Climate warnings ignored with US elections looming

May 15, 2014 by Steven R. Hurst

The U.S. Congress, ignoring dire new warnings about climate change, continues to shy away from legislation that might mitigate the effects of global warming, leaving President Barack Obama with limited tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are partly responsible for melting glaciers and rising sea levels.

The United States is the second-largest producer of , the heat-trapping gas that is a byproduct of burning coal, oil and natural gas. China is in first place. Curbing those emissions and switching to energy sources such as wind and solar will be expensive and harm the economy in some U.S. states, especially those that depend heavily on coal mining and oil extraction.

Given that reality and upcoming congressional elections in November, lawmakers—including some Democrats—are more reluctant than ever to tackle legislation that would put limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gasses.

Republicans have a good chance at taking the majority in the Senate, and Democrats are fighting most of their toughest races this year in conservative-leaning states that rely heavily on the energy industry, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alaska and Montana.

Conservative groups already have spent millions of dollars accusing Democrats in those states of supporting that would impede local jobs and economic development.

Next month, the Obama administration is set to release new regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants. Opponents of the move claim the president and Democrats have declared war on coal.

The American Energy Alliance, which has spent more than $1 million on television criticizing Obama's energy policies and candidates who support them, said it's more than likely the emissions rules will wind up in the group's election ads this year.

"It wouldn't matter when they were coming out, but it just so happens to be an election year as well," said Tom Pyle, the group's president. "That's not something that's gone unnoticed by us."

But it is not just politics. Many Republicans say they do not believe the science that shows man-made climate change as a major threat to civilization.

"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Sen. Marco Rubio said over the weekend. He is a likely candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

That is a common response, despite the recent high-powered scientific warnings that the United States and the rest of the world already are losing the battle against climate change.

On Monday, two groups of scientists reported that a big part of the massive West Antarctica ice sheet is cracking apart and continued melting cannot be stopped. The melting of the sheet and other adjacent fields of ice could raise sea levels by 10 feet (3 meters) in coming centuries.

A few days earlier, a federal report said Americans already were in the grip of , once seen as a challenge still well in the future.

The report noted that winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity and have shifted northward since the 1950s. Also, heat waves, such as those in Texas in 2011 and the Midwest in 2012, are projected to intensify nationwide. Sea level has risen 8 inches (20 centimeters) since 1880 and is projected to rise between 1 foot and 4 feet by 2100.

Explore further: White House pushes climate change efforts

3.9 /5 (18 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

White House pushes climate change efforts

May 06, 2014

The White House will focus this week on its efforts fighting climate change as a new environmental assessment is released, an official said Monday, amid pushback from a reticent Congress.

Fewer US nuclear plants could curb climate change fight

May 07, 2014

Nuclear power plants in the United States increasingly risk closure amid growing competition from cheap natural gas, which experts said could hamper President Barack Obama's efforts to combat climate change.

White House calls for urgent climate change action

May 06, 2014

The White House called Tuesday for urgent action to combat climate change, as it released a study on the impact of global warming across the United States and key sectors of the US economy.

Recommended for you

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

10 hours ago

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

Dec 19, 2014

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 69

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) May 15, 2014
Why am I not surprised?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (22) May 15, 2014
AGWites should read Aesop.
Especially about the boy who cries wolf.
jackjump
2.1 / 5 (21) May 15, 2014
You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. After nearly twenty years of no warming with CO2 continuing to grow at the same rate the hypothesis that growing CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming just doesn't convince anymore . . . certainly not enough to justify dumping fossil fuels and retreating a century and a half back to the use of sun and wind power.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (16) May 15, 2014
AGWites should read Aesop.
Especially about the boy who cries wolf.

We'd only know that the boy did indeed "cry wolf" when we get to the time period being predicted ... and by that time it would be too late to act ryggy baby.
Is that your preferred method of preceding? Wait until we cant stop the bloody thing?
Thousands of years of human advancement, giving us the means to measure, understand, calculate and predict a problem (a possible existential one at that) .... and what does the "not my tax Dollars" lot advocate? Do nowt. With you lot in charge we may as well be under fundamentalist rule ( as in, if it's not in the book then it dont count - we only do what's on that list ... cant be bothered with this advanced civilization stuff, even if it poisons the planet. After all my back-yard looks the same, so it'll be that way when I'm pushing up daisies.
FFS
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) May 15, 2014
Wait until we cant stop the bloody thing?

