Add a Comment See all 371 Comments
- I don't know if you could get rid of the polar ice caps by 2025 if you gave the population of Poland blowtorches and dropped them at Kaffeklubben.
- Reply to this comment
- This article, and this entire discussion is directly tied to the events that continue to play out in D.C. with the Waxman-Markey Bill. I challenge anyone to explain how it is proper and necessary to pass any law that was rushed to the House so quickly, and read by so few (some would contend that it was read by nobody), that Sec. 788 was allowed to stand as it was passed?
If you don't know what Sec. 788 of the bill is...you need to learn. This is important and damning.
The argument that "Something must be done, even if it is not perfect" has been exposed as a strawman...and this really takes it to a new level. - Reply to this comment
- This is the standard tactic of attacking contrarian information in the AGW debate...just claim it is the "evil oil companies"...Oil companies are also, if you do the research, putting money into the pockets of those that are making the AGW debate. Additionally, AGW supporting scientists and lobbying groups get much larger sums from solar, biodiesel, natural gas, geothermic, and wind companies....hmmm...I wonder why no one questions the fact that the Pro-AGW groups are funding at far high levels by companies with a vested interest in pushing the AGW meme.
Let the debate continue, and let the science, not the rhetoric determine the outcome of the debate. - Reply to this comment
- No surprise! The EPA has systematically suppressed all reports that: 1) do not support the political agenda of the EPA administrator and his upper level minions, and, 2) would lesson EPA's control and therefore funding and size. I am a retired environmental scientist that saw this first hand for the last 20 years. Until Americans wake up and realize the EPA sells fear in order to grow and perpetuate their`swollen bureaucracy, we will continue to pay for their misguided and self-serving interests. The planet is not at risk from CO2!
- Reply to this comment
- Company records show that Exxon-Mobil handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars to Climate Change Denial lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000, and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.
According to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics, both the NCPA and the Heritage Foundation have published "misleading and inaccurate information about climate change."
Meanwhile, an Exxon spokesman said: "Only ExxonMobil speaks for ExxonMobil and our position on climate change is clear. We have the same concerns as people everywhere, and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We take the issue of climate change seriously and the risks warrant action." - Reply to this comment
-
- Hundreds of thousands of dollars!
The much heralded James Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz foundation in 2001 (and then endorsed John Kerry in 2004...while working for the Bush WH...and somehow they did nothing to silence his endorsement of Kerry) (Source-http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/2001/01-20.htm)...and then received a 1 million dollar "prize" (the source I am using put the quotes there...so I thought it should be likewise in my post)
(Source-http://www.dandavidprize.org/index.php/laureates/laureates-2007/60-2007-future-quest-for-energy/79-james-hansen.html)...
- Hansen gets a prize for being a good scientist and you figure he's on the take??
Exxon doesn't send money to NCPA and Heritage Foundation out of altruism. Those aren't awards Exxon is paying, they are salaries.
- So let me get this straight...if private industry funds research...it automatically corrupts the data...but if Hansen, who has been derided by people in his own agency for his hysterical pronouncements that go well beyond what the data indicated....it is okay if he received massive amounts of money...and then just happens to publicly endorse the man whose foundation gave him money?
Wow...I am guessing that you also think it is okay to give Al Gore the Nobel prize (with a huge prize) even though his movie was riddled with errors and many of his claims were simply unfounded or overblown.
You also realize that you are on one hand claiming that scientist who argue for AGW...and are either rewarded or paid for their research are honest brokers (because of course scientist cannot be corrupted), but those whose research contradicts AGW claims are, de facto, corrupt.
If their science is wrong that should be fairly easy to prove...would you mind providing proof of such? Dismissing them without taking on the results of their research, while typical, is intellectually dishonest.
- Hundreds of thousands of dollars!
- No surprise! The EPA has systematically suppressed all reports that: 1) do not support the political agenda of the EPA administrator and his upper level minions, and, 2) would lesson EPA's control and therefore funding and size. I am a retired environmental scientist that saw this first hand for the last 20 years. Until Americans wake up and realize the EPA sells fear in order to grow and perpetuate their`swollen bureaucracy, we will continue to pay for their misguided and self-serving interests. The planet is not at risk from CO2!
- Reply to this comment
- No, the supporting documents come from an organization named "Environmental Protection Agency", who would not release the report, which is why it is now hosted at CEI. Perhaps you think CEI has done a disservice by bringing out the truth? If you would prefer, I could post a copy at my website. Will that make you feel better?
- Reply to this comment
- This story "as presented" seems troublesome. However, the supporting documents came from an organization named "Competitive Enterprise Institute".
According to Wikipedia, this is a libertarian think which has received funds in the past from companies like Exxon.
Shame on you CBS News! You are becoming as politically biased as FOX News. (p.s. Only Canada, Australia, and the US have made climate change a political item. This has not happened anywhere else in the world.) - Reply to this comment
-
- No, the supporting documents come from an organization named "Environmental Protection Agency", who would not release the report, which is why it is now hosted at CEI. Perhaps you think CEI has done a disservice by bringing out the truth? If you would prefer, I could post a copy at my website. Will that make you feel better?
- This is the standard tactic of attacking contrarian information in the AGW debate...just claim it is the "evil oil companies"...Oil companies are also, if you do the research, putting money into the pockets of those that are making the AGW debate. Additionally, AGW supporting scientists and lobbying groups get much larger sums from solar, biodiesel, natural gas, geothermic, and wind companies....hmmm...I wonder why no one questions the fact that the Pro-AGW groups are funding at far high levels by companies with a vested interest in pushing the AGW meme.
Let the debate continue, and let the science, not the rhetoric determine the outcome of the debate.
- Thanks Rocky. Alarmists have to develop entirely new and unfamiliar temperature scales to support their position, as you have just witnessed. Even the figure you quote is in dispute.
In the case if GISTemp, it is looking more and more like the surface data is so corrupted that even the recent warming trend may be entirely the result of "corrections" Hansen has applied to the data set. Time of observation, siting, removal of UHI adjustments, and now the HUGE impact of station dropout have all conspired to render the data set useless. Would you trust this data? I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/an-australian-look-at-ushcn-20th-century-trend-is-largely-if-not-entirely-an-artefact-arising-from-the-%e2%80%9ccorrections%e2%80%9d/ - Reply to this comment
- A shill for the coal industry? Prove it. Or should I have Mr. Carlin's lawyers contact you directly?
- Reply to this comment
Ex-NBA ref Tim Donaghy 