Oh Those ExxonMobil-Funded Climate Change Deniers

[Harry Hope]

http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Exposing ClimateDepot

By Doug Craig

...........................................................................................

I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.

There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.

The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.

Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.

The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.

Anyone can sign a petition.

That does not prove anything.

The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25

That is correct.

Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.

ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.

In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."


"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."


"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."

"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"


"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."


All of this of course does prove my point.

While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.

They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

_____________________________________________________

Harry

[Claudius Denk]

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
_____________________________________________________
Harry

It's hilarious how AGW advocates are always telling us how scientific
they are yet they refuse to discuss the details of their science based
beliefs and will only present political arguments to the effect that
we should dismiss skeptics by way of labelling them as deniers.

.

[Dawlish]

Post by Claudius Denk

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­­................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
_____________________________________________________
Harry

It's hilarious how AGW advocates are always telling us how scientific
they are yet they refuse to discuss the details of their science based
beliefs and will only present political arguments to the effect that
we should dismiss skeptics by way of labelling them as deniers.
.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Not with you denky. Scientists discuss with reasonable people who have
open minds. Not with deniers like you. You don't deserve "debate".
Your ideas are anti-science and stupid, sorry.

The blogger harrybot refers to gives some damning statistics:

"Those in denial do not have any science studies supporting their
positions. There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last
40 years on climate change. The fact (is) that not one of them
supports their (deniers') view..............

30,000 - 0. Now there is a score to be reckoned with - if it is true.
If it is not quite true, the figure is likely to be very close.

No science to cite denky. That's the trouble with you and yours: no
science.

[Man_of_Mind]

Post by Claudius Denk

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C.
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

"A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most
comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of
the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations
that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

Download the report here..

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

Post by Claudius Denk

Post by Harry Hope
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.

See also..

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

"Marc Morano runs the climate website ClimateDepot.com for
the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative
environmental think tank. Until spring of 2009, Morano served
as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work
with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority
chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority
ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the
committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate
change skeptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS),
which is owned by the conservative Media Research Center. CNS
and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential
election and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war
veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,'
as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as
well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator,
the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."

Post by Claudius Denk

Post by Harry Hope
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
_____________________________________________________
Harry

It's hilarious how AGW advocates are always telling us how scientific
they are yet

You appear to be intentionally "mathorexic" as the data and
the methodologies are openly published and reviewed science.

That you can't attack the facts with anything more than mere
insinuations and fallacy arguments says more about your denial
than anything else..

Example follows..

Post by Claudius Denk
discuss the details of their science based beliefs

First off, "science" is not based upon "beliefs"..

--Your "science based beliefs" are questionable beyond belief..

[Desertphile]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:04:28 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk

Post by Claudius Denk

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

It's hilarious how AGW advocates are always telling us how scientific

There are no such things as "AGW advocates," shit-for-brains.

Post by Claudius Denk
they are yet they refuse to discuss the details of their science based
beliefs and will only present political arguments to the effect that
we should dismiss skeptics by way of labelling them as deniers.
.

[pyjamarama]

Post by Desertphile
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:04:28 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk

Post by Claudius Denk

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­ ................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

It's hilarious how AGW advocates are always telling us how scientific

There are no such things as "AGW advocates," shit-for-brains.

That's right -- they're better described as 'climate evangelicals'...

Blind faith, dogma, 'church hierarchy', icons, commandments, pennance,
sinners, salvation, proselytizing, etc,...it's ALL there.

Now say ten 'Hail Mayan Moon Godesses' and don your hemp hairshirt, my
son.

Post by Desertphile

Post by Claudius Denk
they are yet they refuse to discuss the details of their science based
beliefs and will only present political arguments to the effect that
we should dismiss skeptics by way of labelling them as deniers.
.

--http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"I can't wait till next year when the house starts un funding the EPA!" -- Nutcase in alt.global-warming- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Harry Hope

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the

issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...

Post by Harry Hope
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
_____________________________________________________
Harry

It's hilarious how AGW advocates are always telling us how scientific
they are yet they refuse to discuss the details of their science based
beliefs

You're lying outright, of course. The details of the science are
routinely discussed by pusblishing in scientific journals.