You assume it can be stopped when climate has been changing for millions of years.
predict a problem

Predictions keep changing when they keep failing.

Funny how AGWites have zero interest in deflecting asteroids. A well documented threat and many paths forward for prevention.

The only beneficiary of AGWism are the AlGore cronies and agency scientists.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (16) May 15, 2014
You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. After nearly twenty years of no warming with CO2 continuing to grow at the same rate the hypothesis that growing CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming just doesn't convince anymore . . . certainly not enough to justify dumping fossil fuels and retreating a century and a half back to the use of sun and wind power.

Mr jump: I suggest you look at deep water temp rises and work out what that means in Watts of solar energy absorbed (hint you have to x by 4000 to get an equiv air temp rise).
After that I would suggest you learn about the -ve PDO/ENSO effect on global temps (which has largely prevailed since 1998 (it takes 0.2C off).
Oh, it's 20 years now is it? last I did the maths, 2014 minus 1998 was 16 and actually 2005 was the warmest year on the GISS.
It only convinces you sunshine. Just maybe that's because of ignorance.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (15) May 15, 2014
Wait until we cant stop the bloody thing?

You assume it can be stopped when climate has been changing for millions of years.

It cant actually no, as its built in even if carbon stopped being burnt tomorrow - but we could lessen it. In other words what Man does Man can control - we cant control orbital characteristics. It's us. Unequivocal science - that I'm not about to debate with you/others here for the nth time.
predict a problem

Predictions keep changing when they keep failing.

Science works like that - you make a prediction then tweek as data/new knowledge comes aIong. The predictions are being found to be under-cooked if anything.

Funny how AGWites have zero interest in deflecting asteroids. A well documented threat and many paths forward for prevention.

Irrelevant.

The only beneficiary of AGWism are the AlGore cronies and agency scientists.

Bollocks ..... to all those not "ideologically" challenged by the subject and ah diddums.
supamark23
3.4 / 5 (14) May 15, 2014
AGWites should read Aesop.
Especially about the boy who cries wolf.


You should hope you're right because your life actually depends on it. When the crap hits the fan, I guarantee that you and the other deniers will be the first against the wall. In other words, you are literally betting your life that you're right....
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (16) May 15, 2014
You should hope you're right because your life actually depends on it. When the crap hits the fan, I guarantee that you and the other deniers will be the first against the wall. In other words, you are literally betting your life that you're right....


You mean you and you green comrades are stacking up the ammo? Pfft: they are more likely busy growing organics and smoking pot.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) May 15, 2014
"
West Antarctic glacier loss appears unstoppable, study finds
May 12, 2014
"
"Seeding oceans with iron may not confer promised climate benefits"
your life actually depends on it.

Which is why I don't believe AGWism.
deniers will be the first against the wall.

Always with the threats of violence.
Too bad AGWites didn't promote nuclear power, immediately and consistently. But then that would promote more prosperity.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (16) May 15, 2014
"On Monday, two groups of scientists reported that a big part of the massive West Antarctica ice sheet is cracking apart and continued melting cannot be stopped. "

If you repeat a lie many times it is still a lie. Here is the temperature data for WAIS:
http://en.wikiped...#Climate
We are talking puny +5C degree record high temperature there. Do you know what record low there is? -62C

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) May 15, 2014
The key phrase is "cannot be stopped".
How does runny plan to stop a glacier from sliding into the ocean?
supamark23
3.5 / 5 (12) May 15, 2014
You should hope you're right because your life actually depends on it. When the crap hits the fan, I guarantee that you and the other deniers will be the first against the wall. In other words, you are literally betting your life that you're right....


You mean you and you green comrades are stacking up the ammo? Pfft: they are more likely busy growing organics and smoking pot.


Actually, it will be the mob looknig for the a-holes that kept us from acting in time. Politicians and industry proxies like yourself will be dragged into the streat and from there it just gets exponentially worse for you. I honestly hope the projections are wrong, but I don't think they are.
supamark23
4.1 / 5 (14) May 15, 2014
"On Monday, two groups of scientists reported that a big part of the massive West Antarctica ice sheet is cracking apart and continued melting cannot be stopped. "

If you repeat a lie many times it is still a lie. Here is the temperature data for WAIS:
http://en.wikiped...#Climate
We are talking puny +5C degree record high temperature there. Do you know what record low there is? -62C



Uh, they can see it sliding off into the ocean... it's a simple measurement. Are you now claiming that they cannot measure it accurately?

