Prominent climate change skeptic site has multiple ties to Exxon Mobil

[BenIsForRon]

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil/

Just thought I'd throw that out there for any of you that have been quoting the NIPCC.

[klamath]

Yes and many climate change groups supporting GW have ties to radical social engineering environmental groups so we are stuck between the politics of it all trying to figure out who is right. I am undecided either way on GW or even AGW but politics are playing far to much roll in all the science.

[sofia]

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil/

Just thought I'd throw that out there for any of you that have been quoting the NIPCC.

good investiagtive work there. Out of the 30,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying Global Warming is bullshit.....you found 1 who "has ties" to Big Oil. oooooh scary...;)

got news for ya pal...it's the PRO Global warming hoaxster who getting fiithy rich and famous by promoting this fictititious crap.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!

[__27__]

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil/

Just thought I'd throw that out there for any of you that have been quoting the NIPCC.

:rolleyes:

You're fucking kidding me, right? So in 11 years Heartland has received just under $700,000 from Exxon, thus their claims are completely tainted, while Hadley CRU gets MILLIONS EVERY SINGLE YEAR only if they continue to push AGW, yet their words are to be trusted?

You are off the deep end with AGW. I'm sure you still haven't looked into the geologic record and geologists yet either like I suggested you should weeks ago.

[BenIsForRon]

Also, the institute's self-described Government Relations Adviser Walter F. Buchholtz has been a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil, the Washington Post reported in 2004.

They weave a very tangled web.

Give me a couple of good geology links and I'll look at them.

[revolutionisnow]

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

[erowe1]

That's the usual line. Climate change skeptics are paid off by corporations. As if they think that's more incriminatory than the fact that all the scientists who tell us we have to give over more power to the government or else or planet will be destroyed have their research funded by that same government on the condition that they say that.

[BenIsForRon]

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

I'm sure some glaciers are growing, but many others are melting, like, I dunno, the North Pole!

On top of that, the site is reporting on events like "Snow in Texas!!". I can't take a site seriously when they post stories like that.


That's the usual line. Climate change skeptics are paid off by corporations. As if they think that's more incriminatory than the fact that all the scientists who tell us we have to give over more power to the government or else or planet will be destroyed have their research funded by that same government on the condition that they say that.

I'm not saying that there is no agenda behind global warming. I just see it as a hijacked science, a real problem that once some globalists saw the potential opportunities in it, they latched on to it. Other globalists were slower to adapt (GW Bush) and others are still fighting it because it challenges their interests (Exxon Mobil).

[dannno]

Exxon Mobile has to pretend to fight global warming at some level, otherwise it would be too obvious.

If Exxon Mobile wanted to debunk global warming, they have the funds to go out and do so under the radar. But they don't want to debunk global warming because they are carrying the same elitist agenda that the radical social engineering environmental groups do. So they throw a few dollars around, ensured that the media will protect the population from any information that those few dollars might uncover.

[BenIsForRon]

You're saying that Exxon is doing a head fake by giving money to skeptical organizations, that they are playing the "bad guy". I mean, that would make a great plot for a Tom Clancy novel, but I don't think that is what's going on here.

[klamath]

I'm sure some glaciers are growing, but many others are melting, like, I dunno, the North Pole!

On top of that, the site is reporting on events like "Snow in Texas!!". I can't take a site seriously when they post stories like that.



I'm not saying that there is no agenda behind global warming. I just see it as a hijacked science, a real problem that once some globalists saw the potential opportunities in it, they latched on to it. Other globalists were slower to adapt (GW Bush) and others are still fighting it because it challenges their interests (Exxon Mobil).

You seriously can't have missed all the news reports and science articles the go? "Tonado's in Kansas caused by global warming! Ice age return to europe could be triggered by global warming! Mass extinctions because of global warming! Polar bears dying because of global warming! Extra cold winter caused by global warming! Katrina caused by global warming! Floods caused by global warming! Drought cause by global warming! Hurricanes caused by global warming"
Notice how even the term "Global warming" has been changed to "climate change" so it doesn't seem odd when they blame every calamity in world including a major cold snap on global warming. I do not believe there is any weather related catastophy that isn't blamed on global warming/climate change.
Don't you find it a bit odd that there is absolutely nothing that would be better if there was global warming? Many periods in earths geological past temperate forests grew and great herds of animals roamed the polar regions.
Why so much scare tactics? Doesn't some of the words strike you like words about the WMD in Iraq?

[EndDaFed]

You're saying that Exxon is doing a head fake by giving money to skeptical organizations, that they are playing the "bad guy". I mean, that would make a great plot for a Tom Clancy novel, but I don't think that is what's going on here.

They have recently invested 600 million into algae bio fuel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html

[klamath]

At least we know exxon has an ax to grind and what it is but the hidden agenda of the other side is what's scary even though we have a pretty good idea what it is.

