DOJ considering action against climate deniers

[Clocker]

Atty Gen Lynch says climate denial by fossil fuel companies has been referred to the FBI for possible further legal action.

So if Obama doesn't kill the 1st Amendment during his administration, maybe Hillary can get elected and finish the job. But not with a gun, because those will be illegal too.


During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions.

He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer.

“My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/

[PaceAdvantage]

They should just round up all Republicans and put them in "re-education" camps.

And they call Trump, Hitler?

[davew]

Does that mean they will also go after the climate 'researchers' who are committing fraud?

[classhandicapper]

They should just round up all Republicans and put them in "re-education" camps.

And they call Trump, Hitler?

Exactly.

If it ever comes to this, I'll be on the sidelines hoping for a revolution. The left is so monumentally unprincipled, it's hard for me to fathom how people can be attracted to this line of thinking. If I was 100% sure that climate change was man made and 100% sure it would lead to a disaster, I still would not advocate something like this. I might dedicate my life to the intellectual battle for people's minds so I could do something democratically, but I'd never prosecute people for a different view.

If I was in power applied the left's standards against them, they'd all be in jail economic idiocy, strung up for treason, etc..

Can't they comprehend that sometimes "you" are not the one in power and if the ones in power strongly disagree with you they could do the same thing to YOU.

[Clocker]

Does that mean they will also go after the climate 'researchers' who are committing fraud?

In the Wonderland of Washington, the end defines the means. If your research confirms global warming, it by definition honest. If not, it is by definition fraudulent.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

[rastajenk]

Some of my liberal "friends" on Facebook are fond of the Sinclair Lewis quote about fascism coming to American wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

That quote is terribly outdated. Clearly the fascism he may have feared will be in the guise of DofJ investigations and IRS audits looking for "thought crimes."

[mostpost]

Atty Gen Lynch says climate denial by fossil fuel companies has been referred to the FBI for possible further legal action.

So if Obama doesn't kill the 1st Amendment during his administration, maybe Hillary can get elected and finish the job. But not with a gun, because those will be illegal too.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
Here is a link to the suit against the tobacco companies in 1999.
http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-DOJ-litigation-overview-2013.pdf

A case in which judgement was in favor of the government.

You should note that Lynch was not asked if the DOJ was going to take action against the fossil fuel companies; nor did she say it would. She said the FBI was being asked to determine if this particular scenario fit the requirements to be investigated.

As to US v. Philip Morris et al, the finding was that the tobacco companies engaged in a pattern of behavior intended to falsely claim that tobacco smoking was not harmful when their own research (which they hid from the public) proved that it was harmful. It was also proven that the tobacco companies falsified research proving there were no ill effects from smoking.

I am pretty sure-I mean really sure- that a similar suit against fossil fuel companies would have a similar outcome.

Your first amendment argument is nonsense. You know that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater if there is no fire. It also does not include the right to deny there is a fire if the house is burning down.

[tucker6]

I am pretty sure-I mean really sure- that a similar suit against fossil fuel companies would have a similar outcome.


well as long as YOU are sure, I can plan ahead. :lol:

[Clocker]

As to US v. Philip Morris et al, the finding was that the tobacco companies engaged in a pattern of behavior intended to falsely claim that tobacco smoking was not harmful when their own research (which they hid from the public) proved that it was harmful. It was also proven that the tobacco companies falsified research proving there were no ill effects from smoking.

I am pretty sure-I mean really sure- that a similar suit against fossil fuel companies would have a similar outcome.

So you are alleging that Big Oil has research proving that they are causing global warming, but they are hiding it from the public?

Clever how Big Oil also manipulated the data to show that there has been no global warming for the last 18 years. How did they do that? :rolleyes:

Your first amendment argument is nonsense. You know that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater if there is no fire. It also does not include the right to deny there is a fire if the house is burning down.

Your analogy is nonsense, and shows a lack of understanding of human rights as protected under the Constitution. Human rights as understood by the founders are essentially property rights, including the, radical for the time, concept that a person is his own property, not that of the state or the crown.

Your rights extend only so far as to not infringe on the rights of others. Yelling "Fire" in a theater not only infringes on the property rights of the theater owner, it potentially infringes on the rights of others in the theater to personal well-being and even life. The "fire" argument is, and always has been, juvenile.

[davew]

Where is research being done? Clearly aGW is at present the greatest threat to the world (0bama told the world so).

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

[Clocker]

Where is research being done? Clearly aGW is at present the greatest threat to the world (0bama told the world so).

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne


It is a lot more efficient and less expensive to do research if you already know what the desired results are. Think of how much money our government is saving us by not having to research both sides of the issue. And look at all the money the energy industry is wasting researching both sides, money they could be paying in taxes to fund more efficient government research.

[betovernetcapper]

seriously when Al Gore gives up his private jet. :)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I hope this thread goes on a while. There is nothing like climate change to cover the entire spectrum from truth to pants on fire, from hitting the mark dead center to WTF?

