Posted on 08/20/2012 9:44:25 PM PDT by AmonAmarth
If the experts agree on the existence and causes of climate change, why do some public opinion polls find that only about half or less than half of the American public is convinced that emissions from human activities bear responsibility?
A small but vocal group has aggressively spread misinformation about the science, aiming to cast doubt on well-established findings and conclusions. Their goal is to create confusion and uncertainty, thereby preventing meaningful action to remedy the problem. The same strategy was used cynically for decades by the tobacco industry after research showed that cigarettes caused cancer. In fact, some of the same individuals who have spoken out against climate science also claimed that cigarettes were safe. The term “denialism”3 has been coined to describe them.
Views of When Global Warming Effects Will Begin. Source: Gallup.Many of the deniers share some traits:
•Many have little or no expertise in climate science. While some have some science background, their training often is unrelated to climate science and they have not published “peer-reviewed” scientific work in climate or atmospheric science.
•Many receive funding for their efforts from industries with a financial interest in ignoring climate change. Oil companies, coal-burning electric utilities, and other companies that make their profits from burning fossil fuels have funded denier organizations and scientists, just as tobacco companies funded people who claimed that second-hand smoke was safe.
(Excerpt) Read more at opr.ca.gov ...
You don’t need to excerpt government propaganda statements.
Screw you Jerry. We still can’t afford the stupid bullet train, our tax rates have chased business out of the state, and the environmental wackos have you by the balls. So, in one of the most oil-rich states, we can’t drill for oil.
No money, no jobs, and no future. We are on the verge of bankruptcy as many more cities default and the state can’t sell its bonds.
You suck. Let a better man do the job. Get out.
I wasnt sure if I could post this drivel so my apologies if this was not protocol
Because the "experts" may not be pure as the driven snow and may be influenced by politics and ideology rather than objective science, c.f., "hide the decline" and the blacklisting of scientific questioners.
I have coined a word to describe liberals and their junk science.
LIARS
thats all g’nite.
30+ years after he was governor the first time, the man is still a moron.
The Deniers
If the experts agree on the existence and causes of climate change, why do some public opinion polls find that only about half or less than half of the American public is convinced that emissions from human activities bear responsibility?1,2
A small but vocal group has aggressively spread misinformation about the science, aiming to cast doubt on well-established findings and conclusions. Their goal is to create confusion and uncertainty, thereby preventing meaningful action to remedy the problem. The same strategy was used cynically for decades by the tobacco industry after research showed that cigarettes caused cancer. In fact, some of the same individuals who have spoken out against climate science also claimed that cigarettes were safe. The term “denialism”3 has been coined to describe them.
Views of When Global Warming Effects Will Begin. Source: Gallup.Many of the deniers share some traits:
•Many have little or no expertise in climate science. While some have some science background, their training often is unrelated to climate science and they have not published “peer-reviewed” scientific work in climate or atmospheric science.
•Many receive funding for their efforts from industries with a financial interest in ignoring climate change. Oil companies, coal-burning electric utilities, and other companies that make their profits from burning fossil fuels have funded denier organizations and scientists, just as tobacco companies funded people who claimed that second-hand smoke was safe.
A famous tobacco industry document from the late 1960s said, “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public.”4 It is a strategy that has worked, at least for awhile, in the past, and it is being repeated today. Because of the serious impacts of climate change, the delay and obfuscation tactics of the deniers are particularly concerning, which is why we present some responses to the denier arguments on this website.
References
1: Gallup. In U.S., Concerns about Global Warming Stable at Lower Levels. March 14, 2011.
2: Pika, Cara and Meredith Harr. American Climate Attitudes. May, 2011.
3: For more information on denialism, see Diethelm and McKee (2009). Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public Health. 19(1): p. 2-4.
4: Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company. “Smoking and Health Proposal.” 1969. p. 4.
Thanks AmonAmarth.
“Deniers”..Ironic and the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle I have ever seen.
Many of those so-called scientists who push “global warming” receive large grants and other goodies from well-funded environmental groups, government agencies, universities, etc. They also make good money writing books which tout their crackpot liberal theories. Follow the money.....
Propaganda Point One: They invented climatology to support their agenda. This isn’t a ‘science’ - it’s a philosophy. And the only way to enter or endure the field is to tow the party line, else you’re not getting your specialized degree in something that has failed to predict (or even accurately model past events) a single climate change. In fact, they can’t even agree on a single end result - it’s global warming, it’s global cooling - no, it’s just global third world living standards for all the peons.
Propaganda Point Two: No one can dare make a comment on climatology unless they are a climatologist, as no one else is qualified. Yep, those geologists need to shut up and sit down, especially all that talk about mini-ice ages and how there was a heavy freeze right in the middle of the industrial revolution. Stop mentioning how Greenland used to be, well, green. Quash all this talk about navigating the northwest passage, or sailing into land bays in Antarctica.