[MsDoodahs]

Hey!

Did you guys hear?

We're supposed to have SNOW here in Texas tomorrow!!!!

:D

[angelatc]

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil/

Just thought I'd throw that out there for any of you that have been quoting the NIPCC.

http://www.heartland.org/

vs

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=1

I know what corner I'm in. Besides. Exxon et al have been buying heavily into the green technology bandwagon. They're not going away no matter how we switch over from oil.

[fletcher]

And nearly every global warming alarmist has ties to government. Government pockets are much, much, much deeper than the oil industry's pockets.

[Bman]

They have recently invested 600 million into algae bio fuel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html

Probably so they can IP any technology imaginable so that other people can not produce algae oil effeciently and again force us to stay dependant on fossil fuels.

[jmdrake]

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil/

Just thought I'd throw that out there for any of you that have been quoting the NIPCC.

When all else fails, attack the messenger.

Ben, let's assume you're right and "big oil" is behind debunking global warming. Does that change the fact that your side has been caught screwing with the data? Clearly the answer to that question is no. Really, this is about as relevant as Ron Paul receiving a donation from a racist.

Assume for a minute (I know that this will be hard for you) that man made global warming really is a farce. Should companies that might be hurt by this farce not donate money to those who might expose it? Does an ulterior motive for exposing a farce mean that its no longer a farce? If insurance companies and/or health-care providers line up against Obamacare does that mean it must be a good thing?

Last question. Is there anything that would shake your belief in AGW? I'm being serious. I can't imagine someone defending this after the release of the emails. I would think that would at the very least get you to question it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

Probably so they can IP any technology imaginable so that other people can not produce algae oil effeciently and again force us to stay dependant on fossil fuels.

Do you honestly think "big oil" cares where they're profits come from? Profits are profits. The cap and trade + biofuel subsidy scheme being proposed will keep you dependent on the same people. It doesn't matter if you're pumping fossil or bio in your car. The same interests will still profit. Don't forget Al Gore is also an oilman.

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/szamuely/szamuely29.html

[Bucjason]

Yes , and Manbearpig-eeerrrrrr- Al Gore has ties to carbon credit companies.

What is your point ??

[BenIsForRon]

Assume for a minute (I know that this will be hard for you) that man made global warming really is a farce. Should companies that might be hurt by this farce not donate money to those who might expose it? Does an ulterior motive for exposing a farce mean that its no longer a farce? If insurance companies and/or health-care providers line up against Obamacare does that mean it must be a good thing?


I just know the history. People like GW, with many connections to oil, denied it for the longest time. Then you have many, many, ties with oil companies to some of the organizations. It just shows you that there are definitely ulterior motives working in both sides of the debate.


Last question. Is there anything that would shake your belief in AGW? I'm being serious. I can't imagine someone defending this after the release of the emails. I would think that would at the very least get you to question it.

Yes, there would be. A sound scientific argument. Most global warming skeptics debunk global warming in this order: they deny it... then they come up with "scientific" reasons why. What happens as a result, is that their story changes every time they tell it.

First, the globe isn't warming, it is just on the same temperature trajectory it's always been on.

Then... WAIT, it's actually COOLING! Because one glacier in russia grew last year!

Now, many of their stories concede that the globe is warming, but it is actually due to sunspots.

When I see a consistent story come from the other side, I might believe them.


Do you honestly think "big oil" cares where they're profits come from? Profits are profits. The cap and trade + biofuel subsidy scheme being proposed will keep you dependent on the same people. It doesn't matter if you're pumping fossil or bio in your car. The same interests will still profit. Don't forget Al Gore is also an oilman.



Yes they do, Alex Jones, of all people, explained this quite well. Algae biofuel can be decentralized very easily, by its own nature. Oil, on the other hand, can only be extracted in certain areas with high capital investment. Then there are all the costs with refining, etc. So it is more of a power issue, with the oil companies trying to preserve the thing that keeps them in control the longest, and stifle the thing that will take their power sooner. You can see a real world example with this in the battery industry, where oil companies bought up the IP rights to a certain battery that could run electric cars.

[morran]

I've been reading about this for about 2 months, and I've never even heard of the NIPCC. You should check out climateaudit.org (due to heavy traffic, currently at camirror.wordpress.com) or wattsupwiththat.com.

[Meatwasp]

When the global warming propaganda started many years ago some decent scientists cut an big old tree and found the rings for hundreds of years fluctuated hot and cold. It is natural for pete's sake. Don't listen to junk science.

[jmdrake]

I just know the history. People like GW, with many connections to oil, denied it for the longest time. Then you have many, many, ties with oil companies to some of the organizations. It just shows you that there are definitely ulterior motives working in both sides of the debate.


