Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort

Not just the Koch brothers: New Drexel study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort
Dr. Robert J. Brulle is a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Credit: CASBS

A new study conducted by Drexel University's environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.

Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.

Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort

The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming," said Brulle. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Key findings include:

  • Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.
  • Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.
  • Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.
  • Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.

"The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," said Brulle. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."

This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the movement. Brulle will then compare the whole flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.


Explore further

The politics of climate change

More information: Full paper: www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/n … imatic%20Change.ashx
Journal information: Climatic Change

Provided by Drexel University
Citation: Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort (2013, December 20) retrieved 21 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
8 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 20, 2013
Conspiracy!

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced.

Can someone explain to me how this is NOT a perfect front for money laundering?

Untraceable money given to just anyone? And the IRS let's that exist?
Wow...just...wow.

Dec 20, 2013
And the IRS let's that exist?


I wonder how many of these foundations have been specifically targeted for audit and/or bullied by the IRS.

It doesn't quite surprise me that there is a growing urgency and trend to untie your name/corporation from who and what you donate to. anon shall rise.

Dec 20, 2013
Haha cantdrive, that's a good one :)

I wonder how Watt's and company will spin this one.

Dec 20, 2013
""The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," said Brulle."

So why are taxpayers being plundered to fund AGW with grants and loans to businesses like Solyndra, wind power companies, corn farmers, ADM, Elon Musk, ... with no input from the plundered?

Dec 20, 2013
Govt force beats out money any day.

"The Environmental Protection Agency silenced scientific advisers who expressed concerns over the agency's proposed carbon dioxide emissions limits for coal-fired power plants, House Republicans claim."
""However, when inconvenient facts are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible," the lawmakers continued. "The EPA cannot continue to rush ahead with costly regulations without allowing time for a real-world look at the science."

Read more: http://dailycalle...o3idab6v

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
"conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences."

How/who funded this study?

BTW, I was trying to find how Michael Mann's institute at Penn State is funded but could find no sources of his funding clearly posted on his site.

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
Oh wow, now the warmists are really getting desperate. They are trying to prove that all of the government and university funding of AGW is dwarfed by the Koch Brothers and a handful of others.
In reality, AGW is supported by all the world governments and only a few poorly paid bloggers are trying to debunk their quest for total control of our lives.

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
Who knew there was an insidious relationship between science - money - politics?

Dec 20, 2013
When AGW became a for-profit industry, it became a target of other threatened industries.

It's a competitive world we live in. Why would anyone be surprised by this?

The real question is: is this guy and his research any more believable than any other AGW propaganda? I say no.

Dec 20, 2013
Oh wow, now the warmists are really getting desperate. They are trying to prove that all of the government and university funding of AGW is dwarfed by the Koch Brothers and a handful of others.
In reality, AGW is supported by all the world governments and only a few poorly paid bloggers are trying to debunk their quest for total control of our lives.
Exactly. In other words, the entire world believes AGW is real, and only corporate interests with a financial stake in externalizing their costs of doing business are opposing it. Thanks for clarifying that.

Dec 20, 2013
Whether AGW is real or not, the fact is that the carbon Barons are responsible for millions of early deaths and chronic illness on a global scale. Pollution is affecting us all right now, not some undetermined future date, and I suspect many of those same people or organisations funding anti-AGW efforts will also be found to be the ones spreading fear about the life-ending threats posed by nuclear power generation, one of the biggest threats to their "purveyors of filth" empires.

Dec 20, 2013
"conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences."

How/who funded this study?.


Damn that google thing is smart. I'm really glad that nice Otto guy taught me about it. Here is all his funded projects since he first started doing research, er I mean plundering.

http://www.meteo....t/cv.php

Who is funding Mann's institute? Mann's CV doesn't list who paid for his research.

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
So Mann is funded by wealth plundered from taxpayers as I suggested along with other socialist groups.
Funding sources for "Agency, Democracy and Nature" by Brulle are The Wilderness Society that lobbies for the US govt to take land out of production, Earth Island Institute: All sorts of 'liberal' groups: http://www.unduei...ute.htm;
What a surprise Brulle authors this study and physorg promotes it.

Dec 20, 2013
"Whether AGW is real or not, the fact is that the carbon Barons are responsible for millions of early deaths and chronic illness on a global scale."

So you claim that mankind was better off pre-oil and that burning wood for heat, using horses for transportation and oxen for plowing fields allowed mankind to survive longer than today.

As I said many times before AGW and carbon hatred is a Religion and not a science.

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
What a surprise!
When challenged the 'liberal' responds with insults.
Typical.

Dec 20, 2013
No one should be surprised that 'liberals' are just following their rules for radicals:
"RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
http://www.bestof...radicals

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
Zepehr before you post you had better get your facts straight. Energy companies pay more taxes to the governments than any other industry. They are a source of high paying jobs and their products are the foundation of our entire economic system.

Dec 20, 2013
R2, you are so full of BS that I can't even imagine a container that large! Dark money is just that, anonymous amounts of wealth put into a cause to politically effect debate. It's typical of rightwing police state policies. The only purpose of the denial of AGW is to allow the continuation of pollution creators to operate.

If it wasn't for the dark-money fighting AGW in propaganda wars, I suspect that there would have been many laws past to control CO2. Dark money has won and has been effective, bur reality will eventually demonstrate the truth of AGW, as it already has time after time after time in scientific journals and here in commentary.

For example, this "Global November average temperature highest on record; Year-to-date global average temperature ties for fourth highest on record"

The worst part about dark money is that it can be used for anything. But beware, two can play at that game.

Dec 20, 2013
So let me get this straight. The legitimacy of science is more about who funds it than the empirical data and the reproducibility of it's findings? Hmmmm

Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 20, 2013
@MR166 say;
Energy companies pay more taxes to the governments than any other industry. They are a source of high paying jobs and their products are the foundation of our entire economic system.

Back that up with facts. I thought it was the tobacco industry. When you rape the environment and leave the Earth polluted, shouldn't you pay more tax? After all, it is usually we the people, that have to clean up the mess from these tax free industries.

Dec 20, 2013
So let me get this straight. The legitimacy of science is more about who funds it than the empirical data and the reproducibility of it's findings? Hmmmm


Actually more like, who is more legitimate, science or industry. Hummmm. I think science is certainly the most legitimate and authoritive source of truth.

Dec 20, 2013
Enron and many other corporatist supported Kyoto to profit from 'carbon credits' (dark money?), natural gas, solar and wind subsidies, ....
Zippy has one thing correct, it is the consumer that pays all taxes. No corporation pays taxes.

What really annoys the 'liberals' is that now everyone can benefit from free speech. Before Citizens United, only 'liberal' groups could funnel 'dark money' into campaigns.

Dec 20, 2013
it is the consumer that pays all taxes. No corporation pays taxes.

Yeah, you have got that one right R2. In fact, one of the reasons the US is in such a mess is that corporations don't pay taxes like they used to. There contribution to this entity has been smaller and smaller, while the little guys like you and me see bigger and bigger demands.

Regardless, corporations and dark money are like pea and carrots. And you know it.

Dec 20, 2013
No corporation pays taxes, ever.
Their customers do.

Dec 20, 2013
As with most global warming literature and scientific investigations, this, too, is wanting in factual backup.

I've looked at the article in pdf form. The chart above is taken from it. I looked at one specific foundation: the John Tempelton Foundation. I went to their website. I could find no place where the words "global warming" or "climate change" came up. Looking at their "funding priorities," GW skepticism is NOT one of them.

So, I tried to find out how we got a $20,000,000 figure for the JTF. Nothing there. Maybe in the supplemental information. Then, we see at the bottom of the abstract this little note: "Electronic supplementary material. The online version of this article contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users."

Authorized users?? No documentation to be found. But if you want it, you have to be "authorized". And just who does the "authorizing?"

So, again, with the global warming alarmists, they keep their data secret. Lovely!

Dec 20, 2013
No corporation pays taxes, ever.
Their customers do.

If I don't buy from a corporation, then how am I paying taxes? Oh now I get it, corporations don't pay tax, consumers do. Consumers make it up by paying sales tax, property tax ... blaw blaw blaw tax, but do corporations? Do the owners of the corporations?

No tax law is very unfair an skewed towards the rich.

Dec 20, 2013
Howhot if you want to name tax free industries you should start with GE and Apple. Then talk about the companies that Warren Buffet owns that owe billions to the US. While you are at it, mention all the companies in Puerto Rico that pay no taxes at all.

Dec 20, 2013
So, again, with the global warming alarmists, they keep their data secret. Lovely!

Typical denier looser who just doesn't get it. Guy, this is not about you, this is about our pollution destroying the world as we know it.



Dec 20, 2013
I believe data will show that the people doing this stuff are the same ones who are participants in the $30 trillion untaxed invisible to We the People that has been stolen from We the People. These are the people who engineered this takeover of our democracy. Drag them into the open.

