Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 Next
Comments 63901 to 63950:
-
caerbannog at 15:46 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
It would be interesting to compare the "pay to talent" ratios of the denialists with those of James Hansen, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, etc. To keep the numbers on the same page, you'd have to plot them on a log scale! -
GreenCooling at 15:39 PM on 15 February 2012It's CFCs
Sorry to discover this one a little late in the piece, I fully concur that it is incorrect to blame AGW entirely on CFCs, but I do think the contribution of the Montreal Protocol to reducing climate change is under recognised - both in terms of the abatement achieved to date by phasing out consumption of CFCs, and what it could yet do by financing recovery of ozone depleting CFCs and HCFCs, and by expanding its scope to address rapidly increasing HFC emissions. The best paper explaining this in the literature is Velders et al (2009) and briefing papers by the Environmental Investigation Agency are well worth reading in order to track this issue. The importance of looking at the 20 year Global Warming Potential values of HFCs is highlighted in this previously unpublished graph, which has recently been included in a Greenpeace International paper here. As the experience of getting rid of CFCs shows, this is a relatively easy task compared with abating CO2 emissions. While this remains of paramount importance, we are about to make the problem a whole lot worse if we continue to fail to take swift and serious action to prevent the projected volume of HFC emissions from occurring.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:38 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
DaneelOlivaw @31, you are entitled to your own opinion (which is a polite way of saying that you are wrong). However, with hacking there are two questionable actions: a) The acquiring of information by an unauthorized person by illegal means; and b) The revealing of information to unauthorized people. With leaking, only the second applies. That is a clear difference. It is the same sort of difference that allows us to distinguish between burglary and embezzlement. Further, regardless of what various so-called "skeptics" claim, the fact remains that the Norfolk police are conducting a criminal investigation into what they believe was a hack. The so-called "skeptics" may know better, but only if they know who did it, in which case they are accessories after the fact by not reporting that information to police. Finally, regardless of the merits of this particular leak, it is in the public interest to know when particular commentators are being paid for the opinion they hold. I think it should be a matter of law that think tanks and lobby groups should be required to detail: 1) Who has paid them what, and what are the conditions of the grant; and 2) What moneys they have paid out to whom, and what are the conditions of the grant. Failing such law, democracy devolves to plutocracy with the highest anonymous bidder calling the shots. The ethical problem with this leak comes primarily from the fact that it presents a partial picture, rather than from any possibility it fails a public interest test for whistle blowing. -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:18 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Daneel @ 31, here is a difference: UEA emails were cherry-picked and quoted out of context, deliberately distorting their content and misrepresenting the intent of the authors; Heartland documents are being quoted verbatim and context is being given, without lies, spin or distortion. Like the UEA emails, these documents are now in the public domain. Were they stolen? Were they obtained by hacking into computers? Were they leaked by a legitimate whistle-blower? No doubt, Heartland will expand their budget to include monies to obtain legal redress, if a crime has been committed. The future of the planet is being threatened by organisations like Heartland, who do their best to obfuscate and disinform legislators on matters relating to the climate. For good or ill, the genie is now well and truly out of the bottle. I am happy to do my best to ensure that the cork cannot be replaced. -
skywatcher at 15:18 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I wonder how the Web's self-styled "#1 science site" meshes with receiving funding from a source comitted to "... dissuading teachers from teaching science". Will we hear dear old Anthony decry the Heartland Institute for being deliberately anti-science and returning the funding he's been given? Or will Watts tacitly accept he's also anti-science and give up his "#1 scinece site on the Web" tag? I suspect a big hypocritical dose of neither... -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:04 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Glenn @ 28, Your figure for the NIPCC report is a bit low. It is actually at total of $1,593,000, with payments to lead authors accounting for $467,000 of that. See "Table 2. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Budget: 2010 - 2013". It seems that the price has gone up since the days when treachery could be bought for thirty pieces of silver. -
DaneelOlivaw at 15:00 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Sorry, but I don't really see much difference; hacking or leaking... the end result is that private documents are being made public and that is ethically (if not legally) wrong. Besides, the denialist crowd has also claimed that the UEA emails were leaked. From their side, the hacker actions were also justified since they view climate scientists as a threat in a similar way that we view professional deniers. I understand that some times the ends justify the means BUT I think that's at leas a conversation worth having. There is a moral component to reading and using this documents. Also, there's an argument about maintaining the moral high ground and not stooping to their level. -
