How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[waldo]

We live a world where billions of people have bought into fads that cause great harm from Communism to Nazism to Islamism. Yet despite the historical track record you assume that we are exempt from such harmful fads today? You are incredibly naive.

and you are incredibly obtuse... and with this, your latest reply, you're bordering on the ludicrous. Fad? You're equating concern over climate change to a "fad"? ... notwithstanding equating it to your referenced ism's (should I call Godwin's law?)

we should be clear though, are you formally extending upon your acknowledged conspiracy grouping... to now include (implicitly or otherwise), as you say, "billions of people"?

[bush_cheney2004]

nice of you to downplay this one, hey? Of course, the NSF is not just, as you say, "another committee".

But wait...the NSF is American, so how smart can they be according to some of our esteemed members, right?

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…" With an annual budget of about $6.9 billion (FY 2010), we are the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing

[Sandy MacNab]

Here are just two sources I have used to come to the opinion that the global warming crowd are not very credible.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf - the facts contained therein clearly show how surface temperature measurements used by the AGWers cannot be relied upon.

The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon "The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming..." The scientists whose opinions are discussed are tops!

[TimG]

---

Edited August 24, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Here are just two sources I have used to come to the opinion that the global warming crowd are not very credible.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf - the facts contained therein clearly show how surface temperature measurements used by the AGWers cannot be relied upon.

The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon "The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming..." The scientists whose opinions are discussed are tops!

perhaps you should extend upon your TV weatherman and suspect journalist sources... I also hope you don't make a habit of blindly dropping links without adding any/substantial comment - there's already one guy here within MLW that has that move trade-marked.

- I have a brazillion or so MLW posts that have discredited your first source (i.e., the Watts surfacestations.org "project")... MLW search is your friend -

you might like to start with this one as reflects upon the Menne et al 2010 paper

. More pointedly, you should really spend some critical time in research... I am here to help: your first link is to a (now) dated, non-peer reviewed publication, one soundly debunked on many levels by NASA, NOAA, etc. Really, c'mon... when a challenge is made to the U.S. Continental surface temperature record, whether peer reviewed or not, given the Watts fed, trumped up denier hype that filtered into the mainstream, a significant response to Watts' tripe came forward... from NASA, NOAA, etc. You should also recognize a timeline and be cognizant to the fact Watts milked his project for years... with Watts repeatedly stating that a peer reviewed paper would shortly be forthcoming, year after year, after year! Well... guess what? It finally happened this year, a short month or so back - Watts finally published - well, make that a group of actual "skeptical" scientists joined together (with Watts included for continuity, if nothing else) to publish a paper reviewing the impacts of U.S. station exposure on the U.S. historical temperatures and trends. And the result... an actual corroboration of the Menne et al findings with a formal confirmation of existing U.S. temperature trends (those created/published by NASA, NOAA). Everyone is still waiting for Watts (your first source) to retract his earlier accusations of fraud against NOAA... of course, fat chance on that.

- as for your second source, well... again, let MLW search be your friend, be your guide:

Whaaaa! Lawrence Solomon... we've already touched upon his litany here on MLW before... Particularly his recent book that profiled 10 prominent scientists, where he labeled them all as "Deniers"... even though none of them are.

Lawrence Solomon's "Deniers"

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Speaker Trading on His Fraudulent Book Title

Self-described "environmentalist" Lawrence Solomon has become the toast of the oil-industry-backed climate change denier community ever since the spring 2008 release of his book,

The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so)

.

The problem, then and still, is that nobody in Solomon's overheated text actually denies that humans are causing climate change. He admits as much on Page 45 of his book, saying:

"As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers.

"None of them were deniers."

That's a little point that Solomon never seems to mention on the speaker circuit. At least, in the radio and television interviews I've heard - and in his endless series of quibbling trivia that he has written in the Canadian business flyer the National Post - he never seems to say something forthrightly honest like: "none of the people in my book are deniers, really. They just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled."

Neither does Solomon acknowledge the

complaints that he has received

(and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented.

He just sits, smiling for the camera, while someone introduces him as the author of a whole book and series on scientists who deny climate change - as if that were actually true.

Solomon's next public "appearance" as a denier expert comes in an open conference call scheduled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2008 at 10 a.m. (presumably that's Inside-the-Beltway Standard Time).

Turn on, tune in and don't hold your breath waiting for Larry Solomon to acknowledge what he so surprisingly admitted in his own text: that his book title, which implies fraud, is actually an example of fraud, and one that's working out very well for this suddenly more-famous author.

PS: Getting Judged by the Company You Keep

Regarding the photo of Lawrence Solomon at a "CEI" lectern, it's interesting to note that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is so discredited on the issue of climate change that Exxon Mobil agreed to stop giving them money

.

don't let facts actually get in the way of Solomon's columns... or his book (which was simply a summation of his newspaper columns)... to the point that one of his 10 profiled scientists actually took up the cause and pushed back at Solomon's bullshit diatribe and forced the National Post to... finally... issue an apology:

"National Post: Apology to Dr. Nigel Weiss

Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it. He has held these views for several years. Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2. The National Post withdraws any allegation that Dr. Weiss is a global warming "denier" and regrets the embarrassment caused him by the Feb. 2 column and a further column on Feb. 9."

when in doubt Simple... just check

Sourcewatch

Lawrence Solomon is a columnist for the Financial Post, the National Post, and the managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation. [1] He is also a climate change skeptic and authored a book titled, "The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud," [2] which is based on a series of articles he wrote for the National Post. [3]

Solomon writes in his book "The Deniers" that "As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." Richard Littlemore criticized Solomon for not making clear that the people profiled in the book believe that humans cause global warming, "they just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled. ... Neither does Solomon acknowledge the complaints that he has received (and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented." [4]

Solomon was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank.[5]

New Scientist criticized Solomon's assertion, in a June 7, 2008, column, that carbon dioxide is "nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients." Solomon also warned that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could lead to "food production dropping worldwide." However, the magazine points out, Solomon is misrepresenting a 2004 study that concluded that "the change in biomass" over two decades "is largely due to sunnier days in the Amazon and nothing to do with any 'life-giving nutrients' in CO2 or anything else." [6]

[waldo]

---

well... I did read your most significant offering, before your retraction... your editing is disappointing as I believe the original post would have more clearly and precisely framed your position/leanings.

[Saipan]

For the first time in 42 years that I'm in Canada leaves here are already turning yellow and blueberries are pretty much over!

Isn't August suppose to be summer?

Edited August 24, 2011 by Saipan

[William Ashley]

For the first time in 42 years that I'm in Canada leaves here are already turning yellow and blueberries are pretty much over!

Isn't August suppose to be summer?

It was one of the hottest drought summers on record, maybe that is why they were all dried up and scarcity caused the animals to eat all the blueberries.

Remember this...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/06/01/summer-forecast.html

Now records are being broken in California and Texas, July Southern Ontario and up at my home in Northern Ontario the weather was much hotter than seasonal, forest fires, and next to no rain right up until August hit.

It was actually really good weather, aside from the potential danger of forest fires being within 100km of your home.

Looks like the fall could be a tiny bit cooler and wetter than normal (I hope not)

There is a hurricane on the east coast whether system right now.

Western Canada looks like it has a lot of sun

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/canada_e.html

Edited August 25, 2011 by William Ashley