Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[RickBradford]

I also like to check up on the Climate Denier blogs and websites that peddle non science gibberish like WUWT, Roy Spencer, Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, UK Telegraph, The Australian, Fox News, Judith Curry, Bill O'Reilly (referred to as the 'Climate Denier Echo Chamber') . I enjoy finding out how they manage to derail the science and misinform people. It also helps to spot where people are parroting their Climate Denier clap trap from.

It's like talking to someone out of the Branch Davidians.

The message never changes -- 'deniers' .. blah ... blah ... 'Fox News' ... blah blah .... 'fossil fuel funded' ... blah blah .... 'misinform' ... blah blah .... 'more deniers' ... blah blah .... 'gibberish'

I'd rather get my climate advice from Pope Francis. Or even Marsha Blackburn, I reckon.

[up2u2]

Go onto Skeptical Science website and learn a little.

Or go to a proper grownups' climate website and learn a lot....

I do prefer the Skeptical Science website because it bases everything on published peer reviewed scientific evidence and gives links to the actual research / Papers / Articles. It also provides Basic, Intermediate and Advanced discussion and information. It posts the latest media information on GW / CC so it keeps you up to date with important announcements. As they are climate Scientists themselves and are involved in producing published peer reviewed science they also get access to leading Climate Scientists and on occasion will do interviews or sometimes write an exclusive article on an issue. The Denier 101 YouTube Channel is just brilliant if you want plan English explanations on GW and CC. Plus there is a Forum on each topic and you get some interesting views and discussions going on. I like The Carbon Brief for journalist reporting on GW / CC. A little 'high brow' but they stick to the science.

A great website if you are really interested in learning the science on GW / CC

If I want to look at primary source updated Data and research NASA, NOAA, UKMet, Berkeley Earth, Polar Science Center, IPCC Reports. Also if there is breaking GW / CC research I will track down the actual published peer reviewed research Paper or Article and at a minimum read the Abstract, the Methodology used and Conclusions. No real need to get out the calculator and check the Math as it is peer reviewed that has to be accurate or it doesn't pass peer review or is corrected prior to being published. Also the peer review process ensures the Research / Paper / Article conforms to the accepted known science and if it doesn't presents data to validate its diversion. A really good example of this is when Mears over wrote Roy Spencer's Maths on Satellite data analysis and demonstrate precisely where Roy Spencer's maths was wrong.

For anyone who is interested in learning about the science on GW / CC these are really good Primary sources of information.

Secondary source information probably The Guardian but will always fact check a story that doesn't sound correct.

I also like to check up on the Climate Denier blogs and websites that peddle non science gibberish like WUWT, Roy Spencer, Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, UK Telegraph, The Australian, Fox News, Judith Curry, Bill O'Reilly (referred to as the 'Climate Denier Echo Chamber') . I enjoy finding out how they manage to derail the science and misinform people. It also helps to spot where people are parroting their Climate Denier clap trap from.

Sounds like SkS has been really good for you. Are you earning as a contributor, or just by driving traffic to the site?

No not at all. I just like to recommend it because it is science based and personal attacks are not accepted. It debates the science on GW / CC and it is a good way to keep up with the issue. Also people can ask questions if there is something they can't figure out. Other posters help out and point you in the right direction to a study or a good article on a topic. Not Climate Denier clap trap that will be deleted instantly. Sensible well thought out questions AFTER you have studied the science no problem.

[up2u2]

There are 99 of them on your skeptical science site. link

and during 2013-2014 there were a smidge under 17,000 peer reviewed papers / articles and research that confirmed GW / CC

[up2u2]

I also like to check up on the Climate Denier blogs and websites that peddle non science gibberish like WUWT, Roy Spencer, Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, UK Telegraph, The Australian, Fox News, Judith Curry, Bill O'Reilly (referred to as the 'Climate Denier Echo Chamber') . I enjoy finding out how they manage to derail the science and misinform people. It also helps to spot where people are parroting their Climate Denier clap trap from.

It's like talking to someone out of the Branch Davidians.

The message never changes -- 'deniers' .. blah ... blah ... 'Fox News' ... blah blah .... 'fossil fuel funded' ... blah blah .... 'misinform' ... blah blah .... 'more deniers' ... blah blah .... 'gibberish'

I'd rather get my climate advice from Pope Francis. Or even Marsha Blackburn, I reckon.