Have you seen the time lapse video of the ice sheet sliding into the ocean over the last 12 years? It's kinda obvious... unless you think a bunch of scientists actually went to the Antarctic and somehow faked it?
TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (12) May 15, 2014
Actually, it will be the mob looknig for the a-holes that kept us from acting in time.


Mob rage is blunt and indiscriminate. It will thoroughly enjoy looting mansions, as well as destroying green "sustainable" buildings, organic greenhouses, and whatever else gets its way.
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (17) May 15, 2014
Uh, they can see it sliding off into the ocean... it's a simple measurement. Are you now claiming that they cannot measure it accurately?

Have you seen the time lapse video of the ice sheet sliding into the ocean over the last 12 years? It's kinda obvious... unless you think a bunch of scientists actually went to the Antarctic and somehow faked it?


Ice shields are supposed to slide down to the ocean. This is how icebergs are formed. Ross Ice Shelf in the Antarctic expands with the average speed 2.5 meters a day. Assuming no iceberg breakage how long would it take to reach New Zealand?

And, yes, I think they have problems measuring ice mass. Altimeter based method is fairly recent, so the bulk of the data about alleged ice mass lost comes from gravity change measurements. These have huge error bars.

On the other hand, checking up the average temperature is a trivial matter. If you have it hanging around -30C, the word "melt" becomes misnomer.
supamark23
3.8 / 5 (17) May 15, 2014
Ice shields are supposed to slide down to the ocean. This is how icebergs are formed. Ross Ice Shelf in the Antarctic expands with the average speed 2.5 meters a day. Assuming no iceberg breakage how long would it take to reach New Zealand?

And, yes, I think they have problems measuring ice mass. Altimeter based method is fairly recent, so the bulk of the data about alleged ice mass lost comes from gravity change measurements. These have huge error bars.

On the other hand, checking up the average temperature is a trivial matter. If you have it hanging around -30C, the word "melt" becomes misnomer.


lol, air temps don't say much about what's happening a couple hundred feet under the top of the ice... or in the ocean.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) May 15, 2014
Actually, it will be the mob looknig for the a-holes that kept us from acting in time.


"Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II. We have slipped into an age of un-enlightenment where you fall in line behind the mob or face the consequences."
"How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card."
http://www.usatod...9098133/
mosahlah
2.9 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
You can't see it or feel it… but impending doom is upon us. Right? And we can stop it. Right? All we have to do is… what exactly? Instead of arguing about the weather, let's hear the real issue. What are we proposing we do? Let's put all this global brainpower to a real test.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (15) May 15, 2014
From the ever insightful Rygg2:

Funny how AGWites have zero interest in deflecting asteroids. A well documented threat and many paths forward for prevention.


I happen to be in favor of deflecting asteroids. I think we should spend money on detecting them and learning how to deflect them... Oh, wait, we are spending money on that. Oh, so is the EU. Oh, so are the Russians..

So, Rygg2, what are you whining about again?

Oh, yeah, you just whine without any reasoning involved.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (12) May 15, 2014
@TegiriNenashi,
And, yes, I think they have problems measuring ice mass. Altimeter based method is fairly recent, so the bulk of the data about alleged ice mass lost comes from gravity change measurements. These have huge error bars.
The breadth and depth of your ignorance are truly staggering -- and comparable only to the magnitude of your billowing hubris. You are a poster boy for Dunning-Krueger. Here are *some* of the ways in which ice mass is being monitored and measured:

http://www.antarc...e-space/

Here are *some* of the findings:

