Taylor, James htlnd

=whatever happened to?
<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap">very good 2022 BBC doc big oil v world</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap">taylor boast of role/ success, bill O; says sci made harder, wishs had time machine wrestle self BA PR hack 32 min</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">pt 2 raymond confronted (shareholder mtg? by cli sci) reads oregon?! 15 min <a href="https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8cnif4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8cnif4</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">sci heins sp? Arthur Green geosci BS denier ppt, culture polite.</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">200m$ on BP PR 2x solar John Browne raymond furious brk ranks, exxon ppl ha grnwash</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">mccraken gore clinton holdover w aggressive agenda sci bias randy randall</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> ipcc watson </div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">mcc resignation ltr?</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">37 min BO ocean slow planet heal bennet Freeman PR corp hu rights?</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">=</div></div>see eike naomi scam germanyeg...For the first time, Taylor is also involving staff from his institute. Their titles and degrees are intended to ensure credibility beyond YouTube.<div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">
</div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Peter Ferrara, a graduate in economics from Harvard University and former advisor to US Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, is to join the team. Ferrara can “(…) research and present important information on the severe economic costs of German environmental restrictions”.</div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">
</div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Taylor also has a plan to counter the argument that diesel car emissions are harmful to health.</div>=ebell  and jt enforcerswait, what?<a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/gop-criticizes-its-own-on-climate">https://www.eenews.net/articles/gop-criticizes-its-own-on-climate</a><div>ref climatewire 5/19https://www.eenews.net/articles/gop-criticizes-its-own-on-climate/?ref=drilledrep. Matt Gaetz (center), a Florida Republican who accepts that man-made climate change is occurring, is being criticized by conservatives for offering legislation to address global warming. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom<article id="post-17430" class="post-17430 articles type-articles status-publish publication-climatewire entry" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 35px;"><header class="entry-header" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">As some Republicans inch toward climate policy for the first time in years, those in the party who reject climate science are getting nervous that a more permanent shift is coming.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">And they’re going on the attack against their former allies.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">A group called Energy & Environment Action Team recently sent a 16-page pamphlet to every member of Congress encouraging lawmakers to reject all climate policy and connecting concern about global warming to political losses.  In bold letters across the top, the pamphlet stated, "The Plan is … No Plan! Why the GOP shouldn’t do anything on climate."<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">"There is absolutely no reason for any Republican to offer a plan to ‘combat climate change,’" the pamphlet continued. "Such a plan, if enacted would accomplish nothing good for America or the climate."A growing number of Republican lawmakers, including some who have disputed climate science for years, are not only now acknowledging global warming but also putting forward climate policies. But some worry that their colleagues are simply shifting to climate action because they have been spooked by the popularity of the Green New Deal."If you are planning on running against the Green New Deal, it seems sort of odd to play footsie with key elements of the Green New Deal," said Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna, who was on President Trump’s Energy Department transition team.In March, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) proposed a "Green Real Deal" resolution that acknowledges the reality of climate change and the threat it poses to national security, and seeks to use innovation to combat global warming. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) called for a bipartisan "New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy" that would increase the share of renewables on the energy grid, boost nuclear power and encourage electric car production.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">"Congressman Gaetz and others are going to do what they think is best, but the idea that Republicans are going to outcompete with Democrats with respect to who can have the best government-based solution to anything is ridiculous and profoundly unserious," McKenna said.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">While modest in comparison with the ideas put forward by Democrats — none of the Republican proposals would restrict fossil fuel use, for example — such plans have angered groups allied with the GOP for years.The Competitive Enterprise Institute and other groups opposed to regulations want to increase political pressure on Republicans who are proposing climate action to "educate them and thereby bring them back into line," said Myron Ebell, director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment and head of the Trump EPA transition team.Ebell said he is particularly concerned that there seems to be a push among House leadership to craft climate policy. He accused House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) of misleading others in the party and said some lawmakers, including Reps. Garret Graves (R-La.) and Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), have been misinformed by advocates on the value of clean energy."It’s when conservatives have decided to offer alternatives, they have gotten beat, because in the public’s mind it becomes very difficult to tell the difference between the left’s plan and the right’s plan and then pretty soon they’re compromising it, they’re coming to some sort of middle ground and pretty soon we’ve lost the whole issue," he said.Ebell added: "It’s pretty clear to anybody who looks at it, there is no middle ground."<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">A spokesman for Gaetz said the congressman has discussed "the reality of climate change" with Republican lawmakers as well as with Trump. Gaetz, who once proposed eliminating EPA, is optimistic that more Republicans will eventually form their own plans to address climate change, spokesman Luke Ball said. Gaetz doesn’t view those in the party who reject science as a lost cause because the scientific evidence is now so overwhelming that it will push others to act, his spokesman said."Gaetz is concerned at the lack of support he has received from members of his own party who continue to deny the science of climate change," Ball said. "He believes history will judge harshly those who refuse to acknowledge this issue or take actionable steps to address it."<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">Other GOP lawmakers criticized from the right for climate policy were more reluctant to call out their colleagues.Graves is one of the most visible congressional Republicans when it comes to the issue of global warming. Not only does he serve as the top GOP lawmaker on a new House climate change committee, but Graves has a history of acknowledging the risks of a warmer planet (<a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/article/eenews/1060126765" data-cms-href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/article/eenews/1060126765" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s;">Climatewire</a>, March 11).<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">In a brief Capitol Hill interview, he said he hasn’t encountered noticeable pushback from climate deniers or climate contrarians. But he said he’s still cognizant of the way he must broach the issue with other Republicans.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">"What you have to do is to meet people where they are and sort of use verbiage or words that translate to people the right way," Graves said.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">"You may not be able to go into some Republican circles and say that, ‘Hey, I’ve got this plan on how we’re going to reduce greenhouse gases in the United States and we’re going to convert everything to renewable energy,’" he said.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">But Graves added that the audience could be more receptive "if you come in and start talking about strategies on how we can reduce energy costs by improving efficiency and conservation [or] by bringing new technologies to the table."<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">Nonetheless, conservatives who oppose climate policy plan to escalate their attacks if members of the party don’t back down.The recent 16-page brochure attacked a few lawmakers for being concerned about climate change, labeling Gaetz as "one Republican to fall for the climate-baiting guilt-trip." The pamphlet, which misrepresents and distorts climate science, portrays Republicans as politically victorious when they reject climate policy. It blamed the late Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain’s loss in the 2008 presidential election on his climate policy.Steve Milloy, editor of JunkScience.com and the author of the pamphlet, said it’s a signal to Republicans not to get out of line on climate policy. Democrats have united on the other side, he said, and the GOP should also do the same. He blamed Republican actions on climate change on young staffers who don’t yet understand the party’s position. Milloy said he plans to make sure other lawmakers don’t "drift" and warned he would extend his advocacy beyond pamphlets.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">"People say all kinds of shit, and if they stop saying it, then OK, but if they persist, well, tougher action will be required," he said. "Then it’s going to be ugly."The differences between Gaetz’s plan and the Green New Deal backed by progressive Democrats are mere "window-dressing," wrote James Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, which aims to muddy climate science.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">Taylor has said that Republicans risk alienating their base if they craft climate policy. He said that "weak-minded congressional Republicans" who try to respond to the Green New Deal take away the chance to run against it in the 2020 elections.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">He has written critically of Gaetz in particular and even referred to him as "Matt Gore" in reference to Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president and environmental activist."Gaetz, Alexander, and their small cadre of Republican climate alarmists are seeking to undermine the conservative Republican voter base and Trump on one of his most important policy principles," he wrote. "Their betrayal of Trump and the conservative Republican base will almost certainly and justly come back to haunt them."<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">The fight on the right over climate change isn’t a new one for Alex Flint, who leads the Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative group that supports carbon taxes.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">Earlier this year, Flint criticized climate contrarians for their views and argued that denialism is anathema to conservatism because it ignores the risks of global warming. And "being irresponsible disqualifies anyone from being a true conservative," he wrote at the time (<a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/article/eenews/1060162805" data-cms-href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/article/eenews/1060162805" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; transition: all 0.3s ease-in-out 0s;">Climatewire</a>, April 15).<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">In an interview Thursday, Flint made the case that the rejection of climate science is losing ground with Republicans.<p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px;" georgia="Georgia" regular="Regular" font="font" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" color="color" rgb="rgb">"But we won’t know until after the 2020 elections how rapidly it’s occurring," he said.</div></header></article></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div>=ton on heartland and this pow in mashey 2012
