Actually, there was no study, there was just a press release. And it wasn’t 11,000 scientists, it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a web page. But today’s reporters are so biased and so incompetent that when it comes to “climate change,” they will swallow anything.
A person I know via Facebook posted the following story on his wall:
I merely responded (in order to get a response really): “Lolz” (the plural, BTW, for Lol)
I got what I was looking for from my friend, AP:
Why is this funny?
This kicked off a very short convo… but this is my response to the above:
…there are a few reasons. One is this is a rehash by the same group from a few years back. Then they had 15,000 signatories. Now they are down to 11,000. Many of the signatures are from people not affiliated with climate issues: family physician, vertebrate palaeontology, nano optics, economics, civil engineering, and even a retired science teacher, inspector, and adviser… Etc. HEARTLANDS “PETITION PROJECT” has a better field of those more closely related to climate (over 31,000 signers).
Those are two reasons. But another that got me giggling was someone said plant more trees. Environmentalists are all over the place on this. They want to cut down entire forests, plant trees, say you cannot cut and replant for market $$ related issues (why the fires in Cali are getting worse BTW), save old growth even though they cease “gobbling up” carbon. On and on.
I also know we need more carbon (CO2), not less. These are some of the reasons. There are many more reasons, some can be found on my site, here:
Since the conversation is short (more to come), I wanted to pause and post some of the commentary on the OP. This comes from BREITBART:
But while the statement has received generous coverage from the usual gullible hysterics at CBS, ABC News, CNN and the Guardian others have responded with scepticism and mockery.
Some have noted that very few of those 11,000 signatories are directly involved in climate science. They work in fields ranging from ‘family physician’, ‘vertebrate palaeontology’, ‘nano optics’ ‘economics’ to ‘civil engineering’ and ‘retired science teacher, inspector and adviser, Warwickshire County Council’. The impression given is of a vast parasite industry – the Climate Industrial Complex – with a strong vested interest in promoting the “climate emergency” but with little personal understanding of the field themselves.
JO NOVA also notes one of the many issues (of course JO gets into the scientific weeds a bit as well:
Who remembers that 15,000 scientists signed some climate declaration in 2017? The same Prof Ripple, and Bioscience probably hope you don’t, because two years later there is the same rehashed, but with only 11,000 signatories. So 4,000 disappeared without a trace. There are however, the same comic indefendable graphs. Call it “extreme graphing” — every line needs to be diagonal. All “pauses” are disappearing. No fallacy remains unbroken.
And as JO NOVA notes, and was my point above, “The Petition Project was better done, done years ago, done twice, and has twice as many names on it.”
…The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy…
Don’t miss the opportunity to pop in on the same journalists that think a list of 15,000 scientists [now “11,000] doing a ten second internet form is newsworthy, but 30,000 checked and accredited scientists signing and mailing a paper form is not. Let them bask in their hypocrisy. Turn the screws on their cognitive dissonance. Be polite. Enjoy their struggle.
For the most part, the media actively ignored 30,000 scientists probably because it didn’t fit with their religion, their own voting preferences, or because they were afraid people they call “friends” might call them a names and stop inviting them to dinner. Cowards. (Let’s talk about being brave: Art Robinson, who organised the Petition Project, later ran for Congress, and his three youngest children all had their PhD’s simultaneously canceled, snatched or dismissed by none other than Oregon State University — the same place that this new “poll” is hosted — OSU.)
From the “there’s no quality control in climate science” department comes this laughable revelation, via the Australian:
Scientists’ Petition On Climate Crisis Blocked Over Fake Signatories
Dozens of signatories including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts have been removed from an Alliance of World Scientists declaration of a “climate emergency”.
Access to the 11,000 name-petition that accompanied a statement of concern published in BioScience on Tuesday was blocked on Thursday.
Okay, moving on in the short conversation. AP said the following after my response:
Fair enough Sean Giordano, on what made you giggle. Thanks for explaining. It’s fair to point out that perhaps some of the 11,000 people are not precisely climate scientists.
Also though, if what you’re saying about some of the 11,000 is true, it also doesn’t negate the truth of the science either.
There are so many things I can debate and argue with you about when it comes to climate change. But I fear I would be bombarded with a litany of logical fallacies.
Would you be willing to respond to just one specific aspect of climate change for me? It seems to me, that you’ve taken statements from one specific scientist, Dr William Happer, and gone with that as your reasoning for believing that we need more CO2. I also note that Dr Happer has used the phrase “CO2 famine” to explain where we are at in time with CO2 levels.
