35,000 walruses mass on Alaska beach 'due to climate change'

[Chicog]

A lengthy, if fairly depressing read.

Not to be taken as a scientific paper, but much of it is obvious.

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

The earth has not been warming for 18 years now ... a published scientific fact... The prior warm was just a cyclic norm for the earth as heated by the Sun... the sun gets very active - the earth heats up ... the Suns cycles to being less active - the heating slows down and stops then cycles into a cool period... I can get you the link

Please do.

[pitrevie]

For me, it's simple. How does throwing up billions of tons of greenhouse gases NOT affect the climate?

Well according to that renowned climate expert Michelle Bachmann carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature and therefore it cannot be harmful, that is the sort of logic that is used by the opponents of man made climate change.

[chuckd]

Your ridiculous assertion the Koch's somehow influenced the writing of the walrus article with a "known" donation of $25,000 is laughable.

So because they donate to causes you (and I) consider worthy, it's OK for them to put money into Ms. Crockford ($9,000 a year that we know about)?

Whilst it is admirable that they have donated so much to a worthy cause (noting that Koch is a prostate cancer survivor, so a vested interest), does that then give them the right to manipulate politics and scientific research to benefit their behemoth of companies that are trousering profits galore while there is no meaningful legislation against climate change?

And they deliberately obfuscate both the source and the destination of their funding. How about they publish the things they support other than good causes?

Going back to Climate change, the topic of this thread, Greenpeace did the work analysing the Koch Tax returns and some of their findings are below:

From our 2011 report update:

• Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal new!
• Koch Front Groups Attack RGGI—The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
• Koch Industries Backs California Proposition 23
• The Kochtopus Media Network

From our 2010 report:

• The Koch-funded "ClimateGate" Echo Chamber
• Polar Bear Junk Science and Koch Industries
• The "Spanish Study" on Green Jobs and Koch Industries
• The "Danish Study" on Wind Power and Koch Industries
• Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims

Download our full reports:

• Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial, 2011 Update (PDF)
• Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine (PDF)

They conclude that the Koch Brothers spent $67 million from 1997-2011 funding anti-climate change organisations.

One of those is ALEC:

"No one knows how much the Kochs have given ALEC in total, but the amount likely exceeds $1 million--not including a half-million loaned to ALEC when the group was floundering. ALEC gave the Kochs its Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award, and Koch Industries has been one of the select members of ALEC's corporate board for almost twenty years. The company's top lobbyist was once ALEC's chairman. As a result, the Kochs have shaped legislation touching every state in the country. Like ideological venture capitalists, the Kochs have used ALEC as a way to invest in radical ideas and fertilize them with tons of cash. [The Nation, 7/12/11 ]"

They've used ALEC to try and squash incentives for homeowners to use renewables:

"For the last few months, the Kochs and other big polluters have been spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy, which have been adopted by most states. They particularly dislike state laws that allow homeowners with solar panels to sell power they don't need back to electric utilities. So they've been pushing legislatures to impose a surtax on this increasingly popular practice, hoping to make installing solar panels on houses less attractive.

Oklahoma lawmakers recently approved such a surcharge at the behest of the American Legislative Exchange Council , the conservative group that often dictates bills to Republican statehouses and receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers, including the Kochs. As The Los Angeles Times reported recently , the Kochs and ALEC have made similar efforts in other states, though they were beaten back by solar advocates in Kansas and the surtax was reduced to $5 a month in Arizona. [New York Times, 4/27/14 ]"

They fund organisations like Americans For Prosperity to act as a pseudo-independent body to further their interests:

"Koch Front Group Americans For Prosperity Denies That Oil And Gas Subsidies Exist. A statement from Americans for Prosperity denied that the oil and gas industry receives subsidies, calling said subsidies a "myth" that "has been repudiated many times." [AmericansForProsperity.org, 3/31/14 ]

...