And people with many connections to big oil like Al Gore are pushing "climate change". Plus there's the whole Club of Rome "We can use this to take over the world" documents.



Yes, there would be. A sound scientific argument. Most global warming skeptics debunk global warming in this order: they deny it... then they come up with "scientific" reasons why. What happens as a result, is that their story changes every time they tell it.


I can only speak for myself. I believed in global warming before it was popular. I based this belief on one PBS docudrama called "After the Warming". Basically it was set in the future. Because mainkind "failed to head the warnings" of global warming we end up with a one world government run out of Japan. (Note this was before the Kyoto protocols.) I knew I didn't want a one world government so I pushed a false theory to try to prevent it, never knowing that I was actually playing into the hands of the globalist.

What changed my mind? A sound scientific argument. When I learned that "global warming" had taken place on other planets in our solar system at the same rate that it had on earth I knew something was wrong. I've actually done scientific research. The most valid studies are those that have controls. You have what is known as a "null hypothesis". The "null hypothesis" is that there is no difference between the cases (in this case earth) and the controls (in this case other planets). If you cannot reject the null hypothesis then you must go back to the drawing board. Not being able to reject the null hypothesis doesn't "disprove" the theory so much as it proves that it hasn't been proven. At that point you must look to see if there are any common confounding factors. In this case there is. It's called the sun. Now whenever I bring this up to AGW believers they say "Well might there still be man made effects along with the sun"? Sure. But that hasn't been proven.



First, the globe isn't warming, it is just on the same temperature trajectory it's always been on.

Then... WAIT, it's actually COOLING! Because one glacier in russia grew last year!

Now, many of their stories concede that the globe is warming, but it is actually due to sunspots.


Actually all of the above is consistent. There has been some warming due to sunspot activity. NASA has confirmed this. In the last few years that activity dropped off and the temperature dropped. Again NASA has confirmed this. Solar warming is driven by the sun. The suns cycles are not constant. The Discovery Channel did a documentary about a major solar storm coming in 2012. By then some may have forgotten this and will decry "global warming" all over again. What you fail to realize is that it's not the arguments of the "deniers" that are changing, but the actual scientific data. That data totally backs up the claims of the deniers.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/18jan_solarback.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-stop-scientists-predict.html
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Besides, have you not noticed the inconsistency in your side? In the 1970s Time and Newsweek claimed "global cooling" due to fossil fuels. Now these same magazines claim "global warming" due to fossil fuels. The sunspot theory adequately explains the rises and falls in global temperatures. The "greenhouse" theory should only allot for rises.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm



When I see a consistent story come from the other side, I might believe them.


It is your side that is inconsistent. Sunspot activity rises and falls so the NASA data which shows rising and falling global temperatures fits the theory that the sun drives climate change. Your side claiming in the 1970s that fossil fuels caused "global cooling" and now they cause "global warming" or "climate change" is what is inconsistent.




Yes they do, Alex Jones, of all people, explained this quite well. Algae biofuel can be decentralized very easily, by its own nature.


You're contradicting yourself. If the oil companies buy up the algae IP they can have a monopoly selling biodiesal just like than make money selling oil.



Oil, on the other hand, can only be extracted in certain areas with high capital investment.


You forget the "wildcatter" effect where people drill for oil in their back yards.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356606,00.html

Are you aware of the reports showing the oil companies using the environmental movement to shut down refineries in order to cut out competition.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/articles/?storyId=15168

Also check out this fake NY Times put out by the socialist environmentalist group "The Yes Men".

http://www.nytimes-se.com/
"Nationalized Oil To Fund Climate Change Efforts"

"Biofuels ban act signed into law"

The people pushing climate change do NOT want you to be independent! Also note that in the earlier discussion someone (you I think?) pointed out that we should spend "billions for infrastructure" for biofuels. Who do you think would own all of that infrastructure? Answer: The same people that already own it. They profit either way.



You can see a real world example with this in the battery industry, where oil companies bought up the IP rights to a certain battery that could run electric cars.

Apples and oranges. You sell a battery to a person once ever 5 years or so. You sell fuel (biofuel or fossil fuel) once every week depending of driving. There's no potential for a battery company to make as much money as an oil company. There is potential for a biofuel company to make that much money, especially if they get government subsidies funded by crap and trade to pay for it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[bigronaldo]

Whether or not global warming is real and caused by man, the deeper question is what should the government do or not do about it. The globalists what to cut carbon emissions in every country and provide a new "market" based on carbon credits.

Here's a video explaining how that system is the least effective in preventing global warming.

YouTube - Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus: What's the best way to live with global warming? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQlgMSoo5FM&fmt=22)

So if it's the least effective, why push it? The most logical answer is because the global elite want more control. The more power they have to regulate carbon emissions (read: production) throughout the world, the easier it will be to set up a global empire.