[davew]

seriously when Al Gore gives up his private jet. :)


It doesn't contribute to aGW does it?

[rastajenk]

I hope this thread goes on a while. There is nothing like climate change to cover the entire spectrum from truth to pants on fire, from hitting the mark dead center to WTF?
You got that right. You don't have to look to far for past threads on this topic to see the truth in that.

[Tom]

There is no viable replacement for fossil fuels at this time, and will not be for a long time to come. Fact of life.

[classhandicapper]

Here is a link to the suit against the tobacco companies in 1999.
http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-DOJ-litigation-overview-2013.pdf

A case in which judgement was in favor of the government.

You should note that Lynch was not asked if the DOJ was going to take action against the fossil fuel companies; nor did she say it would. She said the FBI was being asked to determine if this particular scenario fit the requirements to be investigated.

As to US v. Philip Morris et al, the finding was that the tobacco companies engaged in a pattern of behavior intended to falsely claim that tobacco smoking was not harmful when their own research (which they hid from the public) proved that it was harmful. It was also proven that the tobacco companies falsified research proving there were no ill effects from smoking.

I am pretty sure-I mean really sure- that a similar suit against fossil fuel companies would have a similar outcome.

Your first amendment argument is nonsense. You know that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater if there is no fire. It also does not include the right to deny there is a fire if the house is burning down.

If they found out that energy companies were hiding and distorting their own research and data (kind of like the government does all the time with economic data) that showed the climate was changing and they were clearly responsible for it, it would be reasonable to go after them for something. But you'd still have to show that a changing climate was somehow a bad thing (like cancer, emphysema etc..).

I concede that it is likely there is some impact on climate from everything we are dumping into the atmosphere, but I think a warmer earth could be a net positive even if it's disruptive in the shorter term.

Should I be able to charge you with a crime because you are interfering with my long term goal of a new warmer earth where trees and vegetation do better because of the higher CO2, we abandon our old decrepit cities and build shiny new modern ones in the new warmer locations, farm new areas with fertile soil that where it is frozen now etc...?

What these totalitarians are trying to do is SILENCE scientists, researchers, and anyone else that disagrees with the quality of their data, adjustments to their data, interpretations of that data, and projections of future impact etc.. because that haven't been able to make the case well enough that we should overhaul the existing economy faster than the economics dictate just to chase their rainbows.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If they found out that energy companies were hiding and distorting their own research and data (kind of like the government does all the time with economic data) that showed the climate was changing and they were clearly responsible for it, it would be reasonable to go after them for something. But you'd still have to show that a changing climate was somehow a bad thing (like cancer, emphysema etc..).

I concede that it is likely there is some impact on climate from everything we are dumping into the atmosphere, but I think a warmer earth could be a net positive even if it's disruptive in the shorter term.

Should I be able to charge you with a crime because you are interfering with my long term goal of a new warmer earth where trees and vegetation do better because of the higher CO2, we abandon our old decrepit cities and build shiny new modern ones in the new warmer locations, farm new areas with fertile soil that where it is frozen now etc...?

What these totalitarians are trying to do is SILENCE scientists, researchers, and anyone else that disagrees with the quality of their data, adjustments to their data, interpretations of that data, and projections of future impact etc.. because that haven't been able to make the case well enough that we should overhaul the existing economy faster than the economics dictate just to chase their rainbows.
I lived in Buffalo for four years where the old joke was that there were only two seasons. Winter and Fourth of July. I would quip that if the people in Buffalo favored global warming, you had to concede it to them.

One thing I would caution people is to not conflate the academic work of scientists with the opinions of environmental groups, industry reps or politicians. Scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals collect data and follow it where it leads. If they follow the scientific process, their work should be replicable.

[mostpost]

If they found out that energy companies were hiding and distorting their own research and data (kind of like the government does all the time with economic data) that showed the climate was changing and they were clearly responsible for it, it would be reasonable to go after them for something. But you'd still have to show that a changing climate was somehow a bad thing (like cancer, emphysema etc..).
Is seven billion human beings dying enough of a bad thing for you? Are all of the creatures who inhabit the northern latitudes becoming extinct enough of a bad thing for you? Is most of the creatures of the sea becoming extinct enough of a bad thing for you.

This is not going to stop with Buffalo becoming the new Miami. The global temperature has risen .3 degrees in the last five years. That is a huge increase. CO2 concentration is nearing 400 parts per million. There will come a time-if it has not occurred already-when the process will be irreversible.

I concede that it is likely there is some impact on climate from everything we are dumping into the atmosphere, but I think a warmer earth could be a net positive even if it's disruptive in the shorter term.

Should I be able to charge you with a crime because you are interfering with my long term goal of a new warmer earth where trees and vegetation do better because of the higher CO2, we abandon our old decrepit cities and build shiny new modern ones in the new warmer locations, farm new areas with fertile soil that where it is frozen now etc...?
Are you really this naive? Do you understand nothing about balance? High concentrations of CO2 are harmful to human beings and to all oxygen breathing life forms. In high enough concentrations, they cause death.