Koch Has Received Millions Of Dollars In Subsidies. The taxpayer watchdog Good Jobs First has a subsidy tracker database detailing the amount of subsidies big corporations have received through state and local economic development awards. According to their database, Koch Industries has received over $89 million in subsidies since 1990. [Good Jobs First, accessed 8/26/14 ]"

So don't be fooled by their generous donations to worthy causes. As long as they are trousering the profits from their environmentally-unfriendly businesses, I think they can afford them.

More importantly, they can use their sophisticated money laundering network to get money to pseudo-scientists such as Crockford to come out and amateurishly try and ridicule scientific evidence.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure if Climate science wasn't pointing the finger so stiffly at fossil fuels as the biggest climate change factor, they might even be donating money to Climate science research.

But you don't need to be a rocket scientist (or a curator) to see that not only do they have a vested interest in squashing climate science, but they also have the financial infrastructure to do it.

Added: Edited to add quotes instead of blocks because of a limitation on TV.

Just a few more things then I am through with the Koch contributions.

1. You state:

"But you don't need to be a rocket scientist (or a curator) to see that not only do they have a vested interest in squashing climate science, but they also have the financial infrastructure to do it."

They are not "squashing climate science" in the least. They are merely helping finance a position in the climate change debate which you find not to your liking. Your rhetoric took control of your flying fingers on that one.

2. You seem to believe one of the Koch brothers, being a survivor of prostate cancer, makes his donation somewhat suspect. How, then, do you justify his donation to the United Negro College Fund? What is it they are trying to accomplish by giving $25 million for black student scholarships?

Interestingly the NAACP tried to pressure the UNCF to refuse the donation because it was from the Koch Foundation. The UNCF told them to stuff it, and gladly accepted the donation for what it was.

3. Most importantly...of course they fund political alliances. Have you never heard of the Citizen's United ruling as it pertains to the First Amendment? Everybody is doing it and the Koch Industries rank 59th on the list of largest political donors during the 1989-2014 period. Check out the link, it is very eye opening. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

4. I still haven't seen where Ms. Crockford got that magical $9,000 a few years ago. Perhaps you can point out the exact link that shows her in receipt of this donation.

To even suggest that Koch Industries had an ulterior motive to hide anything about the walrus population in 1989 is silly.

...and with that, this conversation is over for me as it regards Koch Industries. PMs accepted.

[RickBradford]

And the two senior naval officers both experts in their fields also playground thinkers?

And Richard Muller a Koch funded scientist also a playground thinker.

Only if they believe that everyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil and repugnant.

That's the childish attitude, much favored amongst the Green/Left.

[Chicog]

Just a few more things then I am through with the Koch contributions.

"1. You state:

"But you don't need to be a rocket scientist (or a curator) to see that not only do they have a vested interest in squashing climate science, but they also have the financial infrastructure to do it."

They are not "squashing climate science" in the least. They are merely helping finance a position in the climate change debate which you find not to your liking. Your rhetoric took control of your flying fingers on that one."

They are helping finance a position in the climate change debate which benefits them financially. Whether it's to my liking or not is irrevelant.

"2. You seem to believe one of the Koch brothers, being a survivor of prostate cancer, makes his donation somewhat suspect. How, then, do you justify his donation to the United Negro College Fund? What is it they are trying to accomplish by giving $25 million for black student scholarships?

Interestingly the NAACP tried to pressure the UNCF to refuse the donation because it was from the Koch Foundation. The UNCF told them to stuff it, and gladly accepted the donation for what it was."

I don't blame him for funding prostate cancer, it doesn't make it suspect at all, I was simply pointing out that he had motivation to do so.

As for the UNCF, good on him, but it's a pretty good PR exercise and perhaps it was a "f--- you" to his rather racist father.

Let me say it again. I am not criticising them for their charitable donations. Their motives are questionable, but any donation is a good donation.

"3. Most importantly...of course they fund political alliances. Have you never heard of the Citizen's United ruling as it pertains to the First Amendment? Everybody is doing it and the Koch Industries rank 59th on the list of largest political donors during the 1989-2014 period. Check out the link, it is very eye opening. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php"

Koch Industries is but one small part of their funding - and I think I've made that clear above.

"4. I still haven't seen where Ms. Crockford got that magical $9,000 a few years ago. Perhaps you can point out the exact link that shows her in receipt of this donation.

