It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Green billionaire prepares to attack 'anti-science' Republicans

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

It most certainly was not bogus.




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

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.”


www.salon.com...

Steyer did a nice little interview with Bill Maher at the top of Maher's show a few weeks ago. The guy seems genuinely concerned with the future of the planet; not with stacking more money on top of his billions.

Oh, and I loved this part too:


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.”


The Koch brothers have yet to respond to the debate challenge.....big surprise there...they prefer to work from the shadows; as do all vampires.
edit on 23-5-2014 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

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.


Amen to that. This why I absolutely love the americans. They don't realize that the republicans and democrats are just one grand-ole party. The aristocrats in both of those parties would surely perish if they didn't have the other. In biology, we would call this mutualism. (Remember, whoever wins, We the People lose.) Yet, all you who voted for Obama and all you who voted for Romney are just too darn foolish to realize the truth that is right before your very own eyes. You will get what you deserve. America bless you, because God (if God exists how the Bible proclaims) sure won't be.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

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?


People need to stop saying the label in bold. It's not true. Climate Change is real. What people are denying is that it is being caused by man or not. This little distinction allows people to say that 97% of all scientists agree that climate change is real. Of course they do. Climate change has happened in the past. What isn't universally agreed on is that it is caused by man. This is pure example of left wing rhetoric trying to paint a picture that isn't true. But because that distinction isn't clarified, we get people saying that anyone who disagrees with this propaganda denies science. I certainly don't deny science. Just look at many of my posts on evolutionary theory or other origin theories. I DO however deny science that is clearly funded and being pushed by people with very CLEAR agendas.
edit on 23-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace

That is all words. What is he actually DOING as far as improving the environment? Is he trying to push green technologies, help people in poorer areas have access to less environmentally destructive things? Trying to foster renewable energy sources? Or is he just giving money to politicians so that they can push the carbon tax crap?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
Dear Kali74,

We've spoken in the past, and I'm glad to have this opportunity to speak with you again. When I saw that we disagreed, I realized that I had to look into the matter further. Searching for "Cook Climate Scientists Study," I came up with cite after cite of articles explaining why the 97% figure was wrong. I have a little more respect for you than to just throw a number of links at you, so I thought I'd dig a little deeper and go right to the author, Cook, himself.

In his study, Cook tells us that he had a team looking at the abstracts of papers trying to determine what the paper's position on global warming was. A fairly tricky task in itself, but made more complicated in that he chose certain types of papers to look at.

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? I've thought it was the position that global warming was occurring, that mankind was primarily responsible for it, and that it is dangerous in some way.

Here are examples of his three categories, as provided by Cook:

Category 1: Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming

Category 2: Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact

Category 3: Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

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. (You'll find it in Table 3.) Categories 1-3 all added together total 32.6% of the papers. In other words Fewer than 1/3 of the papers indicate even the vaguest agreement with anthropogenic global warming. Additionally, 2/3 didn't have an opinion on the question. How can 97% of the scientists agree on global warming when 2/3 don't have an opinion?

iopscience.iop.org...-1


Now, from a source reviewing Cook's work:


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)

wattsupwiththat.com...

It seems that Cook's own writing shows there isn't the consensus everybody claims. I don't think the link you so thoughtfully provided changes that.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952



Based on the abstracts, his teams separated the papers into categories. Categories 1-3 were considered to be papers supporting the global warming hypothesis.


That would be theory, not hypothesis.



By the way, what is the global warming hypothesis?


The Greenhouse Effect is scientific fact, without it our planet would be a ball of ice incapable of supporting much if any life. Without any greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere all heat from the sun would just radiate back off the planet into space, Earth would be incapable of retaining heat.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is this, man-made greenhouse gasses (largely CO2) are significantly increasing in the atmosphere causing the planet to warm.



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.


There's a reason for that. There's no other detectable cause for the rate of increase of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses), than land use exchange and burning fossil fuels.



Even with that loose of a categorization, take a look at his own data, interpreted the way he wants to.


Interpreted the way he wants to? He set parameters for what he was looking to prove, the data is filtered appropriately for such.



Categories 1-3 all added together total 32.6% of the papers.


Yes and there's nothing wrong with adding category 3 into the consensus whatsoever. Again, no other detectable cause can explain the increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) other than burning fossil fuels and land use exchange.

As for the rest of your post, if you want to rely on Anthony Watts (formerly a radio weather announcer) and view his blog as accurate information on climate science there's two things you should consider...