Stevo at 14:58 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Dale There is a big difference between hiring a person to educate the general public about the findings of peer reviewed science and paying backhanders to selected persons for the purpose of keeping the public misinformed and in the dark about it. -
Stevo at 14:51 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
adelady, as ever your masterly way with words has lifted my spirirts. After that quick squirt to my armpits I'm already feeling refreshed. (I shall press the metaphore no further.) DaneelOlivaw, I've gotta agree with Phila and Steve L. These documents were leaked by a whistlebolower and not stolen or hacked. As far as we can see they are complete documents. The onus is upon us to neither misquote nor misrepresent them. Let the ugly truth speak for itself. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:46 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I just tried posting a couple of comments over at WUWT, wondering what theur response might be to DenialGate. Instead of the usual awaiting moderation message nothing appeared at all. So I thought something had gone wrong and resubmitted the comments. And got a 'you have already posted that comment' reply. So they have them but they aren't coming up. Very queer. I wonder if they have gone into lock-down. Anyway, these were the comments I posted to no avail - maybe Anthony might get around to responding when he is a little less busy: =============================================================== Since you don't have a post up yet about Denialgate, I will comment here and you can then transfer comments across when WUWT does comment. One important comment that struck me from Heartlands little treasure trove was this this juicy little gem: “Development of our “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain- TWO KEY POINTS THAT ARE EFFECTIVE AT DISSUADING TEACHERS FROM TEACHING SCIENCE (my emphasis).We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor. Cant have teachers teaching now can we. And pay a lot of attention to the ‘Anonymous Donor’ We will no doubt hear more about them, whoever they are. And generous to a fault: 2006 – $1,559,703 2007 – $3,277,000 2008 – $4,610,000 2009 – $2,170,590 2010 – $1,664,150 2011 – $979,000 Nearly 15 Million ponied up so far to fund the denial machine in just one ‘dont think tank’. Wouldn’t we love to see similar accounts from all the other dont think tanks. In the best of American traditions. You can always get what you want if you are willing to pay enough for it. And so the dumbing down of America continues…. =============================================================== Anthony, when will the new Temperature website be up and running? I'm sure Heartland and their Anonymous Donor would like to know their $88K is being well spent. And nearly $400K for the NIPCC Report. A bit pricy don't you think when the scientists who work on the IPCC report do it Pro Bono. Still $144K for Craig Idso, $60K for Fred Singer, even $20K for Bob Carter down in Australia. One only needs a few nice gigs like that and you have yourself a 'nice little earner' as they say. ============================================================= -
adelady at 14:35 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Stevo@14 "Looking at ..... leads me to feel that the job of sowing doubt has already succeeded. Have people had long enough to make up their minds, set their opinions and move on ...?" I know it's depressing Stevo but there are positive indications. The FUD campaign on tobacco did delay action, but action was eventually taken. These clowns are now fighting a rearguard action in most countries and looking to new markets in others rather than pursuing or expanding a successful strategy. Public views on smoking changed and we now have effective programs in place. My other example might surprise you. Deodorant. No effective deodorants were available in the 50s. By the end of the 60s absolutely everybody used deodorant. Except for a few diehards .... who claimed that such fripperies were unmanly. (I worked with such a bloke in the 70s who used the 'unmanly' argument. Walking into his office on a warm afternoon when he'd ridden his bicycle to work in the morning was a great incentive for concise speech and brief conversation.) I suspect we're moving, however slowly, into the only-the-diehards-say-deodorant-is-unmanly stage of climate discourse. -
Phila at 14:27 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
DaneelOlivaw, I would not condone this type of action and I think SkS and the rest of the (true) sceptical community should make this very clear. Sorry, but I absolutely condone this type of action. I consider it a totally valid instance of whistleblowing. Given the stakes for all life on Earth and the secrecy of groups like Heartland, I think it's not just defensible but necessary. If anyone reading this has access to similar documents, I hope you also find the courage to do the right thing. Just one man's opinion, of course. -
Doug Hutcheson at 14:22 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
It seems they also have issues with freedom of information. Under "Overheads" in the 2012 budget we find:An estimated $36,000 to pay lawyers for litigation over whether Heartland can be forced to hand over records of conversations with a donor of some five years ago. Maureen Martin, our legal counsel, is working with a lawyer in Madison County, which is [d]ramatically reducing what would otherwise be the cost.