You think we can abandon our old decrepit cities and build shiny new modern ones in the new warmer locations. We can't even fix our bridges. If we could do such a thing, what would be the cost in terms of adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere?

What these totalitarians are trying to do is SILENCE scientists, researchers, and anyone else that disagrees with the quality of their data, adjustments to their data, interpretations of that data, and projections of future impact etc.. because that haven't been able to make the case well enough that we should overhaul the existing economy faster than the economics dictate just to chase their rainbows.
The so called "science" of the climate deniers has been proven wrong so many times that it can not be called science. If I am wrong-which I am not-it will cost some billionaire or some hedge fund some money. If you are wrong-which you are-it will cost all of us our lives.

[davew]

The so called "science" of the climate deniers has been proven wrong so many times that it can not be called science. If I am wrong-which I am not-it will cost some billionaire or some hedge fund some money. If you are wrong-which you are-it will cost all of us our lives.


You will long be dead before the extra 0.3 degrees warmer would kill you.

[Clocker]

You will long be dead before the extra 0.3 degrees warmer would kill you.

My god, man, 0.3 degrees in 5 years is 30 degrees in 500 years. How can you just ignore that? Don't you care about the impact on future generations who would already be struggling under the tremendous burden of the national debt we piled on them? Oh, the humanity!!!

[rastajenk]

Maybe humans have a expiration date, I don't know. Whether it's climate change, nuclear war, asteroid impact...lots of options. As to other living organisms on earth, I don't worry about them. "Life finds a way."

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
The so called "science" of the climate deniers has been proven wrong so many times that it can not be called science. If I am wrong-which I am not-it will cost some billionaire or some hedge fund some money. If you are wrong-which you are-it will cost all of us our lives.

If you honestly believe that nonsense, then how do you justify ALLGORE and his ilks from crying wolf from their jet airplanes and SUVs, not lowering the creation of greenhouse gases, but simply moving them to other countries to do the manufacturing of stuff for dirtier that we would do it?

How do not bow down to "W" who has a far smaller carbon footprint that Fat Albert does?

Being a liberal is not about doing anything, it is about talking about doing things and then feeling good about it. With at best, no results, but usually, more harm done than had kept your stupid mouth shut in the first place.

You guys are fools and simpletons. IF there were really a threat, people of intelligence, people you do not normally hang out with, with taking REAL actions to stop and reverse it. Not talking about it and making it worse through sheer ignorance. Dips**t morons like Obama would be pushed out of the way by real Americans to do the real job.

You can quote me to the DOJ - Department Of Jerks.

[mostpost]

If you honestly believe that nonsense, then how do you justify ALLGORE and his ilks from crying wolf from their jet airplanes and SUVs, not lowering the creation of greenhouse gases, but simply moving them to other countries to do the manufacturing of stuff for dirtier that we would do it?
Al Gore is one guy. Al Gore long ago renovated his house in Nashville to reduce its carbon footprint. He installed solar panels and geothermal heating. The house has a rainwater collection system. Al Gore owns a Prius and a Lexus hybrid. I am pretty sure he does not own a jet airplane.

How do not bow down to "W" who has a far smaller carbon footprint that Fat Albert does?
I give W credit for what he has done to make his ranch energy efficient. It's too bad so many of those who supported him don't follow his example.

Being a liberal is not about doing anything, it is about talking about doing things and then feeling good about it. With at best, no results, but usually, more harm done than had kept your stupid mouth shut in the first place.

You guys are fools and simpletons. IF there were really a threat, people of intelligence, people you do not normally hang out with, with taking REAL actions to stop and reverse it. Not talking about it and making it worse through sheer ignorance. Dips**t morons like Obama would be pushed out of the way by real Americans to do the real job.
People of intelligence are trying to do something about it. They are being hamstrung at every turn by fools and simpletons who can't see past their wallets.

You can quote me to the DOJ - Department Of Jerks.
I tried. They told me they pay no attention to crackpots like you.

[davew]

I tried. They told me they pay no attention to crackpots like you.

Who is they? Did you go to Saul Alinsky's School for Commie Radicals?

[Fager Fan]

If they found out that energy companies were hiding and distorting their own research and data (kind of like the government does all the time with economic data) that showed the climate was changing and they were clearly responsible for it, it would be reasonable to go after them for something. But you'd still have to show that a changing climate was somehow a bad thing (like cancer, emphysema etc..).

I concede that it is likely there is some impact on climate from everything we are dumping into the atmosphere, but I think a warmer earth could be a net positive even if it's disruptive in the shorter term.

Should I be able to charge you with a crime because you are interfering with my long term goal of a new warmer earth where trees and vegetation do better because of the higher CO2, we abandon our old decrepit cities and build shiny new modern ones in the new warmer locations, farm new areas with fertile soil that where it is frozen now etc...?

