I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[PeterMP]

@PeterMP - I found this article that deals with the costs of mitigation.

 

I'm not getting into an argument either way, just thought you could at least see one person's idea about mitigation costs.

 

Mitigation in the conversation normally means we are going to go ahead and release CO2 and then deal with the effects.

 

That might take the form of CO2 capture after it has been released, or in the form of okay we are going to have flooding in locations X, Y, and Z as sea levels rise so we are going to take actions A, B, and C to minimize the resulting problems.

 

I don't think that's the way it is being used in that piece.

 

In addition, taking what appears to be a very inefficient wind turbine (which is probably largely based on location) as compared to even wind energy on average and use it to say anything about the costs of preventing climate change isn't a very useful place to start the conversation.

Edited September 9, 2014 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

I dislike many of their tactics but greenpeace is capable of doing some quality research.

 

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine | Greenpeace

 

 

 

Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they've made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It's timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they're up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires' destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.

 

This article is all about the links and sources. For example here, the FOIA was used to document this deniers funding. The interesting thing to me is that he received large grants from NASA, who many accuse of being part of a giant left wing conspiracy to destroy America by destroying our freedom. (Honestly, I've had people tell me that) The truth is that NASA is willing to listen to the opinions of people like him on their specific area of expertise, but with far more information from a greater variety of experts, and without being funded by Big Oil & Coal, they have come to a different overall conclusion.

 

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal | Greenpeace

 

And about his claimed areas of expertise....

 

 

 

Get funding from big coal, become expert in Mercury?

In May 2011, an op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), co-authored by Willie Soon and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’s Paul Driessen.  Entitled “The Myth of Killer Mercury,” the piece attacked the EPA’s proposed rules for limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. 

Dr. Soon’s WSJ byline stated: "Mr. Soon, a natural scientist at Harvard, is an expert on mercury and public health issues."

Greenpeace asked both Harvard University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) to verify this newfound area of expertise expressed by Dr Soon. Dr Charles Al****, the Director of the CfA, stated in an email that Dr. Soon was employed an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO), which is apparently housed within the CfA, along with the the Harvard College Observatory. Dr. Al**** said in a letter "I cannot comment on Dr Soon’s expertise regarding mercury and public health issues."

Nonetheless, Willie Soon has no affiliation with Harvard University except sharing a building with Harvard students and staff on Harvard’s campus.

As the Wall St. Journal op-ed was re-posted across the web on right wing blogs and think tank websites, Dr. Soon’s byline mysteriously started to morph, turning into: "Willie Soon is a natural scientist who has studied mercury and public health issues for eight years." Yet there is no record of any such public health studying or publishing in peer reviewed journals in his most recent bio and CV, written six years ago.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Mad Mike

[Mad Mike]

This Legendary Accounting Firm Just Ran the Numbers on Climate Change | Mother Jones

 

 

With every year that passes, we're getting further away from averting a human-caused climate disaster. That's the key message in this year's "Low Carbon Economy Index," a report released by the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The report highlights an "unmistakable trend": The world's major economies are increasingly failing to do what's needed to to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. That was the target agreed to by countries attending the United Nations' 2009 climate summit; it represents an effort to avoid some of the most disastrous consequences of runaway warming, including food security threats, coastal inundation, extreme weather events, ecosystem shifts, and widespread species extinction.

To curtail climate change, individual countries have made a variety of pledges to reduce their share of emissions, but taken together, those promises simply aren't enough. According to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, "the gap between what we are doing and what we need to do has again grown, for the sixth year running." The report adds that at current rates, we're headed towards 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit of warming by the end of the century—twice the agreed upon rate. Here's a breakdown of the paper's major findings.

 

 

Direct link to the study: ‎www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/low-carbon-economy-index-2014.pdf

[SWFLSkins]

Everyone should do what the can to save the planet, start by pulling your lip over your head and swallowing. 

[Mad Mike]

Congressman: Don't Trust Climate Scientists, They're In It For The Money | ThinkProgress

 

 

But the real treat of Bucshon’s testimony was not his climate denial, rather it was his assertion that he doesn’t believe any of the peer-reviewed literature put forth by climate scientists. The admission came after Bucshon asked whether it was true that the EPA’s regulations for coal plants would have no impact on reducing global temperatures.

Bucshon:

 Is it true that this rule has no effect on the global temperature change?

Holdren:

 Can I take that? I’d like to respond to that.

 

Bucshon:

 There’s public comment out there that that question has been asked and answered saying no.

Holdren:

 You should look at the scientific literature [interrupted] rather than the public comments …

Bucshon:

 

Of all the climatologists whose careers depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles? Yes, I could read that, but I don’t believe it.