[Desertphile]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:43:19 -0500, Harry Hope

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.

By over 3,300 scientists and over 610 science organizations.

Post by Harry Hope
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.

Yes, of course. The tobacco industry did the same thing. Remember
when they tried to start "smoker's rights" groups? It was....
freaky. Tens and tens of people showed up for the free cigarettes.

Post by Harry Hope
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.

ExxonMobil pays scientists and economists US$10,000 per article
that sows doubt in the ignorant public regarding global climate
change and its causes. The BBC did a fine expose' on the subject.

Personally I would not sell my soul for any amount.

Post by Harry Hope
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
_____________________________________________________
Harry

[Bret Cahill]

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
_____________________________________________________
Harry

Nut job AGW denier conspiracy theorists will try to "turn it around"
and call that influence of interests a "conspiracy theory."


Bret Cahill

[bonobonobono]

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
"Exposing" ClimateDepot
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.

Only to be totally outdone by the warmie whackos!



Big Carbon Is Propping Up The Great Global Warming Hoax

December 5 2010





WikiLeaks reveals that covert funding is what's actually propping up the
warmists, with the US bribing poor nations to get on the global warming
bandwagon:



The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to
its approach to "tackling" global warming; how financial and other aid is
used by countries to gain political backing; .... and how the US mounted a
secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the
controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from
the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.



The accord promised $30bn in aid for the poorest nations hit by global
warming they had not caused.



Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister, Ahmed
Shaheed, wrote to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, expressing
eagerness to back it.



By 23 February 2010, the Maldives' ambassador-designate to the US, Abdul
Ghafoor Mohamed, told the US deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing,
his country wanted "tangible assistance", saying other nations would then
realise "the advantages to be gained by compliance" with the accord.



A diplomatic dance ensued.



"Ghafoor referred to several projects costing approximately $50m. Pershing
encouraged him to provide concrete examples and costs in order to increase
the likelihood of bilateral assistance.".



Pershing met the EU climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, in
Brussels, where she told him, according to a cable, "the Aosis [Alliance of
Small Island States] countries 'could be our best allies' given their need
for financing"....



On 2 February 2009, a cable from Addis Ababa reports a meeting between the
US undersecretary of state Maria Otero and the Ethiopian prime minister,
Meles Zenawi, who leads the African Union's climate change negotiations.



The confidential cable records a blunt US threat to Zenawi: sign the accord
or discussion ends now.



Zenawi responds that Ethiopia will support the accord, but has a concern of
his own: that a personal assurance from Barack Obama on delivering the
promised aid finance is not being honoured.



According to a cable, the Dutch climate negotiator Sanne Kaasjager "has
drafted messages for embassies in capitals receiving Dutch development
assistance to solicit support for the accord.



This is an unprecedented move for the Dutch government, which traditionally
recoils at any suggestion to use aid money as political leverage.".



Perhaps the most audacious appeal for funds revealed in the cables is from
Saudi Arabia, the world's second biggest oil producer and one of the 25
richest countries in the world. A secret cable sent on 12 February records a
meeting between US embassy officials and lead climate change negotiator
Mohammad al-Sabban. "The kingdom will need time to diversify its economy
away from petroleum, Sabban said, noting a US commitment to help Saudi
Arabia with its economic diversification efforts would 'take the pressure
off climate change negotiations'."



The Left will be outraged, of course, by this flagrant buying of opinion.



The minute that Hamilton or a Tim Flannery protests at the corruption of the
global warming debate by Big Government, I'll bring you the news.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord





Warmest Regards



B0nz0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville



"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"

Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author



"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics



"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated



Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher



"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

Bertrand Russell

[onobonobonob]

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
"Exposing" ClimateDepot
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.

Warmie whackos and "scientists" have been given BILLIONS of dollars for
years to confuse the public mind on mythical manmade global warming and
natural climate change.