http://www.antarc...balance/

It's not like all the various methods don't produce overlapping results, and/or similar-looking trends. It's not like they validate each other... As for this:
Do you know what record low there is? -62C
Do you habitually run a wipe-and-reformat on your brain at the end of every day?
Bob Osaka
2 / 5 (4) May 16, 2014
Which angers you more, you own stupidity or someone else's?
Back to the boy who cried wolf, it is a moral about honesty is it not?
In some versions of the story, the third time the wolf destroys the sheep and the boy.
In 1755 Joseph Black discovered CO2. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated global temperatures would rise with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is an article about politicians ignoring facts, placating popular misconceptions and favoring short-term economics over a long-term survival strategy. So, no news.
Anthropogenic global warming debate is still alive and well on this site? I thought that was limited to climate change denier lunatic fringe lovefest sites like "Wattsupwiththat?" Human CO2 emissions are such a small faction of the atmosphere. How can a single straw break a camel's back?
And yes, there is nothing we can do about Milankovich cycles.
You can go back to calling each other idiots now.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) May 16, 2014
Anthropogenic global warming debate is still alive and well on this site?
@bob Osaka
yep. still tons of trolls here who don't believe in the empirical data that science has given them... still tons of idiots that ignore the scientific facts about the climate. still tons of people that don't understand the issues... and make idiotic comments with no empirical data for support, and no links or proof supporting their claims... still fringe lunatics here posting in their ignorance about the effects of CO2 without realizing what they are saying because they don't know any better and listen to blogs over science...
sigh
read THIS article http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

YOU CAN STILL SEE PEOPLE POSTING IN THE COMMENTS THAT don't know what they are talking about... like jd et al.
still people posting about something they know nothing about but forget to provide proof of claims

Huns
4 / 5 (10) May 16, 2014
I live in a state that depends on coal, therefore global warming (which might prompt action that hurts my economic interests) is "wrong." You can dump a truckload of evidence right at my feet and I'll steadfastly ignore it, because I would rather not have to contemplate changing my life.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (10) May 16, 2014
The key phrase is "cannot be stopped".
How does runny plan to stop a glacier from sliding into the ocean?

Comprehension problem rears its head again eh ryggy...
I said some sig warming is built in and wont stop even with zero GHG emissions from tomorrow.
It's not all or nothing.
A certain amount of shit has/will happen but as Eddie Izzard says ... "I don't believe in God, rather we're here by accident, but as we're here we may as as well do the civilisation thing."
And that's using the brain power we have used to investigate our world .... and not just ^^**ng sitting there and doing nowt until it's too late or clasping our hands and wailing that it's too late anyway.
FFS
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) May 16, 2014
On the other hand, checking up the average temperature is a trivial matter. If you have it hanging around -30C, the word "melt" becomes misnomer.

Mr Tegri...
You are aware the the ice sheet has 2 surfaces ?
A top one that is subject to the vagaries of the atmosphere.... and .... another one. which is the opposite of top.
You did read the article on here re the WAIS?
Go read it again and then come back and start spouting on about "evil water currents". At least you're a little closer there (but no cigar).
DirtySquirties
1.8 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
I don't understand why you people bother arguing. One side has their head rammed so far up their butt, the other also has to stick their head inside just so they can hear each other. All you end up with is a four legged, four armed, headless beast squirming all over the floor and annoying everyone with the misfortune to be around it.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) May 16, 2014
Curbing those emissions and switching to energy sources such as wind and solar will be expensive and harm the economy in some U.S. states

Whereas paying for crop failures, displacing entire cities and comabtting increased migration will not?

Oh wait...those are paid for by taxpayers - not big business. My bad.

Privatize profit, socialise losses.
Egleton
3.7 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
"All you end up with is a four legged, four armed, headless beast squirming all over the floor and annoying everyone with the misfortune to be around it."

On the contrary sir. I do get a lot of schadenfreude from the thought of the Yanks fighting over a crust of bread; as will be the case if the great plains dries up, or even worse, Big Ag cannot get diesel. The great plains regularly cycles between forest and desert, fragile thing that it is.

Never mind, I am sure that the Koch Bros have all angles covered. (For themselves, of cause.) It will be all champaine and caviar for them. Their paid hacks and useful idiots will carry on regardless, to my amusement.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
What are we proposing we do?

Create a world govt with the power to force everyone to live the way AGWites say.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
"The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.

