It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
What does he profit for doing this? Gotta follow the money.
But speaking with Politico last week, Steyer denied being the left’s version of the Koch brothers, arguing that while Charles and David Koch’s priorities “line up perfectly with their pocketbooks,” NextGen’s advocacy is all about making the world a better place for future generations.
Steyer further sought to distinguish the two sides even as he announced the challenge: “Make no mistake: There is a significant difference between what NextGen Climate is doing and what the other side — led by special interests like the Koch brothers — is doing,” he said. “We are using our resources to promote an interest that we believe will help our children, while they appear to be promoting an agenda that will benefit their economic self-interest.”
During an interview with HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher” Friday, Steyer challenged the Kochs to a public debate on energy policy, the Keystone XL pipeline, subsidies for the oil industry and climate change. He’s also circulating a petition that calls on them to accept. ”Charles Koch has publicly bemoaned the oppression of ‘free and open debate,’” Steyer said, “and this might be the one point on which we agree. Democracy isn’t served by underhanded attacks and the voice of the American people shouldn’t be drowned out by anonymous voices with expensive megaphones. Which is why today I am issuing a formal invitation to Charles and David Koch to come out of the shadows and join me in exactly what they’ve requested: a free and open debate.”
originally posted by: rickymouse
a hundred million would be better spent building some sort of solar or wind energy array. All they will be doing is lining the pockets of politicians or the owners of newspapers.
originally posted by: LDragonFire
Just look at any climate change debate on ATS and its easy to see the Koch brothers money at work, so this should be interesting too see what happens. Most climate change deniers opinions have been crafted by propaganda now there is a force to challenge this directly.
What say you ATS?
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.
“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.” (emphasis added)
Based on the abstracts, his teams separated the papers into categories. Categories 1-3 were considered to be papers supporting the global warming hypothesis.
By the way, what is the global warming hypothesis?
You'll notice that Category 3 papers don't say that humans are the cause of warming, how much of the greenhouse gas is man-made, and how big the effect is. And none of the categories' examples mention how much global warming is caused by mankind. If you were to say that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gasses can cause warming, you would be counted as agreeing with the man-made global warming position.
Even with that loose of a categorization, take a look at his own data, interpreted the way he wants to.
Categories 1-3 all added together total 32.6% of the papers.
True, man is releasing CO2. Much? No. Primarily because of industry? No, again. Volcanoes are the biggest culprit, putting out hundreds of times more CO2 than all of mankind.
- Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year.
The next largest source is the decomposition of plant life. Next are the oceans of the world, releasing or trapping CO2 as the climate changes. Decomposition of animals is another large source.
Is all of this CO2 causing the planet to warm? Not this century, yet.
Are there other factors which affect the climate, such as solar activity
and cloud cover ?
More than CO2?
Many scientists believe it.
If the planet starts warming again (it will eventually, even if we've just begun a mini-ice age)
will it be harmful?
Most scientists believe that plant life would flourish under such circumstances.