on the key problem, which was deliberately part of the plan. He attacked “the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country” while creating a so-called Green Climate Fund which would cost the United States “a vast fortune” to be sent to the other nations of the world.

In other words, Trump’s pull-out from the agreement works AGAINST Russian interests and those of the global socialists.

Nevertheless, the propaganda campaign continues. In July, Netflix releases the film “Chasing Coral,” which attempts to blame man for “dramatically changing” and losing coral reefs in the world’s oceans on a global scale. With carbon emissions said to be “warming the seas,” the audience will be told of the “catastrophe” that is “silently raging underwater” unless we wake up and dramatically restrict our lifestyles.

Meanwhile, Ohio State University has released a “study” in the Journal of Peace Research suggesting that climate change could lead to “food violence.” One of the authors is quoted in an Ohio State University press release as saying, “Development aid is important now and it is likely to be even more important in the future as we look for ways to increase climate resilience.”

In other words, the United States must pay more to the other nations of the world. This is global socialism.

It looks like the “nightmarish” scenarios predicted by Natalie Grant are not yet at an end.

But when will the liberals wake up? Answer: they won’t. Like James Hodgkinson, a true believer in the global warming theory, they want to “tax the rich” in their own country and will shoot to kill those who stand in the way of this global redistribution scheme.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • Hopsgegangen

    If you wanted “accuracy” you’d write a well researched essay considering all aspects of the interrelated issues of carbon emissions, resource depletion, sustainability, and economics. This is just a hysterical, biased, unsubstantiated screed. But I suppose that’s what your audience wants.

  • BillyBratt

    Idiot.

  • TED

    There’s no doubt that humans are polluting the planet … and any reasonable and reasonably-aware person can readily see that … and would undoubtedly agree that the pollution needs to be curtailed for the sake of the planet and its resources and for future generations of people..

  • Greg S

    Looks like “useful idiots” are downplaying this factual story.

  • WalterHorsting
  • WalterHorsting
  • NERDWORLD PROBLEMS

    The ‘useful idiots’ have been spreading this crap since the 70’s. First it was, “Oh we have to stop using the spray cans, it killing the ozone layer.” We stopped using the spray cans and the ozone almost choked us to death. Then it became, “Oh, now there is too much ozone”, and it’s the wrong kind or in the wrong place or whatever the story was. The world was supposedly going to heat up and burn us all up and melt the ice caps, but that didn’t happen. Then it was, “Oh we are headed for another ice age because of what we have done to the atmosphere”, but that didn’t happen. Then they changed it to climate change to cover everything the weather could possibly do they could use to scare the hell out of idiots too lazy to look up actual weather extremes..

  • Paul

    Former Czechoslovakian president Vaclav Klaus has been saying much the same thing for the last 15 years or so. In his book “The blue planet in green shackles” he explains at length how environmentalism mimics the old communist state and ideas that were forced on him and his people by Russia.
    He was mostly ignored by the Western media and politicians. Hopefully articles like this one won’t.

  • infowolf1

    global warming scam precedes this. you are such idiots all you can think of is Russia and commies and its a lot more and different. and all “totalitarianism” isn’t communist and all “liberty” isn’t necessarily Americanism of the good sort. A lot of individuals and a lot of tribes and nations want “liberty” from others so they can enslave their immediate subordinates, family members, citizens. communism is just one format so are traditional societies of various sorts. study up on http://visup.blogspot.com on the all the crackpot and evil and whatnot connections of your precious anticommunists. both sides are bad.
    http://politicallyunclassifiable.BlogSpot.com
    http://fightthenewage.BlogSpot.com
    http://seventhchapterofdaniel.BlogSpot.com

  • stephan011

    “Remember the Ozone Hole? Now There’s Proof It’s Healing.”
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/antarctic-ozone-hole-healing-fingerprints/

    Both are still used, they mean different things. Global warming is the trapping of heat. Climate change is what happens after.

    Here’s a simple proof of global warming that doesn’t depend on any assumptions or predictions:

    1st. CO2 levels have been rising sharply ever since the industrial revolution, when we started releasing massive amounts of stored carbon. This graph shows what that looks like. Note the sharp spike on the right hand side
    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

    2nd. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2, the more heat.

    You can’t fight physics, if we’re trapping more heat, then the planet is heating up.

  • stephan011

    If, hypothetically you wanted to power 100% of the US electricity with solar, it would take a 0.6% of the total land area of the US. Coal mines use more land than solar does. You’d never do this of course, wind, etc will provide a large fraction of that.
    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2013/08/calculating-solar-energys-land-use-footprint.html

    You’d never do 100% solar of course, we also have stupid amounts of wind resources. The wind potential for the US using 80 meter towers is 11 *million* GW. To put that in context, our the current installed generation capacity for the entire United States from all generation types, is 1,068.4 Gigawatts. Wind potential is vast, it’s really about linking the most efficient generation sites with the loads.

  • stephan011

    Please consider: There isn’t a SINGLE scientific institution in the entire world, which hasn’t told you that global warming is real, and that humanity is causing it, please take the time to read a few of their statements:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

    Meanwhile FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS are funding a covert disinformation campaign:

    “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

    They are funding literarily, the *same* people who told us that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer. THESE are the people who are funding climate denialism sites.

    So which gigantic conspiracy do YOU think is more likely? That *thousands* of scientists, in *every* country, decided to lie about global warming? OR that the fossil fuel industry, seeking to protect their profits, did?

  • stephan011

    No less than *7* studies have confirmed the overwhelming scientific consensus

    These different studies, by different groups, used a variety of methodologies including reviewing all the peer-reviewed published work as well as surveys of scientists who work in the field: they all came to the same conclusion:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    So which gigantic conspiracy do YOU think is more likely? That *thousands* of scientists, in *every* country, decided to lie about global warming? OR that the fossil fuel industry, seeking to protect their profits, is?

  • WalterHorsting
  • WalterHorsting
  • WalterHorsting

    World needs to add 3-5 cubic miles of oil energy equivalent by 2050… I am tired of the industrialization of nature to feed the Global Warming Gods…
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d0f793d01984bb4a1741a08595918edba303c2d3cdeb6f5cd490cddb58460ff.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cfb931fc2e25f02b9a45d8a6bce4840c6966daa0412ededacef5f4f5e4772eb.jpg

  • WalterHorsting

    The Green Crony Globalists scam wants $1-$2 Trillion a year for the hoax. 31,000+ scientists disagree with your fake consensus: http://www.petitionproject.org/

  • ItsJo

    Excellent article, that clearly shows how the “global warming kooks, see this as a financial GAIN for themselves, as they Stick it to America and try to bring down our economy.” Of course, Al Gore was at the initial meeting as HE found his niche ‘in making MILLIONS as he’s invested in businesses who PUSH Global Warming.” He is a FAKE, just like his pals the Clinton’s who have made Millions in their schemes/fake charity.

    Trump KNOWS this, and I’m glad he got out of these ‘Obama phony accords, that PUT America on the cutting block, by Russia, and the rest of the Marxists who want to bring our Republic to it’s knees.’

    They tried the ‘same scare tactics for the gullibles years ago, when it was
    “The Big Freeze” they tried to pull off.’ We NOW, have a grown up, who is smart, and ahead of many who try to continue conning the gullibles, and That, Thank God, is POTUS, Donald J. Trump. Other who oppose hi(Dems of course, and the Rino/Establishment of the GOP, are the Ones on the TAKE, “Amassing their OWN personal fortunes in any way they can.” It’s the ONLY thing they care about!

  • ItsJo

    Correct Walter, as the ‘globalists are running this scam and scaring the hell out of the Gullibles, who just Repeat the words of the Globalists…Why?
    “For the Age Old Reasons of Making Money(make America Pay, but others don’t have to…sound familiar?) as this SCAM Feeds Off Itself, and the Cons continue to Make MONEY-EVEN when the world’s WORST Polluter-China, has pretty much told the “Globalist’s to GO TO HELL”

  • Greg S

    Follow the money. “Scientists” want continued federal funding to “study the issue”. Gore is raking in money by the ton making scare tactic speeches. In the Kyoto and now Paris accords, only the U.S. is being forced to reduce emissions but not China, Russia, and other countries. If there is such a scare about global warming, every country on the planet would be reducing emissions. Oops. it isn’t Global Warming anymore is it? It’s “Climate Change” [it used to be called weather]. There are plenty of scientists who have and can debunk this issue but they are not given the due coverage by the media.