To even suggest that Koch Industries had an ulterior motive to hide anything about the walrus population in 1989 is silly."

Heartland's raison d'etre:

Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which we support financially. We will seek additional partnerships in 2012. At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered. Expenses will be about the same in 2012. NIPCC is currently funded by two gifts a year from two foundations, both of them requesting anonymity. Another $88,000 is earmarked this year for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing

Heartland's lackeys (including Crockford @ $750pm * 12 = $9,000):

Notice that they paid a team of writers - not scientists.

[canuckamuck]

This debate is focusing on the wrong things. Funding doesn't cause warming.

There is nothing going on with the climate that is unusual in any way. We are just emerging from a glacial period. but the process has been ongoing for at least 12,500 years. Until we see warming that is unprecedented there really isn't any evidence that there is a human element to climate change. Sure it is logical to assume that CO2 increase would have a greenhouse effect. But clearly the relationship between CO2 and climate is still unknown because the last 20 years have seen the greatest increase in human caused greenhouse CO2 emissions, yet the rise in global temperature is zero. Therefore we must assume that increased CO2 does not cause global warming in the manner predicted by climate models.

I know nothing much about walruses, as I am sure is the case for the majority of posters here. I am pretty sure this Susan Crockford knows quite a bit about walruses. So I am going to have to take her word that walruses have been hauling out periodically for probably hundreds of years. Which means that even in times when there was way more ice than there is now now, walruses were doing the same walrus stuff. Will walruses be wiped out if the ice continues to disappear, which the climate record suggests is a possibility? No they won't, because we know they have survived the medieval warm period at least. if not more ancient warmings as well.

So why is this important?. Because the green/left knows that if they show any evidence that the earth has warmed up, albeit naturally, people automatically accept that as proof that humans are changing the global temperature.

This is horrible group think logic. You might as well blame warming on the increase in tattoos in western culture, although you would still have to explain the pause, despite that tattoos are more popular than ever in the last 20 years.

The earth got warm without us helping for the last 12,500 years. We didn't do that, why do you say we are doing this.

[canuckamuck]

But if I was to say anything about funding it would be this. I am glad that the opposition to the green left agenda has a few friends with cash that think it is important to draw attention to the mad socialist anti human agenda that is siphoning tax dollars at an alarming rate in a bid to stop the sky from falling, while at the same time causing food and energy shortages across the third world.

[chuckd]

I think Chicog knows a lot about walrusses/walrusi (?).

Look at his avatar.

[Chicog]

I think Chicog knows a lot about walrusses/walrusi (?).

Look at his avatar.

That's a bit ad hominem for you, isn't it?

[canuckamuck]

ad walrusem I think

[Chicog]

This debate is focusing on the wrong things. Funding doesn't cause warming.

There is nothing going on with the climate that is unusual in any way. We are just emerging from a glacial period. but the process has been ongoing for at least 12,500 years. Until we see warming that is unprecedented there really isn't any evidence that there is a human element to climate change. Sure it is logical to assume that CO2 increase would have a greenhouse effect. But clearly the relationship between CO2 and climate is still unknown because the last 20 years have seen the greatest increase in human caused greenhouse CO2 emissions, yet the rise in global temperature is zero. Therefore we must assume that increased CO2 does not cause global warming in the manner predicted by climate models.

I know nothing much about walruses, as I am sure is the case for the majority of posters here. I am pretty sure this Susan Crockford knows quite a bit about walruses. So I am going to have to take her word that walruses have been hauling out periodically for probably hundreds of years. Which means that even in times when there was way more ice than there is now now, walruses were doing the same walrus stuff. Will walruses be wiped out if the ice continues to disappear, which the climate record suggests is a possibility? No they won't, because we know they have survived the medieval warm period at least. if not more ancient warmings as well.

So why is this important?. Because the green/left knows that if they show any evidence that the earth has warmed up, albeit naturally, people automatically accept that as proof that humans are changing the global temperature.

This is horrible group think logic. You might as well blame warming on the increase in tattoos in western culture, although you would still have to explain the pause, despite that tattoos are more popular than ever in the last 20 years.