Dec 20, 2013
Hottie, if any business wants to stay in business if must earn more money than they spend to create the product or service you purchase.
Taxes are another expense any business must pay and must incorporate that into their prices. This is over and above sales taxes. So in reality, you pay sales taxes on the built in taxes the business pays.
The FAIR tax is designed to end double, triple, ... taxation.
Even 'liberal' states like NY understand business taxes are an expense. NY is running ads claiming new businesses that move to certain NY location won't have to pay state taxes for 10 years.

Dec 20, 2013
the people doing this stuff

What stuff?
The corporatists are socialists and support the Feds printing of money.
The Koch brothers fund Cato and other groups that support and defend free markets, not state controlled fascist 'markets'.
And I'm sure the 'liberals' hate the idea that Koch Industries is a private corporation.

Dec 20, 2013
Quoted from the paper (Brulle):
The different counter-movement organizations are aided in their work by sympathetic media outlets and the Republican and Tea Parties.

And the man with half his brain tied behind his back, who asserts there are low-information voters while presumably using the same Internet as everyone else, has obviously misused and abused the alleged talents he says he borrowed from god. Poor ditto heads who rely on him for how to think—they would be known as the misinformation voters. Much needs to change.
Oh, and faux news reports and I decide: I've decided I don't like the way faux news reports. Especially when they spin it with no spin. Caution! You are about to enter the "Only 45 % of the U.S. public accurately reported the near unanimity of the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change" zone! (the part in quotes is also from the paper, citing a Pew Research Poll—October 2012)

Dec 20, 2013
"sympathetic media outlets"
What sympathetic media outlets?
All the 'liberal' press has been foursquare behind the AGWite campaign. Until, of course, some with a bit of integrity left couldn't keep printing the propaganda.
People stopped buying AGW BS.

'Liberals' are getting desperate. Another 'study' pushed by physorg wants Aussies to vote by rank ~20 candidates/parties instead of voting for one. If a majority of those parties are 'liberal' then maybe more 'liberals' will be elected instead of those evil anti-socialists.

Another sign of desperation is how the IRS is attacking anti-socialist groups.

Dec 20, 2013
@ryggesogn2

To answer you question:

"So why are taxpayers being plundered to fund AGW with grants and loans to businesses like Solyndra, wind power companies, corn farmers, ADM, Elon Musk, ... with no input from the plundered?"

The input is called elections. Look it up.

Dec 20, 2013
It had to be oil.
Like I said, it was always heat, not CO2, and what is the heat source.

And for the counter conspiracy: What has changed that suddenly this is allowed to be revealed?

Dec 20, 2013
The input is called elections. Look it up.

Voters across the USA voted in a majority of Republicans in Congress, in state houses and in state legislatures.
Yet BHO and the 'liberals' act as if they received an overwhelming majority in 2012.
If you like your 'liberal' senator/congressman you can keep them. If not, NOV 2014 is less than a year away.

Dec 20, 2013
Yes, there are private sources of money for critical points of view regarding climate change. There is also an incredible level of funding from the Federal Government. And in many ways Government has an axe to grind too. The story about negative results or contradictory results on climate change isn't nearly as sexy or interesting as the sky-is-falling research.

Does that mean such research isn't real? No. Does the fact that the Koch brothers are funding sham research? Again, no. The problem is that scientists are human and they know who their benefactors are. They will err on the side of those who fund them. This has been shown in various critical books on impartiality in science.

So, in the end, I'm not sure this is a bad thing. The notion that government research is always impartial is no more or less true than private research being impartial. Let's deal with actual facts, and leave the funding issues on the floor, shall we?

Dec 21, 2013
The input is called elections. Look it up.

Voters across the USA voted in a majority of Republicans in Congress, in state houses and in state legislatures.

...because of gerrymandering and massive voter suppression.

Dec 21, 2013
The problem is that scientists are human and they know who their benefactors are. They will err on the side of those who fund them.


How absolutely true! We all know that the physicists never found the Higgs boson. It was bought and paid for. And that NASA been Photoshopping those rovers on Mars to justify the budget. I'm not even sure any vaccine ever worked because the government is in on it.

I could just go on and on, but we all know what a sham the entire scientific community is!

Wow! Denial is so exhilarating! I should do this more often.

NOT.

Dec 21, 2013
The problem is that scientists are human and they know who their benefactors are. They will err on the side of those who fund them.


Sorry for the sarcasm. Apparently your point is that funding has completely ruined science. That must be why it is currently at a standstill. Nothing is being discovered and all evidence is bought and paid for. That explains why.....

Crap. I'm getting sarcastic again.

Dec 21, 2013
we are the ones doing this.

Dec 21, 2013
If we can get rytrdedmoron2 banned a few more times I doubt he can count high enough to keep reusing his username....

Dec 21, 2013
I wonder how many of these foundations have been specifically targeted for audit and/or bullied by the IRS.

Erm: Auditing companies is the IRS' job. You know: to make sure people aren''t skipping on paying taxes.

And how exactly do they 'bully' people? Unless you think only 'dumb' people should pay for the nationwide services that you can then enjoy as a social parasite for free?

Dec 21, 2013
Energy companies pay more taxes to the governments than any other industry

You might want to check up on that statement. Some years these companies pay negative taxes (read: they actually leech subsidies out of your taxdollars on top of their monstrous profits)
http://www.mother...tax-rate

Yep...and our main deniers (Exxon) are right in that bunch. What a surprise, eh?

Dec 21, 2013
Nobody "denies" climate change! Is prof. Brulle foolishly chasing his own tail, or is he paid by a group with special financial interests?

There are many natural causes for climatic change, on many scales of time.
A "professor of sociology" is not exactly the expert on such a subject; climatic change is a subject of physics.

According to the best physics models and experiments (and not the Global Warming computer games that "fake physicists a.k.a. climatologists" use to play with) there is no proof for global warming of several degrees as a consequence of our CO2 production.

For the sake of objectivity, let prof. Brulle do similar research on the Global Warming lobby which confuses on purpose the CO2 warming hypothesis with "climatic change". I would like to know the financial motives/peoples that are behind this baloney lobby.

Real objective science, however, should be totally independent from politicians, such as prof. Brulle from Drex.

Dec 21, 2013
The average voter is as dull as ditchwater. The scary thing is that half of you are even duller than that.

Dec 21, 2013
There are many natural causes for climatic change, on many scales of time.
A "professor of sociology" is not exactly the expert on such a subject;

And if you had read the article you would have noticed that this is a paper about who backs one particular side of the climate change debate - not about climate change itself.

(As a sidenote. There's not really a debate about climate change. There's scientific evidence on one side and big business/people who are too dumb to understand science organizing a shitstorm on the other. Big business to protect their cash cows and the dumb people to protect their frail egos from having to admit that they are, in fact, dumb.)

Dec 21, 2013
There is Zero chance that the amount in this study is correct. The actual amount is much less.

And then funding for pro-global warming activities was $359 Billion in 2012 alone.

That turns out to be 652 times higher in a single year than the (inflated) value in this study over 7 years.

7 times 652 is 4,500 times bigger. Pro-global warming funding is 4,500 times bigger.

Dec 21, 2013
Call me an optimist, but.... the mere fact that we have 2 sides for discussion is healthy.
Both economically and intellectually...

Dec 21, 2013
Call me an optimist, but.... the mere fact that we have 2 sides for discussion is healthy.
Both economically and intellectually...


Right, it'd be great if that also happened in issues comparable to this: gravity vs. 'electric universe', spherical earth vs. flat earth, sanity vs. hollow earth. Yeah, it's really great that half a billion is being pumped into fact-free propaganda...

Also, I find it very interesting that the climate negationists tend to throw the slur "socialist" around a lot - that's very striking considering the trusts that pay their cause also pay significant sums to the KKK and the National Socialist Party of America.

Dec 21, 2013
monstrous profits

A few percent is 'monstrous'?
Auditing companies is the IRS' job.

Unless those companies are friends of Obama.

Dec 21, 2013
AGWites can't persuade with science so they resort to force. Typical of socialists.
"So it's come to this.
+

Last year, a researcher presented a paper on climate change at the American Geophysical Union's meeting entitled "Is Earth F**ked?" which advocated "environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups." "
"environmental advocates are mulling desperate measures."
http://qz.com/154...36346,1/

Dec 21, 2013
I hope my friends here take comfort in the fact that there is a simple and very very cheap way to immediately cool down the Earth: just add a little (more) sun dimming pollution to the air. If you don't like the results, just wait a little while and it will wash out.

Furthermore, such geoengineer will only be necessary in the short term, since this decade both LENR and hot fusion will enter the marketplace, resulting in clean energy too cheap to meter. With this energy we can remove the excess carbon from the air.

Dec 21, 2013
About the only thing that is evident from this discussion is that one man's fact is another man's fiction.

When people cannot even agree that fossil fuels have been of enormous benefit to man providing him with housing, food, transportation, clothing, heat, cooling, and drugs at an affordable price there can be no reasonable discourse.