What these totalitarians are trying to do is SILENCE scientists, researchers, and anyone else that disagrees with the quality of their data, adjustments to their data, interpretations of that data, and projections of future impact etc.. because that haven't been able to make the case well enough that we should overhaul the existing economy faster than the economics dictate just to chase their rainbows.

But why would a coal company, for example, be doing ANY of that type of research? Their "research" is only about obtaining the coal.

Companies that peddle drugs are a whole other ball game.

[classhandicapper]

The so called "science" of the climate deniers has been proven wrong so many times that it can not be called science. If I am wrong-which I am not-it will cost some billionaire or some hedge fund some money. If you are wrong-which you are-it will cost all of us our lives.

If we did what you want to do and accelerated the change to clean energy before market forces were ready, we would push the world into economic chaos and wars as the energy dependent countries collapsed into depression.

The losses for some hedge fund managers would be irrelevant. The smart ones would short markets and make money on the economic follies of liberals (as they always do) while the rank and file people would be devastated. As of this very moment, I (little old me) put energy into figuring out I might make some money off the follies of Keynesian economists at our central banks and in the western government as they commit monetary suicide. I whine about it endlessly, but I'm already positioned to deal with it. Most people are getting screwed and they don't even know it.

If I am right, we will continue developing and deploying clean energy and slowly migrate over the next 50-100 years while we are building brand new modern efficient cities and abandoning the less comfortable places we occupy now. We will be wildly prosperous and comfortable and laughing at the people of today for thinking a couple of degrees was going to devastate humanity.

I'd suggest you buy some land cheaply in areas that are frozen now for your primary residence and some land in ski vacation areas now so you will have a winter get away where there is sun, beaches, fishing, etc... ;)

[classhandicapper]

But why would a coal company, for example, be doing ANY of that type of research? Their "research" is only about obtaining the coal.

Companies that peddle drugs are a whole other ball game.

R&D occurs because people are trying to make money. Whether it's two geniuses in a garage or an entire division at a major corporation.

[davew]

Gore got some Attorney Generals together

http://observer.com/2016/03/al-gore-and-eric-schneiderman-hail-best-most-hopeful-step-against-climate-change/

from the article ->

Former Vice President Al Gore today lauded what he called “the best, most hopeful step” in years to contain global warming: 16 state prosecutors joining New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s crusade against energy giants that they assert have fraudulently fought caps on greenhouse gas emissions.


I guess if you disagree with the 'crusaders', you are committing 'fraud'.

[betovernetcapper]

Just thought I'd share this

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=2489e0b8-3e57-40eb-9748-6c250d63c40d

and this

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEFMfl4_WHs

[davew]

t seems Al Gore has a very big footprint

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8yf7ea4D_Q

[davew]

Exactly.

If it ever comes to this, I'll be on the sidelines hoping for a revolution. The left is so monumentally unprincipled, it's hard for me to fathom how people can be attracted to this line of thinking. If I was 100% sure that climate change was man made and 100% sure it would lead to a disaster, I still would not advocate something like this. I might dedicate my life to the intellectual battle for people's minds so I could do something democratically, but I'd never prosecute people for a different view.

If I was in power applied the left's standards against them, they'd all be in jail economic idiocy, strung up for treason, etc..

Can't they comprehend that sometimes "you" are not the one in power and if the ones in power strongly disagree with you they could do the same thing to YOU.


The compare what they call climate deniers to tobacco companies, when they are acting like Nazi propagandists.

[Tom]

t seems Al Gore has a very big footprint

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8yf7ea4D_Q
And very small hands.

[Stevecsd]

I often visit the website http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for a less biased perspective. I have learned much reading Anthony Watt’s web pages.

1. CO2 is only 0.04 % (4/100s) of the total atmosphere.

2. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm (parts per million) There have been several times in the distant past where it was in the 4,000 to 5,000 range and up. The earth survived. Why all the panic at 400 ppm?

3. I have read figures that human generated CO2 amounts to between 5 to 7% of the total volume. The other 93-95% is generated naturally.

4. Plants need a minimum of around 260-280 ppm to grow. Below that they won’t grow very well.

5. The increase in CO2 levels have increased foliage around 11%. The increased levels have increased food supplies per acre, and amount of land under tillage has been reduced. The population projections say that there will be another 2-2.5 billion people on earth by about 2050. We are going to need to feed them. Lowering CO2 levels is not going to help that problem.

6. There have been times in earth’s history that have been warmer/hotter than it is now. The Roman Warm & Medieval Warm period were hotter than today. There were times in the distant past where it was 8-10 degrees Centigrade/Celsius warmer than today

7. There have been several times in history where the temperature rose first, then increases in CO2 followed after. If CO2 is the prime cause of an increase in global temperatures how can this be?