  • stephan011

    You’ve been misled, both India and China are *far* exceeding their targets. From Forbes:

    “China Is A Decade Ahead Of Schedule On Reducing CO2 Emissions”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillbaker/2016/07/20/good-news-from-china-coal-has-peaked-and-emissions-will-begin-falling-after-2020-2022/#744fce5b7905

    Here are some of the things going on in India and China to make that happen:

    You are being manipulated. China has moving extremely rapidly to eliminate fossil fuels. This is some of what’s happening in China today:

    ====== China =======
    “China Deploys Aggressive Mandates To Take Lead In Electric Vehicles”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldunne/2017/02/28/china-deploys-aggressive-mandates-to-stay-no-1-in-electric-vehicles/2/#371a35ff5902

    “China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html?_r=0

    “China to plow $361 billion into renewable fuel by 2020”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-renewables-idUSKBN14P06P

    “China Installed 34 Gigawatts Of New Solar PV In 2016”
    https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/18/china-installed-34-gw-new-solar-pv-2016-nea/

    ======= India =======
    “India Cancels Mega Plans To Build Coal Power Stations Due To Falling Solar Energy Prices”
    http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-cancels-mega-plans-to-build-coal-power-stations-due-to-falling-solar-energy-prices-322553.html

    “India’s Energy Landscape Is Rapidly Changing: The country’s coal plants are being shelved at a swift pace“
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/indias-energy-landscape-is-rapidly-changing/

    “Solar Power Tariff Bids In India Crash 26% In Just 3 Months”
    http://cleantechies.com/2017/05/15/solar-power-tariff-bids-in-india-crash-26-in-just-3-months/

    Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

  • stephan011

    I think you missed this part:

    Led *literally*, by the *same* people who organized the Tobacco Industry campaign to cast doubt on the science that showed that cigarettes cause cancer.

    These are the *same* people who told America that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer.

    That’s who you’ve decided is trustworthy.

    And the group you’ve decided is *untrustworthy* is the global scientific community.

    How does that make any kind of sense?

  • stephan011

    Your online petition is a fraud.

    No less than *7* studies have confirmed the overwhelming scientific consensus

    These different studies, by different groups, used a variety of methodologies including reviewing all the peer-reviewed published work as well as surveys of scientists who work in the field: they all came to the same conclusion:
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    So which gigantic conspiracy do YOU think is more likely? That *thousands* of scientists, in *every* country, decided to lie about global warming? OR that the fossil fuel industry, seeking to protect their profits, is?

  • stephan011

    Here’s a simple proof of global warming that doesn’t depend on any assumptions or predictions:

    1st. CO2 levels have been rising sharply ever since the industrial revolution, when we started releasing massive amounts of stored carbon. This graph shows what that looks like. Note the sharp spike on the right hand side
    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

    2nd. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2, the more heat.

    You can’t fight physics, if we’re trapping more heat, then the planet is heating up.

  • stephan011

    Dishonest analysis, starting with capacity factors which are much higher than claimed, here are Current fleet average capacity factors:

    Nuclear…………………………….92.5%
    Hydro………………………………38.0%
    Wind……………………………….34.7%
    Solar PV…………………………..27.2%
    Soarl CSP.…………………………22.2%
    Coal………………………………..52.7%
    Natural Gas Combined Cycle…..56.0%
    Nat Gas Combustion Turbine……..8.3%
    Nat Gas Steam Turbine………….12.2%

    Source:
    EIA Fossil Fuel Capacity Factors
    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_b

    EIA Non-Fossil Capacity Factors
    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_b

    These are fleet averages, newer solar and wind projects are higher than these averages, in the Plains states where most new wind is going in the capacity factors are 45%-55% and solar is 30%+
    Source: Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 10.0
    https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-100/

  • stephan011

    Farmers like wind because it provided steady income (about $10k per turbine) and Solar farms are good both as sheep pasturage and also as bee habitat.

    “Sheep Power at a San Antonio Solar Farm”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/us/sheep-power-at-a-san-antonio-solar-farm.html
    ======
    “Ramsey energy company finds perfect pairing in putting bees, solar panels together”
    http://www.startribune.com/ramsey-energy-company-shoots-for-gooey-gold-beneath-its-solar-array/420790913/

  • stephan011

    The only reason this ‘debate’ exists is because there’s been a massive disinformation campaign by fossil fuel interests. Led, literally, by the same people who organized the Tobacco industry campaign to cast doubt on the science that showed that cigarettes cause cancer.

    “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

    A substantial part of this money has been funneled through *The Heartland Institute*, which is the *same* group that told Americans that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer.

    “Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

  • Jond01

    I would agree, except for one rather large difference. We are not polluting the planet, we are overwhelming it with our ever increasing population that eats everything it can catch, paves roads through natural landscapes, chops down forests, creates monocultures and basically does little to protect wildlife that does not conform to our way of existence. We catch way too many fish from the ocean to feed our ever increasing population and build cities and suburbia in the most fertile of land. This is certainly not sustainable and if we can fix this problem, the the pollution will take care of itself. It really just requires fewer people and we need to get away from the idea that growth is good. Easier said than done, of course.

  • Greg S

    Forbes? Forbes? Stop! You’re killing me. How much is Russia paying you?

  • powell789

    No one is disputing that we should pollute less. What is at issue is whether CO2 emissions are the proximate cause (they are not) and whether saddling the western countries with ruinous taxes will do anything to change anything significantly (it will not by the IPCCs own admission).

  • WalterHorsting
  • stephan011

    That’s not how you calculate capacity factors.

    And claiming that US solar capacity factors are anything close to capacity factors in Europe, is bullshtt.

    Seriously, it’s not hard to find honest information. If you want to know current costs of all kinds of generation here in the US, read Lazard:
    https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-100/

  • stephan011

    Don’t have a leg to stand on, attack the source, nice.

    Read more widely, you are being lied to. I posted links to a half dozen articles check em out, you might just learn something new.

  • Betawelder

    We believe them because the USSR was an environmental paradise. Thanks to Putin and his ilk Russia was and still is a backward illiterate garbage dump. The population in the Soviet Union was ill served, they couldn’t even feed themselves, and they’re still a polluted disaster.

  • Betawelder

    Are you really this gullible? Run chicken little the sky is falling, or was it a black helicopter.

  • broncodano

    Thatcher used it during the 1984 coal mine strike. She had a full blown national strike on her hands, and wanted to push England towards building nuclear power plants.

    Someone in her science department dug up the CO2 emissions fallacy, and the modern use of a government to fake scientific data to support political ambitions was born.

    However i never knew the russians outlined the plan.

    fantastic article. Your AIM is true.

  • stephan011

    I think you missed this part:

    Led *literally*, by the *same* people who organized the Tobacco Industry campaign to cast doubt on the science that showed that cigarettes cause cancer.

    These are the *same* people who told America that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer.

    That’s who you’ve decided is trustworthy.

    And the group you’ve decided is *untrustworthy* is the global scientific community.

    How does that make any kind of sense?

  • stephan011

    Not enough. But did you know Tillerson, our Secty of State, was the CEO of Exxon and Exxon had a $500 billion deal with Putin’s Russia. The Koch brothers come from oil and coal money. Pruitt’s passion in life is to lobby for the oil industry.

    Both Exxon and Koch’s heavily fund climate disinformation campaigns.

    “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

  • Repel space Damocles swords

    After the latest solarstorm-induced USA April blakcouts, eventually ESA chief repeats Int. Space Univ. F. Dean Dr Pelton’s proposal for SHIELDING Earth*! http://www.ibtimes.com/human-space-colony-mars-would-be-awful-idea-esa-chief-says-2546532 * https://LaserEarthShield.info

  • itsy_bitsy

    Thank you! This is important and pertinent information. Also it is something I was not at all aware of, and I usually think of myself as being pretty much on top of most the cr*p coming from the left! It makes sense though. What could be a more important goal for Russia than to destroy the well oiled machine called the Western Economy!