They don't like the tables being turned, apparently. -
john byatt at 14:17 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
#1 Dana, Australian Dr Wes Allen "weather makers reexamined" seems to have relied heavily on Idso's misrepresentations of the science for his book of fantasy. . . -
scaddenp at 14:15 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Someone asking Bill Gates about Microsoft funding Heartland? Not exactly in line with Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation I would have thought. -
Norman at 14:15 PM on 15 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
muoncounter @65 Ok, I am done. Sorry for the off-topic chatter. Daniel Bailey does frequently warn me to stay on topic. Tom Curtis @63, Thanks for the link to the Konikow paper, I did read it. -
Tom Curtis at 14:11 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
DaneelOlivaw @20, there is a difference between the University of East Anglia emails, which where hacked (aka, stolen) and these which are reported to have been leaked. As such, the proper comparison (if you want one) is not to the UEA emails, but to the leaking of the Round 0 draft of the next IPCC report. There is an issue about leaked documents, ie, do they represent an illegitimate violation of confidentiality, or are they whistle blowing on matters kept secret in which there is a legitimate public interest in their disclosure. On the other hand, there is no question that hacked information is stolen; and once stolen their leaking may be an illegitimate violation of confidentiality or legitimate whistle blowing, but that does not change the nature of the original criminal offense. -
Steve L at 14:04 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
DaneelOlivaw -- I agree that stealing is bad. Do you know these were stolen? When can it be confirmed that these documents were or were not stolen. -
DaneelOlivaw at 13:54 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I would add that this documents, just as the climategate emails, were stolen. I would not condone this type of action and I think SkS and the rest of the (true) sceptical community should make this very clear. That said, Holly Sh*t -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:48 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Australian readers will be interested in part of the 2012 funding for the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), showing links between Heartland and our very own IPA (Institute of Public Affairs):
The anti-science brigade have long arms and deep pockets.Table 3. 2012 Personnel Budget for NIPCC Project Payment/month Name Chapter Institution Country $1,667 Robert Carter Co-Editor James Cook University & Institute for Public Affairs Australia -
JP40 at 13:40 PM on 15 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Getting off coal and oil electricity is what I meant. The main issue with efficiency is efficiently transfering the high-energy protons to electric current. Of course, if less than 1 percent of the money that goes into Tritium-Deuterium fusion, those issues would be solved much quicker than with only 1 colege professor and 5 graduate student working on them. Here is a link to a page you might want to read. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/536/1 -
muoncounter at 13:40 PM on 15 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman#61: Your AGU reference points up a major flaw in your argument. “The rate of depletion increased almost linearly from the 1960s to the early 1990s,” says Bierkens. “But then you see a sharp increase which is related to the increase of upcoming economies and population numbers; mainly in India and China.”--emphasis added Here's a graph of sea level rise:
-- source
The sharp increase in groundwater withdrawal does not appear in the sea level curve; groundwater cannot be a significant factor.
This off-topic distraction must cease.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:31 PM on 15 February 2012Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
Enginerd @72, it's a bit hard picking out that blue dot siting astride the end of the trend line. But yes, it's there, and the highest to date. -
Enginerd at 13:28 PM on 15 February 2012Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
For what it's worth, the latest data point for sea level was just posted---and it is the highest observation in the period of satellite record. One data point, I know, but we may indeed be heading out of the "pothole". [This is my first time posting a hyperlink using HTML. Forgive me in advance if I botched it...] -
dana1981 at 13:27 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Dale @15:"John Cook should also specify where all his funding is coming from."