If you look at the Keeling Curve, you’ll see that since the 1950’s, CO2 levels have gone from less than 300 ppm to above 400ppm today. If you look at the Vostok Ice Core samples, that look back over 800,000 years into Earths past, you’ll see that CO2 levels have not ever surpassed 310ppm in that time frame, until now. There’s also a very clear up & down cycle to that 800,000 year history that is predictable (because of ice ages) over the long period of time before the modern industrial revolution. That history is no longer predictable in the same way because of humans contributing to increased CO2 levels. We have broken the cycle.
The fact that Dr Happer uses the famine phrase to explain where we are at is disingenuous as best, and an outright lie at worst. I would say the same thing about any other people using this word “famine” to describe our CO2 levels. It’s just wrong.
I’m really curious if Dr Happer is your only source for believing this CO2 famine falsehood? Where are you concluding this from beyond the words of a very small minority of people?
Can you please point me to some scientific research where CO2 levels are above 400ppm before the industrial revolution?
I respond in short:
…of course I will. I drive from the early a.m. till mid-afternoon so my response won’t be immediate but I love good conversation
while stuck in some 405 traffic just a quick response to your [2nd to last] last question: Dr. Freeman Dyson name that carries some weight with it. As well as many of the people found listed in parts of this WIKI PAGE.
Renown physicist Freeman Dyson says CO2 does not worry him… montage
Here is a good, layman article discussing AP’s last question (which was related to his 2nd to last which I answered):
If we study, however, what has been happening at the geological level for several million years, we realize that the present period is characterized by an extraordinarily low CO2 level. During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today.
Not only did life exist, in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters.
Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.
In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen.
By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70% of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees: contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.
The truth about the “greenhouse effect”
About the supposed link between global warming and CO2 emissions, it is simply not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. It is worth remembering, here too, that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04% of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1.
Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.
Can You Guess How Much CO2 is Mankind Responsible For? Click HERE for the Answer….
Over 279 research projects reports have shown that increasing CO2 increases crop production. The 14% increase in CO2 from 350 part per million (ppm) to 400 ppm has resulted in a 14% increase in crop production. Plants are actually starved for CO2 as they desire 1500 to 2000 ppm of CO2 to obtain maximum production. Commercial greenhouses fertilize the atmosphere by adding additional CO2 to speed growth of all plants. Plants get 400 ppm now.
Increased CO2 levels now improve the health, longevity, prosperity and productivity of all people on planet Earth.
More as well:
If we study, however, what has been happening at the geological level for several million years, we realize that the present period is characterized by an extraordinarily low CO2 level. During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today. Not only did life exist, in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters. Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.
In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen. By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70% of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees: contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.
CLIMATE DEPOT has a great post with lots-a-links essentially saying the big 400ppm is really THE BIG YAWN. Here is a small section to respond to AP’s thinking that we have never been past the 400ppm mark:
But asking someone who has swallowed this story is like beating a dead horse. They will tell me — to my face — that mankind releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is driving weather changes (MRCTV FILE).
I will point out a graph that shows in the past couple of decades man has produced more CO2 combined from the previous 100-years, overlayed to the temperature staying the same for over 18-years (in fact, falling a bit since 2005), and this MAJOR, FOUNDATIONAL belief being shown false doesn’t sway their “belief” towards rethinking their previously held paradigm.
Study-after-study, notes that CO2 productions lags behind temperature rising… not the other way around (as the above video notes). IN OTHER WORDS, many proponents of anthropogenic global warming that view man’s harmful creation of CO2 as a driving force behind the issue seem to have the “script flipped,” to put it mildly.
As well as ICE-CORES showing a higher PPM of CO2 in our past than today:
A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), based on Betula nana (dwarf birch) leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The record is of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollen zone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene (Preboreal pollen zone). The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher than usually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO2 evolution through the studied time period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved from interstadial to stadial state and vice versa. A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxy for temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered. (HOCKEY SCHTICK | PAPER)
POWERLINE has an excellent post about making jokes and today’s PC-culture:
Monty Python fans may remember the long sketch about the “lethal joke” that was so funny you would die from laughter, and which was weaponized for battlefield use in World War II… [below/right]…The sketch culminates in the worldwide banning of jokes of mass destruction through the Geneva Convention, but it seems the University of Oregon takes the idea seriously. Get a load of this story:
An acclaimed British conductor has been fired from a prestigious American music festival after a seemingly innocent joke he made to a black friend was labelled racist.
Matthew Halls was removed as artistic director of the Oregon Bach Festival following an incident in which he imitated a southern American accent while talking to his longstanding friend, the African-American classical singer Reginald Mobley.
It is understood a white woman who overheard the joke reported it to officials at the University of Oregon, which runs the festival, claiming it amounted to a racial slur.