  • burrs

    Please explain the ‘hockey stick’ to me.

  • ray martin

    use your head. show me where ‘denialists’ actually LIE about anything at all (all we deny is that anyone really KNOWS what is causing change). meantime there are many many LIES (polar bears dying off/ manipulation of temperature data etc) told by the AGW crowd. one side is interested in the truth, the other in their agenda. that’s why we went from ‘the planet is freezing to death!” to “we’re gonna starve!” to “global warming!” to “climate change”…….

  • acidulous

    When East Germany “fell” all the dirty commie scum became “environmentalists”. ‘Nuf said.

  • punkdolphin

    Essentially, caucasians have a birthrate of 0% or less and the third world people “of color” are reproducing like rabbits. So are you saying we should start annihilating those “noble” souls? Or sterilizing the women or aborting those babies? Or maybe its a lack of understanding of good agriculture practices in much of the world; the same parts with the “overpopulation” problem? Or maybe its the politics of those other regions. Or maybe, your politics.

  • punkdolphin

    A lot of us didn’t know this or forgot.

  • Jond01

    Nothing of the sort. I was treating the population of the world as a whole, not divided into color as you have done. How we go about reducing population is probably the most difficult problem we face, and you make it more difficult by bringing race and color into it. These are the very issues that stop us from starting to plan to reduce. I am not a policy expert, but I do know a problem when it is staring is all in the face.

  • Hopsgegangen

    Heat trapping grows as log base 2 of CO2 concentration.

  • punkdolphin

    In other words, if all the creatures on earth quit breathing, we just might solve the CO2 warming problem? Otherwise, even if we did all the BS solutions being recommended, we might lower temperatures by 1 degree 100 years from now? Sounds like a plan. A 5-year plan by a Central Planning Committee of unelected bureaucrats. Wait, that’s what the Soviet Union used to do. And let me know how many of these “scientists” are doing this on their own time. Remember, Einstein never received a dollar (other than a small salary as an instructor) for developing his theory of relativity.

  • stephan011

    Do you know who Joe Bast is?

    Joe Bast, is the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute; here he is, lying to the public about the health and safety of cigarettes, writing:

    “Smoking cigarettes has little to no adverse health effects” and

    “Smoking fewer than 7 cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker’s risk of lung cancer”

    Here is the newspaper that op-ed is published in: https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking

    Lying to the public about health and safety is despicable and wrong. Deliberately confusing the public about the cancer risk of cigarettes is deeply immoral. And Joe Bast, the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute, did exactly that.

    Heartland is now one of main funders of climate denialism in the US. They are paid by Exxon and the Koch brothers among other, Heartland then funds the groups you’ve been getting your info from. Here’s an example of that:

    Anthony Watts, the publisher of WattsUp is funded by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation about climate science. Anthony Watts received a $90,000 payment from Heartland in 2012 alone (see bottom of page):
    https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy%20%283%29.pdf

  • stephan011

    No climate data was ever faked, you’ve been lied to and manipulated. There’s been a series of manufactured scandals, but every single one of them has been debunked, not that you’d ever hear that from right-wing media.

    “Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy”
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WUPbisaZOkY

  • stephan011

    AGW began with the start of the industrial revolution ~1750. The effect has been relatively muted, with various other factors occasionally overwhelming the steadily increasing heat energy, but is now firmly dominating temperature changes we see.

    And what’s happening today is completely unprecedented.

    CO2 started spiking when the industrial revolution kicked into high gear and we started dumping massive amounts of CO2. You can see it clearly in these 3 graphs:

    This graph shows CO2 from 1700 to the present, the spike on the right hand side is us, that started with the industrial revolution when we started dumping massive amounts of carbon into our atmosphere: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

    Same data, but here it is for the last 10,000 years: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

    And here it is for the last 800,000 years: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

    You can clearly see how extremely abnormal our current situation is.

  • Rosieo

    Liberalism is fear mongering and
    telling everybody the sky is falling so anxious the left low info voters are to
    give up OUR freedoms and so anxious those in charge are to take them!

  • punkdolphin

    These articles show that they are self-selected in that anyone with a differing opinion are hunted down, smeared, threatened with losing their jobs, unable to get funding to support their views and generally attacked with threats and mayhem; least of all comparing them to those who deny the Holocaust. So what’s a “good” scientist to do? Keep perpetuating the myth; at their wives and/ or husband’s insistence. Just like we heard that Cuba was a communist paradise. That the Soviet Union was comparable to the US. That a communist sympathizer didn’t kill Kennedy. That the Washington Redskins name caused horror and anguish among the American Indians. It’s all just a narrative to get the US to sit around campfires in their loincloths and debate this crap while everyone else is having a good time; paid for by the US.

  • LudicrousSextus

    Also worth remembering – and disseminating…

    The ‘modern environmentalist movement’ got it’s start by killing 50 million human beings, based on garbage ‘science’ then also hailed as ‘consensus’.

    The very *first* act of Nixon’s EPA – the DDT ban (enforced globally by foreign aid threats) defied both the testimony of numerous scientists – and Rucklehaus (first EPA director) own testimony in court – and was enacted primarily due to the ‘outcry’ generated by a single flawed book – Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’. 50 million humans died over the next few decades as a *direct* result of the ban.

    Google ‘EPA DDT ban killed millions’ – and hit the ‘discover the networks’ link. Absolutely indisputable history that shows environmentalism at it’s worst.

  • Don L

    Profits–the ugliest of words about humans says the left…until it became the goal of selling black babies’ parts.

  • Don L

    The Guardian as an objective source is but comedy.

  • Jose Alverez

    What does the sun do in your scheme during its cycles? Where did global warming come from in other periods? Why does reality differ from your models?

  • punkdolphin

    There’s only one solution to population control. People of color need to reproduce less is exactly what you and I are both saying. Quit lying. It’s why we listen to none of your nonsense. Instead, you intimate me as being a racist for saying what you are saying, only straightforward and truthfully.

  • Jond01

    It seems to me you are the racist here, and a paranoid one at that. Quit putting words in my mouth. How do you even know if I’m white or black or red?

  • WalterHorsting

    Sun Cycles 24-27 brings grand minimum cooling. CO2 is plant food and not a climate driver. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d41950b1be43b66e390d0eade665e3dcf7d0c88c0fd3af5b1fa9fdc23bcdb99.jpg

  • punkdolphin

    I don’t care what you are. We are in agreement on the issue that you then don’t want to mention. No words in your mouth. So if white population grows at 0% how many of those already born do we git rid of versus getting rid of the cultural idea that people of color are averaging 6 kids? Answer: RACIST!!

  • Dian Marshall Smith

    Horseshit! Every human exhales three pounds of carbon dioxide per day. If it was a toxic gas, how would this be possible?

    Also, did you miss 3rd grade science where they covered photosynthesis? Carbon dioxide is critical in producing healthy plant life. Right now, the earth has never been healthier, as evidenced by the flowering deserts around the world.

    I agree with George Carlin: the earth has been handling its weather just fine for billions of years before we came along, so it is pretty arrogant for us puny humans to think two hundred years can change a damn thing. Volcanos erupting cause more climate change and are much more accurate predictors than any climate model has EVER BEEN found to be. Sheesh people.

  • burrs

    So, is global ‘cooling’ forever out of the question?

  • Norbert G. Buttguster, Jr.

    Once again, democrats and liberals of all stripes are the enemy.

  • stephan011

    Not until we reduce the massive amounts of CO2 we’ve dumped into the atmosphere.

  • stephan011

    Dishonest argument, CO2 toxicity isn’t the issue, CO2’s heat trapping ability is.

  • stephan011

    Yes, elevated CO2 levels are helping crops in some places and accelerating plant growth. Here are some other things that are also happening:

    The Great Barrier Reef is dying from overheated water:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/13/great-barrier-reef-mass-coral-bleaching-second-year-row/99116432/
    =====
    Massive wildfires across Russian Siberia:
    http://mashable.com/2016/07/18/siberia-forest-fires-smoke-satellite/#oPXoInMxqaqm
    =====
    “The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners”
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners
    =====
    Thawing methane in the far north threatens runaway greenhouse gasses:
    http://www.sciencealert.com/photos-reveal-more-than-200-bright-blue-arctic-lakes-have-started-bubbling-with-methane-gas
    =====
    World’s Oceans Experiencing Significant Decline In Dissolved Oxygen
    https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/07/worlds-oceans-experiencing-significant-decline-dissolved-oxygen-analysis-shows/

  • stephan011

    Just because insolation has been a cause of warming in the past, doesn’t mean that’s what’s heating the planet is heating today.