Skeptical Science doesn't receive any funding."How many billions a year do Governments spend propping up the AGW message?"
Um, roughly zero?"Also I can't believe you're making a mole-hill over a few million a year."
Just "a few million" from one of the many climate denialist think tanks. Denialist damage control has begun. -
Norman at 13:26 PM on 15 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Tom Curtis @55 Are you certain of your claim in point 1)? "Groundwater is water located beneath the ground surface in soil pore spaces and in the fractures of rock formations." Because it is located beneath the surface of the Earth, it is not subject to evaporation" Here is a study that directly contradicts your view. "Soil evaporation is a significant loss or depletion from the water balance. Most often, this water balance component is lumped together with plant transpiration into the collective term “evapotranspiration (ET).” However, because evaporation and transpiration are distinctly different phenomena, it is useful to consider evaporation explicitly and separately." source. I am sorry to continue to pursue this line of thought but you do question my integrity and indicate I am a dishonest person your quote: "But you have dug your heals in either because you are so intent on deception you do not recognize how transparent you have been, or because you are so foolish that you genuinely do not know what cherry picking is. In either case it makes no difference for the reader, your word, and your data is not to be trusted because you will not, or are incapable of handling it with integrity." I do like your points Tom but it is unpleasant that you think the worst of me. The final point. I reread the post you are bringing up and making the claim I am dishonest. Post @31 here is my claim in that post: "This means that the water pumped out of this aquifier will indeed add to the surface water amount. Yes it will add to the surface storage, the atmosphere and yes the ocean as well." There is nothing false or misleading in this statement. It is a factual comment based upon the evidence presented. The water pumped out of the Ogallala Aquifier will increase surface water storage. What is misleading in that comment or point? That is the only point I made in comment@31. I did not use this example to calcualte SLR, I only may the postive statement that from this particualr aquifier, it will add to the surface water. -
Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Dale @15, neither John Cook nor any other genuine scientist receives money conditional on their "...focus continu[ing] to align with [donors] interests." Evidently funding to and from the Heartland Institute does. This does not mean the individuals involved hold their ideas in order to receive a pay check, but it does mean that their pay check is conditional on their continuing to hold certain ideas. In contrast, scientists are not funded to hold specific ideas, but to test them and see if and how they are flawed. What is more, the quickest way to prominence for a scientist is to show how a widely accepted theory is flawed. Thus the payoffs in finances and prestige work in exactly the opposite direction to the payoffs from the Heartland Institute. The former work in favour of critiquing ideas, while the later works in favour only of preserving certain ideas from well grounded criticism. -
Albatross at 13:22 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
DougH @13, So WUWT is now confirmed to be part of the disinformation machine. Anthony Watts also is lined up to receive almost $100 000 for developing a web-site dealing with surface temperatures. Roger Pielke senior was closely tied to Anthony's surfacestations.org, I wonder how much (if anything) he receive for his efforts. This "debate" is not about science for the fake skeptics-- it is about spin, disinformation, advocacy, ideology and money. EOS. I'd like to see their reports circa 2009. I wonder whether or not hacking the CRU was on their agenda? ;) -
Albatross at 13:18 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
@15, And predictably the fake skeptics/trolls descend to try and defend the indefensible and dismiss this. LOL. -