Our standard of living would plummet without these fuels.

Dec 21, 2013
Dr. Robert J. Brulle is a professor of Sociology AND Environmental Science


This is not a coincidence. The control of human behavior via social engineering and redistribution of wealth, goes hand-in-hand with the political promotion of AGW-Alarmism.

It is an ulterior motive itself that 'liberal progressivism' and pseudo-socialism as promoted solutions are hitching a free ride on the back of AGW....

...it is one that is far LESS justified than the economic promotion of oil which courses through the veins of economies and only serves to meet existing demand....

The global use of oil continues to rise, not because of the "denialist" propaganda, but because oil consumption is a necessity in the present global economy for which there is no alternative at the required price point and capacity to sustain economic health.

......

Dec 21, 2013
The input is called elections. Look it up.

Voters across the USA voted in a majority of Republicans in Congress … If you like your 'liberal' senator/congressman you can keep them. If not, NOV 2014 is less than a year away.

The voters across the USA saw how the Republicans acted with a slim majority in the house: they acted like spoiled-rich-kid-brats who sought to deny what's basically just nationalized Romneycare over 40 times, and who did the best they could to shut down the entire legislative branch for as long as they could get away with it. And now from a scientific sociological perspective in the context of climate science they've been shown to be worse than a cancerous tumor with their lies, divisiveness and utter lack of moral/ethical compass for managing the wealth they've acquired at everyone's expense. Hopefully record voter turnout in 2014 will put the tumor into remission, for good.

Dec 21, 2013
@MR166: You're attacking a straw man. Everyone agrees that fossil fuels have been of enormous benefit. But we now have better sources of energy, with which we can and should gradually replace fossil fuels.

Dec 21, 2013
There has never been an administration that was less open to compromise than this one. When the Democrats had the majority in both houses what did they say? You have to pass this bill to know what's in it. 90% of the jobs created since the ACA was passed were part time.

Dec 21, 2013
Whenever liberals fail they claim victim-hood and excuse making. In this case, it is the status quo that has defeated them.

The notion that AGW-Alarmists need to rely on the oil industry to NOT promote the existing economic demand of their OWN industry, and to rely on the suspension of scientific skepticism, demonstrates how weak their position is.

But there are other reasons why it is not "funding of denialism" that accounts for their failures,....

"- Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage."

...

Dec 21, 2013
"- During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records."

"- Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year's record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore's prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year's melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year."

---

Dec 21, 2013
This would cause me to laugh if it wasn't for so many dimwits who believe this... let's talk about the vast left wing conspiracy to control the climate change discussion and control everyone. The only difference is its not a conspiracy. Examples 1) Reddit admits they are conducting censorship. 2) Countless researchers who've been caught doctoring the data to support their global warming claims. 3) The EPA going all Nazi like on anyone they want. 3) Many ex-communists after the fall of the Soviet block went to the "Green" parties.

This isn't about the environment, this is about control. Some of the followers may be well meaning, but the leaders and functionaries can easily be put in the totalitarian, psychopath category.

Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 21, 2013
" Everyone agrees that fossil fuels have been of enormous benefit. But we now have better sources of energy, with which we can and should gradually replace fossil fuels."

EVERYONE------not true read some of the posts here-----millions killed!

Please name the better sources of energy. None of them are cost effective yet and wind has major ecological issues.

The coal industry has been destroyed and it has not been proven that shale gas can fill this energy gap. Last week there was a record draw down in Nat Gas supplies and if the Winter were to continue this way supplies will become critically low.

Dec 21, 2013
"- Global cooling is on the way, according to an increasing number of scientists. German scientists have predicted that based on declining sunspot activity and natural climate oscillation the world will cool over the next century. Temperatures will eventually drop to levels corresponding with the "little ice age" of 1870."

"- The [UN] climate bureaucracy's latest global warming report was called "hilarious" by a leading scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Richard Lindzen said the UN's report "has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence" because they continue to proclaim with ever greater certainty that mankind is causing global warming, despite their models continually being wrong."..."Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean," Lindzen said. "However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans."

Dec 21, 2013
Erm: Auditing companies is the IRS' job. You know: to make sure people aren''t skipping on paying taxes.

And how exactly do they 'bully' people?
Isnt that kyuuute? The Ausländer is teaching us Americans about how our country works.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said."

Dec 21, 2013
Global climate is changed by input energy from the Sun. The Sun controls the climate. All other processes (such as increase of atmospheric CO2) are short-lived phenomena. Should atmospheric CO2 levels ever rise high enough to create a noticeable change in temperature, the Earths weather will lower the atmospheric CO2 content by creating carbonic acid through rain fall, and the infrared heat will get dispersed into space. Chemical reactions liberate heat. H2O plus CO2 -> H2CO3 plus heat!

Dug
Dec 21, 2013
If you inserted "climate change alarmist" for "climate change deniers" and changed respective funding group's names as appropriate - the article would essentially read the same. Both extremes of the discussion receive funding from special interests groups motivated by what benefits them regardless of the seriousness of the topic.

Until we address the primary cause of anthropogenic climate change - the planet's unsustainable human population size and continued growth - with effective planning, it's really hard not to see climate change topically and primarily as a tool for funding special interests groups and the media that enables their efforts. Call me when someone can agree on a plan to get the planet back to 2 B humans and one that everyone agrees on, because that is the only thing that will end anthropogenic climate impacts.

Dec 21, 2013
The notion that AGW-Alarmists need to rely on the oil industry to NOT promote the existing economic demand of their OWN industry, and to rely on the suspension of scientific skepticism, demonstrates how weak their position is.

The 'scientific community' is not its OWN industry in the context of this article and includes many different specialties: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, paleontologists, astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, etc. And 'near unanimity' is not some unpopular bandwagon they all thought they'd hop on; it's referred to as a consensus.

Dec 21, 2013
In reality, AGW is supported by all the world governments and only a few poorly paid bloggers are trying to debunk their quest for total control of our lives.

You got it exactly right. That's why the Chinese are in it. They are not trying to buy their population off with economic growth fueled by cheap coal, their only way to control the population is by the threat of global warming. Because they have no other methods. Well, none as effective. Same as in the West. Terrorism alert levels and Patriot Act are only for entertainment. It's threats to future generations that make people compliant.

Dec 21, 2013
So why are taxpayers being plundered to fund AGW with grants and loans to businesses like Solyndra, wind power companies, corn farmers, ADM, Elon Musk, ... with no input from the plundered?

Leaving aside your loaded vocabulary, the reason is a common good, in this case information needed to make good decisions. And if you want input on each spending decision, propose a workable change to the constitution.

Regarding alternatives, twice you have told me that property rights would solve all environmental problems, and both times you abandoned the discussion when I pointed out that you would need a world government to enforce the same property right everywhere. Without that, you'd have polluters hiding out in legislations that don't enforce the same property rights.

I admit that in your libertarian paradise, accurate information on harm would be superfluous, because you don't want harm to be a necessary criterion for you to forbid others from doing what could affect your property.

Dec 21, 2013
who did the best they could to shut down the entire legislative branch for as long as they could get away with it.


It was BHO that shut down the govt and it was BHO and the democrat Senate the refused any way but their way.
the primary cause of anthropogenic climate change

Which is...what?
But we now have better sources of energy,

Like nuclear.
Define 'better'. Wind and solar are not better for cost or reliability which is why the state grants them immunity from competition.

Dec 21, 2013
the reason is a common good

What was good about companies like Solydra wasting the plundered wealth from the taxpayers?
Socialists have used 'common good' to justify all sorts of plunder.
The only effective 'common good' any govt can successfully achieve it to protect the property rights of everyone and let individuals decide in a free market what is good for them.
need a world government to enforce the same property right everywhere.

Why? There is no world govt now yet individual states enforce their property rights around the world every day.

Dec 21, 2013
Erm: Auditing companies is the IRS' job. You know: to make sure people aren''t skipping on paying taxes.

And how exactly do they 'bully' people?
Isnt that kyuuute? The Ausländer is teaching us Americans about how our country works.


If you're going to try for a jab in a foreign language, you could at least google it to get it right. Ausländer is plural. Auslander is singular. Stupid jerk.

Dec 21, 2013
"Obama: 'We're Not Going to Negotiate' Over Debt Ceiling"
http://www.breitb...-Ceiling
Sounds like a petulant, spoiled child, but this is typical of socialists.

Dec 21, 2013
Plundered wealth funding 'climate change':
""The GAO report shows a total of $107 billion in hard expenditures, including about $31.5 billion on climate science. These sums includes expenditures under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus Bill). The GAO report also shows . an additional $16 billion for soft expenditures. The CRS report shows $8.9 billion and $8.3 billion in hard expenditures in 2011 and 2012, respectively, of which $2.4 billion went to climate science each year."
"The total for the 21-year period are: $185 billion, with $133 billion for hard expenditures, of which about $39 billion went to science, and about $52 billion for soft expenditures."
"historical records show that cooling phases tend to be more dangerous and destabilizing to vulnerable populations. Food shortages and civic turmoil have been linked to global cooling, not global warming,"
http://newsbuster...-take-lo

Dec 21, 2013
For those who believe the IRS is not politically motivated:
"ABC, CBS and NBC have so far refused to report the latest bombshell in the IRS scandal - a newly released list from the agency that showed it flagged political groups for "anti-Obama rhetoric." On September 18 the USA Today, in a front page story, reported the following: "Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about 'anti-Obama rhetoric,' inflammatory language and 'emotional' statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status."