<a href="https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/files/fake.pdf">https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/files/fake.pdf</a>mis-educationZ.2003.05-12 Book Review by Jay LehrNew Book Series Encourages Critical Thinking in Youth“Two free-market policy groups have collaborated to launch a new series ofbooks for young people, under the title Critical Thinking about EnvironmentalIssues.Unlike many environmental books found in schools today, the first three worksin the Critical Thinking series— focusing on global warming, endangeredspecies, and pesticides—offer objective and balanced discussions in a veryreadable format. … Jane Shaw’s brief treatise on global warming is excellentbecause it gathers all the existing evidence for and against global warming andevaluates it fairly. ... She exposes the failings of reports issued by the UnitedNations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ... and quotes thewealth of real scientific evidence produced by senior climate scientists SallyBaliunas, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and Robert Balling,to name a few.”...<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Z.2008.08-1 James M. Taylor</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Hansen Says GW Skeptics Should Be Tried</div><div style="">“NASA astronomer James Hansen, one of the most visible and vocal proponents</div><div style="">of alarmist global warming theory, has called for criminal trials against</div><div style="">scientists, corporate executives, and public policy advocates who disagree with</div><div style="">him.”</div><div style="">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Hansen is not an astronomer, but a world-class climate scientist and Taylor</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">distorted his comments. Try The Guardian instead:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">867</div><div style="">“James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for</div><div style="">the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high</div><div style="">crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt</div><div style="">about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links</div><div style="">between smoking and cancer.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Hansen’s complaint was not that they disagree with him, but that they</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">purposefully obscured mainstream climate science and knew they were</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">doing that, exactly like the tobacco executives obscured medical science.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Where’s the Warming? Hansen’s global warming alarmism has been further</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">undermined by real-world temperature data, measured by NASA satellites,</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">showing essentially no warming in the 20 years since his initial testimony.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) 868, published the</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">accompanying chart of the Earth’s temperature, measured by NASA.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Just as Ronald Rychlak wrote in Z.2008.05-2, graphs can be used to</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">mislead the unwary. He just accused the wrong people. The following</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">graph, labeled by D’Aleo:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Global satellite (microwave sounder unit) temperature data, compiled by the</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">University of Alabama at Huntsville, show that 20 years after</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">NASA scientist James Hansen’s first testimony about global warming, global</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">temperatures are half a degree F cooler.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is yet another variant of §Y.1. D’Aleo uses only the 2 circled points.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is incompetence, at best. It takes 15 minutes to download the data</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">into Excel and generate the graph with trend line.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">866  heartland.org/sites/default/files/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/fil</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">es/pdfs/23566.pdf</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">867 www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">868 MAS2010 p.70, 98. Yet another front group, with some of the usual people.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...</div>
<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you</a>/?sh=54203b8253a5
no lnx
Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock YouJames Taylor Former ContributorI am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation.Feb 9, 2015,This article is more than 7 years old.Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make. Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook.
Alarmist Assertion #1“Bats Drop from the Sky – In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.”
The FactsGlobal warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source – wind power – kills nearly 1 million bats every year (to say nothing of the more than 500,000 birds killed every year) in the United States alone. This appalling death toll occurs every year even while wind power produces just 3% of U.S. electricity. Ramping up wind power to 10, 20, or 30% of U.S. electricity production would likely increase annual bat kills to 10-to-30 million every year. Killing 30 million bats every year in response to dubious claims that global warming might once in a great while kill 100,000 bats makes no sense.Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that global warming caused the summer heat wave in a notoriously hot desert near the equator.  To the contrary, climate change theory and objective data show our recent global warming is occurring primarily in the winter, toward the poles, and at night.Australia’s highest recorded temperature occurred more than half a century ago, and only two of Australia’s seven states have set their all-time temperature record during the past 40 years. Indeed, Queensland’s 2014 heat wave paled in comparison to the 1972 heat wave that occurred 42 years of global warming ago. If global warming caused the 2014 Queensland heat wave, why wasn’t it as severe as the 1972 Queensland heat wave? Blaming every single summer heat wave or extreme weather event on global warming is a stale and discredited tactic in the alarmist playbook. Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earth’s recent modest warming.Alarmist Assertion #2“Lyme Disease Spreads” – Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.”The FactsLyme Disease is much more common in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions. Asserting, without any supporting data or evidence, that a disease that prospers in cool climates will become more prevalent as a result of global warming defies objective data and common sense. Moreover, a team of scientists extensively researched Lyme Disease climate and habitat and reported in the peer-reviewed science journal EcoHealth, “the only environmental variable consistently association with increased [Lyme Disease] risk and incidence was the presence of forests.”Granted, alarmists can argue that forests are thriving under global warming, with the result that forest-dwelling ticks will also benefit. However, expanding forests are universally – and properly – viewed as environmentally beneficial. Alarmist attempts to frame thriving forests as harmful perfectly illustrate the alarmists’ proclivity to claim anything and everything – no matter how beneficial – is severely harmful and caused by global warming.Moreover, even if global warming expanded Lyme Disease range, one must look at the totality of global warming’s impact on the range of viruses and diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports Lyme Disease “is rare as a cause of death in the United States.” According to the CDC, Lyme Disease is a contributing factor to less than 25 deaths per year in the United States. Indeed, during a recent five-year span examined by the CDC, “only 1 [death] record was consistent with clinical manifestations of Lyme Disease.” Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme Disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans who are killed by the flu each year. The U.S. National Institutes of Health have documented how influenza is aided and abetted by cold climate. Any attempt to connect a warmer climate to an increase in Lyme Disease must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of a warmer climate’s propensity to reduce influenza incidence and mortality. The net impact of a warmer climate on viruses and diseases such as Lyme Disease and influenza is substantially beneficial and life-saving.
Alarmist Assertion #3“National Security Threatened – The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.”
The FactsThe alarmists’ asserted national security threat depends on assertions that (1) global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and (2) migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict. Objective facts refute both assertions.Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and adding more of it to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Longer growing seasons and fewer frost events also benefit plant growth and crop production. As this column has repeatedly documented (see articles here, here, and here, for example), global crops set new production records virtually every year as our planet modestly warms. If crop shortages cause national security threats and global warming increases crop production, then global warming benefits rather than jeopardizes national security.The same holds true for water supplies. Objective data show there has been a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture as our planet warms. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental land masses. The result of this enhanced precipitation is an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank. If declining precipitation and declining soil moisture are military threat multipliers, than global warming is creating a safer, more peaceful world.
Alarmist Assertion #4“Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.”
The FactsThe pace of sea level rise remained relatively constant throughout the 20th century, even as global temperatures gradually rose. There has similarly been no increase in the pace of sea level rise in recent decades. Utilizing 20th century technologies, humans effectively adapted to global sea level rise. Utilizing 21st century technologies, humans will be even better equipped to adapt to global sea level rise.
