Obama 'took the wrong side' on climate change, says physicist Freeman Dyson

You can be a proctologist.. and not know a lot on Brai n Surgery. You can be a Geologist and no pro about Climate. Climate is not about yesterday,today and tommorrow. It's long term. You can BET we can flip off the EXPERTS..the Science guys.. but if you Bet WRONG.......OOPS... we're SO screwed.

Yeah... Plants take in some CO-2 but We've wiped out MILES of forest and we burn FAR more Carbon. The Fossil Fuel boys PAY people to... bullshyt.... the Scientists NOT pad.. they tend to agree it IS a problem that can get WAY worse.. and VERY costly.

 

Then quit acting like you are a flat earther.

 

you can't seem to get anything right

 

The only proven scientific hypothesis is that that the climate is changing and that in the past 10 years warming. Period. That is scientific fact. What is not fact but only theory is that humans can significantly alter the natural course of the climate. Theories based on scientific model are not scientific fact. But just unproven theory. Anyone with a b.s. in science knows this.

 

you really don't know what you're talking about

Global Warming Science

The science is clear. Global warming is happening. We are the primary cause.

Scientists know that certain gases trap heat and act like a blanket to warm the planet. One of the most important is carbon dioxide (CO2), which we release into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas — to generate electricity, power our vehicles, and heat our homes.

As we overload our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, more and more heat is trapped — and Earth steadily warms up in response. How do we know? The scientific evidence is overwhelming.


The planet's temperature is rising

Trends in temperature readings from around the world show that global warming is taking place.

Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with more than half of that increase occurring over only the past 35 years. The pattern is unmistakable: The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998 and every one of the past 37 years has been warmer than the 20th century average.

Carbon dioxide levels are increasing in the atmosphere

Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have been taken continuously for more than 50 years. The data show that CO2 levels have steadily increased every year. Today they are 25 percent higher than in 1957.

What's more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at any point since our distant ancestors began migrating out of Africa 800,000 years ago.


Increased CO2 is the primary driver of global warming

CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the Earth’s surface — heat that would otherwise pass freely into space. The CO2 then releases that heat, warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

As CO2 levels increase, the pace of warming accelerates. Satellite measurements confirm that less heat is escaping the atmosphere today than 40 years ago. Though other heat-trapping gases also play a role, CO2 is the primary contributor to global warming.

The climate has changed many times in the geologic past due to natural causes — including volcanic activity, changes in the sun’s intensity, fluctuations in Earth's orbit, and other factors — but none of these can account for the current rise in global temperatures.


We are responsible for the increase in CO2

Scientists can conclusively identify that human activity is responsible for the observed increase in CO2. How? The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical “fingerprint" — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature.

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.VgsCrUvIrJw

 

Not paid? Ha! No one works for nothing.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490

 

that was debunked long ago


"Letter to Congress from U.S. scientists, Dec. 4: The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

 

Billions haven't been spent and paid to Warmist scientists? They're all working without recompense?
It wasn't debunked, merely denied and I believe Jones was fired for letting the cat out of the bag.

 

climategate was debunked

 

Only in the minds of the true believers. In reality, there was plenty there.

 

it was easily debunked

 

Again, no facts, just opinion. You must only read the cartoonists alarmist blog.

 

all you're doing is showing that you don't know what you're talking about



Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."

A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VjAqXEvIrJw

 

Dept of Energy says jack-o-lanterns cause 'climate change'...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/28/pumpkins-cause-climate-change-energy-department/

 

They're just trying to cash in on their own alarmist religion - The Squashers.

 

another republican kangaroo court

lamar smith's house science committee is worse than the benghazi committee

"Dr. Michael Mann, Earth System Science Center-Penn State University/Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change (2nd edition) joins Thom. Climate Scientist Thomas Karl has been accused by House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith of playing a part in a vast conspiracy - all for publishing a groundbreaking study on global warming. Why are oil companies and their Republican lapdogs in Congress waging a war on science? And what kind of effect is that war having on valuable environmental research?"

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/noaa-defies-gop-mccarthy-witchhunt#sthash.sVfRdMJJ.dpuf

[video=youtube;iHuNeVVD80M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHuNeVVD80M[/video]



The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee

by David Roberts on October 26, 2015

Last Thursday, the nation watched with a mix of amusement and horror as the House Benghazi committee spent 11 hours grilling Hillary Clinton on a bizarre farrago of issues, many of which bore only tangential connection to the Benghazi attack.