 

And his funding?.....

 

Rep. Larry Bucshon: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2014 | OpenSecrets

 

 

 

Top 5 Contributors, 2013 - 2014, Campaign Cmte

Contributor Total Indivs PACs Murray Energy $19,700 $9,700 $10,000 Koch Enterprises $14,000 $14,000 $0 Peabody Energy $12,250 $10,250 $2,000

(this is 1-3)

 

And the #2 contributor by industry...

 

Top 20 Industries contributing to Campaign Cmte Member Rank   District Rank   Industry   Total   Indivs   PACs   1 6 Health Professionals $109,750 $7,250 $102,500 2 2 Mining $81,250 $57,250 $24,000

 

 

 

[Mad Mike]

Denying Climate Change 'Will Cost Us Billions Of Dollars,' U.S. Budget Director Warns | ThinkProgress

 

 

 

Two recent studies back up Donovan’s fiscally-driven push to act on climate change: a report from the New Climate Economy Project and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both found that cutting greenhouse gases may actually lead to faster economic growth, and the IMF noted that the co-benefits of cutting carbon emissions — which will come largely in the form of improvements to public health, such as decreased asthma and other respiratory illnesses and attacks — will help drive down medical costs.

[twa]

"a report from the New Climate Economy Project and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both found that cutting greenhouse gases may actually lead to faster economic growth"


idiots leave out that is faster economic growth elsewhere and that it will be with your dollars  

 

your prices must naturally rise.......oh and I hear walking is good for ya

[Mad Mike]

"a report from the New Climate Economy Project and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both found that cutting greenhouse gases may actually lead to faster economic growth"

idiots leave out that is faster economic growth elsewhere and that it will be with your dollars  

 

your prices must naturally rise.......oh and I hear walking is good for ya

 

Snark doesn't win debates. It just makes you look bad.

[Wrong Direction]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

Climate Science Is Not Settled is the title. Can't figure out how to cut and paste on my iPad. Curious about thoughts.

[Larry]

Y'know, economics is not settled, either.

Yeah, pretty much every economist out there agrees that, if the US were to run trillion dollar deficits, every year for the next century, that SOMETHING bad would happen. But they don't all unanimously agree on every detail of exactly which form the badness would take.

Therefore, I demand that we must not only do absolutely nothing about the deficit, and in fact we must continue increasing it. And I further demand that you quit your deliberate attempt to bully the people, and scientists, with your completely false campaign of claiming that trillion dollar deficits are bad.

[PeterMP]

"a report from the New Climate Economy Project and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both found that cutting greenhouse gases may actually lead to faster economic growth"

idiots leave out that is faster economic growth elsewhere and that it will be with your dollars  

 

your prices must naturally rise.......oh and I hear walking is good for ya

 

Are you claiming that the US couldn't significantly reduce its CO2 production simply by increases in conservation and efficiency while maintaining a standard of living that is still preeminent among western countries?

 

And if you believe that the relevant markets are heavily affected by supply and demand, then such a move would actually REDUCE prices? 

[PeterMP]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

Climate Science Is Not Settled is the title. Can't figure out how to cut and paste on my iPad. Curious about thoughts.

 

"Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself."

 

Essentially, CO2 produced by humans is changing the climate.

 

"Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures."

 

Yes, there is uncertainty, but we are changing things, and it makes sense to do things to start to reduce our CO2 emissoins.

 

And that's a scientists (though not a climate scientists) that is a skeptic.

Edited September 21, 2014 by PeterMP

[twa]

Snark doesn't win debates. It just makes you look bad.

 

I don't need to win a debate, 

 

I'm fine with reducing CO2, ya'll might find it burdensome though.

[twa]

Are you claiming that the US couldn't significantly reduce its CO2 production simply by increases in conservation and efficiency while maintaining a standard of living that is still preeminent among western countries?

 

And if you believe that the relevant markets are heavily affected by supply and demand, then such a move would actually REDUCE prices?

 

 

of course we can , and have, reduced Co2 production.....but standard of living is a rather broad subject with diverse values

 

the market variables are not only impacted by supply/demand(though you will certainly see NG prices drop overseas by our export/drilling expansion)....of course fees and taxes such as a carbon tax will also factor as do govt policies.

 

want me to bring up the German model that raised both co2 and prices?....good science or just politics playing with science??

 

The Cali energy market will be fun to watch soon.

[PeterMP]

 

 

of course we can , and have, reduced Co2 production.....but standard of living is a rather broad subject with diverse values

 

the market variables are not only impacted by supply/demand(though you will certainly see NG prices drop overseas by our export/drilling expansion)....of course fees and taxes such as a carbon tax will also factor as do govt policies.