The earth got warm without us helping for the last 12,500 years. We didn't do that, why do you say we are doing this.

I don't think anyone disputes that we are in an interglacial period. However, you state:

But clearly the relationship between CO2 and climate is still unknown because the last 20 years have seen the greatest increase in human caused greenhouse CO2 emissions, yet the rise in global temperature is zero.

So how do you explain this?

Just days after NASA data showed that August 2014 was the warmest August on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirmed the ranking and raised the ante: There’s a good chance 2014 could become the warmest year on record.

“If we continue a consistent departure from average for the rest of 2014, we will edge out 2010 as the warmest year on record,” said Jake Crouch, a climatologist with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center , during a press briefing Thursday.

Specifically, if each of the remaining months of the year ranks among the top five warmest, 2014 will take the top spot, he said.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2014-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record-18041

[Chicog]

ad walrusem I think

A cheeky get out.

[pitrevie]

And the two senior naval officers both experts in their fields also playground thinkers?

And Richard Muller a Koch funded scientist also a playground thinker.

Only if they believe that everyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil and repugnant.

That's the childish attitude, much favored amongst the Green/Left.

Well it was you that used those words and not me. I just want to see some sort of case against man made climate change and thus far I haven't seen any of that.

[canuckamuck]

This debate is focusing on the wrong things. Funding doesn't cause warming.

There is nothing going on with the climate that is unusual in any way. We are just emerging from a glacial period. but the process has been ongoing for at least 12,500 years. Until we see warming that is unprecedented there really isn't any evidence that there is a human element to climate change. Sure it is logical to assume that CO2 increase would have a greenhouse effect. But clearly the relationship between CO2 and climate is still unknown because the last 20 years have seen the greatest increase in human caused greenhouse CO2 emissions, yet the rise in global temperature is zero. Therefore we must assume that increased CO2 does not cause global warming in the manner predicted by climate models.

I know nothing much about walruses, as I am sure is the case for the majority of posters here. I am pretty sure this Susan Crockford knows quite a bit about walruses. So I am going to have to take her word that walruses have been hauling out periodically for probably hundreds of years. Which means that even in times when there was way more ice than there is now now, walruses were doing the same walrus stuff. Will walruses be wiped out if the ice continues to disappear, which the climate record suggests is a possibility? No they won't, because we know they have survived the medieval warm period at least. if not more ancient warmings as well.

So why is this important?. Because the green/left knows that if they show any evidence that the earth has warmed up, albeit naturally, people automatically accept that as proof that humans are changing the global temperature.

This is horrible group think logic. You might as well blame warming on the increase in tattoos in western culture, although you would still have to explain the pause, despite that tattoos are more popular than ever in the last 20 years.

The earth got warm without us helping for the last 12,500 years. We didn't do that, why do you say we are doing this.

I don't think anyone disputes that we are in an interglacial period. However, you state:

But clearly the relationship between CO2 and climate is still unknown because the last 20 years have seen the greatest increase in human caused greenhouse CO2 emissions, yet the rise in global temperature is zero.

So how do you explain this?

Just days after NASA data showed that August 2014 was the warmest August on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirmed the ranking and raised the ante: There’s a good chance 2014 could become the warmest year on record.

“If we continue a consistent departure from average for the rest of 2014, we will edge out 2010 as the warmest year on record,” said Jake Crouch, a climatologist with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center , during a press briefing Thursday.

Specifically, if each of the remaining months of the year ranks among the top five warmest, 2014 will take the top spot, he said.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2014-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record-18041

Well that is a bit of a wait and see isn't it. We are obviously at the top end of temperature record for the last hundred years, so the warmest August on record is a likely event. And even if the entire year comes out ahead of 1998 that would not make it an unnatural event, nor would it likely be anywhere close to what the models have predicted we should be at temperature wise in 2014. Just what the heck is the climate supposed to do in an inter glacial period. Up or down means nothing unless it is unprecedented.

But I will make this prediction with 100% confidence. if 2014 turns out to be a hotter year than 1998. The green propaganda will be off the chain.