    Insolation is actually trending *down* right now, if that were the only thing going on, we’d actually be in a cooling period. However, the CO2 we’re adding is overwhelming that decrease in insolation and we’re heating the planet instead.

    This graph breaks it out and shows the factors that are contributing to heating and cooling. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

  • stephan011

    Speaking of liars. Do you know who Joe Bast is?

    Joe Bast, is the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute; here he is, lying to the public about the health and safety of cigarettes, writing:

    “Smoking cigarettes has little to no adverse health effects” and

    “Smoking fewer than 7 cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker’s risk of lung cancer”

    Here is the newspaper that op-ed is published in: https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking

    Lying to the public about health and safety is despicable and wrong. Deliberately confusing the public about the cancer risk of cigarettes is deeply immoral. And Joe Bast, the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute, did exactly that.

    Heartland is now one of main funders of climate denialism in the US. They are paid by Exxon and the Koch brothers among other, Heartland then funds the groups you’ve been getting your info from. Here’s an example of that:

    Anthony Watts, the publisher of WattsUp is funded by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation about climate science. Anthony Watts received a $90,000 payment from Heartland in 2012 alone (see bottom of page):
    https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy%20%283%29.pdf

  • stephan011

    Only in the fevered imaginations of right-wing news. Reality is different.

    You seem not to care that the same people who lied to you, and said that cigarettes don’t cause cancer are now lying to you about global warming.

    That’s sad.

  • stephan011

    Word salad.

    Adults deal with problems, children hide from them.

  • stephan011

    You can’t ignore the vast majority of evidence and claim to open minded. You’re not. No climate data was ever faked, you’ve been lied to and manipulated. There’s been a series of manufactured scandals, but every single one of them has been debunked, not that you’d ever hear that from right-wing media.

    “Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy”
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WUPbisaZOkY
    Please consider: There isn’t a SINGLE scientific institution in the entire world, which hasn’t told you that global warming is real, and that humanity is causing it, please take the time to read a few of their statements:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

    Meanwhile FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS are funding a covert disinformation campaign:

    “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

    They are funding literarily, the *same* people who told us that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer. THESE are the people who are funding climate denialism sites.

    So which gigantic conspiracy do YOU think is more likely? That *thousands* of scientists, in *every* country, decided to lie about global warming? OR that the fossil fuel industry, seeking to protect their profits, did?

  • stephan011

    The “hockey stick” describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature. The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

  • burrs

    So the CO2 will prevent another Ice Age?

  • Joe R

    How does an event like Mt Pinatubo (SP) relate to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere under normal circumstances? I hope that makes sense.

  • punkdolphin

    You’re a great read for a liar. You are avoiding talking about what you are actually saying with YOUR “word salads”. You are saying too much population even though whites are on a negative trend and people of color are increasing. So let’s talk about white people limiting their ranks, but not people of color. Keeping in mind that these third world countries can’t afford all those extra mouths. But I agree with what you are saying. There are too many people of color for the resources THEY have. The West is doing fine, my dear.

  • punkdolphin

    The reality that “My computer model beats your computer model?”

  • JMHPATRIOT

    It’s not worth arguing with a liberal. If there is any significant increase in CO2, 011 is no doubt contributing to it with all of the BS he is spewing.

  • FearTheEer

    @stephan011,
    I think I’d lend a little more credence to your argument if you actually knew how to spell “insulation”.

  • stephan011

    The words are similar, but they mean different things. Insolation is the amount of radiant energy we get from the sun. Also called ‘solar irradiance’.

    The conservative argument is that that changes in temperature we’re seeing are caused by changes in the amount of solar irradiance, however, two things prove this wrong. First, the solar irradiance we are getting has been trending down over the last few decades, secondly, changes in temperature due to changes in insolation are much more gradual than what we see today.

  • FearTheEer

    Where do you think Al Gore came from? Oh that’s right….OIL MONEY….His father ran Occidental Petroleum. But I’ll bet you didn’t know that, did you? Al’s been playing BOTH sides of the equation.

  • stephan011

    In point of fact, the models are *quite* accurate, I don’t know where you got the idea they weren’t:

    From Forbes:

    “The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#e100d046614d

  • stephan011

    Not a lot of CO2, but a lot of aerosols. Volcanos generally cool the planet by injecting a lot of aerosols into the high atmosphere which reflect enough energy to cool the planet for a few years before they rain out again.

    Volcanos contribute about 1% of the total CO2:

    “Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.”

    “This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.”

    https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

  • stephan011

    Potentially, but we have the opposite problem now.

    Carbon dioxide levels are now 410 ppm. For over 400,000 years, CO? levels have never been below 180 or above 300 ppm. Three hundred years ago they were 280 ppm.

    At its lowest (180 PPM), the Earth was about 10 C° colder than it is now and glaciers covered much of the Earth. That means that at beginning of the Industrial Revolution, CO? was 100 ppm greater than the deepest of the glaciations. Now it is 120 ppm higher.

    The last time CO? levels were this high was more than 2.5 million years ago in the Pliocene and the globe’s temperature averaged about 3 C° warmer, and sea levels were 15 feet or more higher. And we’re going up a lot higher than 410 PPM.

  • Bill

    It all makes sense…. comrade grand mufti husseinobama and the fascist demoRAT-Communist party fully embrace global warming, because it advances Communism at the expense of America.

  • ColoBob

    That’s what WalterHorsting’s chart is showing, if you read the labels on the axes — the incremental effect of each unit (he uses 20 ppm) of CO2 has less and less effect.

  • ColoBob

    stephan011 sources “skepticalscience.com” (SS) as a reference. Just about everything on this site is propaganda and has been debunked by real scientists multiple times. That doesn’t keep them from putting it up and people like stephan from repeating it.

    He probably thinks that commentators here aren’t up on the science so tries to pull a fast one by recycling this crap. The scientists that SS supports (including some of themselves) have been caught:
    * lying,
    * cooking the data,
    * scheming to suppress contrary papers,
    * fudging their models to get the desired results,
    * ignoring the fact that their models have demonstrated no predictive skill distinguishable from chance,
    * ignoring the fact that their CO2 models can’t reproduce the 50+ years of experimental data on atmospheric CO2,
    and lots of other stuff I don’t have room (or time) to list.

    Why do they do this? Well, the government has spent > $80B over the last 25 years exclusively supporting scientists who find that there are “serious problems” that only greatly enhanced government power can solve. (Now, why would anyone in the government want more power?) Any scientist who demurs is defunded — and hence becomes “not a climate scientist”, unless they have a tenured appointment at a university — probably why most of the skeptical scientists meet this criteria.

    Are these scientists part of a vast conspiracy? Are they just greedy and can’t get a real job? Are they fools? Are they knaves? Are they all or a mixture of these things? I make no hypothesis — the fact that they are full of BS is enough for me.

    **********
    There are entire websites devoted to debunking this crap (that Stephan001 is trying to pitch) — there isn’t room here to repeat them, so here are a couple of good ones (there are many more) for anyone who wants to research this for themselves.
    And, by all means, look at SkepticalScience.com as well — you will note, by comparison, that SS dodges all the effective arguments used against their claims, while the following sites take everything SS (and Stephan) claims head on.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    http://joannenova.com.au/
    (This website has a number of good reviews of the science and the politics — look along the left edge of the home page. I’ll just list them:)

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_IIj-sml.pdf

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

    *****
    Also, read the about the corrupt and unethical behavior of the climate scientists in their own words:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
    Then, read the somewhat desperate attempts to spin this on sites like SkepticalScience and make up your own minds what these people are like.

    ******
    Is this all a Soviet conspiracy? I have my doubts, but recent history (last 75 years) has shown without any doubt that a significant segment of the US “Progressive” population is willing to go along with just about anything anti-US. I don’t think they need more justification than their own hatred of this country.