Not only have ABC, CBS and NBC not reported this story they've flat out stopped covering the IRS scandal on their evening and morning shows.

Read more: http://newsbuster...o84RQrwz

Dec 21, 2013
It was BHO that shut down the govt and it was BHO and the democrat Senate the refused any way but their way.

Sorry, it wasn't him stealing the floor of the senate pleading in vain for less of our of-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people government.

Dec 21, 2013
Peer reviewed research confirming last year's Guardian investigation that focused on Donors' Trust.

Dec 21, 2013
@ryggesogn2

"Voters across the USA voted in a majority of Republicans in Congress, in state houses and in state legislatures."

And while you look up the meaning of 'elections' also check out the term 'gerrymandering'.

Dug
Dec 21, 2013
Protoplasmix - "it's referred to as a consensus."

"Scientific consensus" of climate change is far too vague to be meaningful in translating into meaningful or actionable information. While we may all agree that humans impact the climate, exactly how (mechanisms wise, their size and their proportions), how much, the use of data where the measurements are smaller than the error factor ranges of that data, the acceptance of rather dubious proxy and computer project models as "data" rather than actual hard data within defined error limits - is very far from a meaningful consensus - and why the debate continues rather than outright denial - at least in my case.

Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 21, 2013
@Dug, don't make the mistake of adopting Rush Limbaugh's notion of the scientific consensus on manmade climate change (AGW). . On the Limbaugh Planet, scientists decide which theories are panning out by consensus, the way the Quakers and the Clamshell Alliance do. Here on Earth, they decide by competing, getting ahead by "busting" each others' mistakes. The consensus we observe, that you hear about in news about the IPCC, we observe when a piece of science is old enough that nobody's finding mistakes in it any more.

Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 21, 2013
If you're going to try for a jab in a foreign language, you could at least google it to get it right. Ausländer is plural. Auslander is singular. Stupid jerk.

"Aus·län·der, Aus·län·de·rin der Mensch, der aus dem Ausland"

You are an Idiot.

"Idi·ot der (umg. abwert.) Schimpfwort Bin ich denn nur noch von Idioten umgeben?, Welcher Idiot hat denn die Daten gelöscht?"

Dec 21, 2013
"countermovement" is the wrong word. Denying the major findings of climate science is a public relations project. That's what we should call it. It's a PR operation. The PR firms that take the laundered money have "institute" in their names, but they're still basically ad agencies.

Dec 21, 2013
This is a political article, not a scientific one.

Dec 21, 2013
About the only thing that is evident from this discussion is that one man's fact is another man's fiction.

When people cannot even agree that fossil fuels have been of enormous benefit to man providing him with housing, food, transportation, clothing, heat, cooling, and drugs at an affordable price there can be no reasonable discourse.

Our standard of living would plummet without these fuels.


So the two things are mutually exclusive then MR?

Just because fossil has brought benefit doesn't mean it doesn't also harm in the long-term.

Dec 21, 2013
The notion that AGW-Alarmists need to rely on the oil industry to NOT promote the existing economic demand of their OWN industry, and to rely on the suspension of scientific skepticism, demonstrates how weak their position is.

The 'scientific community' is not its OWN industry in the context of this article and includes many different specialties: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, paleontologists, astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, etc. And 'near unanimity' is not some unpopular bandwagon they all thought they'd hop on; it's referred to as a consensus.


You must have misread my post.

Dec 21, 2013
People who spend their time screeching about liberals make it easier for me to completely disregard anything they state. They are part of the political side which believes in creationism and a young Earth. I'm really glad reddit dumped them from the debate.

Dec 21, 2013
"- During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records."

"- Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year's record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore's prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year's melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year."


That would be weather then.
You know - like the hot US summer in 2012 or the anomalously high Arctic sea-ice melt of 2012. Which made 3 anomalous melt seasons well beyond 2sd's of the mean.

Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 21, 2013
Protoplasmix - "it's referred to as a consensus."

"Scientific consensus" of climate change is far too vague to be meaningful in translating into meaningful or actionable information. While we may all agree that humans impact the climate, exactly how (mechanisms wise, their size and their proportions), how much, the use of data where the measurements are smaller than the error factor ranges of that data, the acceptance of rather dubious proxy and computer project models as "data" rather than actual hard data within defined error limits - is very far from a meaningful consensus - and why the debate continues rather than outright denial - at least in my case.


"is very far from a meaningful consensus"

That may be your view but in a sane world "3%" do not trump the consensus of "97%" - sorry.
Try reading IPCC AR5 and take off your blinkers.
The World's experts are in agreement but you're not - shame innit.

Dec 21, 2013
This is a political article, not a scientific one.


It's a scientific article on a sociological phenomenon.

Perhaps, indeed, borne out of political ideology.

Dec 21, 2013
"Just because fossil has brought benefit doesn't mean it doesn't also harm in the long-term."

You can calculate a cost/benefit ratio for everything that man does, including so called "Green Energy". At this point in time fossil energy still wins. If you don't mind killing a few hundred million people then today's green energy is a viable answer.

Dec 21, 2013
And while you look up the meaning of 'elections' also check out the term 'gerrymandering'.

Republicans won in districts gerymandered by democrats.
AL had a Republican majority in their legislature in 2010 for the first time in over 100 years.
'Liberals' are expert at gerymandering and voter fraud and they still lose.
Sorry, it wasn't him stealing the floor of the senate

Cruz couldn't furlough air traffic controllers and close the public WWII monument in DC. Only BHO could order any govt furloughs.

Dec 21, 2013
"There are numerous examples of privately owned parks that also protect the environment and create jobs. "
"some sources indicate that closing the parks was a purely political move on the part of the administration to turn public pressure on Republicans. Woes of the shutdown affecting parks and tourism is an argument for more privatization, not more government oversight."
http://www.realcl...730.html

Dec 21, 2013
"Scientific consensus" of climate change is far too vague to be meaningful in translating into meaningful or actionable information.

If you measure the total CO2 emissions that naturally occur on the entire planet from volcanism over the course of an entire year, it takes humanity only 2.7 days to pump the same amount into the atmosphere. As for taking actions to remediate that, the reason for a delay isn't disagreement over natural vs. anthropogenic emissions. The delay in taking action is due to certain entities who continue to mislead the public and betray the public trust. Entities identified by the above research include Koch Industries and ExxonMobil among others, aided and abetted by sympathetic media outlets, and the Republicans and Tea Party. Hopefully there will be neither disagreement nor delay among the voters in 2014.
---
@Noumenon – yes, in haste I did, although it doesn't seem to change the veracity of what either of us said.

Dec 21, 2013
With all that money the Koch Brothers were able to buy a 17 year climate cooling period. That's really cool. Another liberal arts prof earning his pay.

Dec 21, 2013
Cruz couldn't furlough air traffic controllers and close the public WWII monument in DC

I don't think he could furlough his way out of a wet paper bag. But he sure brought things to a stand-still, and an awful lot of people had to report to work without getting paid for a while. An awful lot of people will remember that in 2014, count on it.

Dec 21, 2013
he sure brought things to a stand-still,

How? He just gave a speech. He is one minority senator.
an awful lot of people had to report to work without getting paid

NO, they did not report to work. Any govt employee on furlough was prohibited by law from doing any work.
They were paid for their extra two week vacation.
CO2 emissions that naturally occur on the entire planet from volcanism

Volcanoes are not the only natural sources of CO2.

Dec 21, 2013
An awful lot of people will remember that in 2014, count on it.


Millions will remember "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

"Liberal columnist Dana Milbank called President Obama's Obamacare promise being dubbed the "Lie of the Year" by Politifact a "very low point" in his administration Sunday on State of the Union.

"This is a low point," Milbank said. "We don't know if it's the lowest, but it is a very low point in the Obama administration. It doesn't help to have neutral groups calling you the Liar of the Year.""
http://freebeacon...-lowest/

Dec 21, 2013
Odd that phys.org holds only American Republicans responsible for the world's ills, real or contrived.
Political ideology now trumps the scientific method, unfortunately.

Dec 21, 2013
The paranoia of the AGW Alarmist Cult has hit a new level.
Now that they are running out of lies, they must go after those who would expose their "science" for the fabrications they are.
What next? Burn the heretics?

Dec 21, 2013
What next? Burn the heretics?

Close.

" Professor Richard Parncutt, Musicologist at Graz University in Austria.

