Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

[TakeAStepBack]

By the way, although, the reality is it is not really relevant to the discussion.........theres been no significant warming for almost 18 years.

But don't take my word for it......... that's what scientists at Duke's physics dept are saying........

No significant warming for 17 years 4 months | Watts Up With That?

Could it be...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMpXAknykeg]Sad Trombone Sound Effect - Wah Wah Wah FAIL Sound - Fail Horns - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

Gotta give these meatheads credit for continuing to show up in here on this topic brother.......they get their asses pwned but still show up.

OCD is a fascinating thing........I spend my life around it every day for the last 27+ years in my line of work!!! Its a setting screws thing impacted only via pharmacological aids........but interestingly, it is not an intelligence thing at all.

 

[Bfgrn]

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
Seymour Essrog

 

[TakeAStepBack]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMpXAknykeg]Sad Trombone Sound Effect - Wah Wah Wah FAIL Sound - Fail Horns - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure, provide a link to the theory you claim I support.Just not some polluter funded 'think tank'.

I am skeptical about what you believe. You have already vehemently defended polluters without a PEEP about defending every human's right to breath clean air. So your libertarianism is a defiled or polluted...LOL

Not defending polluters. I'm denying that CO2 is a pollutant. The natural land/ocean exchange of this "pollutant" is over 700GTon/yr.. Man contributes 30GTon/yr. (and of that amount about 30% is misattributed to man because of domestic livestock, but that's another story). Any component naturally cycling to the tune of 25 times MORE than man emits --- is simply not a pollutant.

I watch in awe as the Weather Channel purposely and masterfully conflates "air pollution" with CO2 and AGWarming. You should proud of this landmark deception..

Sorry you rejected your own theory with your past comment about the Earth not being fragile. It IS hard to buy the whole AGW theory when you understand that it DEPENDS on a fragile climate. NOT SORRY that you didn't know that the temp rise from CO2 forcing ALONE is less than 1degC for the next doubling of CO2 (from about 250ppm to 500ppm). And that the NEXT doubling of CO2 will cause EVEN LESS of a temp change..

This is BASIC science of AGW and warmers and skeptics ALIKE ACCEPT THIS BASELINE fact. So I'll leave it to you -- to educate yourself.. But here's a couple hints to get ya started.

From the mouth of the Prophet..

The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:

The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.

Don't like that basic fact from those sources ?? Go digging in the IPCC 2007 report. It's part of WG-1 AR4.. Basic AGREED upon tenet of GW theory.. I buy it. Hansen buys it. It's just that the propaganda for public consumption which you've feasted on leads you to believe that CO2 ALONE is responsible for those hysterical claims of a 6degC rise over this century.

WOW. First of all I clearly stated previously that the 'Earth' is not fragile at all. It can survive 1000 degrees of warming. The 'Earth' isn't going anywhere. It is human, fish and foul that requires a fairly narrow climate to survive. And you DID vehemently defend polluters without a PEEP about defending every human's right to breath clean air when we discussed tobacco smoke.

It seems you are not listening to anything I say, instead you are deciding what I believe and talking past me.

What I believe? This description of a consensus will suffice:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

• "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."

• "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"

• "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked you to "provide a link to the theory you claim I support. Just not some polluter funded 'think tank'."

And what do I get...a LITANY of polluter funded 'think tanks' and 'scientists' who have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change.

Let's take a look at a few, OK?

Dr. William Happer - Chairman of the Board of Directors - George C. Marshall Institute

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation and is a recipient of funding from the oil industry as well as the Koch brothers.

Funding

In its 2006 annual return, the Institute states that its total revenue for the year was $969,923 with total expenses of $877,156. Of its program areas, it reported that $308,819 was on global warming work, $43,000 on general energy policy discussion, $148,729 on bio-terrorism, and $110,841 on missile defense system.

The Institute received $ 7,178,803 in 105 separate grants from only five foundations between 1985 and 2006:

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations - Sarah Mellon Scaife and Carthage Foundation's

The George C. Marshall Institute no longer shows an overview of recent funders, but in 2000 they listed:

Richard Lounsbery Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
American Standard Companies
Exxon Education Foundation
H.B. Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Gelman Education Foundation (Charles Gelman)
Fieldstead Foundation
Historical Research Foundation
Charles and Jean Brunie Foundation

Petro-Dollars

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets lists the George Marshall Institute as having received $715,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

This includes:

$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 1999 for "support for science and public policy education programs;
$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2000 for general support;
$60,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "climate change work";
$80,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "'global climate change program" in 2002; plus a further $10,000 for the Awards Dinner;
$95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003 for Global Climate Change Program
$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation in 2004 for "climate change" and a further $25,000 from Exxon Corporation for "Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities";
$90,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for, according to the Institute's IRS return, "climate change" and a further $25,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Awards Dinner and General Operating Support"; and
$85,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General support and annual dinner" in 2006.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark; his books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".

Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

Respected Global Warming Skeptic? REALLY??


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do me a favor. Name ONE power plant, factory, or polluter that emits ONLY CO2?

My belief is we address pollution. Because if we address pollution, it will take care of 99% of the goals of addressing AGW.

That's a lot of bloviation, but it doesnt state what it is that you think AGW is remediating? Are we talking about 1degC this Century or 8degC this century? The only reason AGW is sucking the air of REAL environmentalism is because YOUR theory has a purposely INFLATED estimate of the warming threat due to CO2.

I refuse to confound REAL pollution and environmental concerns with CO2 emissions. The former has KNOWN limits to toxicity and measurement. The latter is ALL speculation above and beyond the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling that EVERYONE agrees due to the RAW Greenhouse effect of adding that component..

It's to the detriment of environmental causes to bundle these TOTALLY unrelated public risks together for propaganda purposes....

 

[flacaltenn]

Not defending polluters. I'm denying that CO2 is a pollutant. The natural land/ocean exchange of this "pollutant" is over 700GTon/yr.. Man contributes 30GTon/yr. (and of that amount about 30% is misattributed to man because of domestic livestock, but that's another story). Any component naturally cycling to the tune of 25 times MORE than man emits --- is simply not a pollutant.

I watch in awe as the Weather Channel purposely and masterfully conflates "air pollution" with CO2 and AGWarming. You should proud of this landmark deception..

Sorry you rejected your own theory with your past comment about the Earth not being fragile. It IS hard to buy the whole AGW theory when you understand that it DEPENDS on a fragile climate. NOT SORRY that you didn't know that the temp rise from CO2 forcing ALONE is less than 1degC for the next doubling of CO2 (from about 250ppm to 500ppm). And that the NEXT doubling of CO2 will cause EVEN LESS of a temp change..

This is BASIC science of AGW and warmers and skeptics ALIKE ACCEPT THIS BASELINE fact. So I'll leave it to you -- to educate yourself.. But here's a couple hints to get ya started.

From the mouth of the Prophet..





Don't like that basic fact from those sources ?? Go digging in the IPCC 2007 report. It's part of WG-1 AR4.. Basic AGREED upon tenet of GW theory.. I buy it. Hansen buys it. It's just that the propaganda for public consumption which you've feasted on leads you to believe that CO2 ALONE is responsible for those hysterical claims of a 6degC rise over this century.

You are full of shit, as it your source.

Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981

Climate Sensitivity

Hansen et al. discussed the range of climate sensitivity (the amount of global surface warming that will result in response to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, including feedbacks):


"The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm"

This is quite similar to the likely range of climate sensitivity based on current research, of 2 to 4.5°C for doubled CO2. Hansen et al. took the most basic aspects of the climate model and found that a doubling of CO2 alone would lead to 1.2°C global surface warming (a result which still holds true today).


"Model 1 has fixed absolute humidity, a fixed lapse rate of 6.5°C km-1 in the convective region, fixed cloud altitude, and no snow/ice albedo feedback or vegetation albedo feedback. The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is ∆Ts ~1.2°C. This case is of special interest because it is the purely radiative-convective result, with no feedback effects."

They then added more complexity to the model to determine the feedbacks of various effects in response to that CO2-caused warming.


"Model 2 has fixed relative humidity, but is otherwise the same as model 1. The resulting ∆T, for doubled CO2 is ~1.9°C. Thus the increasing water vapor with higher temperature provides a feedback factor of ~1.6."

"Model 3 has a moist adiabatic lapse rate in the convective region rather than a fixed lapse rate. This causes the equilibrium surface temperature to be less sensitive to radiative perturbations, and ∆T ~1.4°C for doubled CO2."

"Model 4 has the clouds at fixed temperature levels, and thus they move to a higher altitude as the temperature increases. This yields ∆T ~2.8°C for doubled CO2, compared to 1.9°C for fixed cloud altitude. The sensitivity increases because the outgoing thermal radiation from cloudy regions is defined by the fixed cloud temperature, requiring greater adjustment by the ground and lower atmosphere for outgoing radiation to balance absorbed solar radiation."