Here's an even better video...

YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw)

[hillertexas]

just an FYI about big, bad Exxon... how big would you guess it is relative to the rest of the world? Top 5? Not even close. The big, bad oil companies are not in the United States. Of the top 25 oil companies, only 2 are U.S. companies.

http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/Worlds_Largest_Oil_and_Gas_Companies_Sites.htm

http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/worlds_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_2008.gif

[hillertexas]

Hey!

Did you guys hear?

We're supposed to have SNOW here in Texas tomorrow!!!!

:D

I just watched the first of it fall here in Houston. :)

[klamath]

I never look at weather forcasts instead I go to the forcast discussions page of the National Weather service. This is where they talk about how they put the forecast together. This is where they interpet the GFS (Global Forecast System computer model), the ECMF (European Center for Meteorology Forecast model)and the ECMWF (European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts). It is quite fascinating. Some time they call it right dead on and other times not quite so good. They run the models for ten days out and are usually not very accurate toward the far end but a lot more accurate just a few days out. They obviously won't even put out a guess of the models projection beyond 10 days as they are so far off mark.
So should we not question Computer models forcasting a century out that are already showing discripancies between the model and real data?

PS. Here is the link to the forcast discussion page. If you have an interest in this kind of thing you will love following this. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/eka/forecasts/#disc

[Danke]

And people with many connections to big oil like Al Gore are pushing "climate change". Plus there's the whole Club of Rome "We can use this to take over the world" documents.



I can only speak for myself. I believed in global warming before it was popular. I based this belief on one PBS docudrama called "After the Warming". Basically it was set in the future. Because mainkind "failed to head the warnings" of global warming we end up with a one world government run out of Japan. (Note this was before the Kyoto protocols.) I knew I didn't want a one world government so I pushed a false theory to try to prevent it, never knowing that I was actually playing into the hands of the globalist.

What changed my mind? A sound scientific argument. When I learned that "global warming" had taken place on other planets in our solar system at the same rate that it had on earth I knew something was wrong. I've actually done scientific research. The most valid studies are those that have controls. You have what is known as a "null hypothesis". The "null hypothesis" is that there is no difference between the cases (in this case earth) and the controls (in this case other planets). If you cannot reject the null hypothesis then you must go back to the drawing board. Not being able to reject the null hypothesis doesn't "disprove" the theory so much as it proves that it hasn't been proven. At that point you must look to see if there are any common confounding factors. In this case there is. It's called the sun. Now whenever I bring this up to AGW believers they say "Well might there still be man made effects along with the sun"? Sure. But that hasn't been proven.



Actually all of the above is consistent. There has been some warming due to sunspot activity. NASA has confirmed this. In the last few years that activity dropped off and the temperature dropped. Again NASA has confirmed this. Solar warming is driven by the sun. The suns cycles are not constant. The Discovery Channel did a documentary about a major solar storm coming in 2012. By then some may have forgotten this and will decry "global warming" all over again. What you fail to realize is that it's not the arguments of the "deniers" that are changing, but the actual scientific data. That data totally backs up the claims of the deniers.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/18jan_solarback.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-stop-scientists-predict.html
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Besides, have you not noticed the inconsistency in your side? In the 1970s Time and Newsweek claimed "global cooling" due to fossil fuels. Now these same magazines claim "global warming" due to fossil fuels. The sunspot theory adequately explains the rises and falls in global temperatures. The "greenhouse" theory should only allot for rises.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm




It is your side that is inconsistent. Sunspot activity rises and falls so the NASA data which shows rising and falling global temperatures fits the theory that the sun drives climate change. Your side claiming in the 1970s that fossil fuels caused "global cooling" and now they cause "global warming" or "climate change" is what is inconsistent.


You're contradicting yourself. If the oil companies buy up the algae IP they can have a monopoly selling biodiesal just like than make money selling oil.



You forget the "wildcatter" effect where people drill for oil in their back yards.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356606,00.html

Are you aware of the reports showing the oil companies using the environmental movement to shut down refineries in order to cut out competition.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/articles/?storyId=15168

Also check out this fake NY Times put out by the socialist environmentalist group "The Yes Men".

http://www.nytimes-se.com/
"Nationalized Oil To Fund Climate Change Efforts"

"Biofuels ban act signed into law"

The people pushing climate change do NOT want you to be independent! Also note that in the earlier discussion someone (you I think?) pointed out that we should spend "billions for infrastructure" for biofuels. Who do you think would own all of that infrastructure? Answer: The same people that already own it. They profit either way.



Apples and oranges. You sell a battery to a person once ever 5 years or so. You sell fuel (biofuel or fossil fuel) once every week depending of driving. There's no potential for a battery company to make as much money as an oil company. There is potential for a biofuel company to make that much money, especially if they get government subsidies funded by crap and trade to pay for it.