[Chicog]

Well that is a bit of a wait and see isn't it. We are obviously at the top end of temperature record for the last hundred years, so the warmest August on record is a likely event. And even if the entire year comes out ahead of 1998 that would not make it an unnatural event, nor would it likely be anywhere close to what the models have predicted we should be at temperature wise in 2014. Just what the heck is the climate supposed to do in an inter glacial period. Up or down means nothing unless it is unprecedented.

I think what they are saying is that the temperature change is abnormal even for interglacial periods, and the only explanation they can find is that CO2 levels influence temperature, and we are influencing CO2 levels. I have yet to see any valid contradictory evidence.

The bottom line is this:

If climate scientists are correct, we are on our to some major environmental upheaval (potentially irreversible) and accompanying social change in the future, and it is in our hands to do something about it.

If we choose not to do something about it and they're right, we're maybe in the fecal matter. Certainly increased weather extremes are one thing we can count on.

If they are wrong and we still do something about it just in case, we will still have some nice new energy sources that are not polluting (I assume you don't disagree with that?), some measures to mitigate the possible damage caused by these weather extremes, and possibly some nice new technologies to reverse things like desertification.

So essentially I would suggest that climate change deniers would rather gamble on keeping lots more money now at the expense of potential disaster, rather than not being quite so greedy and doing things which might actually benefit mankind in the long run regardless of what happens.

.

[RickBradford]

If they are wrong and we still do something about it just in case, we will still have some nice new energy sources that are not polluting (I assume you don't disagree with that?), some measures to mitigate the possible damage caused by these weather extremes, and possibly some nice new technologies to reverse things like desertification.

This is the feel-good Green 'Garden of Eden' fantasy which is always trotted out on these occasions.

It conveniently assumes that there is no downside to rapid decarbonisation of the world's economy (80% by 2050, in the case of the UK). There is.

In the West, it has already led to massively higher electricity prices and the enrichment of an entitled few at the expense of the rest. A few thousand old people will die from fuel poverty each year, and others will be threatened by blackouts.

For the developing world, it means access denied to cheap reliable energy as international pressure prevents the building of power plants in places like Africa. That'll kill plenty of people because of primitive health services, and keep them uneducated.

Green policies; always achieving the opposite of what they claim to want.

I would suggest that climate change deniers would rather gamble on keeping lots more money now at the expense of potential disaster, rather than not being quite so greedy

Once more with the childish slurs -- not only are "deniers" wrong, but they are "greedy" as well. It really is kindergarten thinking.

[canuckamuck]

Well that is a bit of a wait and see isn't it. We are obviously at the top end of temperature record for the last hundred years, so the warmest August on record is a likely event. And even if the entire year comes out ahead of 1998 that would not make it an unnatural event, nor would it likely be anywhere close to what the models have predicted we should be at temperature wise in 2014. Just what the heck is the climate supposed to do in an inter glacial period. Up or down means nothing unless it is unprecedented.

I think what they are saying is that the temperature change is abnormal even for interglacial periods, and the only explanation they can find is that CO2 levels influence temperature, and we are influencing CO2 levels. I have yet to see any valid contradictory evidence.

The bottom line is this:

If climate scientists are correct, we are on our to some major environmental upheaval (potentially irreversible) and accompanying social change in the future, and it is in our hands to do something about it.

If we choose not to do something about it and they're right, we're maybe in the fecal matter. Certainly increased weather extremes are one thing we can count on.

If they are wrong and we still do something about it just in case, we will still have some nice new energy sources that are not polluting (I assume you don't disagree with that?), some measures to mitigate the possible damage caused by these weather extremes, and possibly some nice new technologies to reverse things like desertification.

So essentially I would suggest that climate change deniers would rather gamble on keeping lots more money now at the expense of potential disaster, rather than not being quite so greedy and doing things which might actually benefit mankind in the long run regardless of what happens.

.

First I would like to say Chicog that you are one of my favorite posters here, and you are clearly quite intelligent.