Also, the alarmist assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago.
Alarmist Assertion #5“Allergies Worsen – Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.”
The FactsPollen is a product and mechanism of plant reproduction and growth. As such, pollen counts will rise and fall along with plant health and vegetation intensity. Any increase in pollen will be the result of a greener biosphere with more plant growth.  Similar to the alarmist argument, discussed above, that expanding forests will create more habitat for the ticks that spread Lyme Disease, alarmists here are taking overwhelmingly good news about global warming improving plant health and making it seem like this good news is actually bad news because healthier plants mean more pollen.
Indeed, NASA satellite instruments have documented a spectacular greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions. For people experiencing an increase in vegetation in previously barren regions, this greening of the Earth is welcome and wonderful news. For global warming alarmists, however, a greener biosphere is terrible news and something to be opposed. This, in a nutshell, defines the opposing sides in the global warming debate. Global warming alarmists claim a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is horrible and justifies massive, economy-destroying energy restrictions. Global warming realists understand that a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is not a horrible thing simply because humans may have had some role in creating it.
Alarmist Assertion #6“Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests – Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.”The FactsAlarmists claim warmer winters are causing an increase in pine beetle populations. This assertion is thoroughly debunked by objective, real-world data.As an initial matter, alarmists have responded to recent bitterly cold winters by claiming global warming is causing colder winters. One cannot claim global warming is causing colder winters and then turn around and simultaneously claim global warming is causing warmer winters. Global warming activists’ propensity for doing so shows just how little value they place in a truthful debate.
Objective scientific data verify winters are getting colder, which counters the key prerequisite to EDF’s pine beetle claim. NOAA temperature data show winter temperatures in the United States have been getting colder for at least the past two decades. Pine beetles cannot be taking advantage of warmer winters if winters are in fact getting colder. Moreover, recent U.S. Forest Service data show pine beetle infestations have recently declined dramatically throughout the western United States.
Forests and plant life are expanding globally, and particularly in the western United States. Pine beetles are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Expanding pine forests can support more beetles. The predictable increase in pine beetles is largely a product of, rather than a foil against, expanding pine forests. One can hardly argue that western pine forests are “destroying iconic Western forests” when western forests are becoming denser and more prevalent as the planet warms.
Also, beetles have bored through North American forests for millennia, long before people built coal-fired power plants and drove SUVs. Beetles are not dependent on warm winters, as evidenced by their historic prevalence in places such as Alaska.
Finally, pine beetles tend to target dead, unhealthy, more vulnerable pine trees rather than healthy trees. Decades of over-aggressive fire suppression policies have caused an unnatural buildup of older, denser, more vulnerable pine forests. These conditions predictably aid pine beetles.
Alarmist Assertion #7“Canada: The New America – ‘Lusher’ vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.”
The FactsOnly global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life is a bad thing. Playing on a general tendency for people to fear change, EDF and global warming alarmists argue that changes in the biosphere that make it richer, lusher, and more conducive to life are changes to be feared and opposed. If barren ecosystems constitute an ideal planet, then the alarmist fears of more plant life make sense. On the contrary, global warming realists understand a climate more conducive to richer, more abundant plant life is beneficial rather than harmful.
Alarmist Assertion #8“Economic Consequences – The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease”
The FactsSevere storms, floods and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events – and their resulting costs – are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms. Accordingly, EDF’s asserted economic costs are actually economic benefits.
As documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and here at Forbes.com, severe storms are becoming less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms. This is especially evident regarding hurricane and tornado activity, which are both at historic lows. Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams. Any increase in flooding activity is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes.
Also, the modest recent warming is producing U.S. and global crop production records virtually every year, creating billions of dollars in new economic and human welfare benefits each and every year. This creates a net economic benefit completely ignored by EDF.
Regarding “the spread of disease,” as documented in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” objective evidence shows global warming will thwart deadly outbreaks of influenza and other cold-dependent viruses.
Additionally, the alarmists’ desired means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions – more expensive energy sources – make economic conditions even worse. Forcing the American economy to operate on expensive and unreliable wind and solar power will have tremendous negative economic consequences. President Obama acknowledged this fact when he promised that under his global warming plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The economic consequences of Obama’s global warming policies can already be seen in electricity prices, which are currently the highest in U.S. history.  Remarkably, Obama’s global warming policies are increasing electricity prices even while new natural gas discoveries, revolutionary advances in natural gas production technologies, and a dramatic resultant decline in natural gas prices would otherwise spur a dramatic decline in electricity prices.
Alarmist Assertion #9“Infectious Diseases Thrive – The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.”
The FactsOutbreaks of “new or resurgent diseases” are occurring precisely because governments have caved in to environmental activist groups like EDF and implemented their anti-science agendas. For example, DDT had all but eliminated malaria in the United States and on the global stage during the mid-20th century. However, environmental activists championed false environmental accusations against DDT and dramatically reduced use of the life-saving mosquito killer throughout much of the world.  As a result, malaria has reemerged with a vengeance and millions of people die every year as a result.Also, as documented above in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” global warming will reduce the impact and death toll of cold-related viruses such as influenza. In the United States alone, influenza kills 36,000 people every year, which dwarfs all heat-dependent viruses and diseases combined. Few people other than global warming alarmists would argue that it is better to have 36,000 people die each year from influenza than have a few people die each year from Lyme Disease (which, as documented above, isn’t even related to global warming).
Alarmist Assertion #10“Shrinking Glaciers – In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.”
The FactsCalling attention to anecdotal incidents of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet, while deliberately ignoring the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet, is a misleading and favorite tactic of global warming alarmists. Icebergs break off the Antarctic ice sheet every year, with or without global warming, particularly in the Antarctic summer. However, a particular iceberg – no matter how large – breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet does not necessarily result in “Shrinking Glaciers” as EDF alleges. To the contrary, the Antarctic Ice Sheet has been growing at a steady and substantial pace ever since NASA satellites first began measuring the Antarctic ice sheet in 1979. Indeed, during the same year that the EDF claims “an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago” broke off the Antarctic ice sheet and caused “Shrinking Glaciers,” the Antarctic ice sheet repeatedly set new records for its largest extent in recorded history. Those 2013 records were repeatedly broken again in 2014. The Antarctic ice sheet in 2013 and 2014 was more extensive than any time in recorded history, and yet the EDF pushes the lie that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is shrinking.The EDF’s assertion about Glacier National Park is also misleading. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park and elsewhere have been receding for over 300 years, since the Earth’s temperature bottomed out during the depths of the Little Ice Age. The warming of the past 300 years and the resulting recession of alpine glaciers predated humans building coal-fired power plants and driving SUVs. Moreover, opening up more of the Earth’s surface to vegetation and plant and animal life would normally be considered a beneficial change, if global warming alarmists had not so thoroughly politicized the global warming discussion.There you have it. These are the 10 best arguments global warming activists like EDF can make, along with the objective scientific facts that prove them wrong.No wonder global warming alarmists are so terrified of people having access to both sides of the debate.
James TaylorI am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I... Read More<div>