  • punkdolphin

    So it predicted a tiny increase in global warming, in point of fact?

  • Jose Alverez

    Science is niether conservative, nor liberal, nor settled. It questions.
    Data from CERN indicates heliocentric heating and cooling of earth. They were quite surprised when attacked by the warmist theory proponents.
    Using data from the warming theorists shows divergence from reality. That is, if their theory was correct, it would be much warmer than it is trending. Each year, the theoretical graph line and real temps move further apart.
    That’s why its a global warming “theory”.

  • ColoBob

    “No climate data was ever faked, you’ve been lied to and manipulated.” (stephan001)

    Actually, you’re being lied to (by stephan011) now. Check out these instances (some of which you can easily check for yourselves):

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/25/former-obama-official-bureaucrats-manipulate-climate-stats-to-influence-policy/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/17/fabricating-temperatures-on-the-dew-line/

    https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records
    (About this one: my wife worked for John Bates. He is a straight up guy, not afraid of telling it like it is.)

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/11/more-gunsmoke-this-time-in-nepal/

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

    https://justdata.wordpress.com/

    … and too many more to list. With this record, how can stephan001 make claims like “no climate data was ever faked”?
    He just lies, like most appologists pushing radical government “solutions” to the non-problem of global warming.

  • stephan011

    Anthony Watts, the publisher of WattsUp is funded by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation about climate science. Anthony Watts received a $90,000 payment from Heartland in 2012 alone (see bottom of page):

    https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy%20%283%29.pdf

  • stephan011

    Do you know who Joe Bast is?

    Joe Bast, is the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute; here he is, lying to the public about the health and safety of cigarettes, writing:

    “Smoking cigarettes has little to no adverse health effects” and

    “Smoking fewer than 7 cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker’s risk of lung cancer”

    Here is the newspaper that op-ed is published in: https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking

    Lying to the public about health and safety is despicable and wrong. Deliberately confusing the public about the cancer risk of cigarettes is deeply immoral. And Joe Bast, the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute, did exactly that.

    Heartland is now one of main funders of climate denialism in the US. They are paid by Exxon and the Koch brothers among other, Heartland then funds the groups you’ve been getting your info from. Here’s an example of that:

    Anthony Watts, the publisher of WattsUp is funded by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation about climate science. Anthony Watts received a $90,000 payment from Heartland in 2012 alone (see bottom of page):
    https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy%20%283%29.pdf

  • stephan011

    No, science is not. But the dishonest arguments you are repeating, come from a right-wing propaganda effort funded by fossil fuel interests.

    “Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

  • stephan011

    It’s not tiny, it’s almost 1° celsius. This is what that looks like, the spike on the right is what’s happened in the last ~100 years:

    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

  • Abraham_Franklin

    That Guardian story is fake news. For one thing, activist scientist Peter Gleick was caught faking Heartland Institute documents:

    http://fakegate.org/

    “Gleick also admitted to lying about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, a ‘strategy memo’ that purported to describe Heartland’s plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute.”

    If the science is settled, why do so many alarmists resort to lies and deceit?

  • Abraham_Franklin

    “Here is the newspaper that op-ed”

    You’re citing an op-ed as evidence? What are you, a twelve-year-old?

  • Abraham_Franklin

    “There’s no doubt that humans are polluting the planet”

    True. But CO2 is the opposite of pollution. Our ecosystem loves the stuff.

  • RoHa

    Soviets? It was Margaret Thatcher who pushed the Global Warming story into international politics.

  • Bill

    Please show w/m2 contribution for each
    Green house component
    That supports your physics;
    Water vapor =
    Co2 (anthro) =
    Co2 (natural)=

  • stephan011

    If you *read* that op-ed you’ll see that Joe Bast, the CEO of Heartland claims that cigarettes are safe and don’t cause cancer.

    Heartland is now the leading source of funding for climate denialism.

  • stephan011

    No, he did not. You are being lied to and manipulated.

    Heartland is funded by fossil fuel interests to spread misinformation about climate change.

  • Steve Smith

    Communists yes, Russians no, it was Jamie Gorelick and OPEC

  • What liberals did to Russia is like giving a street
    thug free meals, gym membership card and firing range training. Now
    they are trying to shift the blame on Trump, just like with
    everything else.

    Speaking of global warming hysteria case, did you
    know that catalytic converters, the bane of modern automotive design
    and the joy of greenie wannabe motorists, are being made with RUSSIAN
    materials processed in Norilsk without ANY limitations (let alone
    green bans) on toxic waste? As a consequence, Norilsk is contaminated
    worse than any Chinese industrial area and in fact it alone harms
    environment of the Earth much worse than traffic in entire America.
    But it doesn’t matter for leftists, since for them Russia was always
    more equal than others.

  • Jose Alverez

    You’ve become boring. This is why your theory is losing adherents. Please head to china to peddle your lies. Bye now!

  • COVFEFEconservative ????????

    The evil “fossil fuel interests misinformation” canard is always the alarmists’ fall back, defensive position when they’re losing the argument. It goes hand-in-glove with the crazy/lazy idea that every weather and climate scenario can be attributed to agw. It’s right up there with the “97% of scientists agree” line of bs. There has been so much scientific falsification by agw theory proponents, that the general public has become more responsible in bearing the standard of the scientific method than those mythological 97%.

  • iam

    I concur with your critics which you fail to objectively debate. copying and pasting charts that don’t prove anything, or headlines that are either extrapolations from bogus climate model results, or have been debunked as not being caused by man-caused global warming do not bolster your case. please respond to bill’s question greenhouse components. more specifically, show us the math behind the paris accord that shows the affects of man-caused global CO2 reduction on climate. or, perhaps you’d like to explain to us: 1) what percent of the total atmosphere make up greenhouse gasses 2)of that, what percent of greenhouse gasses does CO2 represent 3) of that, what percent of CO2 is contributed by man 4) of man’s percent of contribution to CO2 levels, what percent will be affected by the paris accords. maybe once we understand those dynamics, we can better get a handle on what courses of action will make the most sense. also, please explain why the climate models you keep referring to did not predict the widely accepted consensus of global warming “pause”? also explain why the “sharp spike” of CO2 has failed to materialize in any meaningful statistics to global warming?

  • David E. Root

    why do you keep copy pasting this… we all can read… and the fact someone supported cigarettes does not make them evil… misinformed, yes.. but many people followed this belief for a long time…. and to state “no climate change data was ever faked” is absurd… I can recall at least one instance where the person who faked the information openly admitted doing so (actually, the person admitted skewing data to show trends that did not appear in the data)… I am not arguing the science of climate change is a hoax… I just question the absolute certainty by some that it is 100% man made… and that we can or should fix it… and, finally, I question why it is that every solution thus far has placed the burden on change squarely on the USA, as if China were not the primary polluter in the world today producing twice the per capita CO2 of the USA (yes we are #2, but Canada has long been in the top ten… and everyone wants to be like Canada)

  • David E. Root

    Than why were scientists (and pretty much everyone else) screaming the next Ice Age was just around the corner back in the mid 70’s to early 80’s?

  • David E. Root

    Wow… the asshole really jumped to the surface with that one…

  • David E. Root

    It is clear you understand the science and are passionate regarding climate change… but the fact remains… a lot of money has and will change hands on both sides… and the people who are profiting have agendas that don’t necessarily reflect the will or the good of the people they claim to be leading… and that in itself makes the gathering of information which is untainted difficult at best… and to claim otherwise is not being objective… for example, you repeatedly state that all scientists agree with climate change and that the change is man made… yet the fact remains that many scientists do not agree… and you dismiss them out of hand as being within a right wing conspiracy… therefore they most not be scientists. correct?.. and that is my point… you can’t just dismiss the objections, otherwise it ceases to be science…

  • 2subtle

    Big Oil is now supporting the Paris Agreement.

  • David E. Root

    you keep linking the anti climate change people to the “tobacco” industry… your argument takes on the air of someone who repeatedly compares someone they disagree with to Hitler… the fact someone was involved in tobacco does not make them automatically guilty… or for that matter wrong… it at best casts a level of doubt on their position… nothing more…

  • 2subtle

    Government is getting the best “science” that money can buy.