Not the Pope he is actually advised by a collection of scientists on GW / CC. Same advisor to Angela Merkel Germany. I think Marsha Blackburn she has the same Climate Denier political ideology as you. As she stated herself NO science would persuade her of GW or CC. You will both be wrong but in total agreement.

[canuckamuck]

There are 99 of them on your skeptical science site. link

and during 2013-2014 there were a smidge under 17,000 peer reviewed papers / articles and research that confirmed GW / CC

So what?

[up2u2]

There are 99 of them on your skeptical science site. link

and during 2013-2014 there were a smidge under 17,000 peer reviewed papers / articles and research that confirmed GW / CC

So what?

Exactly

[eliotness]

There are 99 of them on your skeptical science site. link

and during 2013-2014 there were a smidge under 17,000 peer reviewed papers / articles and research that confirmed GW / CC

So what?

Exactly

So how many of those 17,000 showed, or rather proved that any change in the current temperature is man-made ? And how many gave solutions ? Just asking !

[up2u2]

and during 2013-2014 there were a smidge under 17,000 peer reviewed papers / articles and research that confirmed GW / CC

So what?

Exactly

So how many of those 17,000 showed, or rather proved that any change in the current temperature is man-made ? And how many gave solutions ? Just asking !

A fair question. The comment I made is based on peer reviewed research by J L Powell.

Powell 2015

This actual research by Powell is an extension of research done by Cook et al (John Cook from Skeptical Science website). On further analysis it found the consensus to be higher than 97% in that Cook et al underestimated the consensus. As the 'Abstract' points out it applies the same Methodology that is used to measure the consensus on Geological Plate Tectonics theory. When this research is conducted it finds a +99.9% consensus on AGW.

So to answer your question based on peer reviewed scientific research by Powell 2015 out of 64,096 peer reviewed scientific papers published during 2013 - 2014 64,092 Papers confirmed Anthropogenic Global Warming (Global Warming caused by Man) and FOUR papers that rejected Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[eliotness]

If anyone wants to question the huge consensus quoted frequently by the person above, I suggest they read an article published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by Andrew Montford called "Fraud, lies and public relations, the 97% consensus and its critics". Easy to download from the internet.

[up2u2]

If anyone wants to question the huge consensus quoted frequently by the person above, I suggest they read an article published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by Andrew Montford called "Fraud, lies and public relations, the 97% consensus and its critics". Easy to download from the internet.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] The Independent describes the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".[5] Since 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was spun out as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not.

You could but you would be downloading Climate Denier clap trap.

GWPF is not involved in scientific research.

[RickBradford]

If anyone wants to question the huge consensus quoted frequently by the person above, I suggest they read an article published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by Andrew Montford called "Fraud, lies and public relations, the 97% consensus and its critics". Easy to download from the internet.

Well, the Powell study was meaningless, based on an equally meaningless study by the clown Cook.

A paper in Science & Education pointed out how doing the survey differently yielded not a 97.1% consensus, but a 0.3% consensus.

But the cultists keep trying, because they need to keep the faithful in line.

[up2u2]

If anyone wants to question the huge consensus quoted frequently by the person above, I suggest they read an article published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by Andrew Montford called "Fraud, lies and public relations, the 97% consensus and its critics". Easy to download from the internet.

Well, the Powell study was meaningless, based on an equally meaningless study by the clown Cook.

A paper in Science & Education pointed out how doing the survey differently yielded not a 97.1% consensus, but a 0.3% consensus.

But the cultists keep trying, because they need to keep the faithful in line.

It wasn't a survey.

[RickBradford]

It's always amazed me that the Alarmists don't get this.

They seem to think that all they have to do to convince people is to shout louder. If 97% didn't get any traction, let's make it 99.9%!

They have so little self-awareness and so little understanding of other people. To most people, it's obvious. Climate change is a complex topic, on which a wide range of competing views are to be expected. If you try to claim a 99.9% consensus, everyone starts holding their noses. An absurdly high consensus on a complex topic is a weakness, not a strength.

A referendum to confirm President Assad as Syria's president in 2007 garnered a 99.82% consensus.

Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majeed commented: "This great consensus shows the political maturity of Syria and the brilliance of our democracy." Yeah, right.

And as a great and enduring boost for the skeptics, the climate Alarmists are psychologically incapable of grasping this.

[thaibeachlovers]

If you want to stay up to date on GW / CC and what is happening politically Skeptical Science website is an excellent information resource.

