Follow the Money : James Hansen Gets Another Pay-Off

James Hansen received a well-deserved reward for his work reflecting reality. Sounds like he's probably under-appreciated, and that he has some pretty smart friends.

Even if your head is in the sand, the idea that Americans would want to support OPEC and be against decreasing pollution is just awfully hard to understand.

The fact that Honda supports the linked website should be embarrassing to them.

 

The Sophie Prize

Lists all their previous recipients. Check 'em out and form your own opinions about 'Sophie's Choice'.

Whilst following the money don't google this:

koch climate funding

 

And the Koch brothers are unbiased? Their spending $73 million to fund climate change deniers doesn't mean anything? No, of course not.

 

Koch is a right wing supporter.
How does his political contributions suddenly become specifically "denier money"?
His funding isnt mainly climate change related.
BUT Enron did fund Greenpeace to specifically push for C&T.
Pretty ironic.

 

After looking over the contribution list,
Im kind of pissed that Greenpeace would equate that money to be directly climate related.
Next to pure BS.
Funding Cato and Heritage is to screw the working class.
Not to deny climate.

 

This website has a detailed report: Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine | Greenpeace USA

It looks more like 25 million dollars.

Yes, the Koch bros are out to screw the working class, but Cato and Heritage are supporters of the deniers. This way they get to do both.

And businesses like utilities and oil companies (Exxon) wanted cap-and-trade (which gives them the right to pollute more at least at first) before they figured out that they can stop cap-and-trade, direct carbon taxes or regulations that would require them to reduce their carbon footprint.

 

Yet another commodity trading market that they intended to control and manipulate?

 

Well I certainly don't trust MND either. I don't happen to believe that climate change believers are "cooking" anything. And I'm waiting to see evidence that climate change believers who have become skeptics have been hiding for fear of blackmail.

The earth is getting warmer. The Northwest Passage is opening up. It's like a high school chemistry experiment. I do know that if we aren't responsible for global warming (some places will get cooler by the way), we can't stop it. And I'm not looking forward to paying for all the engineering that will be required to protect Florida, DC, California's Central Valley or New York City, much less Houston and New Orleans from rising seas. I'd rather think we can stop it.

But it really doesn't matter. Popular opinion is pretty irrelevant to science. If you don't worry about the future, you won't have one.

 

Well said, Robbyr2. But then, I'd expect no less from a fellow Coloradan.

 

I discount the political interpretations by the troglodytes like Inhofe and Palin.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy]Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Yes, I've heard of the Medieval Warming Period. I may not be a scientific expert, but I do know my history. As you know, the MWP was succeeded by the Little Ice Age that ended that began about 1500 and ended about 1850, so it cannot be said that temperatures have been rising since the last Ice Age. Of course as noted in the following article, the variations for both the MWP and LIA do not appear simultaneously across the world. While the article admits to solar activity being a cause for variation, volcanoes, the Black Death etc are also implicated in regional climate change. The MWP did not affect Greenland for example, where the cooling ended the Viking settlements (along with genetic issues).

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age]Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

This addresses the current disconnection between solar activity and rising global temperatures.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Its really simple risk management. If the AGW believers are right, we use fewer fossil fuels, saving them for other uses, reduce our dependence on oil imports (the wildest estimates of our remaining oil in ANWR and offshore gives us about a 10 year supply [not counting Canada's very hard to get tar sands or our 100 year in progress oil shale- and no you can't have our water]), and reduces air and water pollution, not to mention challenging us to develop less expensive ways of powering our modern world that we control, not people who don't like us. If the skeptics are wrong it isn't going to be pretty for coming generations.

Not that it will do any good to a true believer, or non-believer:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage]Northwest Passage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Arctic Report Card - Sea Ice Cover - Perovich, et al.