Big Carbon Is Propping Up The Great Global Warming Hoax

December 5 2010





WikiLeaks reveals that covert funding is what's actually propping up the
warmists, with the US bribing poor nations to get on the global warming
bandwagon:



The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to
its approach to "tackling" global warming; how financial and other aid is
used by countries to gain political backing; .... and how the US mounted a
secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the
controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from
the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.



The accord promised $30bn in aid for the poorest nations hit by global
warming they had not caused.



Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister, Ahmed
Shaheed, wrote to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, expressing
eagerness to back it.



By 23 February 2010, the Maldives' ambassador-designate to the US, Abdul
Ghafoor Mohamed, told the US deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing,
his country wanted "tangible assistance", saying other nations would then
realise "the advantages to be gained by compliance" with the accord.



A diplomatic dance ensued.



"Ghafoor referred to several projects costing approximately $50m. Pershing
encouraged him to provide concrete examples and costs in order to increase
the likelihood of bilateral assistance.".



Pershing met the EU climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, in
Brussels, where she told him, according to a cable, "the Aosis [Alliance of
Small Island States] countries 'could be our best allies' given their need
for financing"....



On 2 February 2009, a cable from Addis Ababa reports a meeting between the
US undersecretary of state Maria Otero and the Ethiopian prime minister,
Meles Zenawi, who leads the African Union's climate change negotiations.



The confidential cable records a blunt US threat to Zenawi: sign the accord
or discussion ends now.



Zenawi responds that Ethiopia will support the accord, but has a concern of
his own: that a personal assurance from Barack Obama on delivering the
promised aid finance is not being honoured.



According to a cable, the Dutch climate negotiator Sanne Kaasjager "has
drafted messages for embassies in capitals receiving Dutch development
assistance to solicit support for the accord.



This is an unprecedented move for the Dutch government, which traditionally
recoils at any suggestion to use aid money as political leverage.".



Perhaps the most audacious appeal for funds revealed in the cables is from
Saudi Arabia, the world's second biggest oil producer and one of the 25
richest countries in the world. A secret cable sent on 12 February records a
meeting between US embassy officials and lead climate change negotiator
Mohammad al-Sabban. "The kingdom will need time to diversify its economy
away from petroleum, Sabban said, noting a US commitment to help Saudi
Arabia with its economic diversification efforts would 'take the pressure
off climate change negotiations'."



The Left will be outraged, of course, by this flagrant buying of opinion.



The minute that Hamilton or a Tim Flannery protests at the corruption of the
global warming debate by Big Government, I'll bring you the news.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord





Warmest Regards



B0nz0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville



"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"

Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author



"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics



"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated



Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher



"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

Bertrand Russell

[Mr Posting Robot]

How not to change a climate sceptic's mind

Peter Aldhous
New Scientist
18 March 2011

How do you get your point across over an issue as contentious as climate
change? As a hearing in the US Congress last wk showed, the evidence alone is
not enough.

At issue was the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans in the House and Senate are backing
bills that would strip the EPA of that right, which is based on findings that
rising CO2 levels pose a threat to health and the environment.

At the hearing, House Democrats hoped to counter these moves by calling a cast
of climatologists to explain the weight of scientific evidence for climate
change. A meeting of minds it was not. The effort seemed only to harden
Republican scepticism.

For Dan Kahan of the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale University, the result
was predictable. He has previously shown that simply explaining the science
behind contentious issues drives the 2 sides further apart. But Kahan's work
also suggests how warring parties can move towards consensus.

Kahan grades people on 2 scales of cultural belief: individualists versus
communitarians, based on the different importance people attach to the public
good when balanced against individual rights; and hierarchists versus
egalitarians, based on their views on the stratification of
society. Republicans are more likely to be hierarchical-individualist, while
Democrats are more often egalitarian-communitarian.

People's views on contentious scientific issues tend to reflect their position
on these scales. For example, egalitarian-communitarians tend to accept the
evidence that climate change is a threat, while hierarchical-individualists
reject it.