Parncutt has issued -- and later retracted after it the public outcry -- a manifesto calling for the execution of prominent "Climate Change Deniers". What is interesting is that Parncutt hates the death penalty and supports Amnesty International's efforts to end it."
"
the first instinct of those on the Progressive Left is to murder their enemies."

Read more: http://www.americ...oA4DGLqB
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 21, 2013
"Following two world wars and in the midst of a cold war, CS Lewis wrote that "The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance...The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good..."
" politicians must increasingly rely on the knowledge and advice of scientists, until, in the end, the politicians become "merely the scientists' puppets."
"Thus, we get the motto of the technocrats: "only science can save us now." Whether it is global warming, stem-cell research, the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality, or even gun control or economic policies, the technocrats have the answers. After all, as Lewis also noted, "If we are to be mothered, mother must know best."

Read more: http://www.americ...oADZ2F7T
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Dec 21, 2013
"many of our politicians are surrendering themselves to scientism. Scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority."
"Scientism can also be classified as a religion. It is a religion with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on."
"Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that "God is dead." Scientism tells us that the "debate is over," so shut up and get in line."

{Sounds like so many who post here}

http://www.americ...ism.html

Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 21, 2013
"And, of course, scientism leads us to technocracy. "I dread government in the name of science," said Lewis. "That is how tyrannies come in.""

"We can see the results: that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth; that marriage is whatever we want it to be; that confiscating the wealth of some to give to others is "fair;" that guns are evil; and so on. Of course, we then get laws and official government policy based on such conclusions."
"Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like "Julia"). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the "Welfare State" based significantly on the lies of scientism."
http://www.americ...ism.html

Dec 21, 2013
Millions will remember "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Yet another perfect example of a social movement field frame, and a counter-movement frame, with likely many of the same actors as in the climate change frames. Anyone who doesn't recognize that after reading Brulle's paper—will never be a first-class sociologist. As for the insurance industry in the counter-movement resisting the social reform, who decided not to play ball in a manner most disrespectful to the office of the president: they really didn't make a liar out of the president. It certainly isn't like the president lied to the world about WMDs, like the previous Republican administrations.

Dec 21, 2013
Why don't you check these peoples out


The 'liberal' socialists you seem to like don't seem to have the answers and it's no surprise, Central planners have NEVER had the answers even though the 'liberals' believed it so.

A few days ago 'liberal' Barbara Walters publicly admitted BHO was not the messiah.
In 2007, Rush Limbaugh pointed out BHO was running a messianic campaign.
"RUSH ARCHIVE: Obama is running almost a messianic campaign. He's the Messiah. He has been brought forth in the midst of the partisan rancor, and with the power of his appealing charismatic personality, is going to heal the wounds of a broken nation. With what, nobody cares, because The Oprah doesn't care. It just matters that he's charismatic."
http://www.rushli..._messiah

Dec 21, 2013
From Mother Jones, FEB, 2008:
"Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise. "
http://www.mother...-complex

Dec 21, 2013
From 2010, David Limbaugh:

"Have you noticed among the Obama-supporting elite a desperate agony upon realizing that he is not quite the messiah he made himself out to be and as which they willingly embraced him?"
Many leftists are disgusted with Obama for supposedly betraying the cause on a number of issues, which tells us how irredeemably liberal they are. But their sense of betrayal runs deeper than ideology.

It's not just their belief that he's abandoned them on numerous policy issues. It's also their belated discovery that he's not superman."
http://www.creato...ons.html

Reinforces the addage, if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 21, 2013
this is truly a great time to be alive. just think....within 10 years this warmist/alarmist bullsh*t will be over and done with as the planet continues to cool and we will never have to see your moronic posts again....at least using the same names as all you cowards will change them so that you can deny you were ever this stupid.

Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 21, 2013
The problem is that scientists are human and they know who their benefactors are. They will err on the side of those who fund them.


How absolutely true! We all know that the physicists never found the Higgs boson. It was bought and paid for. And that NASA been Photoshopping those rovers on Mars to justify the budget. I'm not even sure any vaccine ever worked because the government is in on it.

I could just go on and on, but we all know what a sham the entire scientific community is!

Wow! Denial is so exhilarating! I should do this more often.

NOT.


http://www.amazon...51008779

Read it. Then get back to me. This is but one of many such books on the subject.

I'm not contending that science is excessively fraudulent. However, there are fads of belief that flow through community which are often quite wrong. See Polywater, Piltdown man, et al.

Just remember that decades ago we were worried about global cooling...

Dec 21, 2013
Read it. Then get back to me. This is but one of many such books on the subject.

Link provided was to "The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science" by Horace Freeland Judson, author of "The Eighth Day of Creation". Two questions: 1) Are you new here? and 2) Did you bump your head? Judson adds his own spun yarn to creationism and you say there are many such books on fraudulent science. No doubt.


Dec 21, 2013
@ryggesogn2

'We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the "Welfare State" based significantly on the lies of scientism.'

Consistency is not your strong suite, as you earlier tried to make the point that Republicans were elected left and right, even in districts gerrymandered by Democrats.

Then again, the fact that you feel the need to turn science into 'scientism', so that you then can argue against that straw man, is all one needs to know about you.

Looking forward to your next twenty post of verbatim tea party talking points.

Dec 21, 2013
It is so disappointing to see a blog devoted to science use a word like "denier" to describe those who question the science behind "climate change." I am sure your editors are aware it is a politically loaded word since it became famous in describing those, in the face of overwhelming evidence, who questioned Hitlers Holocaust of murder. The evidence supporting man-made global warming is anything but overwhelming. Please keep politics out of your headlines and thus enhance your credibility as a science reporter.

Dec 21, 2013
Here's a few of Cook's 97 percenters:
http://wattsupwit...ed-them/
Seems like someone is cooking the books.

Dec 22, 2013
@ab3a – not to demean Judson's work or choice of titles, but citing his insights in other areas and applying them vaguely here with no specific reference to fraud or errors in scientific methodology in either the sociology or climate science is hardly helpful. Sorry about the two questions, been a long day.

Dec 22, 2013
ryggesogn2, Great job on not directly insulting the person that insults you over and over again. It seems there is a blatant error in this article, well, quite a few. I haven't been on this site in a while, I hope the bias is not always this common.

Dec 22, 2013
Rather fascinating to watch the climate change deniers sink further into insanity. Take the senators from Alaska for example, who recently made speeches about "there is no climate change in the Arctic" and a few days later proposed more funding for the US Navy to patrol in the Arctic due to the vast increase in open water and longer time for open water to persist. Really? The human mind is not structured to hold such conflicting ideas, either they are knowingly lying or they think they are building bridges to nowhere and don't care. And such is the case with a number of the posters here, else they'd be fighting against building new Navy bases in the far North.

Dec 22, 2013
With all that money the Koch Brothers were able to buy a 17 year climate cooling period. That's really cool. Another liberal arts prof earning his pay.


It obviously passed your "scientific" mind and your critical thinking thereof - that the climate system comprises air AND Ocean - which just happens to hold >90% of the heat. If you care to come up from your rabbit-hole and investigate the real world - you will find that is where the the heat has gone during the "hiatus". Try looking up the ENSO/PDO cycle. AND no it is not 17 years since 2005 (the hottest year on GISS data base). I make that 8 years.

Dec 22, 2013

In reality, AGW is supported by all the world governments and only a few poorly paid bloggers are trying to debunk their quest for total control of our lives.


Tell me where to call for a "poorly" funding I am a bit tired of having to work 9-5 and I would prefer to be a poorly funded blogger... or if it's possible I would like to become a well funded one.

Here a demonstration of my habilities:

"AGW is a scam set up by the Gobal Secret Government of Climate Scientist against the poor American taxpayer in conspiracy with the IPCC (Illuminaty Pokemon Collector Club) and SPECTRA"

Looks cool eh? I can fill a blog with stuff like this and if so wished I can add references to UFO and the Hollow Earth: http://www.care2....3/756859

Please contact me at lunch, about 12:00-12:30 GMT+2, Thanks. I'm looking forward to a fruitful collaboration

Dec 22, 2013
If the unlimited funding and power (e.g. as in using the IRS to suppress perceived enemies of the state or in using the EPA regulatory power to support friends of the state like planet saving environmentalists) of the federal government cannot suppress that which the 'deniers' espouse maybe there's more at work here than just funding. Hey, maybe it has something to do with the undisputed fact that there has been no global warming for the last seventeen years (give or take a couple of years depending on whose numbers you're using) while all that time CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase at an undiminished rate. That casts doubt on the warming enthusiast's hypothesis that catastrophic warming will result from that rate of CO2 increase. Propaganda is a powerful thing but it doesn't trump reality as long as there is someone around to point it out. Maybe that's why the 'deniers' have been so successful and AGW is now a zombie.

Dec 22, 2013
With all that money the Koch Brothers were able to buy a 17 year climate cooling period. That's really cool. Another liberal arts prof earning his pay.