One of the peer-reviewers reportedly wrote:

'It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.'
"As the emails leaked in 2009 made abundantly clear, the organised suppression of sceptical papers in learned journals by the alarmist establishment has long been rife within the field of climate science."
http://www.breitb...al-grows
How to trust peer review?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
if the climate establishment is really so sure of the solidity of the science underpinning its doomsday predictions, how come it needs to adopt such desperate, unethical and unscientific methods to shut out dissenting voices?

http://www.breitb...al-grows

A question that I continuously ask.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
"Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years."
http://judithcurr...re-15492
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
"Pielke Jr states:

For experts in the climate issue, there is enormous social and peer pressure on what is acceptable to say and who it is acceptable to associate with. My recent experiences are quite similar to Bengtsson's:"

"Bengtsson: 'Many of us feel rather uncomfortable with much of what has been claimed about the greenhouse effect. No one had been talking about it because temperatures had been slightly on the decline during the last 30 years. Only after Jim Hansen of NASA had put the issue back on the agenda after the warm summer of 1988 has it become part of the political agenda. "
http://judithcurr...re-15492

Joe McCarthy was correct about communists in the US.

A better analogy is Lysenko and how he gained the support of Stalin with bogus science.
"Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948."
AGWites want to outlaw dissent.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
I live in a state that depends on coal, therefore global warming (which might prompt action that hurts my economic interests) is "wrong." You can dump a truckload of evidence right at my feet and I'll steadfastly ignore it, because I would rather not have to contemplate changing my life.


At least that is honest. I live in a province that depends on oil, yet I am satisfied with the science behind global warming and I am convinced by the evidence provided showing its link to CO2 emissions despite the possibility that my economic interests may be hurt in the short term.

I prefer to try and influence the solutions such that my children and their children have a fighting chance to overcome the far higher long term costs associated with doing nothing.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
What are we proposing we do?

Create a world govt with the power to force everyone to live the way AGWites say.



The New World Order! What a LOON!!!!!
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
"Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship. "
http://www.scienc....summary
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
"Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship. "
http://www.scienc....summary
Lunatic quote mining by a LOOOOOON! Do you know what "earth systems" are loon? Do you understand that the paper you're quoting in some lunatic attempt to support your paranoid delusion is talking about how we govern our exploitation of the environment, not some government control on individual actions?

Of course you don't because you arre a paranoid f'n LOON!!!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
Create a world govt with the power to force everyone to live the way AGWites say
&
How to trust peer review?
&
Joe McCarthy was correct about communists in the US
&
AGWites want to outlaw dissent
@ryg
the NSA told me to tell you that you're too stupid to be a threat... so at least you have some relief there
you do realize that your words are pretty much no different than most conversations found here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
http://www.govern...acy.net/
http://trueconspiracies.com/
http://conspiracyplanet.com/

in fact... there seems to be similar syntax and wording between you and a few nuts there ... now... about THIS post
http://www.scienc...306.full
YOU cannot read the whole text, can you? THAT is why you're posting it here! guess what... I CAN read the whole thing, and it only proves YOU are, to coin a phrase from Maggnus, a LOOON!
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) May 16, 2014
AGWites should read Aesop.
Especially about the boy who cries wolf.
I wonder if Aesop had any fables about the boy who didn't believe in wolves... Or about the boy who thought wolves were cute and cuddly...
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
"Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.[...]. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.


Hahahahaha-

rygsuckn' is still going on about poor widdle perfesser Bengtsson's AGW persecution conspiracy.

Here's the whole story, WITHIN context, and including Environmental Research Letters' publisher's statement and reprinted referee's recommendation. Some other pertinent, broader-perspective analysis, as well:

http://www.rawsto...science/

Ouchy! Bengtssy got a boo-boo!
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
"Socialism is the only solution to stopping and reversing climate change – and for providing everyone with the necessities of life. The nationalisation of the multi-national companies which dominate food production and distribution is a necessary first step,"
http://www.social...duction/

"If you are a socialist, chances are you believe that there is only a limited amount of wealth in the world. People are impoverished only because rich capitalists are hoarding it.

You probably also believe that global natural resources are scarce, the world's water supply is drying up, and irreplaceable species are becoming extinct."

http://www.americ...ity.html
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
"This irrational fear of scarcity is what drives the socialist advocacy for abortion of the unborn and euthanasia of the aged and infirm.

As it turns out, the "population bomb" has thus far been a dud. Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book of the same name predicted mass starvation and global social upheavals by the 1980s. Although this never happened, it has not deterred true believers. "
"The irrational fear of vanishing species drives extraordinary, some would say self-destructive, behavior through regulatory action. Fear of extinction of the little Delta Smelt has caused government regulators to shut off the water supply to California's San Joaquin valley, costing thousands of jobs and farmers' lost livelihoods. Approximately 12% of America's food production has been devastated as a result."
http://www.americ...ity.html
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
"The socialist believes in the power of government to forcibly redistribute wealth and resources, control the population and the environment, and micromanage mankind into a heretofore unseen utopian society. Never mind that all previous attempts at this have been abject failures, frequently resulting in the mass murder and death by starvation of tens of millions of socialist citizens.