"Models 5 and 6 illustrate snow/ice and vegetation albedo feedbacks. Both feedbacks increase model sensitivity, since increased temperature decreases ground albedo and increases absorption of solar radiation."

Overall Hansen et al. used a one-dimensional model with a 2.8°C climate sensitivity in this study. In today's climate models, water vapor is generally a stronger feedback than modeled by Hansen et al. (i.e. see Dessler et al. 2008) and clouds generally weaker (i.e. see Dessler 2010), but their overall model sensitivity was very close to today's best estimate of 3°C for doubled CO2.

Model based evidence. That's what Box of Rocks believes in. Meanwhile, here on planet earth, observation has deviated from the "most sophisticated of models". So what do modelers do? Well, they turn to the models to explain away why they are fucking dead wrong. If it weren't so sad, it would be absolutely side splittingly funny.

Your ears are shot,, your brain doesn't work and you DIDN'T follow the discussion before LEAPING in to correct something that doesn't need correcting..

OR -- maybe you don't understand how your AGW theory works.. I was chattin with BFGrn and asking him if he realized that the warming from DOUBLING CO2 ALONE was universally agreed to be in the range of 1deg to about 1.4degC.

THat is the warming "trigger" due to anthropomorphic contributions WITHOUT postulated feedbacks or ACCELERATED Climate Sensitivity numbers that you shouted at us.

YOUR theory then decides that this "trigger" causes a FRAGILE EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM to go haywire and accelerate the warming to the 4 or even 6degC levels that everyone is hysterically repeating.

The fact that CO2 alone merely causes a 1.1degC trigger is NOT in dispute. Not on USMB and certainly not in minions and pulpits of the AGW clergy..

Shame you don't understand that part of the "settled science".. You don't look very credible admitting your ignorance of this basic physics part of the issue...

 

[Oddball]

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones, Cardinal of the East Anglia Diocese of the Church of Goebbels Warming : Yes...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A]The Price is Right losing horn - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

Not defending polluters. I'm denying that CO2 is a pollutant. The natural land/ocean exchange of this "pollutant" is over 700GTon/yr.. Man contributes 30GTon/yr. (and of that amount about 30% is misattributed to man because of domestic livestock, but that's another story). Any component naturally cycling to the tune of 25 times MORE than man emits --- is simply not a pollutant.

I watch in awe as the Weather Channel purposely and masterfully conflates "air pollution" with CO2 and AGWarming. You should proud of this landmark deception..

Sorry you rejected your own theory with your past comment about the Earth not being fragile. It IS hard to buy the whole AGW theory when you understand that it DEPENDS on a fragile climate. NOT SORRY that you didn't know that the temp rise from CO2 forcing ALONE is less than 1degC for the next doubling of CO2 (from about 250ppm to 500ppm). And that the NEXT doubling of CO2 will cause EVEN LESS of a temp change..

This is BASIC science of AGW and warmers and skeptics ALIKE ACCEPT THIS BASELINE fact. So I'll leave it to you -- to educate yourself.. But here's a couple hints to get ya started.

From the mouth of the Prophet..





Don't like that basic fact from those sources ?? Go digging in the IPCC 2007 report. It's part of WG-1 AR4.. Basic AGREED upon tenet of GW theory.. I buy it. Hansen buys it. It's just that the propaganda for public consumption which you've feasted on leads you to believe that CO2 ALONE is responsible for those hysterical claims of a 6degC rise over this century.

WOW. First of all I clearly stated previously that the 'Earth' is not fragile at all. It can survive 1000 degrees of warming. The 'Earth' isn't going anywhere. It is human, fish and foul that requires a fairly narrow climate to survive. And you DID vehemently defend polluters without a PEEP about defending every human's right to breath clean air when we discussed tobacco smoke.

It seems you are not listening to anything I say, instead you are deciding what I believe and talking past me.

What I believe? This description of a consensus will suffice:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

• "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."

• "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"

• "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked you to "provide a link to the theory you claim I support. Just not some polluter funded 'think tank'."

And what do I get...a LITANY of polluter funded 'think tanks' and 'scientists' who have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change.

Let's take a look at a few, OK?

Dr. William Happer - Chairman of the Board of Directors - George C. Marshall Institute

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation and is a recipient of funding from the oil industry as well as the Koch brothers.

Funding

In its 2006 annual return, the Institute states that its total revenue for the year was $969,923 with total expenses of $877,156. Of its program areas, it reported that $308,819 was on global warming work, $43,000 on general energy policy discussion, $148,729 on bio-terrorism, and $110,841 on missile defense system.