Any website that has that prize idiot John Cook as one of its mainstays should be ashamed to put the word 'science' in the title. His attempt to prove a 97% consensus on climate change has rightly been lambasted as one of the most lame and bungling efforts at statistics since Lord Nelson said "I see no ships."

They should stick to cartooning and dressing up in uniforms.

Rick I think your personal attacks on John Cook says more about you than him.

The 'Toon of the Week' are always a bit of a laugh.

Toon.jpg

The 'Quote of the Week' goes to:

Bill Patzert, climatologist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge

“There’s no longer a possibility that El Niño wimps out at this point. It’s too big to fail,”

I suppose Climate Scientists really need a sense of humour to deal with the unwarranted personal attacks they receive from Climate Deniers.

The EXCELLENT!!! Michael Mann video 'notmyself' posted above, John Cook was the actual interviewer. So he is held in VERY high regard within the scientific community.

You and the cartoonist have no evidence that the "flood" was man made. Floods have been happening for millions of years, and most of the time without any input from mankind. More likely because of overpopulation causing people to build on a flood plain.

You can say that extreme weather is caused by man's input till you are blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true.

[up2u2]

It's always amazed me that the Alarmists don't get this.

They seem to think that all they have to do to convince people is to shout louder. If 97% didn't get any traction, let's make it 99.9%!

They have so little self-awareness and so little understanding of other people. To most people, it's obvious. Climate change is a complex topic, on which a wide range of competing views are to be expected. If you try to claim a 99.9% consensus, everyone starts holding their noses. An absurdly high consensus on a complex topic is a weakness, not a strength.

A referendum to confirm President Assad as Syria's president in 2007 garnered a 99.82% consensus.

Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majeed commented: "This great consensus shows the political maturity of Syria and the brilliance of our democracy." Yeah, right.

And as a great and enduring boost for the skeptics, the climate Alarmists are psychologically incapable of grasping this.

I missed the part where you demonstrated where Powell 2015 research was inaccurate? Did you read through the Paper and find a mistake? I would be surprised as it has been peer reviewed. You think any errors would have been picked up there.

Get back to me.

[up2u2]

Rick I think your personal attacks on John Cook says more about you than him.

The 'Toon of the Week' are always a bit of a laugh.

Toon.jpg

The 'Quote of the Week' goes to:

Bill Patzert, climatologist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge

“There’s no longer a possibility that El Niño wimps out at this point. It’s too big to fail,”

I suppose Climate Scientists really need a sense of humour to deal with the unwarranted personal attacks they receive from Climate Deniers.

The EXCELLENT!!! Michael Mann video 'notmyself' posted above, John Cook was the actual interviewer. So he is held in VERY high regard within the scientific community.

You and the cartoonist have no evidence that the "flood" was man made. Floods have been happening for millions of years, and most of the time without any input from mankind. More likely because of overpopulation causing people to build on a flood plain.

You can say that extreme weather is caused by man's input till you are blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true.

tbl it's a cartoon lol

[up2u2]

If anyone wants to question the huge consensus quoted frequently by the person above, I suggest they read an article published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by Andrew Montford called "Fraud, lies and public relations, the 97% consensus and its critics". Easy to download from the internet.

Well, the Powell study was meaningless, based on an equally meaningless study by the clown Cook.

A paper in Science & Education pointed out how doing the survey differently yielded not a 97.1% consensus, but a 0.3% consensus.

But the cultists keep trying, because they need to keep the faithful in line.

Actually I am interested in taking a close look at this 'research'.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9

Here is the Abstract:

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

It seems to be conflating Legates et al with Cook et al

Where does it say this:

"A paper in Science & Education pointed out how doing the survey differently yielded not a 97.1% consensus, but a 0.3% consensus."

A couple of 'red flags'

Article Authors: Christopher Monckton and Willie Soon

UPDATE Feb. 2015: Newly released documents reveal Willie Soon’s contracts with Southern Company, the Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobile, and DonorsTrust.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/dr-willie-soon-a-career-fueled-by-big-oil-and-coal/

Monckton is probably one of the most discredited Climate Deniers. If he told me it was raining I would go outside to check. He has been caught out so many times.

Edited October 14, 2015 by up2u2

[thaibeachlovers]

Rick I think your personal attacks on John Cook says more about you than him.

The 'Toon of the Week' are always a bit of a laugh.

Toon.jpg

The 'Quote of the Week' goes to:

Bill Patzert, climatologist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge

“There’s no longer a possibility that El Niño wimps out at this point. It’s too big to fail,”

I suppose Climate Scientists really need a sense of humour to deal with the unwarranted personal attacks they receive from Climate Deniers.