Regards,

John M. Drake


Another excellent post and contribution to RPFs.

[constituent]

I'm sure some glaciers are growing, but many others are melting, like, I dunno, the North Pole!

On top of that, the site is reporting on events like "Snow in Texas!!". I can't take a site seriously when they post stories like that.

Speaking of snow in Texas, it's apparently only happening on the coast, wtf?

Last time that happened was like a week after my wife and i got married, on christmas day.

I was really looking forward to the little one's first snow, so I guess we're going to load up and drive back home here in a little while... before it all melts.

[hillertexas]

Speaking of snow in Texas, it's apparently only happening on the coast, wtf?

Last time that happened was like a week after my wife and i got married, on christmas day.

I was really looking forward to the little one's first snow, so I guess we're going to load up and drive back home here in a little while... before it all melts.

Some is definitely falling in Houston right now (no accumulation though).


SNOW IS FALLING OVER MUCH OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS. AS THE UPPER LEVEL LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM NEARS THE AREA PERIODS OF MODERATE SNOW WILL BE EMBEDDED IN THE WIDESPREAD LIGHT SNOW. THE SNOW WILL CONTINUE INTO THE EARLY EVENING BEFORE ENDING. TOTAL SNOW ACCUMULATIONS OF 0.5 TO 1.5 INCHES CAN BE EXPECTED... WITH ISOLATED TOTALS OF 2 TO 4 INCHES. SOME ROADWAYS... ESPECIALLY ON BRIDGES AND OVERPASSES ARE LIKELY TO BECOME ICY LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND ESPECIALLY DURING THE LATE AFTERNOON AND EVENING AS TEMPERATURES FALL WELL BELOW FREEZING

there is still hope. :) Looks like most snow is expected in the afternoon/evening.

[BenIsForRon]

buncha stuff

On the consistency thing. I know there have been both short and long periods of warming/cooling. But in talking about the current trend, climate skeptics have changed their story many times. I don't think you can convince me that they didn't already have their minds made up before they started looking for alternative theories.

Of course, you will probably say climate change proponents already had their mind made up, but they are a much larger group, and their has been a much higher ratio of peer reviewed literature in their favor.

And about "global cooling" in the 1970's, I don't think you can connect that to global warming today. Sure, some of the same scientists now were saying that back then, but most of the community had nothing to do with that.

Lastly, on the algae, all I'm saying is that Algae is easier to decentralize than oil, and big oil, judging by their past actions, will try to take control over that market before any venture-capitalists can. I don't know the ins and outs of how it algae systems work, but I know oil companies would not manage it in a way that best suits the interests of our species.

[hillertexas]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2130/2084239327_b5079736de_o.gif

[Anti Federalist]

hey!

Did you guys hear?

We're supposed to have snow here in texas tomorrow!!!!

:d

urgent - winter weather message
national weather service lake charles la
1051 am cst fri dec 4 2009

...an historic early winter snowfall expected today and tonight...

.areas of rain have developed across southeast texas and southwest
louisiana this morning as an area of low pressure develops in the
western gulf of mexico. Meanwhile...an arctic airmass continues
moving southward across the region from the north. Snow will begin
mixing with the rain this morning across southeast texas and
southwest louisiana...with snow becoming more likely across the
entire area this afternoon. Snow is expected to continue through
the evening and end from west to east after midnight. Total snow
accumulations of 1 to 3 inches are possible...with the heaviest
totals currently expected north of the i-10 corridor.

Should accumulating snow occur across the area...this would be the
earliest snowfall on record in southeast texas and southern
louisiana...and second earliest on record in central louisiana.

Laz027>033-050300-
/o.ext.klch.ws.w.0001.091204t2100z-091205t0900z/
vernon-rapides-avoyelles-beauregard-allen-evangeline-st. Landry-
including the cities of...leesville...alexandria...marksville...
Deridder...oakdale...ville platte...opelousas
1051 am cst fri dec 4 2009

...winter storm warning now in effect from 3 pm this afternoon to
3 am cst saturday...

The winter storm warning is now in effect from 3 pm this
afternoon to 3 am cst saturday.

Rain will spread into central louisiana later this morning into
early afternoon...with snow expected to begin mixing with the rain
after noon. A complete changeover to snow by mid afternoon into
the evening...and as temperatures continue to drop through the
day...snow will begin to accumulate by this evening. Before the
snow ends early saturday morning...total snow accumulations of 1
to 3 inches are expected.

Travelers are urged to use caution friday evening through
saturday morning. Temperatures are expected to fall below
freezing after midnight...and remain below freezing until shortly
after sunrise on saturday. Thus...any remaining snow or moisture
will freeze onto roadways...bridges...and overpasses and create
areas of poorly visible black ice.