Yet people's views do change if the right person is offering the
evidence. Kahan investigated attitudes for and against giving the human
papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to schoolgirls to prevent cervical cancer -
another divisive issue. After he presented people with both sides of the
argument, he found that 70% of egalitarian-communitarians thought it was safe,
compared with 56% of hierarchical-individualists.

When the "pro" argument was presented as coming from an expert painted as
being in the egalitarian-communitarian camp, and the "anti" view came from a
hierarchical-individualist, the split widened to 71 versus 47 per cent. But
strikingly, swapping the experts around caused a big shift: 61% of
hierarchical-individualists then rated the vaccine as safe, compared to 58% of
egalitarian-communitarians. In short, evidence from someone you identify with
sways your view.

In practice, it is hard to find experts who will give "unexpected"
testimony. But when the evidence was presented by experts with a variety of
backgrounds, views were not so starkly polarised, with 65% of
egalitarian-communitarians and 54% of hierarchical-individualists agreeing
that the vaccine is safe.

So who might be best placed to change Republicans' minds over the EPA bill?
Maybe specialists from the insurance industry, which is factoring climate
change into its calculations, the military, or religious environmentalists.

Kahan accepts that it would be naive to think that climate sceptics will
suddenly abandon their position. But he says: "We want to create an
environment in which people, regardless of their values, are giving considered
attention to the information."

MYREF: 20110319220002 msg2011031910325

[143 more news items]

---
So you really, really believe that our universe just came about by
sheer chance? I prersonally, find that extremely hard to accept.
-- ***@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 11 Jan 2011 15:02 +1100

[bonobonobono]

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
"Exposing" ClimateDepot
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.

Only to be totally outdone by the warmie whackos!



Big Carbon Is Propping Up The Great Global Warming Hoax

December 5 2010





WikiLeaks reveals that covert funding is what's actually propping up the
warmists, with the US bribing poor nations to get on the global warming
bandwagon:



The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to
its approach to "tackling" global warming; how financial and other aid is
used by countries to gain political backing; .... and how the US mounted a
secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the
controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from
the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.



The accord promised $30bn in aid for the poorest nations hit by global
warming they had not caused.



Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister, Ahmed
Shaheed, wrote to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, expressing
eagerness to back it.



By 23 February 2010, the Maldives' ambassador-designate to the US, Abdul
Ghafoor Mohamed, told the US deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing,
his country wanted "tangible assistance", saying other nations would then
realise "the advantages to be gained by compliance" with the accord.



A diplomatic dance ensued.



"Ghafoor referred to several projects costing approximately $50m. Pershing
encouraged him to provide concrete examples and costs in order to increase
the likelihood of bilateral assistance.".



Pershing met the EU climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, in
Brussels, where she told him, according to a cable, "the Aosis [Alliance of
Small Island States] countries 'could be our best allies' given their need
for financing"....



On 2 February 2009, a cable from Addis Ababa reports a meeting between the
US undersecretary of state Maria Otero and the Ethiopian prime minister,
Meles Zenawi, who leads the African Union's climate change negotiations.



The confidential cable records a blunt US threat to Zenawi: sign the accord
or discussion ends now.



Zenawi responds that Ethiopia will support the accord, but has a concern of
his own: that a personal assurance from Barack Obama on delivering the
promised aid finance is not being honoured.



According to a cable, the Dutch climate negotiator Sanne Kaasjager "has
drafted messages for embassies in capitals receiving Dutch development
assistance to solicit support for the accord.



This is an unprecedented move for the Dutch government, which traditionally
recoils at any suggestion to use aid money as political leverage.".



Perhaps the most audacious appeal for funds revealed in the cables is from
Saudi Arabia, the world's second biggest oil producer and one of the 25
richest countries in the world. A secret cable sent on 12 February records a
meeting between US embassy officials and lead climate change negotiator
Mohammad al-Sabban. "The kingdom will need time to diversify its economy
away from petroleum, Sabban said, noting a US commitment to help Saudi
Arabia with its economic diversification efforts would 'take the pressure
off climate change negotiations'."



The Left will be outraged, of course, by this flagrant buying of opinion.