Tom Curtis at 13:17 PM on 15 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman @61, Bierkens and Beek, the authors of the poster to which you linked, are co-authors of Wada et al. They use a slightly refined version of Wada et al's method, adding only the use of water demand as a proxy for abstraction. As such, the are subject to the same criticisms as Wada et al as detailed in the quote of Konikow in my preceding post. Read that quote carefully. Better yet, read Konikow 2011 carefully and pay attention to everything. Finally, water held in dams is water not being held in the ocean. It does not matter where the water comes from. -
Stevo at 13:07 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I hate to be the fly in the ointment here, but I wonder if this revalation is already too late. Looking at reader comments on news sites and blogs over the last couple of years leads me to feel that the job of sowing doubt has already succeeded. Have people had long enough to make up their minds, set their opinions and move on to other, more recently newsworthy topics? I hope not. I cannot back up my conclusions with data but feel that the denialists have given themselves a very strong lead and that few in the media will be bothered to return to climate science as a newsworthy topic. Sorry to be so uncharacteristicaly pessimistic. -
Tom Curtis at 13:06 PM on 15 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
KR @58, for the first time I am going to disagree with you (but not by much). Specifically, I am suggesting that Church et al, 2011 probably gives more accurate figures than Milly et al 2010. There results are as follows:
The figures are not strictly comparable due to differing time periods, so convenience I have calculated Milly's figures for the 1993-2007 interval as a weighted average ((2*1993-2003 +2003-2007)/3). I have also combined contributions from all forms of ice melt, again for convenience of comparison. Finally, I have placed the difference between the equivalent Milly and Church figures (Milly - Church) in brackets after each figure:
Observed: 2.9 mm/year (-0.32 mm/year)
Thermal Expansion: 1.18 mm/year (+0.3 mm/year)
Glaciers & Icesheets: 1.5 mm/year (-0.23 mm/year)
In each case Milly's results are within the error bounds of Church et al's analysis, hence the small disagreement. In both cases, the GRACE analysis discussed in the OP strongly suggests that they have overestimated the contribution of ice melt. Specifically, over the period of the GRACE analysis, total ice melt contribution to sea level was 1.5 mm per year. Over the most comparable period from Milly et al (2003-2007) the combined ice contribution was 2.1 mm per year, suggesting Milly has over estimated the ice contribution by 40%, while Church has overestimated it by 61%. That would suggest that Church et al's residual for tidal gauges and satellite measurements should be around 1.35 mm per year, which is a large hole in their budget.
It should be emphasized that these figures are approximate only because, firstly the periods of analysis do not strictly correspond, and secondly because of the short duration of the GRACE study which means it is significantly influence by short term effects. In particular, the GRACE analysis includes the very wet Asian Monsoon of 2010 which is likely to have contributed substantially to snow fall in the Himalayas, significantly altering the glacial mass balance compared to the preceding decade. Never-the-less there is clearly still some way to go before we can be entirely confident in Sea Level budgets.
Finally, you will have noticed that Church et al show a greater contribution to sea level rise from ground water depletion than to Milly et al, but that net contribution from terrestial storage is negative. Church's estimate is based on that in Konikow 2011, with Konikow being a co-author of Church et al. (More on Konikow 2011 later.)
I notice that Norman now pins his confidence in Wada et al, 2010. In doing so, he ignores the careful analysis by Wada comparing (surprise, surprise)recharge to abstraction (withdrawals). Further, he quotes a document that concludes global groundwater depletion was 243-323 km^2/year with an annual contribution to sea level rise of 0.8 mm/year as supporting his claims that groundwater depletion was about 545 km^3/year, and the sea level contribution was 1.52 mm/year. He is also citing a paper that claims that groundwater depletion averages at 40% of total withdrawals in support of his methodology of ignoring recharge. Apparently he has no sense of irony.