Shortly after Halls, who has worked with orchestras and opera houses across Europe and the US, was told by a university official his four year contract, which was to have run until 2020, was being terminated………..
Also, NBC’s Matt Lauer drives home the point that it doesn’t matter what a player does on the field, but who he goes to bed with at night that the MFM care about by calling for more gay Affirmative Action in the NFL. (Once again citing the tiresome “Right side of history” cliche leftists use because, apparently, being a leftist gives you the power of precognition to know how History is going to work out.)
“The big picture here in terms of the NFL, is this a sea change or is this a one-off? Is this the league moving to the right side of history? Which by the way, they really can’t do unless more players come forward.”
Powerlineas well wades into the thick of the topic with this great commentary on the whole matter:
I wrote here about the selection by the St. Louis Rams of Michael Sam, an openly gay football player. The selection brought widespread praise including, predictably enough, from President Obama.
But at least one football player, Don Jones of the Miami Dolphins, reacted negatively — probably not to the selection itself, but rather to the exuberant kisses on the lips that Sam exchanged with his boyfriend while the cameras were rolling.
Jones tweeted “OMG” and “horrible.” For this expression of opinion, Jones has been duly punished. The Dolphins have denounced and fined him, and have barred him from team activities until he attends and completes “educational training.” Jones has issued an abject apology.
The Dolphins, of course, are still trying to overcome the adverse publicity generated by the Richie Incognito-Jonathan Martin “bullying” affair. But I suspect they would have come down hard on Jones regardless. The NFL — a thoroughly authoritarian operation that hardly allows players to celebrate touchdowns — is determined to crush any public expression of disapproval relating to Sam by anyone associated with the league.
Doing so will help the NFL’s image with the PC crowd and the gay community. Whether it will help Sam is another matter.
Jones probably isn’t the only NFL player who considered Sam’s very public wet kiss “horrible.” And more than a few players probably will resent seeing a fellow player silenced and shamed for expressing a sentiment they share or at least understand. That resentment might well manifest itself in resentment of Sam beyond the probably slight amount he would have experienced due to his sexual orientation.
Not much is sacred in a sports locker room or on the field. Attempts by the NFL to make Michael Sam a sacred cow may prove counterproductive.
Sam himself says he wants to be treated like a football player, not a gay football player. Football players are teased constantly for whatever it is they plausibly can be teased about. No speech code protects them. This is especially true of rookies.
Hot Air wonders what will happen if the Rams cut Michael Sam, not an uncommon fate for a player selected so late in the draft. The question answers itself: the Rams will be lambasted as “homophobic” and the NFL will suffer a black eye.
…Sterling engaged in a personal conversation that he did not intend to be made public. Were his comments offensive? Sure. Mostly, they were weird. But Sterling never meant to shove them into anyone’s face. Contrast this with the Sam kiss: why were television cameras present to record it in the first place? Did ESPN televise the reactions of any other 7th round draft choices? I don’t think so. The cameras were waiting for Sam to get the call only because he is gay, and the television networks want to promote the cause of homosexual equivalence. Is it unreasonable to infer that the kiss was televised precisely so that some individuals like Jones would take offense, and then be made into a lesson for the rest of us?
“I think that I’m very different from the Koch brothers in the sense that I have absolutely no personal interest in what happens except as a citizen of the United States. So whereas they’re representing points of view that are in their personal monetary interests, I’m actually representing the citizens of the whole country in terms of their diffuse interests against concentrated economic interests that the Koch brothers represent.” ~ POWERLINE
(A response to this quote is at bottom)
Some great information about Democratic billionaire activist, Tom Steyer has been added to the collective mind called the blogosphere, via Powerline! If one is not familiar with the issue at hand, you should read a previous post on this issue. A quick recap however, also comes from Powerline who explains the reason behind a bunch of old, outdated politicians doing an all-nighter:
…Tom Steyer, a billionaire who has made a great deal of money on government-subsidized “green” energy projects, has become one of the Democratic Party’s most important donors. On February 18, he hosted a fundraiser at his home that netted $400,000. Harry Reid and six other Senators attended, along with Al Gore and a number of rich environmentalists. At that meeting, plans for last night’s talk-a-thon were already being laid.
The connection is simple: Steyer has pledged to contribute $50 million and raise another $50 million to help Democrats in the 2014 elections. The catch is that they have to emphasize global warming as an issue:
✦ Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Political Action, plans to spend at least $50 million of the former hedge-fund manager’s money, plus another $50 million raised from other donors. The group will refuse to spend money on behalf of Democrats who oppose climate regulation, but will not spend money against them either, according to Chris Lehane, a Steyer consultant.