The minute that Hamilton or a Tim Flannery protests at the corruption of the
global warming debate by Big Government, I'll bring you the news.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord





Warmest Regards



B0nz0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville



"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"

Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author



"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics



"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated



Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher



"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

Bertrand Russell

[Surfer]

Post by bonobonobono
The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to
its approach to "tackling" global warming;

Which has been to do less than others have been recommending.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/policies/usa_policy.shtml

<Start extract>

President Obama's medium-term target has been criticised by some for
being under-ambitious. He has said that America should aim to return
to 1990 emissions levels by 2020 with critics saying that emissions
need to be significantly lower than that by then.

<End extract>

[Surfer]

Post by bonobonobono
The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to
its approach to "tackling" global warming; how financial and other aid is
used by countries to gain political backing; .... and how the US mounted a
secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the
controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from
the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord


<Start extract>

The accord turns the UN's top-down, unanimous approach upside down,
with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts.
It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly
growing countries than the UN process. But the accord cannot guarantee
the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming.
Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN's negotiations on
extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding
obligations. Those objections have led many countries – particularly
the poorest and most vulnerable – to vehemently oppose the accord.

<End extract>

[tunderbar]

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
_____________________________________________________
Harry

Irrelevant. All of it. The fact is that there is no "consensus".
Period. End of story.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:41:31 -0800 (PST), tunderbar

Post by tunderbar

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

Irrelevant. All of it. The fact is that there is no "consensus".

Why do all of the scientists say there is?

Post by tunderbar
Period. End of story.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:36:05 -0700, Desertphile

Post by Desertphile
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:41:31 -0800 (PST), tunderbar

Post by tunderbar
Irrelevant. All of it. The fact is that there is no "consensus".

Why do all of the scientists say there is?

More silence from "thunderbar." Stings, surely.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:16:32 -0700, Desertphile

Post by Desertphile
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:36:05 -0700, Desertphile

Post by Desertphile
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:41:31 -0800 (PST), tunderbar

Post by tunderbar
Irrelevant. All of it. The fact is that there is no "consensus".

Why do all of the scientists say there is?

More silence from "thunderbar." Stings, surely.

"thunderbar" still silent. Funny!

[tunderbar]

Post by Desertphile
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:41:31 -0800 (PST), tunderbar

Post by tunderbar

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­ ................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

Irrelevant. All of it. The fact is that there is no "consensus".

Why do all of the scientists say there is?

Really? All of them?

Buddy, please keep posting. You make us look like geniuses by
comparison.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:00:19 -0800 (PST), tunderbar

Post by tunderbar

Post by Desertphile
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:41:31 -0800 (PST), tunderbar

Post by tunderbar

Post by Harry Hope
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/12/exposing-climat.html
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Exposing ClimateDepot
By Doug Craig
...........................................................................­ ................
I just finished stating that those in denial do not have any science
studies supporting their positions.
There have been about 30,000 studies published in the last 40 years on
climate change.
The fact that not one of them supports their view is significant.
Instead, they find their support in petitions, not studies.
The fact that "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims" means very little if those scientists
do not have any scientific studies to support their claims.
Anyone can sign a petition.
That does not prove anything.
The site where you can find this is ClimateDepot "a project of the
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow--a conservative think tank,
based out of Washington, D.C."http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Internat...
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT has received
$582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
That is correct.
Those who want to deny the human role in global warming turn to
conservative think tanks who receive money from the largest company on
Earth benefiting from our continued use of fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars for years to organizations
like CFACT to confuse the public mind on global warming and climate
change.
In 2007 "A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the
most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the
same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million
between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that
seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano.http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
"From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the
majority chair of the EPWC."
"In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from
the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest
available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has
received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry
sectors--almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources
Sector and their respective PACS."
"Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with
Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media
Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing
foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from
oil-giant ExxonMobil."
"From 1992 to 1996, Morano worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh
Television Show and was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington.'"
"Morano is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's annual
International Conference on Climate Change. Morano is also listed on
Heartland's website as a 'global warming expert.' The Heartland
Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, in
addition to $335,000 from Scaife Foundations and $77,578 from Koch
Foundations. They have also received over $200,000 from the tobacco
giant Philip Morris."
All of this of course does prove my point.
While some turn to credible science sources for data on climate
change, others turn to conservative think tanks with connections to
the fossil fuel industry with a clear political agenda.
They can point to petitions to support their denial but remember it
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

Irrelevant. All of it. The fact is that there is no "consensus".