8. During the 1970’s the big scare was the next ice age. Now it is CAGW.

Now, some comments on the “models”. They are a joke. Earth’s climate is a dynamic and chaotic system. The models are based on static systems. Almost all of the models have predicted more than twice as much warming as has been observed. Models are not science. They are a software approximation for a system. They don’t even predict the current hiatus in temperature. My answer to the climate catastrophists is get back to me when your models get anywhere near reality.

I also found Patrick Moore’s video interesting & educational. You can see it at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I often visit the website http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for a less biased perspective. I have learned much reading Anthony Watt’s web pages.

1. CO2 is only 0.04 % (4/100s) of the total atmosphere.

2. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm (parts per million) There have been several times in the distant past where it was in the 4,000 to 5,000 range and up. The earth survived. Why all the panic at 400 ppm?

3. I have read figures that human generated CO2 amounts to between 5 to 7% of the total volume. The other 93-95% is generated naturally.

4. Plants need a minimum of around 260-280 ppm to grow. Below that they won’t grow very well.

5. The increase in CO2 levels have increased foliage around 11%. The increased levels have increased food supplies per acre, and amount of land under tillage has been reduced. The population projections say that there will be another 2-2.5 billion people on earth by about 2050. We are going to need to feed them. Lowering CO2 levels is not going to help that problem.

6. There have been times in earth’s history that have been warmer/hotter than it is now. The Roman Warm & Medieval Warm period were hotter than today. There were times in the distant past where it was 8-10 degrees Centigrade/Celsius warmer than today

7. There have been several times in history where the temperature rose first, then increases in CO2 followed after. If CO2 is the prime cause of an increase in global temperatures how can this be?

8. During the 1970’s the big scare was the next ice age. Now it is CAGW.

Now, some comments on the “models”. They are a joke. Earth’s climate is a dynamic and chaotic system. The models are based on static systems. Almost all of the models have predicted more than twice as much warming as has been observed. Models are not science. They are a software approximation for a system. They don’t even predict the current hiatus in temperature. My answer to the climate catastrophists is get back to me when your models get anywhere near reality.

I also found Patrick Moore’s video interesting & educational. You can see it at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c
Let me start by reiterating that debating the accuracy of the models is legitimate. That and a discussion of policy options are worthy of further public discourse. But the models are not a joke and the current generation of models combine both dynamic and static variables. You would also be incorrect about the accuracy of current modeling based on temperature where people live, which many people believe is the critical predictive number. The models are quite accurate. The models cannot account for certain unknown variables - a volcanic eruption for example - but that doesn't invalidate them. In all seriousness - is it not appropriate for scientists to develop predictive models to be used in the discussions? And do you really believe that there aren't credible scientists who can tear apart models that lack validity?

Finally, you are incorrect about the global temperature hiatus. That was clearly debunked in this study http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/september/global-warming-hiatus-091715.html The trend is clearly upward.

I'd just say getting your information from whatsupwiththat.com is hardly more credible than getting information from a left-wing source that believes we're all gonna die from climate change. They both manipulate facts and make them sound without real credibility. I think if you took the time to dig a little deeper into models and modeling results, you'd seriously edit your modeling paragraph.

A couple of other things. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is hardly a directive number. You understand how the earth gets warm, right? The sun sends out UV radiation some of which is absorbed by the earth, some of which is reflected back into space, some of which is absorbed in the atmosphere after being returned by the earth as infrared radiation. There is enough CO2 (and other gases)in the atmosphere to create the so-called "greenhouse effect." This is what allowed the earth to be at a temperature that could sustain life. Not to be Captain Obvious, but if there was too much CO2 in the atmosphere humans would cease to exist. Just recognize there is enough CO2 to keep us warm without killing us, regardless of the volume.

Again, regardless of the breakdown between natural and anthropogenic sources, given the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, seemingly small changes can be significant. It is irrefutable fact that atmospheric CO2 absorbs heat. That's just chemistry. It's really not a big intellectual stretch to think more CO2 means more heat absorption.

One of the other things people forget is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 100 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas (in the short term) and 72 times more efficient over 20 years than CO2.

You sure you don't want to give Monsanto just a little credit for increasing yields? You want to sell it as increasing CO2 levels? We need more CO2 if we're going to feed the planet? Seriously?

The earth survived some pretty extreme atmospheric conditions, especially back during the Vulcan period or in the primordial ooze period. Of course, if you had told the dinosaurs, don't worry, the earth will survive that asteroid coming, it would have been of little comfort to most of them that died. Although, if you want to point out that dinosaurs all had brains the size of walnuts and were really bad at communication, I'd admit the example was purely a fable to make a point. The earth surviving is a pretty low hurdle.

Finally, the whole ice age thing was ONE GUY who has since admitted he made a mistake, and is now one of those global warming nuts. You don't have to take my word for it. Look it up.