It obviously passed your "scientific" mind and your critical thinking thereof - that the climate system comprises air AND Ocean - which just happens to hold >90% of the heat. If you care to come up from your rabbit-hole and investigate the real world - you will find that is where the the heat has gone during the "hiatus". Try looking up the ENSO/PDO cycle. AND no it is not 17 years since 2005 (the hottest year on GISS data base). I make that 8 years.


Runrig ocean heating at those depths is just another theory since no increase in temperatures has been measured there. To call it a theory is being kind, in reality, it is just another lame excuse for the abject failure of the climate models.

Dec 22, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 22, 2013
Bruelle shows his bias, by not also showing us the money spent to further the AGW hypothesis. And not showing the difference as to how the money is obtained (i.e. the AGW proponents get their money via government force, while AGW deniers get their money by selling energy to customers).

Bruelle gets his income via government plunder, like the rest of the AGW industry. Thus, he attacks the AGW denier messengers. And it's for a simple reason: AGW computer models don't reflect reality. In other words, the AGW arguments have fallen apart. I'd say this year could have used some global warming, and we'd be better off for it. And I state this contrary to the chicken little BS those living off the plunder allege. I'll also state, that warmer temps would likely be a good thing considering how well man prospered during the medieval warm period.

Dec 22, 2013

Runrig ocean heating at those depths is just another theory since no increase in temperatures has been measured there. To call it a theory is being kind, in reality, it is just another lame excuse for the abject failure of the climate models.


Like I said MR, you need to come up from the rabbit-hole - I've frankly got fed up of posting the science for you diehards - it's not difficult to understand for those of us that can and are not blinded by the "socialist conspiracy to take my tax pounds" bollocks.

Like i said, go study the -ve PDO/ENSO cycle and see what effect that has on globe temps and the reasons it does. The ARGO float data proves your "just another theory wrong" - so I suggest you go look at that too. You do realise that a 0.06C rise in sea temp equates to 60C for the atmosphere? Oh, and the models are fine thanks - as they are unable to predict ENSO. AND No it don't matter as the Solar In vs IR out is what matters - it's just not balanced. Because of GHG's.

Dec 22, 2013
Bruelle gets his income via government plunder, like the rest of the AGW industry. Thus, he attacks the AGW denier messengers. And it's for a simple reason: AGW computer models don't reflect reality. In other words, the AGW arguments have fallen apart. I'd say this year could have used some global warming, and we'd be better off for it. And I state this contrary to the chicken little BS those living off the plunder allege. I'll also state, that warmer temps would likely be a good thing considering how well man prospered during the medieval warm period.


Look at my below post for rebuttal of the models and do as I suggested - educate yourself and not look at it through the prism of ideological bias. ANd yes - surprise - the world and oceans do not warm or cool synchronously.
I'd also suggest that in the MWP they had rather less than we do to worry about re societal infrastructure. Oh - also they were scientifically illiterate.

Dec 22, 2013
http://climatephy...s-false/


Now I've seen plenty of bollocks in my time endeavoring to counter the aforementioned written/said by AGW deniers - and that site surely is a prize winner.

All the well worn and completely mythical, scientifically devoid on show for the devoted to cheer, and that no amount of countering gets past the the entrance to a certain rodents burrow.

Look - I didn't mind this behaviour from smoking deniers as that was personal choice but I live on this bloody planet as well as you. Now go and tell your doctor he's got your cancer diagnosis wrong *supposing you had*, cause you've read a Blog Googling "Republicans against against Medicine".
I truely wouldn't care then either.

Dec 22, 2013
Bruelle shows his bias, by not also showing us the money spent to further the AGW hypothesis. And not showing the difference as to how the money is obtained (i.e. the AGW proponents get their money via government force, while AGW deniers get their money by selling energy to customers).
--ForFreeMinds

If you had even bothered to read the whole article you would have seen this:
This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.

I think you owe everyone an apology, along the lines of, "I'm a blundering idiot who spouted off without reading the article, terribly sorry."


Dec 22, 2013
this article signifies a small win for the green people. it shows that some of the major investors in the smear campaign against going green have had to shift to alternative routes. the only thing missing in this article is how the researchers define climate change denying organizations. this would have prevented a lot of fuss about bias. i look forward to the study of the remaining party which compliments this study.

Dec 22, 2013
Funny...you say something about climate change and suddenly the guy starts reactivating his voting-bots to go through one's posting history to downvote everything.

Yep: that's the sign of someone who has already lost the debate.

It's over. The deniers lose.

Dec 22, 2013
It is funny how our COMPUTER SIMULATED MODELS thoroughly debunk anyone who's findings oppose the IPCC consensus.

Dec 22, 2013
I guess REAL world data is trumped by simulations. The Earth is just confused at the moment, it'll catch up to reality any day now. Our models are infallible.

Dec 22, 2013
I wonder what would happen to the Climate Change Industry should AGW (sorry, that would be Anthropogenic Climate Change) be shown to pose no threat whatsoever?


Dec 22, 2013
What was good about companies like Solydra wasting the plundered wealth from the taxpayers?

I was thinking about research, hence the reference to information needed for good decisions.
need a world government to enforce the same property right everywhere.

Why? There is no world govt now yet individual states enforce their property rights around the world every day.

Because your solution to pollution is:
The part of the law that needs to change is proof of damage. If someone violates your property, damage or not, you have a right to have the violation ended or be compensated.

That only works if no company can evade your claims by violating your property from a jurisdiction that refuses to accept your definition of property rights. And it would pay for some countries to do that, like it now pays for some to be tax havens.

Dec 22, 2013
It is funny how our COMPUTER SIMULATED MODELS thoroughly debunk anyone who's findings oppose the IPCC consensus.


Err no. The AGW premise hangs on the observations. The models (having simulated the past climate - and only reproduced modern day warming via increasing GHG's) merely project into the future for our (ultimately one hopes) good. Filtered, obviously, by our ELECTED officials.

Dec 22, 2013
I wonder what would happen to the Climate Change Industry should AGW (sorry, that would be Anthropogenic Climate Change) be shown to pose no threat whatsoever?


Look, if *one" accepts the projected rise in temperature - then the rest follows from that. What is difficult about understanding the effects of a disproportionately warming Pole? (Arctic - as the Antarctic is a very special place and will respond much much later to warming) - re melt and feedback due decrease in albedo. Rain-pattern shift and down the line vast expense to hold back the sea, considering the disproportionate population at the coast. Of course you/I are unlikely to see such things - but I happen to be the sort that would like to leave the this planet in the shape it was in as I arrived. (impossible now as we've locked in much more warming). You?

Dec 22, 2013
I happen to be the sort that would like to leave the this planet in the shape it was in as I arrived. You?

I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life.

Unfortunately, Anthropogenic practices have no serious or lasting effects on the Global Climate.

Dec 22, 2013
The AGW premise hangs on the observations. The models (having simulated the past climate - and only reproduced modern day warming via increasing GHG's

Total BS. The models absolutely fail to reproduce current climate conditions. The whole AGW theory is an absolute failure.

Dec 22, 2013
The Universes MO is change. It does so with heat (among other things). IT's just us humans that don't want to accept that change...

Dec 22, 2013
The AGW premise hangs on the observations. The models (having simulated the past climate - and only reproduced modern day warming via increasing GHG's

Total BS. The models absolutely fail to reproduce current climate conditions. The whole AGW theory is an absolute failure.


Look I didn't expect you agree - you're just not getting away with your bollocks while I can deny it.

Dec 22, 2013
I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life.

In that case if you put critical thinking to work you would realise that modern human civilisation, along with the whole of the World's ecosystems have arrived at current conditions as a balance point that mankind can/is buggering up.
Therefore it is in our interests and the planet's to stop buggering it up (in all that entails).
To say "a warmer world is more conducive to life" is, my friend, so scientifically stupid as to beggar belief.

Dec 22, 2013
The Universes MO is change. It does so with heat (among other things). IT's just us humans that don't want to accept that change...


Very true of course ... just one problem - it usually does not happen on human time-scales.
And the change is being caused by humans - therefore we can control it.

Dec 22, 2013
Therefore it is in our interests and the planet's to stop buggering it up (in all that entails).
To say "a warmer world is more conducive to life" is, my friend, so scientifically stupid as to beggar belief.

Didn't you mean "bugger" belief?

Dec 22, 2013
It's so funny to see the pseudo-scientists on this page try to shut down discussion..angrily. They're "pseudo" because they're not really interested in finding the outcome. A good portion are actually ignorant to the fact that the central planners of the world are using the climate scare to gain control over large corporations. In effect, scientists (the dumb ones) are now ignorant shills for the fascists and socialists of the world. The smart ones are getting grants and "hiding the decline".

Dec 22, 2013
The monied don't care what conditions the poor live in. They want everyone on the planet, except themselves, to live on $3 a day so they can remain in control. No hate, just unbridled greed and sociopathic, cold, ego maniacs at the helm. Let them eat cake!