Why do all of the scientists say there is?

Really? All of them?

Yes; so close to 100%, "all" is a valid word. If you have made a
discovery that shows all of the scientists are wrong, our next
step is to write a paper on the subject and send it to a refereed
peer-reviewed science journal and tell them about it. It is your
civic duty to the world. What the hell are you waiting for?! Start
here: http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/

[Robot]

That Awkward Conversation

HuffPost
Feb 10, 2011 04:40 PM

I've spent a lot of time lately thinking about climate change liars. Those
people who make a living deliberately deceiving the public about the
scientific consensus on climate disruption. These people are awful, they know
who they are. They have to live with their lies.

But what's worse is the other lie I've discovered in the process. It's the lie
that I'm telling. It's the lie that we all tell to our children and each other
when we don't talk about climate disruption. It's the lie of us all pretending
that everything will be OK.

People have lots of opinions about what it takes to be a great parent. But
I'm pretty sure that this isn't on anyone's list: Lying to your children about
the unraveling of nature and the catastrophes that will certainly follow.

It's not on my list. But that's pretty much what most of us do everyday, at
least those of us who know anything at all about the reality of ongoing
climate disruption.

If someone told all the parents of the world that there was a 98 percent
chance that radical environmental changes in the next 10 - 50 y will wipe
out 1/2 of all known life forms on earth, and that famine, plagues, floods and
droughts on a scale not seen in 1000s of y would become routine for
bns of people, you would think they would tell their kids.

Well most climate scientists in the world have been telling us that, but we
don't do anything about it.

Sure, there is a 2% chance, probably less, that we can continue to pump 1k
tons per second of CO2 into the atmosphere every minute of every hour of every
day of every wk of every m of the year, and that it will have no effect. But
there is at least a 98% chance that it will.

Given those odds, what are parents to do?

What most of us do is lie. Well, not exactly lie. We just don't talk about
it. We don't bring it up. We hide from the truth and hope somehow that it will
go away. But it isn't going away.

Why do we behave this way? 3 reasons: Most of us feel powerless, in the face
of industry lobbyists and lying politicians, to force the huge changes needed
to fix the problem. This is not something that is pleasant to admit, and we
don't know how to tell our children just how powerless we have become. Parents
aren't supposed to be powerless. And even if we could face up to that, for most
of us a climate-disrupted future is too overwhelming and painful to talk about.

And even if we decided to talk about it, what would we tell the kids? "Gee,
I'm sorry, but our completely irresponsible unwillingness to make any of the
changes necessary to avoid massive and unprecedented disruption of the earths
climate means that we have sent the planet careening toward a catastrophic
convergence of events that almost certainly will destroy life on earth as we
know it."

"Sure we built some windmills and threw up a few solar panels, but in the end
it was just too hard to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions. And rather
than upset you, we just decided not to tell you any of what we know about the
perilous future we are leaving you."

I'm not real happy with that strategy.

Maybe as a 1st step in fighting climate disruption we need to figure out how
to talk about it with each other and with our children. Maybe we should
man-up, or woman-up for that matter, and actually do something about the
problem. Why not? The fortunes to be made on the solutions will make the
internet revolution look like chump change.

And maybe we should give our children a fighting chance to beat the problem,
because after all, they'll have to live with it, not us.

It's way past time to start talking about climate disruption. If we don't have
the courage and common sense to begin this conversation, it's pretty unlikely
we will ever find the resolve to fix the problem.

[83 more news items]


---
So you really, really believe that our universe just came about by
sheer chance? I prersonally, find that extremely hard to accept.
-- ***@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 11 Jan 2011 15:02 +1100