At the end of the day, there are facts, and I've said while models are not facts, measurements are. Through all of this discussion I've also said there is a big difference between whatever the science says and the policy discussion and the policy makers need to decide what we should do, if anything. It's an issue that needs an informed debate. Don't conflate the facts - the measurements - with the models, and don't try to illegitimize simple chemistry. And perhaps make an effort to understand how modeling works.

[davew]

That 4000 to 5000 range in the past must not be accurate because it does not show up in the charts of the alarmists.

Carbon Dioxide concentration in the air is now best measured at a Hawaiian observatory within 40 miles of the largest volcano in the world - for truly unslanted readings.

[hcap]

That 4000 to 5000 range in the past must not be accurate because it does not show up in the charts of the alarmists.

Carbon Dioxide concentration in the air is now best measured at a Hawaiian observatory within 40 miles of the largest volcano in the world - for truly unslanted readings.You really have little knowledge of the science necessary to support your ASS-ertions.
(This time I won't bold that insult so PA can calm down from his biassed political witch hunt :lol: :lol: :lol: )

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-CO2-levels-from-the-volcano-at-Mauna-Loa.html

But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

Importantly, Mauna Loa is not the only atmospheric measuring station in the world. As the graph from NOAA shows, other stations show the same year-after-year increasing trend. The seasonal saw-tooth varies from place to place, of course, but the background trend remains steadily upwards. The Keeling Curve is one of the best-defined results in climatology and there really are no valid scientific reasons for doubting it.

[hcap]

Just for the record....Volcanoes emit about 250 million tons of CO2 on average per year. Humans emit 40 billion.

[davew]

Just for the record....Volcanoes emit about 250 million tons of CO2 on average per year. Humans emit 40 billion.

The vague and imprecise wording of the alarmists is troubling. And yet to ask why their information makes no sense, some (Gore and his AG squad)are trying to make criminal.


Humans emit 40 billion. [/ There are roughly 7 billion humans on the planet, does that mean each emits roughly 6 ? something -> pounds / tons / moles ? CO2 every year through respiration? What about all the other animals in the world?

[hcap]

Not pounds or moles......... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"Just for the record....Volcanoes emit about 250 million tons of CO2 on average per year. Humans emit 40 billion."

That number includes all of industry and human farming. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Need a source?

[classhandicapper]

Going after the companies.

http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160411/michael-e-kraft-climate-change-deniers-deserve-punishment/?Start=2

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The vague and imprecise wording of the alarmists is troubling. And yet to ask why their information makes no sense, some (Gore and his AG squad)are trying to make criminal.


Humans emit 40 billion. [/ There are roughly 7 billion humans on the planet, does that mean each emits roughly 6 ? something -> pounds / tons / moles ? CO2 every year through respiration? What about all the other animals in the world?
The precise term usually used is "anthropogenic", meaning originating from human activity. Cars, trucks, airplanes, ships, power plants, manufacturing facilities and the like would fall into the category of anthropogenic. Volcanoes and forest fires, for example, would be non-anthropogenic. So I'm sure you know that when you combust anything organic (wood, oil, natural gas) you release CO and CO2 into the atmosphere. This is not propaganda, it's simply the way chemistry works.

So no, humans and animals don't respire all that CO2 into the atmosphere. It comes from a variety of anthropogenic sources. Although cow shit is a major source of methane, which is orders of magnitude more efficient as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Now you have something else to make fun of the alarmists for.

There are true believers on the right who want to turn legitimate information into a conspiracy, and true believers on the left who won't be happy until the world is solar powered and there are no smokestacks soiling the landscape. Neither of them should have a prominent place in a discussion of what to do, if anything.

To riff Larry David, science is pretty, pretty good at explaining things. That doesn't mean there isn't a need for serious discussion on policy or that everything has been settled.

[hcap]

There are true believers on the right who want to turn legitimate information into a conspiracy, and true believers on the left who won't be happy until the world is solar powered and there are no smokestacks soiling the landscape. Neither of them should have a prominent place in a discussion of what to do, if anything.
This is a false equivalency. The "true believers on the right " far far outnumber the flaked on the left. Judging by the true believers on the right here versus the few on the left, and by the factual content of each group's posts, the right is wrong many more times on the main issue of AGW. The political debate must start with the acceptance of AGW.

Of course the right worships at the idol of the invisible hand. Which even Adam Smith warned against following in LOCK-STEP. Since the late 19th century we have developed a mixed economy. Once the reality of AGW is accepted and the growing urgency of the scope of the problem is realized, the only way to act quickly enough is to employ both government and capital markets.

The sooner the better before it goes to the wire and it becomes necessary to do an all out Manhattan Project. However considering the anti-science republicans in congress who will poison the political will, such an extreme plan as a Manhattan Project is highly unlikely.

[delayjf]

At the end of the day, there are facts, and I've said while models are not facts, measurements are.

I question the measurements as well.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is a false equivalency. The "true believers on the right " far far outnumber the flaked on the left. Judging by the true believers on the right here versus the few on the left, and by the factual content of each group's posts, the right is wrong many more times on the main issue of AGW. The political debate must start with the acceptance of AGW.