  • David E. Root

    Jeez man… you have been attacking the source from moment one…

    anything that does not agree with your point… is a lie

    any source that does not favor your argument… is linked to tobacco and fossil fuels

    You don’t allow for even the tiniest trace of doubt in your own beliefs… yet you rubber stamp anything that might cast that doubt as part of the Right Wing Conspiracy

    How is anyone supposed to be convinced by your argument when you dismiss everything that questions your position as not being worthy of review?

  • stephan011

    So you think there’s a world-wide conspiracy of scientists who are all lying to you.

    And Exxon and Koch brothers, who fund Heartland and Wattsup and many others are reliable and trustworthy.

    How does that make sense?

  • stephan011

    The are the *exact same people* Do you know who Joe Bast is?

    Joe Bast, is the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute; here he is, lying to the public about the health and safety of cigarettes, writing:

    “Smoking cigarettes has little to no adverse health effects” and

    “Smoking fewer than 7 cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker’s risk of lung cancer”

    Here is the newspaper that op-ed is published in: https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking

    Lying to the public about health and safety is despicable and wrong. Deliberately confusing the public about the cancer risk of cigarettes is deeply immoral. And Joe Bast, the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute, did exactly that.

    Heartland is now one of main funders of climate denialism in the US. They are paid by Exxon and the Koch brothers among other, Heartland then funds the groups you’ve been getting your info from. Here’s an example of that:

    Anthony Watts, the publisher of WattsUp is funded by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation about climate science. Anthony Watts received a $90,000 payment from Heartland in 2012 alone (see bottom of page):
    https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy%20%283%29.pdf

  • stephan011

    Big oil is *publicly* supporting the Paris Agreement.

    But secretly, they have spent millions funding climate denialism:

    “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago”
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

    “ExxonMobil’s $33 Million Campaign to Sow Doubt and Denial About Global Warming”
    https://www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial

    “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

    “Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

  • David E. Root

    Not to challenge your assumptions regarding wind power… I live next door to one of the largest in the state of Michigan… but have you ever considered how difficult it is to establish wind power? Every liberal is all in favor of wind until the rubber hits the road… than we have a bad case of “not in my back yard”… it took over ten years of infighting to get the wind farm in Oceana county Michigan started… and it only happened when the governor made it clear the farm would be built in the offshore areas of Lake Michigan if something was not agreed on… and the people along the lakeshore have far more money than the farmers did.. and that is why it was built inland…(in case you missed it “not in my back yard”… or line of sight as it turned out)

  • stephan011

    No, no all, but the vast majority. And the reason for this is simple, it’s can proven fairly trivially that we are trapping heat energy:

    Here’s a simple proof that we are heating the planet. No model or projections are necessary, just physics:

    1. CO2 levels are rising: This is data from the Scrippts Observatory on Hawaii which has been tracking CO2 levels since the 1950’s. Data before this, relies on air trapped in ice cores and then correlated with the modern record. CO2 air measurements can be repeated by anyone, anywhere:
    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

    The sharp spike on the right side started with the industrial revolution, when we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    2. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2, the more heat. This was discovered in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius who later went on to win the Nobel Prize, here is his original paper: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

    And here’s an actual demonstration of the CO2 greenhouse effect, it takes about 3 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

    This experiment can be repeated by anyone, anywhere.

    If CO2 levels are going up, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then we are heating the planet. Full stop.

    There really isn’t any way around these basic facts.

    Modeling where that heat goes, is a useful and important thing to do, but not central to the argument. Models will always be approximate, but no flaw in a model will undo the basic underlying reality that we are pumping a *lot* of energy into the planet.

  • stephan011

    First, because that’s not actually true, scientists weren’t ‘screaming’ that’s a denialist talking point. But the reasons this myth persists is that there is a germ of truth in it. The germ of truth isn’t that ‘scientists predicted an ice age’ that’s just denialist bullshtt.

    The germ of truth is this: Insolation, the energy we get from the sun is actually trending *down* for the last few decades, and normally, we’d be getting cooler right now. However, all the CO2 we’ve been dumping into the atmosphere has swamped that effect.

    This graph shows how all those come together: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

  • stephan011

    The reason that ‘people followed this belief’ wasn’t because of honest confusion, it happened because the tobacco companies paid organizations like Heartland to lie to the public. Just as Heartland is lying to the public today about global warming.

    And no, the burden *isn’t* squarely on the US, you are being lied to about that too. In fact China is doing a lot more than we are today to address global warming:

    From Forbes:
    “China Is A Decade Ahead Of Schedule On Reducing CO2 Emissions”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillbaker/2016/07/20/good-news-from-china-coal-has-peaked-and-emissions-will-begin-falling-after-2020-2022/#744fce5b7905

    Here are some of the things going on in India and China to make that happen:

    ====== China =======
    “China Deploys Aggressive Mandates To Take Lead In Electric Vehicles”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldunne/2017/02/28/china-deploys-aggressive-mandates-to-stay-no-1-in-electric-vehicles/2/#371a35ff5902

    “China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html?_r=0

    “China to plow $361 billion into renewable fuel by 2020”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-renewables-idUSKBN14P06P

    “China Installed 34 Gigawatts Of New Solar PV In 2016”
    https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/18/china-installed-34-gw-new-solar-pv-2016-nea/

  • David E. Root

    Not in my neck of the woods… but I guess it works better where your source studied its use…here in Michigan, they went to court and sued Consumers Power… it destroyed the property value and caused health issues with the people who lived within the shadow of the turbines… as far as income… you have to be within 300 feet of the base to collect (or have it on your property).. a good friend of mine lost 1/2 the value of the home he was building… nobody buying a home for the top 10% of income wants to have turbine flicker and strobe… but I am sure you can site a number of studies that say my friends and countrymen are wrong to feel as they do… because everyone loves green energy… (as long as it is in someone else’s back yard)… but I image the same would be the case with a coal mine… so, oh well…

  • stephan011

    Regarding the contributors to warming, this graph shows the different factors, some increasing heat trapping, others decreasing: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

    CO2 levels are up 45% from the industrial revolution, when we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

  • punkdolphin

    I wan’t trying for any up votes on this one. Just calling someone out for complete BS.

  • 2subtle

    I have a degree in Geophysics and have financially supported CFACT and WUTU.
    Sadly, as in the early 1600s, scientists have supported authoritarian “science” for money. The one that taught Kepler basic science had to teach that the solar system rotated around the Earth. Why? Because the Vatican said so! Also, the lecturer had to make a living.
    Privately, he was a Copernican.
    Then, the great Kepler, in having determined that the planetary orbits were elliptical, the government insisted that he support their policy decisions by casting horoscopes.
    You can look it up. Knowledge is readily available.

  • stephan011

    Yeah. That’s the thing, all of these choices have downsides. I’m sure I wouldn’t like living next to one, but coal pollution and black lung is a lot worse than flickering lights and the low frequency noise from turbines that bugs some.

    But that said, there’s a lot of open land in this country and it’s been a lifesaver for some ranchers and farmers, here’s some examples of that from different states:

    “Colorado farmers reap $9 million in payments from turbines”
    http://www.denverpost.com/2016/03/25/colorado-farmers-reap-9-million-in-payments-from-turbines/

    “Turning to turbines: As commodity prices remain low, wind energy leases offer a welcome source of income for farmers”
    http://www.omaha.com/money/turning-to-turbines-as-commodity-prices-remain-low-wind-energy/article_2814e2cf-83a3-547d-a09e-f039e935f399.html

    “Solar provides another option for farmers”
    http://www.iowafarmertoday.com/news/regional/solar-provides-another-option-for-farmers/article_e94e88b4-2518-11e7-b2bf-a76db4cf20e4.html

    http://www.missourifarmertoday.com/news/regional/energy-boost-solar-provides-another-option-for-farmers/article_6d03bac6-2546-11e7-a9b6-3ba7913fb5c3.html

    County government does alright too, wind farms are a major source of tax revenue for local governments where they go up. And then finally, there are a lot of jobs in wind and solar now, way more than coal actually, and these are mostly rural jobs. We added 56,000 new solar jobs last year bringing the total to 260,000 and the wind employs an additional 102,000 people (15,000 new jobs last year). By comparison coal employes ~70,000 people.