</div>=omg BS: note murdoch aussi BS// met office bs?IPCC chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri is pictured next to an unidentified Arab official during a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">struggling to keep a discredited global warming crisis afloat, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chair Raj Pachauri this week denied the well-documented plateau in temperatures during the past 15-plus years. Pachauri’s denialism contradicted his own admission earlier this year that there has been a 17-year plateau in global temperatures.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The IPCC is in full damage-control mode after it leaked advance copies of an upcoming Summary for Policymakers to what it assumed would be friendly journalists. The journalists, however, quickly realized the IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained several embarrassing walk-backs from alarmist statements in prior IPCC reports.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Two of the most embarrassing aspects of the Summary for Policymakers are (1) IPCC’s admission that global warming has occurred much slower than IPCC previously forecast and (2) IPCC is unable to explain the ongoing plateau in global temperatures. IPCC computer models have predicted twice as much warming as has occurred in the real world, and virtually none of the IPCC computer models can replicate or account for the recent lack of global warming.Rather than acknowledge that perhaps IPCC overshot its predictions in past reports, Pachauri doubled down on denialism, claiming there has been no slowdown in the pace of global warming.“I don’t think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase),” Pachauri <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">told BBC News Monday</a><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">.  Pachauri’s astonishing denialism not only undercuts IPCC credibility, it also contradicts his own words earlier this year in an interview with the <span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Australian. “The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises,” the Australian’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Graham Lloyd reported</a> in February after interviewing Pachauri.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">While Pachauri and the IPCC bureaucracy double down on denial, some IPCC scientists are acknowledging the scientific truth. IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch, a climate scientist and professor at the Meteorological Institute at the University of Hamburg, acknowledged the ongoing temperature plateau in a June interview with der <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Spiegel.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch told der Spiegel in a <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">June 2013 interview</a>. Storch said the IPCC will have tone down its climate models unless warming quickly and rapidly accelerates ”According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Storch told der Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”“At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase,” Storch explained.A cynic may point out that presenting objective scientific evidence was never the goal of the IPCC and global warming alarmists. Instead, it can be correctly noted, the goal is to scare people into implementing the energy restrictions and wealth redistribution prescribed as a cure for the mythical global warming crisis. As prominent global warming scientist/activist<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/21/stephen-schneider-and-the-%E2%80%9Cdouble-ethical-bind%E2%80%9D-of-climate-change-communication/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"> Steven Schneider advised</a>:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 25px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; quotes: none; position: relative; z-index: 0; left: 25px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“We’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”</blockquote>For IPCC chair Raj Pachauri, there is no balance. There is merely denialist propaganda that he hopes will blind people to the fact that global warming has, at a bare minimum, slowed down dramatically during recent years.The problem for Pachauri and the IPCC is the IPCC’s own scientists, such as Hans von Storch, directly contradict Pachauri’s denialism. And it is not just scientists pointing out Pachaui’s denialism. Even the IPCC’s reliably sympathetic media allies are unwilling to run with Pachauri’s whopper about no recent slowdown in global warming. For example, here are a few recent headlines from some of the most alarmist-friendly media outlets in the world:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">“Researching global warming’s pause,” reads a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24184337" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">BBC News headline</a>.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">“A cooler Pacific may be behind recent pause in global warming,” reads a <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216415005/a-cooler-pacific-may-be-behind-recent-pause-in-global-warming" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">National Public Radio headline</a>.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">“Why has global warming paused?” asks a <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0828/Why-has-global-warming-paused-Pacific-Ocean-s-engine-room-running-cool.-video" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Christian Science Monitor headline</a>. “What to make of a climate-change plateau,” reads a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">New York Times headline</a>.“Global warming has ‘paused’ because of natural causes but will continue to rise, scientists claim,” reads a UK<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2374777/Global-warming-paused-natural-causes-continue-rise-warn-scientists.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"> Daily Mail headline</a>.To be sure, these reliably activist media outlets are not abandoning their catastrophic global warming agenda, but even they are forced to acknowledge what objective scientific evidence shows and what IPCC chair Raj Pachauri denies; global temperatures have plateaued for more than a decade and there has been, at a bare minimum, a pronounced recent slowdown in global warming.Raj Pachauri and the IPCC are falling into the same trap that discredited Al Gore. Exaggerating the pace and impacts of global warming may provide some short-term propaganda value, but these tall tales will ultimately backfire. People are not stupid. Al Gore may have brought belief in a global warming crisis to new heights following his Hollywood movie production An Inconvenient Truth, but it took an informed public mere months to discover Al Gore and his global warming whoppers were nothing more than the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5IgatESU9A" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">latest incarnation of Joe Isuzu</a>. Raj Pachauri and the IPCC are foolishly drag racing down the same deceptive path. One cannot watch this propaganda train wreck unfold without expectations that Pachauri will soon offer a mini-pony with every copy of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2cKjoXt6Sg&feature=youtu.be" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">IPCC’s newest report</a>.IPCC chair Raj Pachauri may want us to deny objective scientific facts, but the IPCC’s own scientists, the general public and even Pachauri’s reliable media allies know better.<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/</a>=<p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">It’s fascinating when you catch the start of a new bogus claim enter the denialsphere, bounce from site to site, and echo about without any evidence of critical analysis or intelligence on the part of the denialists. A good example of this was an article by Heartland Institute’s contributor to Forbes, James Taylor, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">falsely claiming only a minority of scientists endorse the IPCC position on the causes of global warming</a>. This new nonsense meme gets repeated by <a href="http://junkscience.com/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">crank extraordinaire Steve Milloy</a>, bounces the next day to <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/19708/PeerReviewed-Survey-Finds-Majority-Of-Scientists-Skeptical-Of-Global-Warming-Crisis" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">Morano’s denialist aggregation site</a>, and before long I’m sure we’ll be seeing it on Watt’s site, Fox news, and in a couple more weeks, in an argument with our conservative uncles.The claim is, of course, a deception (or possibly total incompetence) on the part of Heartland’s “senior fellow for environment policy” (I wonder if there is significance to the use of “environment” as opposed to “environmental”). Linking <a href="http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">this paper</a> in the journal Organization studies, Taylor makes a false claim that a mere 36% of scientists, when surveyed, hold the consensus view. Anyone want to guess at the deception? Cherry-picking! It was a survey of largely industry engineers and geoloscientists in Alberta, home of the tar sands. In the study authors’ words:<blockquote style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px;">To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.</blockquote>This is pretty classic denialist cherry-picking and and is one of the most common deceptive practices of denialists like Taylor. By suggesting a survey of industry geoscientists can be generalized to scientists as whole, Taylor has demonstrated the intellectual dishonesty inherent in denialist argumentation. You might as well make claims about the consensus that tobacco causes lung cancer by surveying scientists in the Altria corporation headquarters.The paper is actually quite interesting, and I’m glad I read it, as it is consistent with our thesis that ideological conflicts result in refusal to accept science that contradicts one’s overvalued ideas or personal interests. The authors surveyed a professional association of geoscientists in Alberta Canada (APEGGA), most of whom are working for the petroleum industry, and then performed a detailed analysis of their free-text responses on why they accept or reject climate science. What they found was there are 5 general “frames” used by respondents that their answers conformed to. The most common response was that global warming is real, and we need to act with regulation to address the problem (at 36%, the number quoted by Taylor to suggest there is no consensus), another 5% expressed doubt at the cause but agreed green house gases needed to be regulated. The second most common responses were “it’s nature” or “it’s a eco-regulatory conspiracy” and these responses showed a great deal of hostility in language towards environmentalism, proponents of global warming, liberalism etc. These came in at about 34% of responses and were more common from older white males in the higher tiers of the oil industry corporate structure. The most common remaining frame was a “fatalist” frame (17%) which could take or leave the science because hey, we’re screwed no matter what we do.The authors weren’t attempting to validate the consensus with this study, but rather were trying to understand how scientists working in industry justify their position on global warming, as they often reject the consensus view of climate science. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">When a true cross-section of climate scientists is sampled</a>, agreement with consensus is found among about 90% of scientists and 97% of those publishing in the field. A more appropriate summary of what these authors showed was that oil industry geoscientists and engineers most frequently express a view consistent with the consensus IPCC view and a need for regulation of green house gases. A similar but slightly smaller number express hostility to the consensus view and about half as many as that think we’re screwed no matter what we do.It all would have been short-circuited if Forbes had exercised any kind of appropriate editorial control over this crank James Taylor. Or, if the echo chamber had read some of the comments on the initial post before rebroadcasting a false claim far and wide, but then, that would require intellectual honesty and a desire to promote factual information. Does Forbes have any interest that one of their bloggers is misrepresenting the literature in this way? Is this acceptable practice among their contributors? Is this the kind of publication they wish to be?Finally, I see the authors of the paper (who I alerted to the Forbes article’s presence – they clearly were not contacted by Taylor for comment) have response. From their <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1363-1219-5279" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">comment</a>:<blockquote style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px;">First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.</blockquote>Incompetence or deception by Taylor? You tell me. Either way, this is the kind of shoddy, non-academic discourse we get from bogus ideological think tanks like Heartland. They should be embarrassed.Article Cited:
<a href="http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change Organization Studies November 2012 33: 1477-1506, doi:10.1177/0170840612463317</a>
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/15/denialism-from-forbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/===