Of course the right worships at the idol of the invisible hand. Which even Adam Smith warned against following in LOCK-STEP. Since the late 19th century we have developed a mixed economy. Once the reality of AGW is accepted and the growing urgency of the scope of the problem is realized, the only way to act quickly enough is to employ both government and capital markets.

The sooner the better before it goes to the wire and it becomes necessary to do an all out Manhattan Project. However considering the anti-science republicans in congress who will poison the political will, such an extreme plan as a Manhattan Project is highly unlikely.
Based on more personal experience, I might disagree with you on the percentages of people on the extreme ends of the issue. As I've said before, the science and the policy are different discussions, and most of the people on the "denier" side of the issue are focused on the models, believing the models over predict actual warming, thus obviating the need for substantial control of fossil fuel burning sources. The issue is if they are wrong and the models are right, that could be a pretty big problem.

I'll remind everyone that the invisible hand was not government Laissez faire but an assertion that private businesses would be guided, as if by an invisible hand, toward the public good. In other words, government regulation was unnecessary because business would never operate in opposition to what was best for society, even while paying homage to the profit motive. I'm pretty sure the Wall Street banks shot a big hole in that theory.

Change often comes slowly in the absence of a real crisis. If you look up at the sky and you see blue, but someone tells you a storm is coming, unless you have the same knowledge they do about weather, it may be hard to believe. And we only believe them if they have a good track record. If the models prove correct, eventually the supporters will drown out the deniers, much like what happened with the germ theory of disease. It took a few crises to sell that one, but eventually the truth prevails.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I question the measurements as well.
It's entirely possible when they time a race that the timer may malfunction. But if it doesn't, that is the time of the race. Unless you believe the technology behind the measurement of time is wrong. I can't imagine what about the data could be in question. If you are suggesting it is a huge conspiracy to stop all burning of fossil fuels, you've lost me.

Back when they did the original movie, the Story of Seabiscuit in the 40's, they tried to film the match race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral. Try as they might, they couldn't get the Seabiscuit stand-ins to run the race according to script. So they inserted black and white newsreel footage into the movie. Quite comical when you think about it.

The point, is that even when they try to fix a race to come out a particular way, it can be impossible. Which is why I have a hard time buying complex conspiracy theories. It's just way too hard to get everyone on the same page, and if it is a conspiracy, usually someone will sniff it out and the whole thing implodes.

[classhandicapper]

If you are suggesting it is a huge conspiracy to stop all burning of fossil fuels, you've lost me.



I'm not saying this is the case because I lack the expertise to analyze the data myself, but it wouldn't shock me if some scientists are suffering from confirmation bias. Nor would it shock me if some of the rest are remaining quiet for career and/or monetary reasons.

I keep reading on this subject but I still haven't changed my view.

1. It's likely that some warming is due to human activity

2. I don't trust the fossil fuel companies to tell me the truth

3. I don't trust the government or UN to tell me the truth

4. It's extremely likely that the current models being used to project the future are still very flawed due to complexity

5. It's likely there is some confirmation bias, funding, and other issues impacting the research and making it less objective

6. The alarmists like Al Gore, the UN, and others are full of crap and doing a disservice to people that would like to get at reality because their constant foolishness and scare tactics are discrediting the serious people.

7. The market is already moving in the direction of cleaner energy in a sensible way and not in a way that would devastate the global economy if the left had its way

8. It's entirely possible that the net long term impact of a warmer earth will be positive (not negative) even if it's disruptive in the short term.

9. This issue should be about 10th on the list of our problems, with budgets, deficits, long term government obligations, etc.. being #1

[Clocker]

It's entirely possible when they time a race that the timer may malfunction.

No problem. The global warming crowd can easily "reconstruct" data that was not measured to begin with. :p

[delayjf]

It's just way too hard to get everyone on the same page, and if it is a conspiracy, usually someone will sniff it out and the whole thing implodes.
How many scientist are really conducting their own research using their own instrumentation / measurements? As far as I can tell the data is produced by a small sect of Climatologist, everyone else is reviewing their research and their results and giving the research presented to them, giving their stamp of approval.

It took a years and a FOIA for Mann to release his "original" raw data - which he actually never did, as he now claims the data was lost. When NASA is called out twice for its mathematical errors when calculating temperature averages, or when it is discovered that in some cases, temp data is being “homogenized with locations that are hundreds of miles away from the original data location - I can't help but be skeptical.

Now, further consider the left's attempt to create a national carbon credit exchange, which by the lefts own admission would facilitate the trading of trillions of dollars in carbon credits, I get doubly skeptical. I agree with Clocker regarding the pace at which this countries moves to renewable energy.