Given Norman's reliance on Wada (a distinct improvement from his previous position if he actually accepts their results), it is worthwhile quoting Konikow's critique of Wada et al:
"The first two estimates are based on a limited number of direct aquifer evaluations. The estimate of Wada et al.[2010] is derived using an indirect, flux‐based water budget approach that assumes that groundwater depletion is equal to the difference between natural recharge and withdrawals—an approach that is not based on observations of groundwater conditions. Recharge values are derived from global‐scale modeling designed to estimate “diffuse” recharge from climatic data and soil properties [Döll and Fiedler,2008]. This methodology does not calculate recharge from surface‐water bodies, nor adjust depletion estimates in accordance with Theis’ [1940] principles, which are applicable regardless of climate (Wada et al. [2010] only allow this for humid climates). Even in the Nubian Aquifer system—the classical example of a fossil groundwater aquifer having no modern recharge—about 25% of the total withdrawals in 1998 were offset by (and derived from) reductions in natural discharge from the system (such as to springs and oases) [CEDARE, 2001]. The global modeling approach to estimating natural recharge also does not account for “non‐natural” non‐diffuse recharge, such as leakage from canals, sewers, or pipelines, or from artificial recharge—none of which depend on climate and soil characteristics inherent in their recharge estimation model. Hence, the flux‐based water budget approach of Wada et al. [2010] can substantially overestimate groundwater depletion. Problems with the approach of Wada et al. [2010] are illustrated by examining their results for areas in the US where depletion data exist. Figure 2 of Wada et al. [2010] shows highest rates of depletion in four areas in the US (red zones, rated at 300–1000 mm/yr of depletion), which appear to include the Los Angeles and San Diego areas of southern California. In the Los Angeles area, depletion is closely tracked by local agencies. These data and analyses (see auxiliary material) indicate that from 1961 to 2008 the cumulative change in storage was an increase of ∼0.20 km3, and in 2000 was a decrease of ∼0.04 km3/yr. This corresponds to a rate of depletion of less than 20 mm over the area of resolution of the map of Wada et al. [2010]. In the San Diego area, there is no large‐scale development of groundwater, and no reported depletion problems of significance."
Konikow uses empirical measurements of groundwater depletion in the US to calibrate his estimates. While superior to Wada et al, this approach of assuming the USA is typical of global ratios between depletion and withdrawals is dubious. Consequently we should also expect further improvements on Konikow's, and hence Church et al, 2011's, estimates of groundwater depletion. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:01 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Not to mention the admission of the existence of a denialist army, as they say they are working incoordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)
(my emphasis added). Do they fund the inciters of hatred, who post email addresses such as Katharine Hayhoe's? Where's my share of the billions supporting AGW 'alarmists' we are always hearing of? I could do with $80K to build a new web site ... tax free, of course. -
Dale at 12:58 PM on 15 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
Shame I can't get to Sydney on that date (was there last week). I'd take you up on the challenge. Come to Melbourne, John. -
Norman at 12:45 PM on 15 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
KR @60 Since you are done posting on this topic. I still feel the need to defend myself from your claim that I am not taking in groundwater replenishment. Also on the impoundment equation, unless they use groundwater specifically for filling of a reservoir, the -0.25 given for impoundment would include all sources of water not just ground water. Reservoirs are generally filled by river flow and the source of this preciptiation is not singular to groundwater, melting ice will also contribute via evaporation of ocean water. Anyway here is the link that shows water abstraction and recharge rates on a global scale. This piece does address clearly Tom Curtis's objection. Nonrenewable water abstraction. Another article from the American Geophysical Union that is supporting the point I had made. American Geophysical Union paper. Considering there are experts in the field that are indicating that a quarter of current SLR may be caused by groundwater mining, maybe you should not be so convinced my position is wrong. It could be wrong but you should be open to that as a real possibility and in the future with more study I believe it will be demonstrated that the position I have taken is the correct and scientifically supported one. Wait and see but keep an open mind to this possibility before you slam the messenger. Thanks. -
Albatross at 12:29 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Deniergate. Heartlandgate. These are incredibly devastating revelations-- next a list of all those fake skeptic scientists who have ties with Heartland please. "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out." This shows the fake skeptics to be total hypocrites when they falsely claim climate scientists play gatekeepers-- they are accusing others of doing exactly what they are doing (also in terms of Heartland et al. falsely claiming that climate scientists are "in it for the money"). It also calls into question the relationship between Forbes and groups like Heartland and WCR. Who else has fallen under Heartland's spell? Why was this information hidden from people? So many questions just waiting for some good investigative reporters to sink their teeth into. -
Bert from Eltham at 12:25 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
This just goes to show if there is a real conspiracy it will eventually leak. Bert -