What you need to do is go find some evidence that the temperature change is abnormal for an interglacial period. I have yet to find this evidence. You might see people claiming it, but let's see how they came to that conclusion. There is also no evidence for tipping points in the climate record. This is a hypothetical invention. Believing there is a tipping point does not make it so We have been much hotter and there was no free fall into oblivion.

I think you might be surprised to know that I very much enjoy the latest achievements in technology and I do believe there are fantastic new solutions for energy production. I believe that these will occur natural through purely capitalistic motivations. Socialism is an end to innovation we have seen it over and over again.

Personally I aspire to minimal energy and resource consumption. I recycle, and improvise. I do this because It is the responsible thing to do, and I am cheap. i don't do it because I think the planet is going to get too hot from excess plant food in the air.

Good luck on your search.

[Bwanatickey]

The proliferation of Walrus numbers is not down to climate change, it is the change in mankind.

No longer does mankind hunt and use the skins and meat to survive from eating Walruses , mankind is no longer a threat to Walruses.

Those Walruses all have tusks of Ivory, save the African Elephant by hunting over populated walrus beaches, and sell the Walrus Ivory to China.

[ClutchClark]

When theres nothing else we can think of - global warming must be to blame.

Luckily, one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists, Susan Crockford, has provided explanations of this phenomenon occurring in 1972 and 1978, and shows it has nothing whatever to do with ice extent, or global warming.

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/10/01/mass-haulouts-of-pacific-walrus-and-stampede-deaths-are-not-new-not-due-to-low-ice-cover/

(Extract) "The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science."

The Alarmists are getting ever more desperate.

Interesting interpretation of the data.

It indicates that they massed there because they could not go to their usual place, in that event because it was full.

In this case, it would appear they've massed there because they can't mass in their usual place - it's melted.

More importantly, you have quoted a statement by the (clearly anti-climate change) author, and therefore it is not an "extract" of the scientists' paper.

More climate denier horse poo and a feeble attempt by you and the blogger at misrepresenting scientific data.

Thank you for this. You saved me the trouble. I wish posters would research the author of this single dissenting opinion. They are a fraud.

[ClutchClark]

A lengthy, if fairly depressing read.

Not to be taken as a scientific paper, but much of it is obvious.

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

The earth has not been warming for 18 years now ... a published scientific fact... The prior warm was just a cyclic norm for the earth as heated by the Sun... the sun gets very active - the earth heats up ... the Suns cycles to being less active - the heating slows down and stops then cycles into a cool period... I can get you the link or perhaps a Google will get you a computer full of links... Global Warming is a Natural Occurrence that happens in a broad long period cycles... There are Natural Occurrence Deniers - NOD's who will never stop worshiping their invisible god... man made global warming.

JD, are you saying that the actions of mankind do not influence the environment?

[chuckd]

No, he is not. Read what he says and try to digest it.

He isn't saying what you would like to attack him on.

[ClutchClark]

Well all I know with certainty is that I lived many years using an outhouse and there was always a trade-off. On the one hand you would want to dig that pit and place that outhouse nearby your home so you wouldn't have to stumble so far in the dark night. But the other side of that equation is you place it to near your living quarters and the stench would reek up the whole home.

The fact is human activity does pollute the environment and the more humans there are and the more noxious their waste then the more damage they cause.

So I have a hard time understanding all these posts denying that obvious fact. I guess they are mostly people just too far removed from nature to understand much and they let corporate interests fill in the blanks for them.

And for anyone who does remember using an outhouse in cold weather will surely agree--the inventor of styrofoam should be treated like royalty no matter how bad it is for the environment ;-)

Edited October 13, 2014 by ClutchClark

[chuckd]

Well all I know with certainty is that I lived many years using an outhouse and there was always a trade-off. On the one hand you would want to dig that pit and place that outhouse nearby your home so you wouldn't have to stumble so far in the dark night. But the other side of that equation is you place it to near your living quarters and the stench would reek up the whole home.

The fact is human activity does pollute the environment and the more humans there are and the more noxious their waste then the more damage they cause.

So I have a hard time understanding all these posts denying that obvious fact. I guess they are mostly people just too far removed from nature to understand much and they let corporate interests fill in the blanks for them.