 

want me to bring up the German model that raised both co2 and prices?....good science or just politics playing with science??

 

The Cali energy market will be fun to watch soon.

 

So just to be clear, you aren't claiming that Americans can't cut CO2 emissions through conservation and efficiency, save money, lower energy prices, and still have a very high standard of living as measured against other western nations?

 

And that doesn't even get into the savings that likely would be achieved through things like health care costs.

 

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon-health-care-savings-0824

 

Right?

 

But you'd rather talk about what is happening in another country, which already produces less CO2 per capita than us AND is trying to eliminate their nuclear energy, while we are expanding ours.

Edited September 21, 2014 by PeterMP

[twa]

So just to be clear, you aren't claiming that Americans can't cut CO2 emissions through conservation and efficiency, save money, lower energy prices, and still have a very high standard of living as measured against other western nations?

 

And that doesn't even get into the savings that likely would be achieved through things like health care costs.

 

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon-health-care-savings-0824

 

Right?

 

But you'd rather talk about what is happening in another country, which already produces less CO2 per capita than us AND is trying to eliminate their nuclear energy, while we are expanding ours.

 

 

I seem to be a rather big advocate of increased NG use and conservation/increased efficiency(which clearly reduces co2,and particulates) and saves money and helps the economy and environment here as well as others.

 

I am perfectly willing to talk about others foolish choices that do the opposite as well.....I'm open minded.

 

nor do I resort to false equivalencies like less co2 per capita.

 

 

read the new federal fracking study btw?

[PeterMP]

I seem to be a rather big advocate of increased NG use and conservation/increased efficiency(which clearly reduces co2,and particulates) and saves money and helps the economy and environment here as well as others.

 

I am perfectly willing to talk about others foolish choices that do the opposite as well.....I'm open minded.

 

nor do I resort to false equivalencies like less co2 per capita.

 

 

read the new federal fracking study btw?

 

You mean the study that shows that when industry picks the sites/well where the government can sample that there is no contamination at those sites/wells?

 

Yes, but I don't really find that very surprising.  I said along ago, I expect that there will be variation on a site-by-site and even well-by-well basis based on the local geography and well construction practices.  That industry cherry picked sites/wells didn't show any contamination isn't at all surprising.

 

2.  I'm not saying that every or even a lot of times there are issues.  I've said here before, I suspect it'll be a complex issue related to the geography of the site and how the wells are dug.

 

Are you aware of the new Duke study that shows that sloppy well construction contributed to contamination in sites in TX and PA?

 

I'll go ahead and say, I'd be relatively shocked if fracking/drilling causes increases in earth quakes everywhere too.  With respect to these things, there will be variations in geography and well construction.

 

In terms of per capita, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  As a total Germany generates less CO2 than us, and it isn't even close.

 

(They actually generate less CO2 than us by mostly any reasonable metric, per capita, per GDP, per land area, etc.)

 

Yes, in the last few years their CO2 production has gone up, but before that they had a year after year reduction in CO2 output for a decade+.

 

Oh, and our CO2 output went up too last year.

 

The point is still that Germany is an exceptional case in that they are also trying to eliminate their nuclear energy too.

Edited September 21, 2014 by PeterMP

[Wrong Direction]

Y'know, economics is not settled, either.

Yeah, pretty much every economist out there agrees that, if the US were to run trillion dollar deficits, every year for the next century, that SOMETHING bad would happen. But they don't all unanimously agree on every detail of exactly which form the badness would take.

Therefore, I demand that we must not only do absolutely nothing about the deficit, and in fact we must continue increasing it. And I further demand that you quit your deliberate attempt to bully the people, and scientists, with your completely false campaign of claiming that trillion dollar deficits are bad.

I think the article is essentially saying that responses like this are part of the problem. If you care to look at my posting history you'll see I'm not a part of any false campaigns.

[twa]

You mean the study that shows that when industry picks the sites/well where the government can sample that there is no contamination at those sites/wells?

 

Yes, but I don't really find that very surprising.  I said along ago, I expect that there will be variation on a site-by-site and even well-by-well basis based on the local geography and well construction practices.  That industry cherry picked sites/wells didn't show any contamination isn't at all surprising.

 

 

 

Are you aware of the new Duke study that shows that sloppy well construction contributed to contamination in sites in TX and PA?

 

I'll go ahead and say, I'd be relatively shocked if fracking/drilling causes increases in earth quakes everywhere too.  With respect to these things, there will be variations in geography and well construction.