Dec 22, 2013
Why on earth would anyone argue with a person who counters the arguments of an award-winning, credentialed scientist holding at least 5 degrees in his field, (this pretty well defines "Authority" in my book), by citing the nonsense published in that utterly worthless rag, a.k.a. The Daily Caller, the only publication less accurate and / or credible than The Daily Mail? *edit* OK, maybe the North Korean State news service is worse but, that's debatable.

Dec 22, 2013
News Editors;
YOU keep telling readers climate change WILL be crisis despite science only agreeing on nothing beyond "could be".
Explain.
Not once has science ever said or agreed it WILL be or is "inevitable" and not one IPCC warning isn't swimming in "maybes" as in; "Help my house could be on fire maybe?"

Dec 23, 2013
And who is funding the Global warming alarmists? How much money do they get? I bet they get a lot more money than the so-called deniers.

Dec 23, 2013
Answer: The government funds the warmists. This is precisely why we don't trust them and why we believe they are lying.

Dec 23, 2013
Great news!

But... hey! ... where exactly is all that money going?

To pay bloggers? Dang, there must be a helluva lot of 'em.

Dec 23, 2013
They've censored/banned the Ira [zephir_fan] about 10 times over there, and they still can't keep me out.

If you think it's funny to see the noumenon's head burst into flames here when he gets downvoted here, you should see some of those Rush and Glenn followers over there when I come around. They even cut off their karma voting feature to try to get me to go away. -zephir_fan


So here you admit to troll rating yet another site to an extent that they have to turn off their comment rating system?

It's curious that as soon as you started posting your moronic comments here, the open, toot, etc, troll-rating-bots stop their 1-campaign.

Are you a paraplegic that has nothing better to do, a fat 11 year old girl with no friends, or just some know-nothing loser who watches to much Jerry-Springer?

Dec 23, 2013
...because Noumenon only dates fat, 11 year old girls with no friends who know noting and watch jerry all day! problem is, they won't have him!!!

BTW i was never fat but definately more sensitive to the feelings of pre-teens than you!!! why do you have to disparage chubby 11 year olds? you are an ass...

Dec 23, 2013
Why do you have to disparage chubby 11 year olds? you are an ass...


You mean like this,...

...because Noumenon only dates fat, 11 year old girls with no friends who know noting and watch jerry all day! problem is, they won't have him!!!


Shame on you!

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

If you like to know what I am responding to, try reading some of zephir_fan's posts,... obviously a troll who is rude and disruptive to other commentors. Or are you zephir_fan but forgot to put on your wig?

Dec 23, 2013
Why on earth would anyone argue with a person who counters the arguments of an award-winning, credentialed scientist holding at least 5 degrees in his field,


Why would anyone argue with even one of the award winning, credentialed scientists with many degrees who do not support AGW?

Dec 23, 2013
"Last month, electric car start-up Fisker Automobile became the latest government-backed green energy company to file for bankruptcy. The carmaker was the recipient of a half-billion dollar loan from Washington, for which taxpayers are now on the hook."
http://www.forbes...to-stay/
"While the terminology may have changed, one thing has stayed the same: most environmental policies advocated by environmentalists make things more expensive in a way that is regressive. That is, environmentalism is especially hard on the poor."
"why environmentalists, who are supposedly experts, continually push policy options that raise prices for everyone and are often especially injurious economically for poor people."
{Answer: political power is more important}
http://www.realcl...805.html

Dec 23, 2013
this is truly a great time to be alive. just think....within 10 years this warmist/alarmist bullsh*t will be over and done with as the planet continues to cool and we will never have to see your moronic posts again....at least using the same names as all you cowards will change them so that you can deny you were ever this stupid.


Have you already got a name in mind for when your lot are proven to be the extremist nutjobs you clearly are?

Dec 23, 2013
Kron is plainly ignorant with
I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life..
Different equilibria at different temperature. Along with your warmer climate you will have more CO2 - some food plants shift equilibria to produce more cyanide as a byproduct. The relationship of CO2 to plant growth of carbohydrates or proteins is non-linear. Plants fight back against consumption by evolving protections, one of those is the production of cyanide.

If you can adapt to that in one lifetime then thats for you and your *immediate* family, not for the rest of the human race.

Put the CO2 back to the turn of the mid 1940's or so as a starting point with a suitable buffer...


Dec 23, 2013
Why on earth would anyone argue with a person who counters the arguments of an award-winning, credentialed scientist holding at least 5 degrees in his field,


Why would anyone argue with even one of the award winning, credentialed scientists with many degrees who do not support AGW?


Because there are hardly any that fit that description? The simple fact that your lot has to resort to claims of an enormous conspiracy to suppress 'the truth' proves that your lot don't have any creditable scientists to back up your asinine views.

Dec 23, 2013
"Plants fight back against consumption by evolving protections, one of those is the production of cyanide."

Mike you are really a master at fear mongering!!

Dec 23, 2013
"Plants fight back against consumption by evolving protections, one of those is the production of cyanide."

Mike you are really a master at fear mongering!!


But you don't deny that plants produce increased amounts of cyanide in the presence of high quantities of CO2, I hope? Or are you willing to lie to back up your, politically motivated and a-scientific, views on global warming?

Dec 23, 2013
Because there are hardly any that fit that description?

In real science, it only requires one scientist and there are more than one who challenge AGWite dogma.

Dec 23, 2013
"Finally, we have an editorial published in Science on February 10 from Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Science, that begins to articulate the trust issue: "This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole. What needs to be done? Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.""
"No one really believes that the "science is settled" or that "the debate is over." Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements."
http://curry.eas....ust.html

http://www.eas.ga..._A_Curry

Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 23, 2013
MR166 respond to my quote
"Plants fight back against consumption by evolving protections, one of those is the production of cyanide."
with
Mike you are really a master at fear mongering!!
I do aim to please by addressing potential miscreant complacency.

The situation is complex though it is safer for all concerned to not give food plants too much of a good thing (CO2) - otherwise they too will get paranoid (just like rednecks who get an untimely bonus) & try to hang onto their carbohydrate & protein (dosh) reserves they have worked so hard for when it all belongs to us, we are the guys that know too well how to give em shit, for their own good too !

Eg:-
http://australian...-plants/

Cyanogens, Cassava, Clover, many food plants are only conditionally safe & that condition isnt necessarily consistent with a static, we must be on watch, lest they get too self important !

http://en.wikiped...Cyanogen

Dec 23, 2013
"Even if you believe that CO2 is the dominant control knob on climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, how is it a 'fact' to state that this must be dealt with by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (rather than by adaption, carbon sequestration or geoengineering)? And there is a missing element in this argument that warming is 'bad', which is a value judgment and has nothing to do with science."
http://judithcurr...re-14128

Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 23, 2013
In real science, it only requires one scientist and there are more than one who challenge AGWite dogma.

What exactly takes only one scientist? Are you saying that if one scientist disagrees with all others, then all others are proven wrong?

Dec 23, 2013
In real science, it only requires one scientist and there are more than one who challenge AGWite dogma.

What exactly takes only one scientist? Are you saying that if one scientist disagrees with all others, then all others are proven wrong?

Not just disagrees, but has data to back it up.

"Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist of the beginning of the 20th century, as the father of the theory that he called at that time "the continental drift". His book "The Origin of Continents and Oceans", published in 1915, is considered as the beginning of modern plate tectonics, even if the theory was only widely accepted in a refined version in the 1960s."
http://www.eartho...s-theory

"The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and did not want to hear the answer that was right."
http://discoverma...y#.Urhnh

Dec 23, 2013
First, let start with a problem. Exponential growth

http://www.youtub...8KFcMJeo

Just as in the same way a test tube is filled, similar arguments can be made about the consumption of fossil fuels and by-products of burning it for energy. So basically this is plan that will cause large portions of the human population to dye off. So why are these 1 or two privileged people with uber wealth allowed to be the only ones to dictate the direction than mankind takes to alter it course. And why do it in secret? Fear of the lower class I would suspect.

We have a society that has over many generations come to appreciate the logic construction of thought in science. Using mathematical structures its possible to predict future events just as exponential growth can be predicted. Similarly the truth of AGW is predictable. Why use secret dark money to suppress the truth? Why deny the truth that is AGW? As a man of science, that is a mystery to me.


Dec 23, 2013
Are you saying that if one scientist disagrees with all others, then all others are proven wrong?

"When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago)."
"For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society."
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. "
http://wattsupwit...society/

Dec 23, 2013
Similarly the truth of AGW is predictable.

Like the predictions of Marxism, AGW predictions have failed.

Dec 23, 2013
Why deny the truth that is AGW? As a man of science, that is a mystery to me.


Because the people on the other side of the debate think we can get out of a technological problem on the scale of how we power our entire civilization with a POLICY.

Change your mantra for carbon taxes and pie in the sky renewables and see how quickly the other side quits denying the obvious.

You're both wrong and you're both right. In short the deniers can't quit denying the obvious if it means we all collectively walk back into the jungle and the AGWites, while they are on solid logical and scientific ground about the state of the environment are off the rails about how to actually solve the problem.