And for anyone who does remember using an outhouse in cold weather will surely agree--the inventor of styrofoam should be treated like royalty.

Certainly the human creature causes pollution. I see it every day in Isaan driving down the highway.

What Mr. Gruen said is, humans do not have an effect on "global warming".

If you can prove that human activity is driving global warming then you are smarter than 100% of the 97% of scientists that believe it is a settled question.

[ClutchClark]

Well all I know with certainty is that I lived many years using an outhouse and there was always a trade-off. On the one hand you would want to dig that pit and place that outhouse nearby your home so you wouldn't have to stumble so far in the dark night. But the other side of that equation is you place it to near your living quarters and the stench would reek up the whole home.

The fact is human activity does pollute the environment and the more humans there are and the more noxious their waste then the more damage they cause.

So I have a hard time understanding all these posts denying that obvious fact. I guess they are mostly people just too far removed from nature to understand much and they let corporate interests fill in the blanks for them.

And for anyone who does remember using an outhouse in cold weather will surely agree--the inventor of styrofoam should be treated like royalty.

Certainly the human creature causes pollution. I see it every day in Isaan driving down the highway.

What Mr. Gruen said is, humans do not have an effect on "global warming".

If you can prove that human activity is driving global warming then you are smarter than 100% of the 97% of scientists that believe it is a settled question.

I guess the moral of my story was not understood.

No one can prove it one way or another 100% so an intelligent man has to weigh the facts against his own experience.

For me, the fact that 97% of the scientific community supports the concept gives it alot of credibility in my book. These scientists are the same folks and they use the same scientific methods that have brought us modern medicine. Now its every man's choice to call modern medicine a bunch of BS and practice voodoo instead--but when I am in poor health I take a trip to my docs office rather than book a flight to Haiti.

But you are free to choose otherwise.

Back on point--that does not mean I support Carbon Tax.

Edited October 13, 2014 by ClutchClark

[canuckamuck]

The 97% was a fabrication, well documented.

The science of medicine is conducted in laboratory conditions with many trials and is falsifiable.

Climate science is highly theoretical, cannot be falsified, and trails cannot be run. So far all the climate models have been wrong and there is a tremendous emotional and ideological component involved.

Medical science and climate science are chalk and cheese.

[ClutchClark]

The 97% was a fabrication, well documented.

The science of medicine is conducted in laboratory conditions with many trials and is falsifiable.

Climate science is highly theoretical, cannot be falsified, and trails cannot be run. So far all the climate models have been wrong and there is a tremendous emotional and ideological component involved.

Medical science and climate science are chalk and cheese.

You would really need to provide some sources before claims of this nature can be take seriously.

Cheers

[canuckamuck]

I have linked it a few time before, no question that the 97% figure was a result of dishonest methodology. Today I am too busy to play. So if you need to know right now, Google is ready to serve.

[willyumiii]

35,000..

and I bet there is not one American, Republican who denies global climate change among them!

[ClutchClark]

I have linked it a few time before, no question that the 97% figure was a result of dishonest methodology. Today I am too busy to play. So if you need to know right now, Google is ready to serve.

Oh, I have researched it before Mr Canuck and there is overwhelming evidence that a significant portion of scientists consider man to be a contributor to global warming.

I have also seen much of the opposition arguments and articles debunked, which is why I was hopeful you would provide some and also why I was pretty certain you wouldn't.

Ever been to Whitehorse?

[canuckamuck]

Here's a link

Here's another

That took all of 2 minutes, there are a million more probably.

Oh, I have researched it before Mr Canuck and there is overwhelming evidence that a significant portion of scientists consider man to be a contributor to global warming.

Your statement above is an erroneous argument to what I said. I was speaking specifically about the 97% consensus that is bandied about as some kind of a smoking gun. When in fact it is an utter fabrication.

There is no true consensus. There is a very vocal group of climate science dependents, politicians, left wing ideologues, and other useful idiots that make it seem there is no scientific dissent. But they are just being religious.

No I have never been to Whitehorse but I have a few friends from there. I hear it is very nice.