Oppressive government regulation kills the golden goose of abundance, and transforms the phobia of scarcity into a self-fulfilling prophesy. If the self-destructive irrationality of socialism is not a psychotic mental disorder, perhaps it is at least a serious neurosis."
http://www.americ...ity.html

Does stumpy acknowledge the EMPIRICAL data on the FAILURE of socialism?
Yet he still is a willing fellow traveler of the 'watermelons'.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
How to trust peer review?
Maybe we should let Prof Bengtsson answer that question:

Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers' comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.

http://www.ft.com...1vK9Ry2o
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
"A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: "We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.""
""We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)"
""A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.""

Gorbachev: " "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.""

http://www.forbes...science/
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
"IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: "…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth…""
{AKA: SOCIALISM}
"The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn't include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for "green energy", foreign aid to help other countries address "climate problems"; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 "Stimulus Bill"."
http://www.forbes...science/
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day."


Why do I quote Winnie the Pooh, you ask?

Because it's about as relevant as ryggesogn2's flood of OT BS.

In fact, the above quote seems to be a pretty accurate description of ryggesogn2's life in general...
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
"So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science."

"For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. "
"If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. "
"But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves--of having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis "
from Cargo Cult Science, Feynman
http://neurotheor...ult.html
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
"So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. "
http://neurotheor...ult.html

Those in the AGW cult do not have that freedom. It's called tyranny.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) May 16, 2014
Those in the AGW cult do not have that freedom. It's called tyranny.
Those who think AGW is a cult do not have that freedom. It's called stupidity.

It's also as OT as the rest of your garbage flood above...
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) May 16, 2014
@DirtySquirties,
I don't understand why you people bother arguing.
Seeing as this site utterly lacks any moderation, as the resident DK-heads spew their inanities all over the site, there are two options.

1) ignore and do nothing
2) publicly remind the DK-heads, on occasion, how full of it they are

Now granted, anyone who is actually *sane*, wouldn't spend *multiple years* endlessly posting and re-posting the same crap all over a science news site, while all this time assiduously laboring to *not* notice any refutations of their crap and to *not* learn anything from the torrent of research findings, which merely serve as pretext for showcasing their rank ignorance and inability to think rationally, to the whole wide world. No, a sane person wouldn't do anything like that. It takes a rather sick individual, or a well-funded one, and perhaps both.

However, if such torrents of BS are left alone, casual visitors to this site might think it's a den of morons...
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
"IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: "…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is[...] redistribute de facto the world's wealth…""
{AKA: SOCIALISM}
"The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn't include $79 billion [...] other countries address "climate problems"; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 "Stimulus Bill"."
http://www.forbes...science/


AGW R&D funding drop-in-the-bucket....

Take a look at ANNUAL corporate welfare:

http://www.cato.o...A703.pdf

From the CATO --hahahahahaha.

thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
@DirtySquirties,
I don't understand why you people bother arguing.
Seeing as this site utterly lacks any moderation, as the resident DK-heads spew their inanities all over the site, there are two options.

1) ignore and do nothing
2) publicly remind the DK-heads, on occasion, how full of it they are

However, if such torrents of BS are left alone, casual visitors to this site might think it's a den of morons...


PE - your efforts and those of other sane posters are appreciated. We really don't want new visitors to the site to think that all of us are insane. Those who are insane like Rygg2, Uba, and JDS need to be responded to. Please keep up the good work.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2014
acknowledge the EMPIRICAL data on the FAILURE of socialism?
@ryg
you do realise that it's irrelevant to this conversation, right? and I've already answered this to you more than once, moron. Its never worked. are you really that stupid?
Socialism is the only solution to stopping and reversing climate change
so because YOU visit socialist sites (which I NEVER do) and believe in their rhetoric (which I never have) then this means I am socialist for believing in SCIENCE? wow! you ARE a LOOOOOOON!
here is a quote for you from Pink!
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day."
Thanks for this Pink! YOUR POST TOTALLY FITS THIS CONVERSATION! More for you ryg
Dang, that was lucky. Doggone near lost a four hundred dollar handcart
or this one
Can you do that? Can you explode twice?
MLP for prony boy rygg, the ultimate 4chan b-tard
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
"The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.