extensive blog eg <a href="http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/warren-buffett-confirms-insurance-industry-profits-from-global-warming-alarmism.html">http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/warren-buffett-confirms-insurance-industry-profits-from-global-warming-alarmism.html</a>

=Escalator:I saw news of a ridiculous sort this morning when scanning the headlines. The whole mountain of science concluding that climate change was happening and was a great concern for humanity got a hole blown through it due to findings from a new study. Of course, this is far, far, far, far from the case. But, unfortunately, due to an all-too-commonly copied trail of disinformation, thousands upon thousands of people probably think so now. It is a disgrace that this sort of thing can happen in a supposedly “advanced” society. First off, the trail:–> A widely discredited climate scientist [spencer] who is trying to be a maverick and prove that he’s a genius and 97% of top climate scientists are wrong (and who seems to have some beef with his former bosses at NASA) publishes a deeply flawed study in an obscure online journal (using models that have been picked apart and thrown in the trash by respectable scientists previously).–> A blogger from a conservative, global-warming-denial, fossil-fuel-funded think tank [james taylor] gets Forbes (owned by the now quite infamous Rupert Murdoch) to publish his interpretation of this study and its implications (as if Forbes hasn’t published enough climate nonsense over the years).–> More mainstream news outlets (and hordes upon hordes of uninformed deniers) who think Forbes and the Heartland Institute are reputable sources publish stories on the matter as well, adding their own bit of extremism to catch people’s eyes (they know how much people love a good controversy, even if it’s based in nothing more than Jerry Springer style theatrics).–> The population becomes that much more confused about the completely concerning threat of climate change… and the results will speak for themselves if more people who are informed don’t speak up.Anyway, Brad Johnson & Dr. Joe Romm of Think Progress wrote good pieces on this story today which I’ll just go ahead and re-print in full below. Everything from here on is from them:=taking the lead on climate bs at forbes (note labelled opinion to prevent suit, a la NRO?)kerry // BO  http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/20732.pdf  gwerman study prove sci doubt?
eg<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">President Barack Obama demeaned the dignity of the presidency by ridiculing tens of thousands of scientists for simply disagreeing with his lay opinions on global warming. While the political left throws shrill temper tantrums against anybody who “disrespects” the Office of the Presidency by asking Barack Obama a challenging question (something they had no qualms about during the Bush administration), Obama himself is setting the applicable ground rules for disrespectful political discourse and <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2014/05/22/the-mccarthyism-in-climate-science/" target="blank" class="exit_trigger_set" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">climate McCarthyism</a>.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">At a commencement address Saturday at the University of California, Irvine, Obama encouraged students to heap scorn on Ph.D. scientists at some of the world’s most prestigious universities and scientific research institutions if they disagree with Obama’s global warming policies.“When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it,”<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/obama-calling-grads-fight-climate-change-24137437" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Obama said</a>. “But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anyone saying the moon wasn’t there, or that it was made of cheese.”President Obama is correct that no Ph.D. scientists – and likely no sane individuals – seriously argued that the moon was made of cheese or was merely an illusion. Does that analogy apply to the global warming debate?<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Distinguished professors and scientific researchers on the staffs of Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc., have published research and publicly expressed their findings that humans are not creating a global warming crisis. More than 30,000 scientists, including more than 16,000 with post-graduate science degrees and more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, <a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">have taken the affirmative step of signing a petition</a><a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"> summarizing such science</a>. Almost certainly, tens of thousands more – and likely hundreds of thousands more – similarly agree but are unaware of the petition or haven’t taken the affirmative step to read it, review it, and submit their signatures.<div id="article_container_0_loge" class="loge_ad ad_initialized article_body_ad" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 10px 0px 30px 30px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; float: right; clear: right; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div id="google_ads_iframe/7175/fdc.forbes/article-new_4container" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0pt none; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">As host of the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change, which I host approximately once per year, I routinely have to turn away dozens upon dozens of highly qualified university science professors who have heard of the conference and hope to secure a speaking slot. With a limitless budget and time schedule, I could easily have hundreds of university science professors and thousands more professional scientists give presentations calling attention to the flaws in President Obama’s global warming alarmism.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Indeed, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/" target="blank" class="exit_trigger_set" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">multiple</a> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/" target="blank" class="exit_trigger_set" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">surveys</a> of professional meteorologists and <a href="http://heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-consensus-global-warming" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">climate scientists</a> reveal that if a consensus on the issue exists at all, it is that whatever global warming is occurring is of mixed natural and human causation and does not justify the economy-killing prescriptions championed by self-serving politicians like Barack Obama.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">To the limited extent global warming alarmists publicly debate the issue, their track record for success is about the same as that of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_table_of_the_FIFA_World_Cup" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">China at soccer’s World Cup</a>. For those who are skeptical, take a look at how one the global warming movement’s most visible advocates, Gavin Schmidt, fared the one time he participated in a public debate. After getting <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/28/the-global-warming-debate-produces-an-indisputable-winner/" target="blank" class="exit_trigger_set" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">beaten so soundly</a> that <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">even he admitted</a> it was a mistake to debate other scientists on the issue (and blamed his loss on one of his opponents being taller than him), is it any wonder he and his fellow alarmists avoid public debates the way <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012102670.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">John Edwards avoids National Enquirer reporters</a>? Perhaps forgetting how badly Schmidt fared in his one-time debate, a Florida State University faculty member who was trained by Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project agreed to publicly debate me on the topic and fared just as miserably. <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/12/finally-one-of-gores-trained-presenters-debates-a-climate-skeptic/" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Here is video of the debate</a> that climate alarmists claim “is over.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">This brings us back to Obama’s attempt to vilify and ridicule scientists who disagree with his lay scientific conjecture. Perhaps it is true that ridicule and vilification are common, if regrettable, aspects of contemporary politics. Most Americans would hope that the President of the United States would not demean the office by engaging in such mean-spirited and sophomoric behavior, but we have also come to realize that politicians will be politicians, no matter how much power they have attained. But this isn’t about one ambitious politician smearing another ambitious politician. This is about the President of the United States – a non-scientist – making a grossly dishonest mischaracterization and analogy at the expense of expert scientists and then encouraging our nation’s best and brightest to shout down those scientists utilizing further dishonesty and McCarthyism to further political agendas. And the moment somebody questions the President about such reprehensible conduct – no matter how calmly the question is asked – the political left goes into conniptions about how appalling and reprehensible it is to disrespect the Office of the President of the United States in such a manner.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Sorry, Barack, but you have only yourself to blame for so pitifully demeaning the Office of the President.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">see related<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/05/18/nas-climate-panel-fails-the-laugh-test/"> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/05/18/nas-climate-panel-fails-the-laugh-test/</a>==