Travel is discouraged in the warning area this evening into
saturday morning.

Precautionary/preparedness actions...

A winter storm warning means significant amounts of snow over
2 inches within 12 hours is expected...which will make travel
very hazardous or impossible.

[jmdrake]

On the consistency thing. I know there have been both short and long periods of warming/cooling. But in talking about the current trend, climate skeptics have changed their story many times. I don't think you can convince me that they didn't already have their minds made up before they started looking for alternative theories.


Galelio couldn't convince the pope that the earth was round either. It's not the "climate skeptics" who have been putting forward the evidence of warming and cooling. It's NASA. The skeptics are simply interpreting the data. And their interpretation simply makes more sense. I've explained to you that my mind was made up on your side before I saw the science and realized I was wrong to believe global warming. Maybe you think I'm just making it up. I don't know.



Of course, you will probably say climate change proponents already had their mind made up, but they are a much larger group, and their has been a much higher ratio of peer reviewed literature in their favor.


30,000 against AGW, 3,000 for. Hardly a "much larger group". Besides I don't go for group think. Again if you look at the scientific method AGW fails as legitimate science. Nobody on your side has ever put forward a serious answer to the question "Why do you have global warming happening at the same rate on your control planets"? Of course the answer could be "We don't look at the control planets. We pretend they don't exist".

Here's what you are missing. The burden of proof is on those who push AGW. That's because they are the ones that have the hypothesis. It doesn't matter how many people are on their side. 70% of Americans once thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 too. Until someone can come up with some significant difference between the change of temperatures on earth and other planets in the solar system you should reject AGW if you wish to follow science. Note there is a difference between following science and following people who pass themselves off as "scientists". The Climategate emails underscores this fact.



And about "global cooling" in the 1970's, I don't think you can connect that to global warming today. Sure, some of the same scientists now were saying that back then, but most of the community had nothing to do with that.


It made the cover of Time and Newsweek. And again I care nothing about groupthink.



Lastly, on the algae, all I'm saying is that Algae is easier to decentralize than oil, and big oil, judging by their past actions, will try to take control over that market before any venture-capitalists can. I don't know the ins and outs of how it algae systems work, but I know oil companies would not manage it in a way that best suits the interests of our species.

Sure it's easy to decentralize. The easiest way would be for the government to quit taxing homemade fuel. As I've pointed out before you can make your own ethanol, biodiesal, whatever. (You have a farm right?) But if "billions" are spend by the government on "infrastructure" it will not be decentralized. Cap and trade will not be decentralized. All of the "solutions" being put forward by the major AGW proponents will lead to the very same centralized energy system you are rightly afraid of. If you want a decentralized system take the time and energy you spend trying to convince people to ignore the facts of warming and cooling throughout the solar system and instead direct it to learning how to do alternative energy for yourself.

[Immortal Technique]

Hell if you wanna talk energy influence?
How bout The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)
Just a short list of energy companies both who extract oil and those who provide energy ( Coal powered)


Shell
NRG Energy
BP America
ConocoPhillips
Duke Energy

http://www.us-cap.org/

So yes the energy companies hands are in it all

[BenIsForRon]

Ok JM, the reason I'm directing this conversation towards the scientists is because I'm not one. Whichever argument makes the most sense to me, as well as the number and credentials of the people endorsing it, all factor in to how I decide who is right on this complex issue.

Here's a challenge for you, find me a climate skeptic website or organization that isn't connected to financial/economic think tanks. I say this because most of the skeptics I've seen are worried about the economic side effects of climate legislation (I am too), which causes them to seek out science that may debunk it. I don't think I've seen any major articles by any scientist not connected to one of these organizations that is skeptical of climate change.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ok JM, the reason I'm directing this conversation towards the scientists is because I'm not one. Whichever argument makes the most sense to me, as well as the number and credentials of the people endorsing it, all factor in to how I decide who is right on this complex issue.

Here's a challenge for you, find me a climate skeptic website or organization that isn't connected to financial/economic think tanks. I say this because most of the skeptics I've seen are worried about the economic side effects of climate legislation (I am too), which causes them to seek out science that may debunk it. I don't think I've seen any major articles by any scientist not connected to one of these organizations that is skeptical of climate change.

John Coleman ?

I have to agree with the other posters, I have never heard of NIPCC. They can't be all that "prominent," and seems to me looking over this thread, you are certainly more of the kool-aid head than those you accuse of the same.

I'm not saying that anybody who buys AGW must necessarily be brainwashed; but you are certainly going out of your way to discredit valid science and prop up flawed science in an apparent effort to promote an agenda.