Rob Painting at 12:24 PM on 15 February 2012New research from last week 6/2012
No Lou, I remarked on much the same thing when Ari was writing the post. A cooling effect of -1.6 W/m2 is exactly the number that Hansen & colleagues have come up with too. It would also explain why ocean thermal expansion appears to have tapered off a bit in the last decade, whilst the contribution to sea level rise from ice melt has accelerated. Meanwhile, of course, the incremental greenhouse gas forcing is growing a tiny wee bit every week. (cue ominous orchestral music..........) We will get around to covering this. Like you say, it seems to have slipped under the radar. -
dana1981 at 12:22 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Deep Climate has a good summary of some of the main documents as well. -
Tom Smerling at 12:22 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
And don't miss this nugget from their Strategy Memo, which John Cook Tweeted earlier: "We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science." "His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Maybe a journalist should give a call over to OSTI at DOE, to get their reaction. -
owl905 at 12:22 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Oh look, another 'gate'. -
Lloyd Flack at 12:16 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Please notice a couple of things. Most obviously, they believe their own bullshit, or at least most of it. And note what is not there, There is no mention of any attempt to understand and explain climate, only of attempts tho attack the current understanding of the climate. This is, as expected, evidence of wanting science to come up with politically palatable conclusions. No consideration of the possibility that they might be up against inexorable laws of nature and might have to modify their politics accordingly. Magical thinking, if they can argue well enough against something then it must be false. -
Lou Grinzo at 12:11 PM on 15 February 2012New research from last week 6/2012
Am I the only one here who thinks the Makkonen, et al.paper on the climate implications of reducing aerosol pollution is terrifying? I'm in no way questioning their conclusions, nor do I mean to suggest this is a very recent discovery. But I find it mind blowing how serious the potential impacts of this factor could be, and how far beneath the radar it manages to fly. The evidence of our "Faustian bargain", as Hansen calls it, has been right in front of us for some time. All one has to do it look at the infamous bar graph from the latest IPCC report that shows the forcing from various factors, and then realize that those shielding aerosols are a very nasty and visible form of air pollution (ask China) that various countries either have been limiting for years or are now starting to get serious about controlling. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:07 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Dana, I'd be surprised if Idso didn't act as a conduit, funneling a chunk of that money on to others. What I wouldn't give to see all of their past budgets as well. I'm sure Anthony will claim that the $88K he's getting is all going towards building this "web site." It will be very interesting to see what it looks like when it's done (if ever, and how much it really cost to put up). I think it's no surprise that their 2010/2011 review has a line item labeled "Contributions to Allies" with $0 in both years. They'd never be that obvious, even on their own reports. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:05 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
But ... but ... (splutter) ... isn't it the AGW crowd who have their noses in the trough of a well-funded conspiracy aimed at world domination? The very idea that Anthony Watts might not have the purest scientific motivations is unthinkable. No, all these documents are clearly forgeries put together by The Cabal in order to discredit the work of real scientists, like Watts and Bolt and Monckton and ... and ... everyone in the Tea Party. Hmph! This cannot go unpunished. Time for more of OUR kind of science: lawsuits and FOI claims and email hacking. We'll teach those AGW-conspiracy chappies to toe the line. -
Bern at 11:53 AM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Hmm, I wonder... will the mainstream media even bother to report this? I'm thinking perhaps most of them wont, unless and until it becomes a big story through the efforts of a few. -
Bern at 11:49 AM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
And they have the gall to accuse climate scientists of being in it for the money! -
robert way at 11:30 AM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Additional information is posted by John Mashley at the following URL: http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax -
dana1981 at 11:29 AM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Stunner #1 - Craig Idso makes a six figure salary from Heartland. Stunning in the large sum of money, and the fact that he's really not that prominent. I don't think Heartland is getting their money's worth on that one! -
scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 15 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
All interesting but still doesnt address the question of would be the cost per kWh of the energy, even when considering just the mining cost alone. The bigger objection is that Kulcinski's reactor is not a demonstration of viability - it needs 3 orders of magnitude more energy than it produces. It shows He3-He3 fusion is possible but not yet that it is practical. I dont think you could regard this as "short term" solution at all. Long term, maybe. Getting off oil isnt really quite so much of the problem. (The price you will pay for it by the end of 2012 will help). Getting off coal is and I think fusion is going to have come a long way very very fast to be competitive in price with that.
Prev 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 Next