  • stephan011

    Yeah, I get it. Michigan was a very hot market for awhile but recently blocked a lot of new development.

  • stephan011

    Fair point, but I don’t think Greg was interested in an actual debate about the issue, he’s just dismissed the entire argument, and on pretty specious grounds, Forbes is a perfectly creditable source. China *is* way ahead their targets.

    And I bring up conspiracy because on sites like this, there’s this open assumption that there’s some gigantic conspiracy of scientists and it doesn’t occur to people that maybe *they* are being fed the lies.

    And I don’t just say “Conspiracy!!!” either, i cite my claims, there’s a lot of evidence that there actually *is* a right-wing conspiracy to deceive the American public and it’s being run by the team that did the same thing for the tobacco industry.

  • stephan011

    That’s nice but the bottom line is:

    1. we are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere where it is accumulating.

    2. CO2 traps heat, the more CO2, the more heat.

    It is impossible that we are not heating the planet. Everything else, is details.

  • 2subtle

    Please explain why changes in temp always lead changes in CO2 by some 600 to 800 years.
    CO2 is a trace gas that does not cause climate warming or, especially, change. Real climate change has been and will continue to be forced by changes in the solar system. Look it up–it is an elegant explanation. Particularly, that over the past decade, the work on cosmic rays has been outstanding.
    Satisfies my curiosity about how climate really works.

  • Dean Anniballi
  • Dean Anniballi

    You actually believe that crap? I know people that dive the GBR every year, and they say it’s perfectly healthy. Wake up. It’s a scam. A warmer Earth is a healthier Earth. It was much warmer when there were dinosaurs, and there was plenty of flora and fauna.

  • stephan011
  • stephan011

    When increases in insolation driving warming, CO2 will lag slightly because as the planet warms from the sun, it releases more CO2.

    But just because insolation has been a cause of warming in the past, doesn’t mean that’s what’s heating the planet is heating today.

    Insolation is actually trending *down* right now, if that were the only thing going on, we’d actually be in a cooling period. However, the CO2 we’re adding is overwhelming that decrease in insolation and we’re heating the planet instead.

    Here’s a simple proof that we are heating the planet. No model or projections are necessary, just physics:

    1. CO2 levels are rising: This is data from the Scrippts Observatory on Hawaii which has been tracking CO2 levels since the 1950’s. Data before this, relies on air trapped in ice cores and then correlated with the modern record. CO2 air measurements can be repeated by anyone, anywhere:
    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

    The sharp spike on the right side started with the industrial revolution, when we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    2. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2, the more heat. This was discovered in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius who later went on to win the Nobel Prize, here is his original paper: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

    And here’s an actual demonstration of the CO2 greenhouse effect, it takes about 3 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

    This experiment can be repeated by anyone, anywhere.

    If CO2 levels are going up, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then we are heating the planet. Full stop.

    There really isn’t any way around these basic facts.

    Modeling where that heat goes, is a useful and important thing to do, but not central to the argument. Models will always be approximate, but no flaw in a model will undo the basic underlying reality that we are pumping a *lot* of energy into the planet.

  • 2subtle

    Yes, CO2 concentrations are going up. But you have yet to explain why a climatic warming trend leads the subsequent increase in CO2 content.
    Hint: you might review out-gassing from the oceans.
    The other point to study is the incredible forces behind the actual change from a glacial age to an interglacial.

  • jug

    No warming for the last two decades!
    Something must be going right!

  • stephan011

    See first sentence. When you heat up the planet, it thaws out tundra and releases methane hydrates in the ocean, both of which are happening now.

  • Dean Anniballi

    Evidently you don’t know that this happens to relatively small portions quite often. A picture of this tiny a portion of the GBR is in no way indicative of what the entire structure looks like. Find someone that dives it frequently and allow them to educate you.

  • AngelHorseMomMD223

    This should be mandatory reading just a fabulously informative piece of real journalism

  • stephan011

    Evidently, you believe the propaganda being pumped into right-wing sites like this. There is *zero* question that vast stretches of the Great Barrier Reef are dead now.

    You are being lied to, and manipulated. Here’s how:

    “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

    The reason this ‘debate’ exists is because there’s been a massive disinformation campaign by fossil fuel interests. Led, literally, by the same people who organized the Tobacco industry campaign to cast doubt on the science that showed that cigarettes cause cancer.

    Today’s climate disinformation campaign is being led by the *same* people who told America that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer. Think about that.

  • stephan011

    “Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification”
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737

    “Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs”
    http://www.publish.csiro.au/mf/mf99078

    “Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef”
    http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/585/1/VUlnerability-Assessment-2007-Glossary-Terms-Symbols-Index.pdf

    “Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs”
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/301/5635/929

    Your turn. Put up, or shut up.

  • stephan011
  • Dean Anniballi

    BS. I have friends that dive the GBR every year for a month. Bleaching occurs all the time, but in limited areas. It is the same as it ever was. You’re brainwashed.

  • stephan011

    Well, if they were diving around Mackay, it’s been fine, go North from there and it’s a different story.

    Look, I linked a dozen different sources, from reputable media to scientific papers.

    Deny, Deny if you must, but it doesn’t change reality.

    If you live long enough, you will find out that you have been greatly misled by people you thought trustworthy.

  • stephan011

    Map of Great Barrier Reef bleaching: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/reef-health

  • annie500

    An interesting book to read. Disinformation, by Lt.Gen. Ion Miha Pacepa (Aid to Niclale Ceausescu) and Prof.Ronald J. Rychlak. Russia and propaganda, they good at it. That is why Stalin used the term Usefull idiots.

  • annie500

    Those that don’t believe in God will believe in anything!!

  • Dean Anniballi

    I’ll believe my friends that actually dive the reef before I’ll believe politically influenced, i.e. paid, researchers that haven’t spent nearly the time there as my buds. You believe what liars tell you before what your own eyes see. How intelligent you are.

  • ColoBob

    I gave you a number of instances of data changing (faking). You respond with innuendo about Anthony Watts.

    The data manipulation is easy to verify for yourself — you can download the data yourself (from NOAA and NASA) and see for yourself how it has been fudged. It is incontrovertible evidence that data faking is going on.

    Why don’t you try addressing the evidence? We both know the reason is that the evidence shows you are wrong.

  • ColoBob

    “The only reason this ‘debate’ exists is because there’s been a massive disinformation campaign by fossil fuel interests.”

    Actually, there is no “debate”, since your side refuses to address the evidence. When you are reduced to attacking the character of people, you admit you have no answer to their arguments.

  • NonPCconservative

    I remember that the actual scientist who discovered the hole in the ozone layer was later derided by those who wanted to blame fluorocarbons because he didn’t agree with their fear-mongering.

  • NonPCconservative

    I think you might need to adjust your tinfoil hat. The figures shown above supposedly “proving” the fossil fuel industry is guilty are dwarfed by the amount spent on advancing the AGW agenda. Much of the support comes from politicians as it is mostly about increasing their power.

    If you want to find the villain you should follow the money.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#442350807ebb

    If you can’t see the problem then accept the fact that you are simply one of the “useful idiots” that the left so loves to use and then discard.

  • Bassman56

    How about you provide an email address for these friends of yours so we can ask them directly?

  • Dean Anniballi

    How about you GFY? Would you provide me your friends email? If so, you are even more stupid than this idiotic reply.

  • guamjeff

    Is that a hockey stick graph? Now show the hockey stick temperature changes….oh not there? Now go back historically and show temperature changes supposedly over the last 100,000 years, a burp in the timeline of the earth. It goes up and down like a yo yo.

  • guamjeff

    Show the temperature elevations of the water! The don’t exist. Glaciers were supposed to be gone by now, by the end of the 20th century. Some are back to growing again instead, even, of receding. The ice pack around Antarctica is growing, not shrinking. CO2 has gone up. That’s about all you can say. For all of this rise in CO2 there has been essentially NO change in global temperatures over the last 15 or so years. Prior to that, minimal. Historic temperature charts show a cyclical change in temperature on what appears to be a fairly predictable pattern. Much greater changes than what you global warming mongers are predicting based on puny CO2 levels. The globe has been warming EVER SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE! Ice has been melting ever since the last ice age!! Last Ice age was NOT millions of years ago but a few THOUSAND years ago. Before that? Temperatures were higher again. Wake up and smell the commies dude.