The EXCELLENT!!! Michael Mann video 'notmyself' posted above, John Cook was the actual interviewer. So he is held in VERY high regard within the scientific community.

You and the cartoonist have no evidence that the "flood" was man made. Floods have been happening for millions of years, and most of the time without any input from mankind. More likely because of overpopulation causing people to build on a flood plain.

You can say that extreme weather is caused by man's input till you are blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true.

tbl it's a cartoon lol

I know that but it is using a false premise ie that the flood was caused by mankind. There is no evidence to prove that any extreme weather event is man made.

[up2u2]

You and the cartoonist have no evidence that the "flood" was man made. Floods have been happening for millions of years, and most of the time without any input from mankind. More likely because of overpopulation causing people to build on a flood plain.

You can say that extreme weather is caused by man's input till you are blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true.

tbl it's a cartoon lol

I know that but it is using a false premise ie that the flood was caused by mankind. There is no evidence to prove that any extreme weather event is man made.

tbl it's a cartoon

[RickBradford]

Monckton is probably one of the most discredited Climate Deniers. If he told me it was raining I would go outside to check. He has been caught out so many times.

'Denier' ... zzzz .... 'Fossil fuels' ... zzzz .... 'Koch Brothers' ... zzzz .... Wot, no Fox News this time?

On and on with the broken record .........

Monckton did the UK a signal service by backing the campaign to have Al Gore's silly sci-fi movie An Inconvenient Truth criticised in the High Court and its subsequent dissemination to schools hedged with caveats.

I can readily see why the climate Alarmists hate Monckton. He is personable, amusing, erudite and connects with audiences in a way that no Alarmist, with their shrunken personalities, could hope to emulate. He gets the Alarmists so wound up they can hardly speak.

Here he is, in fine form:

[canuckamuck]

There are 99 of them on your skeptical science site. link

and during 2013-2014 there were a smidge under 17,000 peer reviewed papers / articles and research that confirmed GW / CC

Dat just show where da money at fool.

*The word fool in this instance is explicitly intended in a humorous connotation and is in no way represents a flame.

[canuckamuck]

There are 99 of them on your skeptical science site. link

and during 2013-2014 there were a smidge under 17,000 peer reviewed papers / articles and research that confirmed GW / CC

And now for a serious answer. I think that it is absolutely amazing and a tribute to the integrity and ethics of a few true scientists that they had the courage, in todays political witch hunt; to submit articles which fly in the face of the mainstream ideology. And not only this but to submit work so excellent that despite the vile heresy it represents, the cult of Gore had no choice but to accept it and publish it approved by peers. Bravo I say.

I think the real question is, if the science is indeed settled, how did 99 articles which oppose the mainstream propaganda ever get peer reviewed?

[Andaman Al]

The climate change debate is over! The vast majority of scientific evidence supports the impact of Man on climate and 95% of real scientists accept we must do something about it.

Well I never thought I would agree with a Republican, but she is totally correct. There is NO evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming exists and that is 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Al Gore's companies have made billions from trading crap Carbon credits, the need for which were started by the irresponsible panic he imposed on the worlds people with his presentations that contained grossly flawed and manipulated data.

There are more eminent Scientists in the world that say this is all BS than those that support AGW. The reason many scientists purport to agree with the false claims is that it is a HUGE cash cow for research grants, and that is how Scientists make their money. If they say it's all BS there is NO grant money, so they get their millions by selling their souls and their respectability to the corporations and Governments that make a fortune from perpetuating the myth. This is a trillion dollar business.

I have no doubts we are poisoning mother earth with our pollutants BUT that is nothing to do with AGW. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere and will remain so for the next millennia at least so there is nothing about CO2 we need to worry about.

[RickBradford]

A few days ago, the Associated Press announced it would no longer use the words "skeptic" and "denier" in its coverage of climate matters. The reason (on the denier word) was that it was a pejorative description which was linked too closely to Holocaust denial. Fairly minor stuff, you would argue, but it caused serious exploding heads in the Green/Left community, who felt that AP were betraying the cause by removing one of their favourite labels.

Salon magazine, for example, did not accept that climate "deniers" could be equated with Holocaust deniers.

"Climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial," they stated in a piece designed to rally the faithful. "The problem isn’t that 'denier' has a 'pejorative ring', it’s that it’s not nearly pejorative enough. 'Climate holocaust co-conspirator' would be more apt."