It occurred last June between two groups of conservatives.

On the do-nothing side were well-known climate-science deniers, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/19/1608431/heartlands-james-taylor-falsely-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: underline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">James Taylor</a> of Heartland and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/11/174912/heritage-peri-epa/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: underline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">David Kreutzer</a> of Heritage Foundation. On the other side was R Street senior fellow Andrew Moylan along with former 6-term GOP congressman <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/05/2252491/bob-inglis-conservatives-have-a-climate-solution/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: underline;">Bob Inglis</a> (SC). Inglis leads the<a href="http://energyandenterprise.com/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: underline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Energy and Enterprise Initiative</a> (E&EI), an organization dedicated to finding a conservative approach to climate change built around a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Here is the interesting part. The debate was in front of a largely conservative audience, and yet:

At the conclusion of the debate, a straw poll was taken and approximately 80% of the audience indicated they favored taxing carbon emissions in return for a dollar-for-dollar tax swap on something else (FICA taxes, corporate income taxes, etc.).

</blockquote>

<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.4em 0px; border: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So in an actual debate for conservatives and by conservatives, the winner by far was serious climate action. Here is a video story on the debate, courtesy of the Showtime TV series —<a href="http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: underline;">tonight’s episode</a> features Taylor and his work with ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) to kill windpower, as well as a story on methane leaks:

<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/19/3439162/bob-inglis-debate-carbon-tax/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/19/3439162/bob-inglis-debate-carbon-tax/</a>

</div>

<div>

<h2 style="margin-bottom: 0px; background-color: transparent;">Author bio: BS</h2>

James M. Taylor is managing editor of <a href="http://news.heartland.org/energy-and-environment" target="_blank" style="">Environment & Climate News</a>, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism. He is also senior fellow for The Heartland Institute, focusing on energy and environment issues.

Taylor writes a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/" target="_blank" style="">weekly column for Forbes</a> which appears on the magazine's Forbes.com website.

Taylor has presented energy and environment analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Channel, MSNBC, PBS News Hour, PBS Frontline, CBS Evening News, ABC World News and other TV and radio outlets across the country. Taylor has also been published in virtually every major newspaper in the country.

He has been a featured presenter at conferences sponsored by such groups as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National Foundation of Women Legislators, the State Policy Network (SPN), CPAC, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the European Institute for Climate and Energy. Video of Taylor's presentation at The Heartland Institute's Eighth International Conference on Climate Change can be found <a href="http://climateconferences.heartland.org/james-m-taylor-iccc8/" target="_blank" style="">here</a>.

Taylor received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. He received his Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University. He is the host of the "Inside Florida Politics" show on WGUL, a Salem Radio station in the Tampa market, and also maintains <a href="http://www.jamestaylorpolicy.com/" target="_blank" style="">a personal Web site</a>.

</div>

<h2 style="background-color: transparent;">Credentials</h2>

<ul>

<li style="background-color: transparent;">B.A. from Dartmouth College.in?</li>

<li>J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law where he was president of the local chapter of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federalist_Society_for_Law_and_Public_Policy_Studies">the Federalist Society</a> and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice.</li>

</ul>

<h2 style="background-color: transparent;">Background </h2>

James Taylor is a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute, and is the managing editor of the Heartland Institute's publication <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environment_%26_Climate_News">Environment & Climate News</a>.