  • stephan011

    No, temperatures have *not* been flat for 15 years, you are being lied to.

    “2014 Confirmed as Hottest Year On Record, With Spike in Ocean Temperatures”
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/150116-2014-hottest-year-global-warming-climate-science/

    “2015 shatters the temperature record as global warming speeds back up”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/18/2015-shatters-the-temperature-record-as-global-warming-speeds-back-up

    “2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record”
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2016-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/

    This graph shows how it’s going up:
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

  • stephan011

    Temperature for the last 10,000 years, the spike on the right side is the last 300 years, since we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere:
    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

  • Peter

    Water vapour traps heat. Water vapour is a ‘greenhouse gas’ according to the alarmists.
    So you will be wanting to eliminate water vapour too. Methane is the other. So eliminate cows also.
    You want to live on a dead planet, because your reasoning is not consistent. If you can’t fight physics, then at least oppose irrational, inconsistent, skewed reason.

  • stephan011

    Water vapor is indeed the top greenhouse gas by volume, but it’s not what’s driving the changes. Water vapor doesn’t accumulate, it rains out. What’s accumulating, is CO2 and Methane.

    Water vapor *amplifies* the CO2 effect. But it doesn’t accumulate like CO2 and Methane do. so it’s not itself a driver of the changes we see.

    The amount of water vapor in the air is a function of temperature and pressure. As temperatures go up, the air will hold slightly more vapor, and that in turn traps more heat. The amount of vapor can be calculated using the Clausius-Clapeyron equations that are taught in 1st year physics.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius–Clapeyron_relation

    And If you are interested in what *is* driving temperature changes this graph breaks it out: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

  • mioahu

    AHAHAHHAHAHHAHA, aren’t you bored with that argument ? And all the scientists that are proponents of agw are funded by big leftist governments. Who do you think have more money, the fossil fuel industry or the leftist global governments ? Do you think there is even one dollar in research grants for universities for projects that are skeptical about agw ? Obama has funded all the research for the past 8 years ! And so do all the leftist governments of the world, and most of them are indeed leftist. A major socialist wealth redistribution scheme. Small countries support it cause they benefit from it, big european countries support it because of their leftist apologetic redistribution governments. In your childish way of seeing the world, who do you think has more influence and leverage ? the fossil fuel industry or the leftist global governments ? Please, you are just an example of how somebody can be smart but not wise, the big problem of leftism !

  • stephan011

    Speaking of liars. Do you know who Joe Bast is?

    Joe Bast, is the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute; here he is, lying to the public about the health and safety of cigarettes, writing:

    “Smoking cigarettes has little to no adverse health effects” and

    “Smoking fewer than 7 cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker’s risk of lung cancer”

    Here is the newspaper that op-ed is published in: https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking

    Lying to the public about health and safety is despicable and wrong. Deliberately confusing the public about the cancer risk of cigarettes is deeply immoral. And Joe Bast, the Chairman of the Board of Heartland Institute, did exactly that.

    Heartland is the leading source of climate denialism in the US. They are paid by Exxon and the Koch brothers among others, Heartland then funds the groups you’ve been getting your info from.

    “Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

  • stephan011

    .I think you missed this part:

    Led *literally*, by the *same* people who organized the Tobacco Industry campaign to cast doubt on the science that showed that cigarettes cause cancer.

    These are the *same* people who told America that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer.

    That’s who you’ve decided is trustworthy.

    And the group you’ve decided is *untrustworthy* is the global scientific community.

    How does that make any kind of sense?

  • mioahu

    Just posting links does not make you smarter actually 🙂
    If you actually read them, and quote them correctly, then you are believable.
    If you post them and twist the facts, like the scientific community does every time the facts don’t agree with the theory, then you are just lying.
    The smoking article exposes lies about the anti smoking campaign
    The whole second hand smoking deaths in US was a hysteria, exactly like climate change, and the article properly debunks that.
    Also, the article does not say that cigarettes don’t have risk, it says that the risk from smoking in moderation is negligible.The fact that smoking less than 5 cigarettes a day has almost no effect on your health was a pretty common thread in the medical community before it became taboo,
    like anything the left advocates for, and you are labelled a denier and your career is destroyed if you don’t agree with them. So your link only shows that the left lives in hysteria mode all the time. People don’t dare to express their anti agw views, the anti agw articles are not published, the movies are not made, and the news are not reported. Again, when you ally yourself with big government and somehow think that they are right, you are just an unwise useful idiot. When your life is empty you have to give yourself some meaning by fighting for what you believe is a higher cause, and since the left is a religion in itself, you have the fanatics.

  • Source of graph?

  • Rick Downing

    You, Mr. Anniballi, are the one who is being lied to, if you actually believe what you are saying! I don’t care if secret donors contributed trillions of dollars to fossil fuel companies; it still doesn’t make your argument true. I would love to polygraph someone like you to truly show people that you are the one who is a lying propagandist! I have researched this subject in depth for more than 10 years now, and it is truly the biggest, most dangerous lie that has ever been perpetrated by left-wing governments and their supporters. For anyone reading this thread who has doubt about what I am saying here, just go out and do some research on your own, rather than listen to me or this idiot that I’m responding to. Also, ask yourself why it is that governments and left-wing propagandists, like this guy, only talk about controlling CO2 (carbon emissions) when CO2 makes up less than 1% of all the greenhouse gases. The reason for this is that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas produced by industry, and governments all around the world now have taxation systems in place (known as a “carbon taxes”) designed to suck money from businesses in order to help stabilize their failing socialist economies. After you address this fact, ask yourself why countries like the U.S., Canada and New Zealand are allowing the ongoing deforestation of our older growth forests – at record levels, I might add – when at the same time they are claiming that CO2 is heating the earth and destroying our climate. I thought that trees were of critical importance in absorbing CO2 emissions from our environment… I must have missed the follow-up science course that debunked this scientific claim! The interesting thing about the current mass harvesting of “hardwood” forests throughout North America is that the majority of this wood is going to the United Kingdom, in the form of wood pellets, to be used as a feedstock (fuel source) for biogas energy plants. And what do biogas plants produce, in addition to energy? you guessed it… CO2!!! And why does the U.K. need our forest wood? Because they don’t have enough to meet the demand of their enormous biogas plants. By the way, when I mentioned “hardwood trees” above, I was not referring to the harvesting of fast growing pine trees from pine tree plantations that are regularly replanted; I was referring to established, slow growing “hardwood trees” like oak trees, etc. Although I could go on and on about this topic, I would like to close with just a few brief questions to all who are interested: 1) Why did “global warming” scientists collaborate to alter and falsify their climate data back in 2007, prior to having to go before congress to defend their “global warming” claims? Wasn’t the original factual data they collected supporting their arguments? I guess not! 2.) Why, when you read the comment threads that follow almost every online science article (on the topic of “climate change”), do you see scientists bashing each other about what is causing so called “climate change?” If human derived “global warming” is in fact a scientific conclusion, why don’t scientists all agree on what is causing it? 3.) Why did the science community abandon the “global warming” reference in favor of “climate change?” Could it be that the climate (temperature) models that they created were not working out for them and they then realized they needed to rename the lie in order to continue fooling people? Yes, in deed, that is why it was changed! 4.) Lastly, for those of you who were around back in the 70’s, what ever happened to the terrible “ice age” that some of these same scientists said was going to destroy mankind back then? I guess it blew over us! To all of you who believe this “climate change” crap, please wake-the-hell-up before you allow communism to get a strong-hold on all of the free nations! By the way, you are hearing this from an ecology minded person who devotes more 500 to 1,000 hours of his own time (on the ground working), each year, doing environmental and wildlife habitat restoration; with his own money, I might add. Unlike the left-wing idiot that I’m responding to, I don’t find public protesting, destroying community and private property and lying to the general public, to be an effective means of helping the environment!

  • Mikronos

    How did they get the weather to cooperate? More hacking us into floods, droughts and wildfires?