So the Democrats are trying to walk a narrow line. They need to make noise about global warming to keep the cash flowing from Tom Steyer and other deep-pocketed environmental activists (some of whom, of course, are also “green” energy cronies)….
The newest installment in regards to the biggest story lately in Democratic [billionaire] hypocrisy is the recent piece by John Hinderaker on Tom Steyer. Below is part of that article by John as well as an interview of John by Hugh Hewitt:
But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.
A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.” Here it is, in full:
Tom Steyer founded Farallon Capital Management L.L.C. (“Farallon”) in 1986. Farallon has grown to become one of the largest and most successful hedge funds in the United States with over $20bn in funds under management.1 Mr. Steyer’s net worth is reported to be $1.6bn.2
Mr. Steyer left Farallon in 2012 to focus on political and environmental causes and potentially to position himself for public office. He has been described in the press as the “liberals’ answer to the Koch Brothers”3 due to his wealth and his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and carbon-based energy in general. He has dedicated some $50 million of his personal fortune to back political candidates who support his position on climate change – and punish those who don’t. Mr. Steyer has led recent campaigns with Bill McKibben to encourage university endowments to divest coal equities.
The facts, summarized below, might lead one to conclude that:
Mr. Steyer has had a direct, personal involvement in assembling, through Farallon, a portfolio of strategic investments in overseas coal miners and coal fired power plants which is unprecedented in scale. The total quantum of Farallon’s investments in these transactions is not publicly disclosed, but reasonable estimates suggest that it could be between US$1 and $2 billion in total.6 Taken collectively, the coal producers in which his fund has amassed these investment interests represent one of the largest sources of thermal coal in the world;
The financing provided by Mr. Steyer’s fund enabled these coal producers to restructure and recapitalize thereby freeing them to grow rapidly during a period of rapidly rising coal prices, leading to one of the largest expansions of thermal coal production in modern times7;
Made during a period of ever rising coal prices, these investments were almost certainly extremely profitable for Mr. Steyer’s fund overall, and my extension Mr. Steyer personally. It stands to reason that few people in American history have made more money from investment in thermal coal than Mr. Steyer.
Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the political world, but Tom Steyer is in a class by himself. Now that he is enriching himself through “green” cronyism, coal is evil. Sure: like all hydrocarbons, it competes with the solar energy boondoggles on which he is making millions, with the aid of the Obama administration. But where was Steyer’s alleged social conscience when he was one of the world’s biggest investors in coal? And how substantial are his current holdings in coal projects? Is Steyer financing his anti-fossil fuel campaign on profits from past or, perhaps, ongoing investments in Asian and Australian coal? Inquiring minds want to know! Tom Steyer appears to have elevated political hypocrisy to an entirely new level.
Jake Tapper of CNN, one of the few truly fair guys in the legacy media, was also asked by Hugh Hewitt about Tom Steyer and the hypocrisy uncovered by John at Powerline. Hugh also played an American Commitment ad for Jake to get his comment on the topic at hand. Here is THAT interview with the description from my YouTube channel:
Hugh Hewitt interviews Jake Tapper of CNN, the topic? John Hinderaker’s recent piece, “The Epic Hypocrisy of Tom Steyer” (http://tinyurl.com/lro2wow). Tapper is hopeful for a braoder media attention to stories like John broke in regards to rich — hypocritical — millionaires and billionaires that give to the Democratic party. LIKE, the legacy media does, in regards to the Koch brothers and others.
My posts on the Koch brothers and Tom Steyer are as follows:
PolitiBrewoffers a response to the quote I chose to start this post with, “I think that I’m very different from the Koch brothers…” (top). I will include an upload of Michael Medved speaking about the generosity of the Koch Brothers as well, enjoy:
Tom Steyer is most certainly not the Koch Brothers. Steyer’s hedge fund is tied to a $67 million ponzi scheme that siphoned millions of dollars from foreign investors.
Steyer has also promised to spend $100 million to get democrats elected in 2014.
Meanwhile, the “evil” Koch Brothers donate billions of dollars to many deserving causes but generally give to conservative ones, you know, like all the money they give to M.D. Anderson for cancer research. How conservative is that? I guess they’d like to help conserve lives. How about that they “underwrite research and teaching at Brown, Mount Holyoke, Sarah Lawrence, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Vassar, and some 245 other colleges”? Is that conservative?
Think nothing of the Millions to MIT for cancer research, that’s conservative too, right? Right.
Yes Tom. We can’t deny that you are not the Koch Brothers. You may be able to hold a candle, just not to these Men. May as well blow it out….
These leftists are making it too easy! It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.