Taylor previously served as a legal analyst for Defenders of Property Rights. He has been an intern at the Cato Institute, and a member of the Federalist Society.

He previously served as managing editor of CCH Incorporated's disability law publications. Prior to that he was a legal analyst for Defenders of Property Rights.

<h2 style="background-color: transparent;">Stance on Climate Change </h2>

<ul>

<li>"The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years."</li>

</ul>

Source: "<a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/">Ten Years And Counting: Where’s The Global Warming?</a>" June 8, 2011. Forbes.

<h2 style="background-color: transparent;">Key Quotes </h2>

<li>"Without a doubt, the warming of the past 100 years has been a welcome respite from a long and deadly Little Ice Age. The possibility that humans may have contributed to the recent warming does not make it any less welcome."</li>

</ul>

Source: "<a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/06/15/the-black-death-longing-for-the-good-old-days/">The Black Death: Longing For The Good Old Days</a>." June 15, 2011. Forbes.

<h2 style="background-color: transparent;">Key Deeds </h2>

June, 2011

<a href="http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/">Registered speaker</a> at the <a href="http://climateconference.heartland.org/">Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change</a>.

May 2010

<a href="http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/speakers.html" style="background-color: transparent;">Spoke</a> at the Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change.<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/" style="background-color: transparent;"> Fox News reported on the conference</a>, describing how Taylor supposedly proved that "global cooling is already happening" because "This past 'decade set a record for largest average global snow extent'."

<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php">Deltoid subsequently debunked Taylor's claim</a>, showing how he had misrepresented the data from <a href="http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=4">Rutgers University Global Snow Lab</a> on whcih he had made his assertion.

March 2009

<a href="http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html">Spoke</a> at the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/denial-a-palooza-4th-international-conference-climate-change-heartland">Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.</a>

March 4, 2008

<a href="http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-audio.html">Spoke</a> at the Heartland Institute's<a href="http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/index.html"> Second International Conference on Climate Change</a>.

<h2 style="background-color: transparent;">Affiliations </h2>

<li>Heartland Institute - Heartland <a href="http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/profile.html?profile=D48A01A1EBE050FE3B85E4D47FFD65E7&directory=3B532E2483EE9165FD810C4DF38DBAEA">Senior Fellow and managing editor of Environment & Climate News</a>.</li>

</ul>

<h2 style="background-color: transparent;">Publications</h2>

<li>"What Climate Scientists Think about Global Warming". Heartland Institute, 2007. </li>

<li>"State Greenhouse Gas Programs: An Economic and Scientific Analysis" (co-author). 2003. Heartland Institute. </li>

<li>"New Source Review: An Evaluation of EPA's Reform Recommendations." 2002. The Heartland Institute. </li>

<li>Has a weekly column titled "<a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/">Endpoint Analysis</a>" at Forbes.com. </li>

</ul>

Source: "<a href="http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/profile.html?profile=D48A01A1EBE050FE3B85E4D47FFD65E7&directory=3B532E2483EE9165FD810C4DF38DBAEA">Expert Profile.</a>" The Heartland Institute.

escalator for spencer:

<h2 style="background-color: transparent;"><a href="http://www.greendump.net/planet-save/no-global-warming-climate-scientists-not-in-tatters-after-new-study" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to NO. Global Warming, Climate Scientists NOT in Tatters after New Study.">NO. Global Warming, Climate Scientists NOT in Tatters after New Study.</a></h2>

I saw news of a ridiculous sort this morning when scanning the headlines. The whole mountain of science concluding that climate change was happening and was a great concern for humanity got a hole blown through it due to findings from a new study. Of course, this is far, far, far, far from the case. But, unfortunately, due to an all-too-commonly copied trail of disinformation, thousands upon thousands of people probably think so now. It is a disgrace that this sort of thing can happen in a supposedly “advanced” society. First off, the trail:

–> A widely discredited climate scientist who is trying to be a maverick and prove that he’s a genius and 97% of top climate scientists are wrong (and who seems to have some beef with his former bosses at NASA) publishes a deeply flawed study in an obscure online journal (using models that have been picked apart and thrown in the trash by respectable scientists previously).

–> A blogger from a conservative, global-warming-denial, fossil-fuel-funded think tank gets Forbes (owned by the now quite infamous Rupert Murdoch) to publish his interpretation of this study and its implications (as if Forbes hasn’t published enough climate nonsense over the years).

–> More mainstream news outlets (and hordes upon hordes of uninformed deniers) who think Forbes and the Heartland Institute are reputable sources publish stories on the matter as well, adding their own bit of extremism to catch people’s eyes (they know how much people love a good controversy, even if it’s based in nothing more than Jerry Springer style theatrics).

–> The population becomes that much more confused about the completely concerning threat of climate change… and the results will speak for themselves if more people who are informed don’t speak up.

Anyway, Brad Johnson & Dr. Joe Romm of Think Progress wrote good pieces on this story today which I’ll just go ahead and re-print in full below. Everything from here on is from them:

<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/" style="">by Joe Romm</a>:

Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article.  That ain’t news.  What is news is that the deniers have a couple of new tricks up their sleeves.

First, the disinformers have figured out they should focus on journals that don’t seem to have a very deep understanding of climate science.  In May, it was a paper in a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/16/208108/wegman-scandal-rocks-cornerstone-of-climate-denial/">statistics journal</a>, which was ultimately withdrawn because of “evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process.”  This time it’s <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/">an article</a> in the open-access Remote Sensing co-authored by Spencer.

It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing — committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm">enduring denier myths,</a> that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

It also bears repeating that Spencer <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/%E2%80%9CI%20view%20my%20job%20a%20little%20like%20a%20legislator,%20supported%20by%20the%20taxpayer,%20to%20protect%20the%20interests%20of%20the%20taxpayer%20and%20to%20minimize%20the%20role%20of%20government.%E2%80%9D">wrote this month</a>, “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

That doesn’t mean Spencer’s new paper on remote sensing is wrong, but it means his work on the subject does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, as most climate journals would know.  And it means we should pay attention to serious climate scientists when they explain how Spencer is, once again, pushing denier bunk.

As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:

<li>“<a href="http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html">He’s taken an incorrect model</a>, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.</li>

<li>“It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to <a href="http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html">LiveScience</a>.</li>

<li>NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth (excerpted from below):  “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”</li>

</ol>

As for the second denier trick, well, they got Yahoo News to host a “<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html">news story</a>” on the article — written by James Taylor.  Not the brilliant singer song-writer who wrote, “I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain, I’ve seen sunny days that I thought would never end.”  No, the uber-denier <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/02/01/19290/heartland-climate/">James Taylor</a> whose Heartland Institute wants to bring to America’s heartland too much fire and too much rain — and heat waves that you thought would never end.  Sorry, couldn’t resist.