 

In terms of per capita, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  As a total Germany generates less CO2 than us, and it isn't even close.

 

(They actually generate less CO2 than us by mostly any reasonable metric, per capita, per GDP, per land area, etc.)

 

Yes, in the last few years their CO2 production has gone up, but before that they had a year after year reduction in CO2 output for a decade+.

 

Oh, and our CO2 output went up too last year.

 

The point is still that Germany is an exceptional case in that they are also trying to eliminate their nuclear energy too.

 

 

obviously not since the study I had in mind found contamination from faulty wells, but not from fracking itself

 

interesting you gloss over the co2 rise from their choices in Germany......per capita and gross are not good metrics to choose when looking at the choices made in a locale over time is it? 

 

our co2 did go up....along with productivity and profit and tax collections(will go up more from all the industry moving stateside  )

 

 

 

beats the hell out of stealing wood to stay warm (or buying wood from west texas to keep the lights on  )

[PeterMP]

obviously not since the study I had in mind found contamination from faulty wells, but not from fracking itself

 

interesting you gloss over the co2 rise from their choices in Germany......per capita and gross are not good metrics to choose when looking at the choices made in a locale over time is it? 

 

our co2 did go up....along with productivity and profit and tax collections(will go up more from all the industry moving stateside  )

 

 

 

beats the hell out of stealing wood to stay warm (or buying wood from west texas to keep the lights on  )

 

I think we are talking about the same study.  I didn't say anything about fracking (though they are wells where fracking is happening).  I used the word sloppy, you've used the word faulty.

 

It is hard for me to criticize Germany for their recent increases when comparing where they are compared to us.

 

That's not even the kettle calling the tea pot black.

 

My understanding is our increase was mostly due to an up tick in coal use as NG prices went up.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/after-years-of-decline-u-s-carbon-emissions-rose-2-percent-in-2013/

 

"What happened? The big story here, as usual, involves coal and natural gas. Namely, U.S. electric utilities burned a bit more coal and a bit less natural gas in 2013. And, since coal emits more carbon when burned for electricity, that increased emissions:"

[chipwhich]

It is hard for me to criticize Germany for their recent increases when comparing where they are compared to us.

 

Have you been to Germany?  Comparing them to the US is a silly comparison.

[twa]

 a uptick in base supply necessitated by green solar and wind inconsistency?

 

the links analysis leaves much to be desired, a colder winter being the main driver....the notion coal became cheaper ignores reality(it is cheaper period till the govt kills /reforms it)

 

usual hack

add

Have you been to Germany?  Comparing them to the US is a silly comparison.

 

be like comparing Cali vs Texas electric needs 

 

final add

 

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/eiamap.png

combine the record cold with primary energy source 

 

 

 

Yankees better expand the NG pipelines or dress warm 

Edited September 22, 2014 by twa

[Johnny Punani]

The only people that need to be sued are those who falsify and/or manipulate climatic data to fit a predetermined result based on politics not science and the IPCC for the inaccuracy of their climate models.

[Mad Mike]

The only people that need to be sued are those who falsify and/or manipulate climatic data to fit a predetermined result based on politics not science and the IPCC for the inaccuracy of their climate models.

 

When you find such people feel free. But the claims you are referencing have been debunked 1000 times over.

 

Meanwhile...

 

Google Chairman: ALEC Is Lying About Climate Change And Funding Them Was A Mistake | ThinkProgress

 

 

Google’s controversial decision to fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was a “mistake,” company chairman Eric Schmidt admitted on Monday, saying the group is spreading harmful lies about global warming and “making the world a much worse place.”

 

In an interview on NPR’s Diane Rehm show, Schmidt said the free-market lobbying group’santi-climate and anti-clean energy positions are harmful to future generations, and a bad investment idea for the company.

“Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place,” Schmidt said. “And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

[Johnny Punani]

When you find such people feel free. But the claims you are referencing have been debunked 1000 times over.

 

Meanwhile...

 

Google Chairman: ALEC Is Lying About Climate Change And Funding Them Was A Mistake | ThinkProgress

 

 

Debunked by whom?  The people who lied and changed the data to begin with or the people who are pushing the global warming/climate change agenda for their own purposes?  You don't know what you are talking about Mike...

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

 

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

 

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

 

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

 

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

 

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

 

 

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

 

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

 

Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

 

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling...

 

 

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

 

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, 

there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

 

February 04, 1989

 

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period

. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/us/global-warmth-in-88-is-found-to-set-a-record.html

 

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

How were they debunked Mike when they used the so called debunkers own data to prove they manipulated it to being with?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Johnny Punani