The Institute received $ 7,178,803 in 105 separate grants from only five foundations between 1985 and 2006:

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations - Sarah Mellon Scaife and Carthage Foundation's

The George C. Marshall Institute no longer shows an overview of recent funders, but in 2000 they listed:

Richard Lounsbery Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
American Standard Companies
Exxon Education Foundation
H.B. Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Gelman Education Foundation (Charles Gelman)
Fieldstead Foundation
Historical Research Foundation
Charles and Jean Brunie Foundation

Petro-Dollars

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets lists the George Marshall Institute as having received $715,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

This includes:

$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 1999 for "support for science and public policy education programs;
$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2000 for general support;
$60,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "climate change work";
$80,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "'global climate change program" in 2002; plus a further $10,000 for the Awards Dinner;
$95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003 for Global Climate Change Program
$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation in 2004 for "climate change" and a further $25,000 from Exxon Corporation for "Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities";
$90,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for, according to the Institute's IRS return, "climate change" and a further $25,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Awards Dinner and General Operating Support"; and
$85,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General support and annual dinner" in 2006.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark; his books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".

Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

Respected Global Warming Skeptic? REALLY??


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do me a favor. Name ONE power plant, factory, or polluter that emits ONLY CO2?

My belief is we address pollution. Because if we address pollution, it will take care of 99% of the goals of addressing AGW.

That's a lot of bloviation, but it doesnt state what it is that you think AGW is remediating? Are we talking about 1degC this Century or 8degC this century? The only reason AGW is sucking the air of REAL environmentalism is because YOUR theory has a purposely INFLATED estimate of the warming threat due to CO2.

I refuse to confound REAL pollution and environmental concerns with CO2 emissions. The former has KNOWN limits to toxicity and measurement. The latter is ALL speculation above and beyond the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling that EVERYONE agrees due to the RAW Greenhouse effect of adding that component..

It's to the detriment of environmental causes to bundle these TOTALLY unrelated public risks together for propaganda purposes....

Do me a favor. Name ONE power plant, factory, or polluter that emits ONLY CO2?

 

[flacaltenn]

WOW. First of all I clearly stated previously that the 'Earth' is not fragile at all. It can survive 1000 degrees of warming. The 'Earth' isn't going anywhere. It is human, fish and foul that requires a fairly narrow climate to survive. And you DID vehemently defend polluters without a PEEP about defending every human's right to breath clean air when we discussed tobacco smoke.

It seems you are not listening to anything I say, instead you are deciding what I believe and talking past me.

What I believe? This description of a consensus will suffice:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

• "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."

• "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"

• "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked you to "provide a link to the theory you claim I support. Just not some polluter funded 'think tank'."

And what do I get...a LITANY of polluter funded 'think tanks' and 'scientists' who have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change.

Let's take a look at a few, OK?

Dr. William Happer - Chairman of the Board of Directors - George C. Marshall Institute

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation and is a recipient of funding from the oil industry as well as the Koch brothers.

Funding

In its 2006 annual return, the Institute states that its total revenue for the year was $969,923 with total expenses of $877,156. Of its program areas, it reported that $308,819 was on global warming work, $43,000 on general energy policy discussion, $148,729 on bio-terrorism, and $110,841 on missile defense system.

The Institute received $ 7,178,803 in 105 separate grants from only five foundations between 1985 and 2006:

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations - Sarah Mellon Scaife and Carthage Foundation's

The George C. Marshall Institute no longer shows an overview of recent funders, but in 2000 they listed:

Richard Lounsbery Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
American Standard Companies
Exxon Education Foundation
H.B. Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Gelman Education Foundation (Charles Gelman)
Fieldstead Foundation
Historical Research Foundation
Charles and Jean Brunie Foundation

Petro-Dollars

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets lists the George Marshall Institute as having received $715,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

This includes:

$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 1999 for "support for science and public policy education programs;
$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2000 for general support;
$60,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "climate change work";
$80,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "'global climate change program" in 2002; plus a further $10,000 for the Awards Dinner;
$95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003 for Global Climate Change Program
$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation in 2004 for "climate change" and a further $25,000 from Exxon Corporation for "Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities";
$90,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for, according to the Institute's IRS return, "climate change" and a further $25,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Awards Dinner and General Operating Support"; and
$85,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General support and annual dinner" in 2006.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark; his books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".

Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

Respected Global Warming Skeptic? REALLY??


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do me a favor. Name ONE power plant, factory, or polluter that emits ONLY CO2?

My belief is we address pollution. Because if we address pollution, it will take care of 99% of the goals of addressing AGW.