1) Why does he not do his own science? Conduct his own research? Only cherry pick works produced by climate scientists?

2) He is funded by The Heartland Institute (The Koch Brothers).



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Dear Kali74,

Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly, that's one of the things I like about you. It seems that I wasn't able to express myself clearly, so I hope you won't mind if I try again.

I think I understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Because of the unsettled state of opinion on the matter and the spotty nature of the evidence, I'd prefer not to call it a theory. But I certainly don't want to argue over that. For most people it's a distinction without a difference.

You hit on something more significant when you explain what AGW is. If I understood you, man is releasing CO2. That change in the atmosphere is trapping heat and causing the planet to warm. Before I get to what Cook himself actually said, may I spend a moment looking at that theory?

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. 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. It is estimated that men produce 3 - 6 % of the CO2 emissions. Over time the amount of emissions per capita has remained largely unchanged. People exhale CO2, burn fuel to make cook fires, in short everyday life for the billions on earth is responsible for a large share of man's contribution, slight as it is.

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 ? Of course. How much? 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. How would we be harmed? If no serious harm is involved, then why should the US spend over $20 billion dollars a year on "climate change?" Have the predictions of "Climate scientists" been validated over the last 40 - 50 years? No. 78 out of 80 models predicted that the earth would be warmer today than it actually is. They're much worse than weathermen or even economists.

So, if AGW simply says that man produces CO2 and CO2 contributes to global warming, there are only two responses. "Duh" and "So what?" But what Obama is saying, along with others, is that Climate Change is real, man-made, and dangerous. Less than 1% of Cook's papers take that position.

Now, back to Cook. He is the source for the claim that 97% of the scientists have reached consensus on AGW and it's danger. He based that on his study of papers (rather than just asking the scientists what they thought). Cook himself reports that fewer than 1/3 of the scientists accepted even the mildest form of AGW. Therefore, his claim of 97% seems to be wildly false.

If you don't care for my first article, here's another one out of dozens, this from The Wichita Observer:
wichitaobserver.com...

In it, you'll find that e-mails from Cook mentioned his intention to change neutral papers into supporting ones, and that before the study began he saw it as a way to strengthen the consensus position against his critics. Not surprisingly, he hasn't released his data, either.

As for your comments about Watts, I'm sure that upon reflection, you'll see that they dodge the question entirely. You may want to click my link on Bulverism.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952



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.


Volcanic emissions of CO2 are vastly smaller than human emissions.




- Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year.


Discovery.com



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.




Vegetation and land (that includes respiration, decay and volcanoes) contributes roughly causes about 440 gigatonnes of CO2 output a year but then absorbs about 450 gigatonnes. The oceans give us about 330 gigatonnes per year but then store about 340. This is the natural carbon cycle. Humans in that graphic which is old add 29 gigatonnes per year (2013 we put out 36 gigatonnes) so instead of losing about 20 gigatonnes per year like we should be we are gaining, so far, 9-16 gigatonnes per year.



Is all of this CO2 causing the planet to warm? Not this century, yet.


It already has caused the planet to warm by about .2C or 1.8F.



Are there other factors which affect the climate, such as solar activity


Solar activity hasn't changed much but overall for the time frame of since the industrial revolution began, TSI (Total Solar Irradiance, the amount of heat energy in our atmosphere from the sun) has been slightly on the low side of it's range.



and cloud cover ?


Clouds are the conundrum in the whole topic. They don't just do one thing. Sometimes they trap heat, sometimes they cause cooling.



More than CO2?


Nope.



Many scientists believe it.


No. They Don't.



If the planet starts warming again (it will eventually, even if we've just begun a mini-ice age)


We haven't just begun a mini ice age. We should be cooling but not to that point.



will it be harmful?


Most scientists believe so.



Most scientists believe that plant life would flourish under such circumstances.


No. Most scientists believe that plants will grow bigger but become less vital.

... I'm honestly too fatigued with this argument to have it again, I'm sick of it... sick of posting proof over and over and over. I'll continue when I'm less frustrated... maybe, as I seem to be frustrated with this nonsense (sorry but it is, refer to LeatherNLace's graphic) way more often lately than in the past. Three years of this argument may finally have worn me down.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Dear Kali74,

I am truly sorry to have pushed you to this point. It's especially sad since I wasn't really interested in discussing climate from the start.

What concerned me was the 97% figure and whether it was plausible. Oh well, someone else can pick up that discussion if they want to.

Again, my apologies.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

It's not you.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join