In my article "climate change and the fuel of denial" I show how climate denial is paid for by big oil. Here's the flip side.

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong
Ars takes a look at the accusations that climate scientists push the consensus.

Quote

Not all of this money went to researchers anyway; part of the budget goes to NASA, and includes some of that agency's (rather pricey) hardware. For example, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory cost roughly $200 million, but failed to go into orbit; its replacement cost another $170 million.

 

Might the private sector make up for the lack of government money? Pretty unlikely. For starters, it's tough to identify many companies that have a vested interest in the scientific consensus. Renewable energy companies would seem to be the biggest winners, but they're still relatively tiny.  In contrast, half of Fortune's top 10 global companies are in fossil fuels.

 

So, despite sporadic accusations otherwise, climate researchers are scrambling for a piece of a smaller piece of the government-funded pie, and the resources of the private sector are far, far more likely to go to groups that oppose their conclusions.

As I said.... TWA is a troll.

Over 70 Percent Of Japan's Largest Coral Reef Is Dead After Bleaching

Quote

As the oceans continue to warm, corals around the world have been rapidly feeling the heat. The Great Barrier Reef hit the news at the end of last year, after it experienced the largest bleaching event in recorded history, and now it seems that coral further north have also been unable to escape, as almost three-quarters of Japan’s largest coral reef has been wiped out.

 

Right at the southern tip of Japan's archipelago, the reef is actually closer to Taiwan than it is to mainland Japan, nestled in between the islands of Ishigaki and Iriomote-jima. But surveys of the reef at 35 different locations have revealed that around 70.1 percent of the coral has died due to abnormally warm temperatures experienced over the summer months last year, which saw the shallow waters soar 2°C (3.6°F) warmer than usual.

People keep asking me if I'm mad while people like TWA keep making jokes. Meanwhile this is happening... I'm thinking yeah, I'm mad.

New studies show Rex Tillerson is wrong about climate risks

Quote

The Gulf Stream could shut down sooner than anticipated

 

The Gulf Stream – which keeps the UK and surrounding area significantly warmer than it would otherwise be – is part of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Research has shown it could shut down as a result of global warming:

In 1997, the oceanographer Wallace Broecker, of Columbia University in New York, suggested that if the Gulf stream turned off, winter temperatures in the British Isles could fall by an average of 11°C - plunging Blackpool or Berwick to the same temperatures as Spitsbergen, inside the Arctic circle. Any dramatic drop in temperature could have devastating implications for agriculture - and for Europe’s ability to feed itself.

 

Just how quickly such a shutdown could happen has been a subject of debate and research among climate scientists. A study published in Science Advances in early January corrected for a bias recently identified in climate models that acted to keep the AMOC and Gulf Stream more stable than it appears to be in reality:

 

Freshwater continually flows into the northern Atlantic through precipitation, rivers and ice-melting. But supply of salty waters from the south, through the Gulf Stream System, balances this. If however the current slows, there is less salt supply, and the surface ocean gets less salty. This fresher water is lighter than saltier water and therefore cannot sink into the depths so easily. Since this sinking – the so-called deep water formation – drives the Gulf Stream System, the current continues to weaken. There is a critical point when this becomes an unstoppable vicious circle. This is one of the classic tipping points in the climate system.

"

one more time.... 

Climate change and the fuel of denial

 

TWA is a troll. He doesn't have anything substantive to say. 

Meanwhile...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118093-global-sea-ice-is-at-lowest-level-ever-recorded/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Facebook&utm_term=Autofeed&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2017-Echobox

"

The extent of Arctic sea ice should be growing rapidly during the northern hemisphere winter. But not only has the Arctic been warming rapidly, this winter repeated incursions of warm air have pushed temperatures even further above average.

It has been so warm that on occasions this winter the sea ice coverage has actually temporarily shrunk, as shown by dips in the blue line in the graph below."

On December 20, 2016 at 8:27 PM, btfoom said:

First, the science has shown that 'global warming' has not been what has bee predicted by the models.  It is a hoax, deal with it.

 

There are lots of things that can (and are) being done to protect the environment.  Two completely different items.

 

By the way, even Obama seems to agree that the "Big Lie" about man made global warming needs to be protected at all costs, the science be damned:

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

 

 

The Free Beacon? REALLY?

It should be mandatory to publicly ridicule anyone who considers such a blatant propaganda source to be reputable.