I used to somewhat buy into AGW -- with reservations because I never had an opportunity to examine the science. I was never a full-blown warmist, but I thought the theory was plausible, I just wanted to examine the science before I made a commitment. I became neutral on the subject when I started encountering all the scientists and climatologists who were skeptical, and then following the CRU hack I am now a full blown skeptic. It seems clear to me now that there is far more ethical science behind the anti-AGW crowd than there is behind the pro-AGW crowd.

Your argument that those of us who consider AGW a fraud had predetermined conclusions just doesn't wash, and your current effort at plugging your ears and screaming "nyaa nyaa nyah" would seem irrational.

[BenIsForRon]

Ok, can you link me to any scientific articles or publications John Coleman has written on this issue?

I'm not sure where I've been discrediting valid science. I'm just saying that there hasn't been a consistent alternate hypothesis for the warming we have (or haven't) experienced.

[purplechoe]

I'm not saying that there is no agenda behind global warming. I just see it as a hijacked science, a real problem that once some globalists saw the potential opportunities in it, they latched on to it. Other globalists were slower to adapt (GW Bush) and others are still fighting it because it challenges their interests (Exxon Mobil).

http://www.thefastlanetomillions.com/attachments/failure-mistakes-goofs/971d1234136012-fail-thread-shipmentoffail.jpg

Their interests are the carbon tax... :rolleyes:

[purplechoe]

http://www.energytribune.com/live_images/Gore%20color%20F%202.gif

[BenIsForRon]

Purplechloe, unless you have something to say, you should just walk back into your living room and watch some more Fox News.

[dannno]

700,000 measly dollars and you want us to get all worked up? Reallly?



Look into GIM (So Paulson helped co found GIM with Al Gore eh?)


As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch ("Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It," by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including Hank Paulson, the investment bank’s former CEO who is now the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis.

Meanwhile, Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is pushing for tougher environmental regulations on the private sector. It wants “cap-and-trade” legislation enacted so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits. Untold billions of dollars could be generated in a brand new U.S. carbon market.

When Gore's potential for immense profits is factored in, the $300 million outlay for ads (some of which is likely to come from donations to the Alliance's "We Campaign") seems like a drop in the bucket.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/04/01/media-ignores-al-gores-planned-global-warming-profiteering



Stop pimping for Goldman Sachs on this board. I'm super cereal.

[hillertexas]

Here's a challenge for you, find me a climate skeptic website or organization that isn't connected to financial/economic think tanks. I say this because most of the skeptics I've seen are worried about the economic side effects of climate legislation (I am too), which causes them to seek out science that may debunk it. I don't think I've seen any major articles by any scientist not connected to one of these organizations that is skeptical of climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (incomplete)

I'll leave it to you to dig into their "ties". No disrespect, but you need to do some of your own research.

[dannno]

Ok, can you link me to any scientific articles or publications John Coleman has written on this issue?



http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38609397.html



The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.

That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Ron Paul on Fox Business: Global Warming is a Hoax - 11/04/2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops)

go to about 6:23

[dannno]

Wow, I just noticed John Coleman referenced a link between Bohemian Grove and the global warming scam in that article up there.. (it's bolded)

[dannno]

Bohemian Bump.

[BenIsForRon]

Danno, I'm not pimping cap and trade. Al Gore isn't the guy I've been getting my info from. Like I said, I know people at the top will use AGW to further promote global government. Which by the way, is all John Coleman is talking about, the political aspect. In the little bit of science he brings up, he denies that CO2 is greenhouse gas. It has been proven that is not the case.

And thanks, hillertexas, I knew there were some legit scientist skeptics out there. I will try to read some of their stuff when I get a chance. I already see that one of their articles had a rebuttal article issued months later in the same journal... so yeah, lots of reading I don't have time for at the moment.

[GunnyFreedom]

"he denies that CO2 is greenhouse gas. It has been proven that is not the case."

It has been proven that CO2 absorbs IR radiation from two narrow micron level bands and re-radiates some 90% of that back into space. Inasmuch as the absorption and re-radiation of a 10% portion of only 6% of the entire spectrum of IR radiation can be loosely defined as a "greenhouse gas" then sure; but we would have to see a 6000% increase in atmospheric CO2 to yield even a 1% increase in re-emitted IR radiation to the earth.

The real culprit behind the greenhouse effect is water vapor. Mind you, WITHOUT the greenhouse effect (created not by CO2, but by H2O), the Earth would be a barren and lifeless ball of ice. If we are so adamant as to restore the Earth to it's 'natural' state as a barren and lifeless ball of ice, then it's WATER we need to ban, not CO2.

So if we can eradicate atmospheric H2O, then we will be successful at restoring the Earth to 200 deg Fahrenheit below zero at the tropics, kill off the human race, and the planet will therefore be safe from humankind forever.