Sometimes I think there is a single author furiously writing Green/Left agit-prop, because it all sounds the same. The Salon piece was a classic which recycled all the tiresome points:

* We are right (the reality-based community); everything else is disinformation (anti-science). There is no debate.

* Anyone who disagrees is stupid, brainwashed by Right-wing sources or paid off by Big Oil.

* Anyone who disagrees with us is not just wrong but evil, is always lying and should be hated to the maximum. They are so inhuman that they care nothing for future generations, including their own children

* Anyone who is not with us is against us ( "You either align yourself more or less with the climate deniers—consciously or unconsciously—or you align yourself against them. There is no “neutral” ground outside of or above the debate")

To anyone capable of independent thought, this foam-flecked rant is interesting. It reveals at a stroke the hatred that is the driving force of the Green/Left, the staggering emotional immaturity, the slavish adherence to the cult, and the absolute lack of originality and imagination among its adherents.

Compared to these people, the Pope is a rational moderate.

This amusing piece, unsurprisingly titled "Wrong, wrong, wrong: The anti-science bullsh*t which explains why the right gets away with lies — and why the mainstream media lets them" can be found here

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/

[up2u2]

Monckton is probably one of the most discredited Climate Deniers. If he told me it was raining I would go outside to check. He has been caught out so many times.

'Denier' ... zzzz .... 'Fossil fuels' ... zzzz .... 'Koch Brothers' ... zzzz .... Wot, no Fox News this time?

On and on with the broken record .........

Monckton did the UK a signal service by backing the campaign to have Al Gore's silly sci-fi movie An Inconvenient Truth criticised in the High Court and its subsequent dissemination to schools hedged with caveats.

I can readily see why the climate Alarmists hate Monckton. He is personable, amusing, erudite and connects with audiences in a way that no Alarmist, with their shrunken personalities, could hope to emulate. He gets the Alarmists so wound up they can hardly speak.

Here he is, in fine form:

Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that supports Monckton's view on GW / CC it really doesn't exist. I don't think even Climate Deniers take him seriously anymore. People who accept the science on GW / CC don't hate Monckton they just know what he says is foolish.

Yes Willie Soon always denied he was paid by Exxon Mobil but he got caught out. Exxon Mobil will be like the tobacco companies I think down the track they will be fined billions for knowingly funding misinformation on GW / CC as the tobacco companies were fined billions for lilieing. He is funded by the Heartland Institute as well who also funded Creationism and attempted to promote second hand smoking didn't harm anyone. When you fund this type of misinformation don't expect people to continue trusting you.

[thaibeachlovers]

Monckton is probably one of the most discredited Climate Deniers. If he told me it was raining I would go outside to check. He has been caught out so many times.

'Denier' ... zzzz .... 'Fossil fuels' ... zzzz .... 'Koch Brothers' ... zzzz .... Wot, no Fox News this time?

On and on with the broken record .........

Monckton did the UK a signal service by backing the campaign to have Al Gore's silly sci-fi movie An Inconvenient Truth criticised in the High Court and its subsequent dissemination to schools hedged with caveats.

I can readily see why the climate Alarmists hate Monckton. He is personable, amusing, erudite and connects with audiences in a way that no Alarmist, with their shrunken personalities, could hope to emulate. He gets the Alarmists so wound up they can hardly speak.

Here he is, in fine form:

Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that supports Monckton's view on GW / CC it really doesn't exist. I don't think even Climate Deniers take him seriously anymore. People who accept the science on GW / CC don't hate Monckton they just know what he says is foolish.

Yes Willie Soon always denied he was paid by Exxon Mobil but he got caught out. Exxon Mobil will be like the tobacco companies I think down the track they will be fined billions for knowingly funding misinformation on GW / CC as the tobacco companies were fined billions for lilieing. He is funded by the Heartland Institute as well who also funded Creationism and attempted to promote second hand smoking didn't harm anyone. When you fund this type of misinformation don't expect people to continue trusting you.

Once again, it is IRRELEVANT whether or not GW is caused by mankind or not. GW is happening as anyone with eyes can see, and it will affect people around the world. That does not mean I believe that catastrophic weather events are a result of GW, as they have been happening as long as the planet has been in existence.

The only thing that counts is what people ( worldwide, not just in the west ) will do to eliminate pollution. So far, ZIP, NADA, ZERO. Building wind turbines and inventing new taxes has done nothing so far.