This is why I cant post here often. I would loose my **** if I had to read such drivel every day. The acceptance of such mind numbing ignorance for the sake of being polite is how we came to elect a moron like Trump.

2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records - NASA

Earth Warming Faster Than Expected

On December 5, 2016 at 4:04 PM, twa said:

Outcomes like reduced US co2 generation due to drill baby drill?....or was that some other outcome?

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/

 

 

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Energy_Research

Stil quoting propaganda sources I see.

Oh and about that solar thing... THIS is what correlation looks like.

Mike is just fine. Thanks for asking. He just got tired of certain people here.  

In fact I've been a busy boy. I've trademarked "The Mad Centrist" and put up a new version of the site with a long article on this very subject. 

Climate change and the fuel of denial - The Mad Centrist

And I'd like to note that for all of the grief I was given for my suggestion to sue the people most impacted are doing it. Our children.

http://www.sciencealert.com/judge-rules-that-kids-can-sue-the-us-government-for-inaction-on-climate-change

And one last reminder for those with their heads firmly planted in darkness...

April 2016 Was 12th Consecutive Warmest Month on Record, NOAA Says

 

In a serious moment, kind of pertaining to your question, I would like to see a thread discussing this.  You can't feed anything to the press without fearing trial by the media.  How do you stop the runaway train of reporting of good/bad information.

 

REALLY difficult. I worked on the student newspaper in college, and went to a bunch of conferences with professional expert speakers and work shops covering ethics and practices. This was a common topic.

The thing is, news is still a competitive business where breaking news and sensational stories translate to eyes on the page/screen and advertising dollars. In the race to be first with the story, news organizations *try* to get it right but everyone from witnesses to police tend to pass on lots of false leads and info because *they* haven't actually figured out what happened yet and taking the time to properly vet the story means being last with it. Television news is horrible because not only are they racing to get info out, the on air reporters are pretty much just talking heads and even the ones who are real journalists can only report what they are fed without giving it a second thought. 

The problem is compounded once the first trusted news source reports false info because now it is "confirmed" to everyone else and it spreads like wild fire. Next thing you know some conspiracy theorist is claiming a cover up when stores are retracted and change once the real truth comes out.

As a basic rule I expect lots of mistakes in any breaking news story. I guess what I'm saying is that we would get better milage educating viewers about how to view the news rather than expecting more from the news. 

a intelligent man avoids making them

Yet you made the same mistake twice....

Did ya hear about the big freeze coming?

 

burn some Styrofoam while there is still time.

News about an imminent ‘mini ice age’ is trending — but it’s not true - The Washington Post

 

Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

 

 

So we can rest assured, there is no ice age around the corner. To those with lingering doubts that an ice age might be imminent, turn your eyes towards the northern ice sheets. If they're growing, then yes, the 10,000 year process of glaciation may have begun. However, currently the Arctic permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.

And we just had this conversation one page back....

Huckabee’s claim that ‘global freezing’ theories from the 1970s shows the science is ‘not as settled’ on climate change - The Washington Post

 

Huckabee is grasping at incorrect media reporting in order to make a ridiculous point. The main scientific consensus at the time of the Time and Newsweek articles was that the world was entering a period of global warming, as a result of man-made effects, that would overcome any possible cyclical cooling. Indeed, the science of that issue is even more settled now, which is why Newsweek 30 years later conceded it had been wrong.

 

Rather than cite discredited media reports, Huckabee had a responsibility to find out what actual scientific papers had determined at the time. 

 

Huckabee earns Four Pinocchios.

An intelligent man learns from his mistakes.

‎www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

 

In summary, global mean temperatures in the year 2100 would most likely be diminished by about 0.1°C. Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature re- construction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of 3, so the offset should not be larger than 0.3°C. Comparing this to the 3.7°C and 4.5°C temperature rise relative to 1961–1990 until the end of the century under the IPCC A1B and A2 emission scenarios, respectively, a new Maunder‐type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. 

 

you don't need to convince me they are mentally unbalanced. ....tis rather obvious

So you have nothing to contribute but more poo...

What it’s like when your job is to predict the end of humanity - The Washington Post

 

A 2012 National Wildlife Federation report — “The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States: And Why the U.S. Mental Health Care System is Not Adequately Prepared” — describes the challenge faced by scientists in stark terms, as a daily confrontation with a “devastating threat.”