And so Yahoo enables this headline of denier bunk — “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism” — to spread through the web like so much kudzu.  LiveScience <a href="http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html">noted</a> in its debunking post:

The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it “extremely important.”

</blockquote>

In fact, as Dessler emailed me, Spencer’s “paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times).”  Here are his full comments:

To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon, dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an, imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a, feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface, temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water, vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse, gas, this leads to additional warming.

The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as, the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the, initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a, feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this, argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the, conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they, show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak, until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right., However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between, the model and data proves nothing.

I am working on a paper that will show that, if you look carefully at, the magnitudes of the individual terms of their model, the model is, obviously wrong. In fact, if Spencer were right, then clouds would be, a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to, any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you.

Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-admin/%E2%80%9CI%20view%20my%20job%20a%20little%20like%20a%20legislator,%20supported%20by%20the%20taxpayer,%20to%20protect%20the%20interests%20of%20the%20taxpayer%20and%20to%20minimize%20the%20role%20of%20government.%E2%80%9D">wrote that</a> on his blog).

Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.

</blockquote>

NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt said of the paper’s findings:

“If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime,” Schmidt said. “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.”

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a “gray science.”

</blockquote>

That would be funny if it weren’t tragic.  So the vast paleoclimate literature is “gray science.”  What disclaimer would one stick in front of Spencer’s “science” in the area of remote sensing?  How about “anti-”?  As RealClimate <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/">explained</a>:

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set <a href="http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_browse.html">confirms that the climate is warming </a>, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/">left it to others</a> to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

So after that history, we’re supposed to savor all Roy’s new cookery?

That’s an awful lot to swallow.

</blockquote>

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But it remains hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Spencer lovingly, but to this day dismiss real science no matter how much it has been <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/26/michael-mann-false-and-misleading-claims-wall-street-journal-oversimplify-piece-by-jeffrey-ball-and-keith-johnson/">vindicated</a> and verified by subsequent independent research.

Finally, Kevin Trenberth  of the National Center for Atmospheric Research also commented on the paper in an email.  It’s a bit techie, but  I included for completeness’ sake.

I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much? I have never read that journal.

The main basis for the paper is a figure : Figure 3 which is based on Fig. 2 data. The axis on Fig. 2 is incorrectly labeled. Fig 3 should never have been published because it has no error bars or uncertainty estimates. Significance of results is never addressed, and we do not know whether anything in the figure is significant, but Spencer treats it as if it were. Also we do not know how it was calculated and whether smoothed data (as in Fig. 2) were used or not. Significance also goes down a lot when one goes fishing by including all leads and lags unless there is an a priori reason for those values. One can usually guess the significance by looking at enough leads and lags and the fact that the magnitude of values at -12 months are similar to those at plus 3 months suggests neither are significant. For the models, values are based on 100 years, not 10 years. If instead 10 sets of 10-year model values had been selected then the odds are one would look like the “observed”. i.e. the models are likely more realistic of the true relationship.

In addition, I find the whole discussion to be out of touch with reality. The external radiative forcing of the climate system is mostly well known and comes from the changes in atmospheric composition (greenhouse gases) and the sun spot cycle etc. The part not so well known is the pollution (aerosol), but that is small. Nearly all of the variations in water vapor and clouds, except for those affected by aerosol, are a response to the weather and climate variations; they are NOT a forcing. This is a major error that continues in Spencer’s work.

The model is totally unrealistic and it does not have such things as El Nino or a hydrological cycle. It is known that the major variations in this period are associated with El Nino, as we have discussed in our rebuttal of Lindzen’s work:

Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O’Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Ltt., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314. [<a href="http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFOW_LC_GRL2010_GL042314.pdf">PDF</a>]

The ocean heat content and its variations are very important, and moreover are not that well connected to sea surface temperature. Large leads and lags are known to occur. The parameters of Spencer’s model are selected by assuming the answer to get the best fit, and do not take any ocean dynamics into account at all. In short, the model does NOT provide a means of interpreting the data in any shape or form.

</blockquote>

<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/07/29/282656/climate-scientists-blow-gaping-hole-in-nasa-data-paper-by-ideologue-roy-spencer/" style="">by Brad Johnson</a>:

The climate denier blogosphere is <a href="http://www.memeorandum.com/110728/p59">going mad</a> over a new paper that supposedly “should dramatically alter the global warming debate” by showing that “far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted.” The <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf">paper</a>, written by conservative climate scientist Roy Spencer and his University of Alabama colleague William Braswell, finds that “satellite observations and climate models display markedly different behaviors” and posits, with caveats, that there may be “lower climate sensitivity of the real climate system.” As LiveScience’s Stephanie Pappas writes, the paper then was <a href="http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html">promoted by a Heartland Institute blogger</a> on the Forbes.com website:...

</div>

http://www.greendump.net/tag/anti-environmentalism

===

forbes

Global Warmists Might Explain Why No Hurricanes Midway Through 2013 Season

Major hurricane strikes occurred 50 percent more often 50-100 years ago than they have during the past 50 years. read »

Post 1 week ago | 2,452 views

Why Republicans (And Others) Place A Low Priority On Global Warming

The evidence is clear, warmer is better for humans and other animals and for plant life. read »

Post 3 weeks ago | 1,813 views

Global Warming Activist Michael Mann Wages War On Government Transparency

When you spend millions of taxpayer dollars, it’s only fair to account for how the money is spent. read »

Post 1 month ago | 3,842 views

President Obama's Climate Plan Would Kill Hundreds Of Millions Of Birds And Bats

All this, and no detectable change in global temperatures. read »

Post 1 month ago | 12,704 views

Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming

Climate activists deliver a crushing blow to Obama’s climate change narrative. read »

Post 1 month ago | 1,574 views

You Can't Deny Ezra Klein Knows Next To Nothing About The Global Warming Debate

Whether or note we’re still in the Little Ice Age is not for dispute. read »

Post 1 month ago | 4,304 views

Global Warming? No, Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening'

A carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” that has caused a gradual greening of the Earth. read »

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/</a>

link to abstract

Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments

Randall J. Donohue1,*, Michael L. Roderick2,3,4, Tim R. McVicar1, Graham D. Farquhar2

Article first published online: 19 JUN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/grl.50563

2013. American Geophysical Union.

BUT: Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change.

Higher temperatures reduce yields of desirable crops while encouraging weed and pest proliferation.

Increasingly erratic precipitation and drought patterns increase the likelihood of short-run crop failures and long-run production declines.

The overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security.

Only a complete moron will assume that increased CO2 will lead to increased agricultural output.

Post 1 month ago | 3,642 views

HBO's Global Warmed 'Vice': A Classic Case Of Climate Denial

Fortunately, HBO On Demand offers more entertaining fictional programming options. read »

Post 2 months ago | 1,442 views

Conservatives Reach Common Ground On A Carbon Tax, And That's The Problem

About such a tax, conservatives should know better. read »

Post 3 months ago | 20,896 views

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

More evidence showing how embarrassingly feeble the alarmist theory really is. read »

</div></div>