From where I sit, anybody who can objectively look at the data and still want to remove the greenhouse effect from the Earth must want to commit planetary suicide. Anybody focused exclusively on CO2 just wants to spin their wheels accomplishing nothing, but bankrupting the planet in the process of doing nothing, and reverting the human race to a technological dark age before we are even capable of producing non-polluting technology.

I can do the same thing as the other side. "AGW is a myth. The science is settled. There is a complete consensus on the part of every scientist who matters. No rational person can possibly disagree, therefore if you disagree you are irrational and uninformed." and the sad part is, there is more support for that statement from the anti-AGW camp than there is from the pro-AGW camp; which is 'almost none' for either party.

The rhetoric needs to go away, and science needs to take it's place. The science points to CO2 as being irrelevant, with only 0.06% effect of Earthward IR re-emanation in any case. The science points to WATER VAPOR as the only effective component of the greenhouse effect, with a further stabilizing quality of heating AND cooling to maintain planetary temperature within the narrow band required to sustain prolific life on the planet.

What I'm seeing from you here in this thread is the same sort of antiscience nonsense we have seen from the AGW crowd for decades. The science is settled. There is a consensus. That work is not peer-reviewed (but the only peer-review that counts, of course, is from people who push AGW).

If you have a scientific argument, then make it. If you are unable to make a scientific argument, then you need to reexamine your premises and conclusions. If you are unwilling to reexamine your premises and conclusions, then stop casting aspersions, as we are not the Luddite villains here. YOU are the one with the positive claim, and therefore the burden of proof is on YOU. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.


Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

I can easily state that there is an invading armada of ten-horned aliens gathering on the dark side of Neptune and therefore we need to prepare a space-army to repel the invasion. If I then state that "you can't disprove the theory of ten-horn aliens, therefore we must prepare" it is the same thing as you demanding that we disprove AGW.

Whatever "proof" there may have formerly been for AGW has now been demonstrated as fraudulent. Therefore the burden of proof still rests with YOU. This is a basic precept of science, logic, and argumentation.

If we come up with an arbitrary scale and state that prior to Climategate, there were 50 points of "proof" from the AGW sect, and 30 points of "proof" from the antiAGW sect, following Climategate there are now only 10 points of "proof" pro-AGW but there remain 30 points anti-AGW. Clearly the weight of evidence has shifted in the fallout from Climategate, and so you can NO LONGER say "well, everyone who counts believes it, so now you have to prove that it's false." The fact is that there are more scientists and climatologists who say that AGW is a myth than those who say it's true. And since YOU are making the positive claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.

If I sound annoyed, it is because I am sick and tired of the preponderance of logical fallacies being thrown out here. You are using an appeal to ignorance to "shut down" the anti-AGW, and an appeal to authority to "prop up" the pro-AGW. You are poisoning the well to discredit AGW critics, and using a false-dichotomy to demand action.

Indeed, there are too many logical fallacies amongst the pro-AGW crowd to even keep up with, and much of what I am hearing from you is simply repetition of the tired, worn out, and fallacious arguments that have been foisted on us for decades.

If you want to make this argument in a way that will not annoy the rest of us to the point of frothing incoherence, then I suggest you go back to the science and build a case from evidence to support your positive claim. If such a thing is even possible.

[jmdrake]

Ok JM, the reason I'm directing this conversation towards the scientists is because I'm not one. Whichever argument makes the most sense to me, as well as the number and credentials of the people endorsing it, all factor in to how I decide who is right on this complex issue.

Here's a challenge for you, find me a climate skeptic website or organization that isn't connected to financial/economic think tanks. I say this because most of the skeptics I've seen are worried about the economic side effects of climate legislation (I am too), which causes them to seek out science that may debunk it. I don't think I've seen any major articles by any scientist not connected to one of these organizations that is skeptical of climate change.

Is the founder of the weather channel tied to some think tank? Because he called global warming the "biggest hoax in human history" and he's seeking to sue Al Gore.

Hmmm....I take that back. He was seeking to sue Al Gore. Now he's dead. :( He was 82 so I guess it wasn't foul play.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2009-09-10-frank-batten_N.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

Now, as for what "makes the most sense" to you, I'm still trying to figure out why the idea of manmade global warming on earth makes sense to you when there are no SUVs on mars. Help me out with this.

One more question. Say if you were a scientist that didn't believe in global warming. Say if you were looking for funding (as do all scientists) to do your research. Would you turn down funding because it came from a group that also didn't believe in global warming? Also are you going to hold your side to the same fire? (no pun intended). Really, you're falling into the circular reasoning trap. Global warming "deniers" point out the financial risks of spending money on climate change therefore they must be motivated by the financial risks. That's like say Ron Paul is concerned about the financial costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, therefore he must only be motivated by the financial costs.

Regards,

John M. Drake