[RickBradford]

The hysterical Greenpeace allegations against Dr. Soon were a hit for about 15 minutes in the more childish reaches of the "progressive" media, but nobody with any common sense took them seriously.

Dr. Soon has also been very forthright about why the Pope (remember him?) should butt out of climate matters.

"The verdict is clear: Any attempt to stop the use of available fossil fuels for life and all human activities will cause far more harm and lead to more deaths than the theological belief in future catastrophic disasters endorsed by the encyclical.

Even worse, the church knows that many of the predicted catastrophic disasters from the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide are highly exaggerated if not outright fraudulent."

I wish Marsha Blackburn had been as erudite.

[eliotness]

There's an interesting article in The Guardian, just Google sustainable development and earth's population. It states that 20 years of scientific consensus on the earth's population growth appears now to be wrong. They were predicting a peak of 9 billion by 2050 then a gradual fall. It is now predicted that by 2100 the earth will have 12 billion people. That's nearly double in a century. What is that going to do to CO2 reduction plans ? The IPCC wrote their forecast on global warming assuming a peak population in 2050 based on that consensus of scientific opinion (no doubt peer reviewed). So they'll need to multiply their Armageddon forecasts to take cognisance of that "uncomfortable truth".

[up2u2]

A few days ago, the Associated Press announced it would no longer use the words "skeptic" and "denier" in its coverage of climate matters. The reason (on the denier word) was that it was a pejorative description which was linked too closely to Holocaust denial. Fairly minor stuff, you would argue, but it caused serious exploding heads in the Green/Left community, who felt that AP were betraying the cause by removing one of their favourite labels.

Salon magazine, for example, did not accept that climate "deniers" could be equated with Holocaust deniers.

"Climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial," they stated in a piece designed to rally the faithful. "The problem isn’t that 'denier' has a 'pejorative ring', it’s that it’s not nearly pejorative enough. 'Climate holocaust co-conspirator' would be more apt."

Sometimes I think there is a single author furiously writing Green/Left agit-prop, because it all sounds the same. The Salon piece was a classic which recycled all the tiresome points:

* We are right (the reality-based community); everything else is disinformation (anti-science). There is no debate.

* Anyone who disagrees is stupid, brainwashed by Right-wing sources or paid off by Big Oil.

* Anyone who disagrees with us is not just wrong but evil, is always lying and should be hated to the maximum. They are so inhuman that they care nothing for future generations, including their own children

* Anyone who is not with us is against us ( "You either align yourself more or less with the climate deniers—consciously or unconsciously—or you align yourself against them. There is no “neutral” ground outside of or above the debate")

To anyone capable of independent thought, this foam-flecked rant is interesting. It reveals at a stroke the hatred that is the driving force of the Green/Left, the staggering emotional immaturity, the slavish adherence to the cult, and the absolute lack of originality and imagination among its adherents.

Compared to these people, the Pope is a rational moderate.

This amusing piece, unsurprisingly titled "Wrong, wrong, wrong: The anti-science bullsh*t which explains why the right gets away with lies — and why the mainstream media lets them" can be found here

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/

For me Climate Deniers are similar to people who believe in 'creationism' and refute Evolution and firmly believe the Earth is 5000 years old and a god made Earth in 7 days. No evidence or education can make them believe otherwise. Climate Denial seems to appeal to right wing political ideology and there isn't a great deal anyone can do about. It never ceases to amaze me the bizarre things people believe.

[up2u2]

The hysterical Greenpeace allegations against Dr. Soon were a hit for about 15 minutes in the more childish reaches of the "progressive" media, but nobody with any common sense took them seriously.

Dr. Soon has also been very forthright about why the Pope (remember him?) should butt out of climate matters.

"The verdict is clear: Any attempt to stop the use of available fossil fuels for life and all human activities will cause far more harm and lead to more deaths than the theological belief in future catastrophic disasters endorsed by the encyclical.

Even worse, the church knows that many of the predicted catastrophic disasters from the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide are highly exaggerated if not outright fraudulent."

I wish Marsha Blackburn had been as erudite.

He gets paid millions of dollars from Exxon Mobil Rick if he made any other statement his 'gravy train' stops. That's a no brainer.

I don't think Congresswoman Blackburn could be any more erudite "No science could persuade me of GW / CC" Conversation over. Pointless ignorant position.

Edited October 15, 2015 by up2u2