Propaganda Point Three: Shockingly, the same solution always appears, no matter what the problem. Overpopulation? Reduce population, make abortions and sterilizations commonly available, and reduce consumption and adopt a far lower standard of living for the lower classes (not the government class, of course...) World going to freeze? Same solution. World going to turn into a blazing swamp? Same solution. It isn’t about the anticipated change, it is only about the solution. Government edicts and lower standard of living.
Jerry Brown is a staggeringly evil man.
Of course, that just passes for normal in California.
It is clear that its authors regard the matter of actually stating a case an impediment to the real action: binding legislation over what eventually will evolve into every aspect of the citizens' lives, for there is little that energy usage does not touch and nothing it can't be stretched into covering. What is being denied isn't science, what is being denied is power to the power-hungry who have convinced themselves that they deserve it. Hence the outrage.
One good rule of thumb: if your opponent is more interested in psychoanalyzing you than in considering your arguments, he's lost. The rest is just bawling.
The fix for “Global Warming”: making liberals RICH, RICH, RICH!
:D:D:D:D:D:D
New carbon emissions rule could cost UC, CSU millions - August 20, 2012 - In the UC system, five campuses and one medical center emit enough greenhouse gases to qualify for the cap-and-trade program, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. For UCLA, the cost of compliance is estimated to be between $2.1 million and $8.4 million annually, according to UC system estimates. For UC San Diego, it's between $1.6 million and $6.2 million. For UC Irvine, $718,000 to $2.9 million. In all, the UC system is expecting compliance costs of $6.3 million to $25 million – for the time being.In the CSU system, two campuses are expected to be affected: San Diego and San Jose, according to the California Air Resources Board, also known as CARB.
Officials for both the UC and CSU systems say their institutions support reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- but they have also pushed for legislative or regulatory changes that would relieve some of the financial burden of complying with the law.
"The University supports the creation of a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, but is concerned that it is being disproportionately impacted by the proposed cap-and-trade rule and that its compliance costs will ultimately be borne by students, researchers, and patients to the detriment of teaching, research, and healthcare activities," wrote Anthony Garvin of the UC Office of the president in a 2010 letter to the California Air Resources Board, the entity responsible for implementing AB 32.
"Since 2008-09, the University has lost over $1 billion in State funding," said UC spokeswoman Brooke Converse in an email. "On top of these absolute cuts, the University has had to address significant rising costs to the tune of about $350 million a year that the State would normally have funded. No amount of preparation for the AB 32 obligations could be adequate under these circumstances."
Hell, Jerry, we know that climate change is being used as a crisis that justifies the loss of our freedoms, control of our private property, restructuring of our government, lock up of our natural resources, redistribution of our wealth, loss of our standard of living and the creation of a whole new tax and investment vehicle for the wealthy elite in carbon credits, mitigation banks and ecosystem services.
We know that AB 32 and its bretheren have cost Californian’s and local government billions so far
Exec summary of report http://cmta.net/ab32report-download-page.php
report http://cmta.net/ab32report-download-page.php
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/coleman.asp
On May 20, 2008 a list of 30,000 scientists who refute global warming was released. 9,000 of these were Ph.Ds. (Contrast this with the 2,500 UN scientists on the IPC panel, some of which have defected from the global warming mantra.)
Here’s another:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/nasa_rocked_by_global_warming_rebellion.html
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin - JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree - JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin - JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft - JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer - JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser - Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Peacock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt - JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine - JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf - JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Here is another Ph.D. Current Global Weather Patterns Normal Despite Government and Media Distortions http://drtimball.com/2012/current-global-weather-patterns-normal-despite-government-and-media-distortions/
You are flat out wrong, Mr. Governor, and your leadership is destroying California.
"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
From: Newsweek: The Cooling World (April 28, 1975)
________________________________________________
Meet the new scumbag alarmists, same as the old scumbag alarmists.
Still the “Moonbeam” Governor. Only now presiding over a state economy that is being targeted by a budgetary Death Star. The California economy will soon be vaporized leaving no trace behind. The economic equivalent of Alderaan.
One day people will come looking for the California economy and it just won’t be there.
HAN: Our position is correct, except...no, California economy!
LUKE: What do you mean? Where is it?
HAN: That’s what I’m trying to tell you, kid. It ain’t there. It’s been totally blown away.
LUKE: What? How?
BEN: Destroyed...by Jerry Brown, the commie Sacramento legislature and Mary Nichols at CARB! I feel a dark force I haven’t felt since... it must be governor Moonbeam and the commies in Excremento.
I don’t know about “junk science” or “anthropogenic” global warming, but being over age 70, things have definitely changed for the warmer and the wilder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.