Over the past few weeks, the political narrative seems to have shifted from "Clinton in trouble" to "congressional witch hunt seeks to take down Clinton." Between McCarthy's accidental truth telling, an ex-staffer confirming the worst reports about the committee, and another House Republican conceding the obvious, it has become clear that the Benghazi committee is a thoroughly partisan political endeavor. Opinion has turned, but Republicans are trapped.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-committee

 

MELTDOWN MYTH: Antarctic ice growing is just the first evidence global warming is not real

"Scientists such as Zwally may refer to us as 'climate deniers' but who are the real deniers here: those who look at the hard evidence or those who want to go on scaremongering regardless of what the data shows?"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

 

And rep Whitehouse is calling for RICO investigations of non-believers. Karl et. al. has been under fire by other scientists by making the hiatus magically disappear even though all other data sets, including the best, satellite, shows otherwise. Like the IPCC jumped on the now discredited Mann hockey stick (dropped by the IPCC now) the NOAA has jumped on the Karl et. al. paper since it supports the political agenda.

 

rico investigations for lobbyists, corporations and politicians

who are lying about global warming, just like the successful prosecution of big tobacco

 

So that is why scientists were summoned to Congress for a grilling? Go figure.

 

it's more politically motivated fake-scandal fabrication

 

You mean the grilling of scientists? Yep, politically motivated.

 

NY attorney general wields powerful weapon in Exxon climate case

A near century-old statute that gives New York state prosecutors unusually broad authority to prosecute securities fraud could prove a powerful weapon as Attorney General Eric Schneiderman probes Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) over whether the oil firm mislead the public and shareholders about the perils of climate change.

The 1921 Martin Act, a wide-reaching state law, was dusted off in the early 2000s by former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer who used it to aggressively go after Wall Street firms.

Since then, it has been used to prosecute large-scale Ponzi schemes, major investment banks accused of misleading investors and other cases.

Now, Schneiderman is wielding the statute in his probe of Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, according to a source familiar with the matter. The source said other state laws could be used as well.

Schneiderman subpoenaed Exxon on Wednesday, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents to probe the company's knowledge and disclosures about climate change going back to the 1970s.

In response to the probe, Exxon has said it has worked on climate science in a transparent way for nearly 40 years and has regularly disclosed the business risks of climate change to investors for years.

The investigation comes on top of reports last month by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times that the company's own scientists had raised concerns about global warming decades ago that the company executives contradicted.

Under the Martin Act, the state must prove that a company deceived the public by misrepresenting or omitting a material fact in the offering of securities.

Lawyers say the act is unique in that no proof of intent to deceive is required to bring a claim, and prosecutors do not even need to show that anyone was in fact defrauded. The act allows for criminal as well as civil charges.

New York State's highest court ruled in 1926 that it covers "all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty."

The act "is one of the broadest anti-fraud statutes ever devised, at least in a democratic society," wrote Eric Dinallo, a chief prosecutor under former Attorney General Spitzer, in the New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

It has been used to extract large monetary penalties from finical institutions, said Jim McGuire, a litigation partner at the Dechert law firm in New York.

"The Martin Act is a nearly empty vessel into which the AG can pour virtually any content that he wants," McGuire said.

Exxon did not comment on Friday when asked about the Martin Act.

CALLS FROM CONGRESS

U.S. congressman have called for the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the claims against Exxon as well, saying the company's alleged failure to disclose scientific findings was similar to tobacco companies that concealed the harms of smoking.

Democratic California representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier, along with other lawmakers, asked the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate Exxon. In interviews they said they hoped other state attorneys general would follow New York's lead.

"My view is that this should be even more serious than tobacco, if it's the whole world that's being harmed," said Lieu.

Lieu also circulated a letter to lawmakers citing an investigation by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a U.S. non-profit organization, that said other oil companies also had spread misinformation about global warming.

Both the SEC and the U.S. Attorney General's office in California declined to comment on whether they were pursuing investigations of their own over Exxon's climate statements.

Unlike the Martin Act in New York, prosecutors would have to overcome a "far higher bar" to bring a federal case, said McGuire, who previously served as chief counsel to former New York Governor George Pataki.

Federal securities fraud under SEC rules require a showing of scienter, a legal term for intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

Daniel Riesel, a white-collar defense attorney at Sive, Paget & Riesel said that the tobacco cases actually highlighted the challenges in bringing federal enforcement actions against companies over climate change claims.

"The tobacco companies knew they were selling a product that was killing people and they failed to disclose that," said Riesel who specializes in environmental matters.ave business in New York state, scores of other independent U.S. exploration and production companies have no operations there and probably could not be targeted because of jurisdictional questions, the lawyers said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/07/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-case-idUSKCN0SW01M20151107#mb6VyB6CFpABGkLw.99

 

Hillary Clinton boarding private jet just hours after launching global-warming push – and she’s using a FRENCH aircraft that burns 347 gallons of fuel every hour!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...NCH-aircraft-burns-347-gallons-fuel-hour.html

 

Thomas Sowell has a theory.

[video=youtube;rweblFwt-BM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM[/video]