Read more: http://dailycalle...1yM20PoD

Feynman would not approve.

How does this help the AGW cause?
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated global temperatures would rise with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.


He also thought it was a good thing, as it would stave off 'mini ice age'.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
Feynman would not approve.
How does this help the AGW cause?
@ryg
did you verify that with Feynman? I suggest you do... I prefer you went there personally and checked... Ouija boards are not empirical

And now for something completely irrelevant. I think I shall call them "Ryg's" after you!

"this is the best movie I've been in since I died"
-Graham Chapman
talking about "A Liars Autobiography: the untrue story of Monty Pythons Graham Chapman"
http://www.liarsa...phy.com/

Monty Python (sometimes known as The Pythons)[2][3] are a British surreal comedy group that created Monty Python's Flying Circus, a British television comedy sketch show that first aired on the BBC on 5 October 1969.
https://en.wikipe...y_Python

Eddy Courant
1.8 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
Finally Congress gets something right! Screw this crap.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
did you verify that with Feynman?


""For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. "
"If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. "
"But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves--of having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis "
from Cargo Cult Science, Feynman

PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) May 17, 2014
^^ That being advice steadfastly ignored by self-styling "skeptics": all their blatantly unsubstantiated and/or empirically refuted and/or physically infeasible 'alternative' red herrings should've been dead and buried long ago... And they are - at least within reputable and objective circles. But nothing prevents snake oil blogsters from repeatedly exuming and parading those putrefied corpses around.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
reputable and objective circles

You can't be talking about AGWite circles.
They are on record stating they don't care if the data supports their agenda.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) May 17, 2014
They are on record stating they don't care if the data supports their agenda.
'They' being scientists, politicians, or political activists? Of the three, I think it ought to be obvious which I mean considering we're on "phys.org" -- a rather important point of which you're still oblivious all these years later.

When was the last time you approached skeptically the claims of the 'skeptics'? Was there EVER a first time?

(No, I don't expect a reasonable answer, and no I won't be continuing this 'conversation' beyond this point. Go ahead and rant on; thankfully there are no moderators here to kick you out...)
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated global temperatures would rise with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.


He also thought it was a good thing, as it would stave off 'mini ice age'.


I post a purely historically accurate response and get troll rated by the Cabal members, "thermodynmics" and Caliban,... zero objectivity.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) May 18, 2014
lol, air temps don't say much about what's happening a couple hundred feet under the top of the ice... or in the ocean.
So, what's this have to do with atmosphereic CO2 concentrations then?

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) May 18, 2014
""On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.""
Stephen Schneider, Stanford.
http://en.wikiped...chneider
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (9) May 18, 2014
In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated global temperatures would rise with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.


He also thought it was a good thing, as it would stave off 'mini ice age'.
That's true. 120 years ago, that seemed like a good conclusion as, even then, it was recognized that ice ages were cyclical - although no one understood why.

We know a lot more about atmospheric science now. In the long run, we have probably staved off, or at least lessened the effect of, the next ice age. It is the short term (you know, the next 1000 years or so) that we are concerned with right now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2014
"Australia's conservative coalition is set to cut more than 90 percent of the funding related to global warming from their budget, from $5.75 billion this year to $500 million, over the next four years."
""Given the tight fiscal environment as a result of [liberal] Labor's legacy of debt and deficit, the government considers there is a very significant investment in renewable energy," MacFarlane added.

Abbott's Liberal-National coalition won a landslide victory in Australia's election last fall. One of the main promises of Abbott's coalition was to repeal the country's carbon tax and costly environmental agenda."
http://dailycalle...-budget/
This is why the AGWites are political, money.
Bob Osaka
4 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
@Noumenon
Arrhenius was also an unapologetic racist, an insufferable know-it-all and generally regarded as an unlikable fellow. Very few people turned out for his funeral, almost none mourned his loss.
I just add that to show even the most horrid of people may have something valuable to add to the sciences.
Skeptics are not idiots, they're just unconvinced.
One cannot mix political beliefs with scientific fact. One or the other must be subordinate. Which is a matter of individual choice.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.