[rastajenk]

I'll remind everyone that the invisible hand was not government Laissez faire but an assertion that private businesses would be guided, as if by an invisible hand, toward the public good. In other words, government regulation was unnecessary because business would never operate in opposition to what was best for society, even while paying homage to the profit motive. I'm pretty sure the Wall Street banks shot a big hole in that theory.
I have never seen Adam Smith explained that way, that all businesses will always be good boys, because common cause and all.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I have never seen Adam Smith explained that way, that all businesses will always be good boys, because common cause and all.
What did you think the invisible hand was? Just curious.

I'd like to think my degree in economics wasn't wasted. Smith said,

"The rich...are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society."

The invisible hand guided business, the rich to advance the interest of society, even if they weren't purposely doing it.

[rastajenk]

I always figured the invisible hand concept referred to the forces of innovation and competition, changing market shares, consuming habits that ebb and flow, the sum of all these free exchanges being a proper allocation of resources and increased overall wealth over a period of time...not that everything is always in peachy-keen alignment or that all business decisions and their makers are guided by an all-powerful sense of community. If that were the case, the hand wouldn't be very invisible.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

1. It's likely that some warming is due to human activity

2. I don't trust the fossil fuel companies to tell me the truth

3. I don't trust the government or UN to tell me the truth

4. It's extremely likely that the current models being used to project the future are still very flawed due to complexity

5. It's likely there is some confirmation bias, funding, and other issues impacting the research and making it less objective

6. The alarmists like Al Gore, the UN, and others are full of crap and doing a disservice to people that would like to get at reality because their constant foolishness and scare tactics are discrediting the serious people.

7. The market is already moving in the direction of cleaner energy in a sensible way and not in a way that would devastate the global economy if the left had its way

8. It's entirely possible that the net long term impact of a warmer earth will be positive (not negative) even if it's disruptive in the short term.

9. This issue should be about 10th on the list of our problems, with budgets, deficits, long term government obligations, etc.. being #1
It would be illogical to assume that humans didn't contribute to warming. If you take millions of tons of fossil fuels and combust them, you are going to millions of tons of CO2. I don't think it is wrong at all to ask whether any group with a self interest is telling an unbiased story. But, I've talked to a number of people who are not self interested in terms of policy or business. If they have a bias, it is based on their research, which they see as unbiased. I wouldn't assume the complexity of the models is reason enough to doubt them. We have been doing complex atmospheric modeling for a long time, and a lot of it is accurate. Still, I'd agree that it is one of the things that should have close scrutiny.

The issue with confirmation bias is that the scientists could be right.

The question is what does the worst case scenario look like? I mean if the polar ice caps melt, NJ would be under water, and many people may not see that as a negative. (This was meant to be humorous)

The market is shifting. I tend to think of this stuff as similar to the tobacco companies. As long as they could hold off regulations for enough years, they would have enough time to shift away from being primarily tobacco to other profit centers, like food. Same with big oil or power companies. Once they figure out a way to control other sectors of the energy market, they'll do fine. People will still need to buy electricity.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I always figured the invisible hand concept referred to the forces of innovation and competition, changing market shares, consuming habits that ebb and flow, the sum of all these free exchanges being a proper allocation of resources and increased overall wealth over a period of time...not that everything is always in peachy-keen alignment or that all business decisions and their makers are guided by an all-powerful sense of community. If that were the case, the hand wouldn't be very invisible.
Well, you can read Smith as well as I can. He didn't quite say peachy-keen, but he was a neoclassical economist with a belief in the power of the market. He explained that the market would operate in the best interest of society as a whole, even if businesses weren't trying to do so consciously. Business decisions and their makers didn't even have to know they were being guided. They didn't have to pause and answer the question of whether their business decision was good for society. That's why the hand was invisible. The idea of being guided as if by an invisible hand was as good an explanation as any as to why things would work out well in the end. It was justification for why free and open markets would not create negative economies for society as a whole.

There is nothing wrong with what you suggested was an outcome of free markets. That just wasn't what Smith was talking about when he invented the invisible hand.

[classhandicapper]

Wall St shot a hole in free market theory primarily because the major banks KNEW they would get bailed out by Washington directly and by the Fed indirectly if their reckless behavior blew up in their faces. The alternative would be a depression.

They knew that if they did anything illegal they would get away with some small fines (that shareholders would pay for) and no one would go to jail because they had all the politicians in their back pockets.

They knew the bubble could be sustained as long as the Fed provided easy money (which is not a free market institution).

Summed up, Wall St knew it could get rich in the short term and get bailed out in the long term. So if you are a greedy criminal scumbag why not?

That's the OPPOSITE of a free market where they would get punished with bankruptcy for their business failures, be put in jail for their criminal activities, and never would have been able to build bubble that big if we had hard money and no Fed.

You see, this is how the anti free market people work.

They interfere with the free market. Then when the shit hits the fan because of their interference they blame the free market and take more power from the people that don't understand the system well enough to diagnose what actually happened.

This is not a call for no regulations. We need some sensible regulations and a good legal framework. But we DO NOT have anything even close to free markets and never will as long as Washington and the Fed are involved.