More:
*****************************************EXCERPT*****************************************
Posted by: Garacka
Jan 12, 08:40 AM
I don't think we have to ascribe dishonest motives (although this may be the case for a few) to understand their behavior. I think there are 3 things that are sufficient:
a) Modeling of climate is perhaps the most vexing modeling situation ever attempted.
i. For an ideal modeling, the instantaneous initial conditions of pressure, temperature, velocity, moisture content, cloud distribution, particulate distribution, solar radiation, cosmic rays, magnetic field, moon and planetary tidal forces, ocean state, etc are needed. That can't be done beyond crude levels of fidelity that means the computer can't get started on the right foot.
ii. All the physical processes need to be understood and represented, unless determined objectively to be inconsequential. (Can anyone say clouds? or cosmic ray cloud seeding?)
b) Many "climatologists" came from narrow disciplines and latched onto this work when the opportunity arose when the scare was generated by the Maurice Strongs of the world who made this into a (almost) successful propaganda campaign for their ideological agenda.
c) The reason E. Goldstein mentions in regards to not trying to falsify their paradigm. (I suspect many were predispositioned by support of environmental causes and didn't even realize the puppet masters like Strong were at play.)
And what is it with the Palin picture? Isn't this a group of professionals?
More....and this is about the immense amount of money involved with supporting this propaganda:
************************************EXCERPT*******************************************
Posted by: badswing
Jan 12, 08:45 AM
follow the money..NOAA’s total budget request is $5.6 billion, which would be an increase of 17.0 percent. Of this, $437 million would be for climate research funding, which is an increase of $77 million. 480 million here, $765.5 million there, throw in another $10 million for climate education and you've got $1.25 billion dollars spent on climate change research just at the NSF, just in ONE YEAR! Next is NASA: Within the Office of Science, the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER), which supports basic research in atmospheric sciences, terrestrial ecosystems and climate modeling, would receive $627 million (an increase of 3.8 percent). BER’s request includes $28.6 million for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (TES) program, which examines the impact of climate change on biological systems and land-surface carbon cycle feedbacks to climate change
DOI requests $171 million (an increase of 26.0 percent) for its Climate Change Adaptation initiative, which seeks to identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate change and implement coping strategies. Of this, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) would receive $77.9 million for climate science (an increase of 15.5 percent)
EPA requests $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (an increase of 1 percent). Of this, $43.5 million is new funding for regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act. EPA requests $22 million for its Global Change Research Program, which assesses the impacts of global change on air and water quality, ecosystems, human health, and socioeconomic systems in the United States with a primary goal of promoting adaptation efforts.
I don't even understand what this means. How does giving the EPA $169 million reduce emissions? Also, does it really cost $43.5 million a year (more) to regulate greenhouse gases? Lastly, the USDA: USDA requests $159 million for climate change research, an increase of 42.0 percent
A 42% increase in climate change research? $159 million spent in a single year, by the USDA? Crop yields are up! CO2 helps crops! Imagine spending $159 million in 2011 to research things that actually help people. wow, thats a lot of money..doesnt even count soros funded nonsense, ipcc crap etc. no wonder they want to keep the lie alive. thats a ... (350 word limit)