“I don’t know of a single scientist that’s not having an emotional reaction to what is being lost,” Parmesan is quoted as saying in the report, in reference to an ocean reef she has spent more than a decade studying. “It’s gotten to be so depressing that I’m not sure I’m going to go back to this particular site again, because I just know I’m going to see more and more of it dead, and bleached, and covered with brown algae.”

Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, told Esquire that climate-change deniers have demoralized his colleagues, leaving one suicidal. Despite promising developments, such as increased public awareness and the recent agreement between the United States and China on emissions, Mann continues to battle nightmares and struggle under the weight of his own environmental awareness.

Yeah, they are in it for the money... [/sarc] 

Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study

 

This shouldn’t be a terribly shocking result. When confronted with inconvenient science, those in denial often reject the evidence by accusing the experts of fraud or conspiracies. We saw a perfect example of this behavior just a few weeks ago. When scientists at NOAApublished a paper finding that there was no ‘pause’ in global warming, one of the most common responses from those in denial involved the conspiratorial accusation that the scientists had somehow fudged the data at the behest of the Obama administration.

Nevertheless, nobody likes being characterized as a conspiracy theorist, and so those in the denial blogosphere reacted negatively to the research of Lewandowsky and colleagues. Ironically, many of the attacks on the study involved conspiratorial accusations, which simply provided more data for the social scientists to analyze. For example, the authors were accused of everything from faked data to collusion between Lewandowsky and the Australian government.

Mr Robot is the shiznit! Seriously cool. Plays like a good movie. I watched the premier twice just to catch all the details. 

Mr. Robot | USA Network

speaking of poo.

 

I'm glad you recognize that article for what it is.

are those climate scientist insurance agents?

or are we opening up?

"At this point I expect another sarcastic remark and more poo flung against the wall"

In this, you never fail to disappoint.

What does that % agree on specifically?

Must. Not. Say. What I am thinking....... *BOOM - head explodes*

All that shows is peer review has went downhill, nothing new there 

 

Truthiness and fact checking  got a few issues as well

It shows nothing of the sort. The only one who has issues with the truth is you.

At this point I expect another sarcastic remark and more poo flung against the wall, but you will still be wrong, as you have been, over and over and over again. From your insane theory that climate scientists are in it for the money while the Koch brothers pour millions into climate denial, to your belief that you know more than the 99.9% of published, peer reviewed experts. 

Yeah, clearly someone has issues.

A classic TWA argument down the tubes....

Huckabee’s claim that ‘global freezing’ theories from the 1970s shows the science is ‘not as settled’ on climate change - The Washington Post

“Whether it’s man-made or not, I know that when I was in college I was being taught that if we didn’t act very quickly, that we were going to be entering a global freezing. And, you know, go back and look at the covers of Time and Newsweek from the early ’70s. And we were told that if we didn’t do something by 1980, we’d be popsicles. Now we’re told that we’re all burning up. Science is not as settled on that as it is on some things.”

— Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee ®, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” June 21, 2015

 

A reader asked about these remarks by the GOP presidential hopeful, who graduated from Ouachita Baptist University in 1975, believing that Huckabee had overstated the extent of the belief in “global freezing” at the time, as well as the news reporting on the issue.

 

 

 

First, let’s provide some context. In 1895, a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius first predicted in a scientific paper that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter surface temperatures.

 

A few years later, Arrhenius expanded on his research with a nontechnical book in which he described the “hot-house theory” of the atmosphere. While he observed that the burning of fossil fuels might contribute to this effect, he actually thought that might be beneficial because it would stimulate plant growth and thus provide more food.

 

In other words, for more than 100 years, scientists have found a link between burning fossil fuels and rising surface temperatures.

 

 

In 2008, several scientists decided to go back and review the peer-reviewed literature at the time. Despite the media coverage highlighted by Huckabee, it turns out that peer-reviewed articles on global cooling were in a distinct minority compared to those concerned with global warming. “The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations,” the researchers reported.

Cut to the chase...

 

Huckabee is grasping at incorrect media reporting in order to make a ridiculous point. The main scientific consensus at the time of the Time and Newsweek articles was that the world was entering a period of global warming, as a result of man-made effects, that would overcome any possible cyclical cooling. Indeed, the science of that issue is even more settled now, which is why Newsweek 30 years later conceded it had been wrong.

 

Rather than cite discredited media reports, Huckabee had a responsibility to find out what actual scientific papers had determined at the time. 

 

Huckabee earns Four Pinocchios.