Climate Depot slammed as promoting ‘pseudoskepticism’ & declared ‘the front group du jour’
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-can-be-done-about-pseudoskepticism/
Climate change is the latest arena for pseudoskepticism, and the front group du jour is ClimateDepot.com, financed in part by Chevron and Exxon and headed by a colorful character named Marc Morano, who told Kenner: “I’m not a scientist, but I do play one on TV occasionally … hell, more than occasionally.” Morano’s motto to challenge climate science, about which he admits he has no scientific training, is “keep it short, keep it simple, keep it funny.” That includes ridiculing climate scientists such as James E. Hansen of Columbia University. “You can’t be afraid of the absolute hand-to-hand combat metaphorically. And you’ve got to name names, and you’ve got to go after individuals,” he says, adding with a wry smile, “I think that’s what I enjoy the most.”…
The Father Of Global Warming Said America Would Run Out Of Oil By 1946
What to call a ‘doubter’ asks Justin Gillis. NY Times agitprop: is namecalling ‘scientific’?
What to call a “doubter” asks Justin Gillis. NY Times agitprop: is namecalling “scientific”?
Welcome to “science journalism” at The New York Times where climate forces are not so much about sunlight and cloud cover, but about “deniers”, “doubters”, and “disinformers”. While our climate is supposedly the crisis the world must face, the NY Times solution is not to investigate and debate the leading ideas, but to ask what names we toss at Nobel Prize winners who don’t endorse the approved establishment line. Pravda would be proud. Most surveys and polls show 50% of the population are skeptical. A real newspaper that was leading and shaping the public debate would find the most informed views from both sides and put them forward shaping and hammering out the public debate. Instead, the NY Times solution is to discuss petitions pushing namecalling. Justin Gillis asks: What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change? What indeed, I wonder? Does any single real person doubt that the climate can change? I have not met such a person, though many believers of the dominant government endorse paradigm seem to think the climate was stable and perfect before emissions of man-made CO2. The UN redefined the boring obvious term “climate change” to be a coded shorthand for “man-made global […]Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
— gReader Pro…
Claim: Scientist Finds Remarkable Way to Connect People Emotionally with Climate Change
http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/18/connect-people-emotionally-climate-change/…
Warmist Joe Romm Rips Bill Gates: ‘Gates Is Still Wrong On Climate Change, It Will Undo His Foundation’s Work’
Bill Gates Is Still Wrong On Climate Change, It Will Undo His Foundation’s Work
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/18/3623344/bill-gates-climate-change/
Bill and Melinda Gates (via AP) The Gates Foundation is doing important work helping the poorest countries deal with disease and poverty. The fact that the $42 billion Foundation is utterly ignoring the biggest long-term threat to the health and well-being of the poorest countries would itself be easier to ignore — if only Bill Gates would stop saying nonsensical things about climate change as if they were facts. Gates himself has just invited us all to ask whether climate change will in fact undo the work of his Foundation. In his Foundation’s latest Annual letter, Gates writes early on, “It is fair to ask whether the progress we’re predicting will be stifled by climate change.” I asked and answered that question 6 years ago: Yes, climate change will stifle the progress the foundation is predicting. Even back then, using a “middle of the road” greenhouse gas emissions scenario, a study in Science found that “Half of world’s population could face climate-driven food crisis by 2100.” The study concluded, “Ignoring climate projections at this stage will only result in the worst form of triage.” A study led by MIT economists found that “the median poor country’s income will be about 50 percent lower than it would be had there been no climate change.” And that was based on a 3-degree C warming by 2100, about half the warming we are currently on track to reach. The latest climate research is even more worrisome: Study after study has made clear much of the world’s habited and arable land faces multi-decade megadroughts and/or near-permanent Dust-Bowlification if we were to dawdle, say, yet another 15 years before slashing carbon pollution. Gates offers his own, absurd, answer to his question in the 2015 letter, to explain why the Foundation isn’t focusing resources on the climate problem: The most dramatic problems caused by climate change are more than 15 years away, but the long-term threat is so serious that the world needs to move much more aggressively — right now — to develop energy sources that are cheaper, can deliver on demand, and emit zero carbon dioxide. The next 15 years are a pivotal time when these energy sources need to be developed so they’ll be ready to deploy before the effects of climate change become severe. How suicidal would …
Newspaper: U.N. IPCC chair Rajenda Pachauri faces sexual harassment charges – story then disappears from website
Former NASA scientist Jim Hansen’s 99% Surety on Global Warming Doesn’t Hold Up
Jim Hansen’s 99% Surety on Global Warming Doesn’t Hold Up
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/18/jim-hansens-99-surety-on-global-warming-doesnt-hold-up
Guest essay by Pat Frank – When Jim Hansen testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, on June 23, 1988, he said that he was 99% sure human-caused global warming was already happening. Ever wonder how he got so sure? I discovered the answer while researching the validity of the global surface […]
— gReader Pro…
Conflict Deaths and Global Warming
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/conflict-deaths-and-global-warming/…
WaPo profiles 4th-grade class: ‘One-third of the students picked global warming as the biggest problem’
How to convince a sceptic – just give them the data
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/16/how-to-convince-a-skeptic-just-give-them-the-data/…