Dec 23, 2013
That is, environmentalism is especially hard on the poor

Everything is especially hard on the poor. From outsourced jobs and multiple part-time, minimum-wage zero-benefit jobs, to obtaining basics like food, shelter and healthcare. Republicans could never walk ten steps in the raggedy shoes of the poor, much less a mile—those Republicans who do experience what it's like to be poor don't work to end poverty, by and large; they work to make themselves rich at the expense of everyone they do business with, thus fostering and perpetuating poverty instead of eradicating it. They learned nothing. And today as a result of their less than conscientious efforts, the rich are ever richer while the number of poor keeps right on growing. What a surprise.

Dec 23, 2013
Why deny the truth that is AGW?

What is the truth?
Correlation proves causation?
Computer models accurately predict emergence?
Republicans could never walk ten steps in the raggedy shoes of the poor, much less a mile

Most republicans today started out being poor and worked their way out of poverty in spite of govt regulations hindering their efforts.
It is 'liberal' who benefits most from keeping people in poverty and dependent upon the state. Just like many scientists who are dependent upon the state.

Dec 23, 2013
@protoplasmics,

"..... the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - B. Obama

The underlying mechanisms that make this work in a natural way are what conservative republicans support,... liberty, free choice, and the natural egoistic behavior of individuals,....

Everytime in history that left wingers attempted to force artifical equality upon the masses via a "planned society and economy", it resulted in cataclysmic failure.

Dec 23, 2013
Similarly the truth of AGW is predictable.

Like the predictions of Marxism, AGW predictions have failed.

Like the predictions of the AGW gravity has been found to be an fact. In your version R2, you compare apples to oranges; Marxism is a society's choice of governance, while AGW is an observation with the causes explained by facts, observations and rigorous testing. You sometimes say really stupid things R2.

Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 23, 2013
@protoplasmics,

"..... the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - B. Obama

The underlying mechanisms that make this work in a natural way are what conservative republicans support,... liberty, free choice, and the natural egoistic behavior of individuals,....
. 1 out of 3 characteristics is certainly true of the conservatards (to paraphrase a friend); SUPPORT OF EGOTISTIC BEHAVIOR! How else are we to explain the crazy tea party million man marchers (that when counted was a few hundred hahaha).

Yeah the last thing we need is to have a country run by crazy self delusional mean people who's best job experience is as a used car salesman deciding the faith of a million kids because food stamps are undeserved ill-gained hand-outs. Liberals at least have compassion for fellow man and understand government is to serve that fellow man.



Dec 23, 2013
Liberals at least have compassion for fellow man

"The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property. "
"it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction. "
"if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic — you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself? "
http://bastiat.or...ION_G054

Dec 23, 2013
AGW is an observation with the causes explained by facts,

And those facts are...AGWites created a computer model that when they tweak the knobs, voila, 'proves' human produced CO2 causes 'climate change'.

Dec 23, 2013
Liberals at least have compassion for fellow man


"One can have compassion for workers who lose their jobs when a plant closes. They can be seen. One cannot have compassion for unknown persons in other industries who do not receive job offers when a compassionate government subsidizes an unprofitable plant. "
http://www.random...327.html

"in The Chronicle of Philanthropy showing that the cities and states that give the most to charitable causes are overwhelmingly religious, conservative and southern. "The nation's generosity divide is vast," reports the Chronicle, as households in states like Utah and Mississippi give over 7 percent of their income to charity while the average household in Massachusetts and three other New England states gives under 3 percent."
http://www.patheo...rvative/


Dec 23, 2013
AGW is an observation with the causes


yet to be explained within the Standard Error of Measure.

"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain." - Freeman Dyson

Dec 23, 2013
@ Hothot,

If you want to use the "tea party" people as a battering ram against conservatives in general, realize that I could do the same with the the 'occupy wall street' dimwits who in the end had no actual point whatsoever.

I don't know of any conservatives that wish to get rid of food stamps for those in need.

.certainly true of the [conservatives] [..] ; SUPPORT OF EGOTISTIC BEHAVIOR!


It is not something conservatives invented,.. it is human nature irrespective of whatever political form of gov exists, and irrespective what liberals think "should be" peoples behavior. It is simply a recognition that it is better to work With such natural forces and motivations, than Counter to them. No one, as individuals, acts according to the "common good". They act according to their own best interests, egoism. Liberals misunderstand and make it about 'moral judgement', when it is about intrinsic nature, and thus is only immoral to suppress it.

Dec 23, 2013
"The problem with liberals is that they feel the need to demonstrate their supposed greatness to everyone. Part of it stems, most likely, from "liberal guilt": that haunting, persistent feeling among liberals that everything wrong with the world is their fault. No worries though, they aim to make the world a better place - with your money, of course. "
"liberals' solution to helping the poor - government - is nothing more than unjust initiated force. As contrasted with voluntary charity, the left believes in using the State to forcibly extract money from one segment of society and give it to another. They can dress it up all they want, but in the end, it's just a gun in your face demanding tribute. And what's compassionate about that?"
http://www.examin...mpassion

Dec 23, 2013
" Having built the credibility of their political movement on the grounds of compassion and empathy, their actions and policy proposals are reflective of just the opposite."
"The left accuses the right of lacking compassion by playing politics with the health services of poor people. This while their grand leader threatens to cut off the health funding for Indiana's poor people over politics! "
"If you ever wanted to know what the left's compassion really looked like, watch them continue lying about that as struggling Americans scrape up change to put a single gallon of gas in their car."

Read more: http://www.americ...oKMqC1fv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Dec 23, 2013
Kron is plainly ignorant with
I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life..



No. He's just exceptionally stupid.

Dec 23, 2013
"real science is based on questioning of data and conclusions, not on consensus.

This is a clear sign of panic.

Read more: http://www.americ...oKNq3KF6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Dec 23, 2013
Kron is plainly ignorant with
I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life..



No. He's just exceptionally stupid.


Well warmer climate is not always detrimental to terrestrial life.

http://en.wikiped...mum#Life

It would probably be horrendously hard on human civilization though....

Dec 23, 2013
'Liberal' compassion:
"The New York Times has finally conceded what critics of Obamacare have been claiming--the so-called "Affordable Care Act" devastates the country's middle class families who "are caught in the uncomfortable middle: not poor enough for help, but not rich enough to be indifferent to cost.""
http://www.breitb...le-Class

Dec 23, 2013
Liberals at least have compassion for fellow man and understand government is to serve that fellow man.


By such misuse of gov, it is easy to have compassion with other peoples money. Unfortunately, its easy to cause unintended consequences using only do-gooder mentality.

In fact it is so easy, most young people when they become politically aware, start out as liberals. Because it's "obvious" to be a liberal after all... ya help people in need, "we" should do this,.. "we" should stop that,... rich people are evil and they're not fair,... these thoughts make me a good person,.. mommy i wet myself,.. etc.

Once people grow intellectually mature and understand reality and the mechanisms that are responsible for the greatest economy in human history and the greatest increase in standards of living across the board, they become conservatives. They understand the harder and less obvious way is the more robust and lasting way.

Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 23, 2013
Remember, the greatest "Liberals" of them all, the Socialists have been directly responsible for over 100 Million deaths in their purges.

Dec 23, 2013
Once people grow intellectually mature and understand reality and the mechanisms that are responsible for the greatest economy in human history and the greatest increase in standards of living across the board, they become conservatives.
Uh, you do know that the labor movement (unions) had a lot to do with that, right?

And it's the subversion of unions, by moving factories overseas, which began the long decline which currently engulfs most of the former industrial states, right?


Dec 23, 2013
It is not something conservatives invented [egoism]


They might not have invented it, but they sure did perfect it.


Again, it's not about moral judgement. Egoism is an a-priori natural mechanism that motivates every animal on the planet.

You should be glad of this because the poor employ no one, and the government can not survive on taxes from the poor.

Through a kind of anthropic principal we know that the liberal could not have been around during human evolution, because they would have artificially regulated and coerced it, to agree with their naïve notion of "fairness", and thus destroyed the very mechanism that created them.

'Similarly' the modern "progressive liberal" could not have existed except for egoism in a capitalistic, profit motive society.

Dec 23, 2013
Once people grow intellectually mature and understand reality and the mechanisms that are responsible for the greatest economy in human history and the greatest increase in standards of living across the board, they become conservatives.
Uh, you do know that the labor movement (unions) had a lot to do with that, right?

And it's the subversion of unions, by moving factories overseas, which began the long decline which currently engulfs most of the former industrial states, right?


If you want to know who "subverted" the unions it is YOU and the hundreds of millions of people just like you that chose to buy a product that costs less!

THAT,,,,,is human nature and no legislation can change it.

If you desire to keep jobs in your country you had better make sure that any laws enacted REDUCE the cost to the manufactures.

Dec 23, 2013
chose to buy a product that costs less

Because unions were able to use the force of the state to raise costs.
Where workers have a choice to join or not join a union, even foreign auto companies are producing autos in the USA.