That's a lot of bloviation, but it doesnt state what it is that you think AGW is remediating? Are we talking about 1degC this Century or 8degC this century? The only reason AGW is sucking the air of REAL environmentalism is because YOUR theory has a purposely INFLATED estimate of the warming threat due to CO2.

I refuse to confound REAL pollution and environmental concerns with CO2 emissions. The former has KNOWN limits to toxicity and measurement. The latter is ALL speculation above and beyond the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling that EVERYONE agrees due to the RAW Greenhouse effect of adding that component..

It's to the detriment of environmental causes to bundle these TOTALLY unrelated public risks together for propaganda purposes....

Do me a favor. Name ONE power plant, factory, or polluter that emits ONLY CO2?

That's an easy one Dr. Doom.. Newly built Hydro facilities. For some odd reason, its only recently dawned on science that flooding massive sq miles of vegetation will produce CO2 rich water for DECADES. And the CO2 emissions from such a power source is actually quite massive..

Not that has any bearing on lumping CO2 with TRUE toxic emissions. THat's just fraud and misrepresentation.. Just like claiming hydro as a "clean" renewal GW friendly "alternative" like the state of Cali does...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now if you like, I can supply literally thousands of scientific papers showing the effects of a warming earth.

How many of them point out the advantages of a longer growing season to food production?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another couple of inchs of rain in the northern tier in 2011, and the price tag would have seemed minor.

Strange, I thought that most of the models actually predict less rainfall in the norther hemisphere. Are you using those imaginary models again?

 

[Old Rocks]

Another couple of inchs of rain in the northern tier in 2011, and the price tag would have seemed minor.

Strange, I thought that most of the models actually predict less rainfall in the norther hemisphere. Are you using those imaginary models again?

Dumb fuck. The Fort Peck dam spillway was starting to fail. That is an earthfill dam. Had the spillway failed, the dam would have washed out, and every dam downstream is also earth fill. Every major city on the Missouri, and the Mississippi south of the junction of the Missouri and Mississippi would have been flooded. That would have been our first trillion dollar weather event.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's a lot of bloviation, but it doesnt state what it is that you think AGW is remediating? Are we talking about 1degC this Century or 8degC this century? The only reason AGW is sucking the air of REAL environmentalism is because YOUR theory has a purposely INFLATED estimate of the warming threat due to CO2.

I refuse to confound REAL pollution and environmental concerns with CO2 emissions. The former has KNOWN limits to toxicity and measurement. The latter is ALL speculation above and beyond the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling that EVERYONE agrees due to the RAW Greenhouse effect of adding that component..

It's to the detriment of environmental causes to bundle these TOTALLY unrelated public risks together for propaganda purposes....

Do me a favor. Name ONE power plant, factory, or polluter that emits ONLY CO2?

That's an easy one Dr. Doom.. Newly built Hydro facilities. For some odd reason, its only recently dawned on science that flooding massive sq miles of vegetation will produce CO2 rich water for DECADES. And the CO2 emissions from such a power source is actually quite massive..

Not that has any bearing on lumping CO2 with TRUE toxic emissions. THat's just fraud and misrepresentation.. Just like claiming hydro as a "clean" renewal GW friendly "alternative" like the state of Cali does...

Sadly, I continue to have to repeat myself. You seem like an intelligent person, but then you continue to talk past me and ignore what I say. That is not a sign of intelligence, that is more likely to be arrogance and/or dogma.

AGAIN...My belief is we address pollution. Because if we address pollution, it will take care of 99% of the goals of addressing AGW.

I am as far from Dr. Doom as you can get. As I mentioned before (again): The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. With a major investment in infrastructure and clean energy like solar and wind, we could, in a relatively short time have almost FREE energy, Every home could to become a power plant and put energy into the grid. It would be efficient and environmentally sustainable.

Dr. Doom would be the regressive right who falsely believe dirty energy like coal is a cheap energy source. Actually it's probably the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do me a favor. Name ONE power plant, factory, or polluter that emits ONLY CO2?

That's an easy one Dr. Doom.. Newly built Hydro facilities. For some odd reason, its only recently dawned on science that flooding massive sq miles of vegetation will produce CO2 rich water for DECADES. And the CO2 emissions from such a power source is actually quite massive..

Not that has any bearing on lumping CO2 with TRUE toxic emissions. THat's just fraud and misrepresentation.. Just like claiming hydro as a "clean" renewal GW friendly "alternative" like the state of Cali does...

Sadly, I continue to have to repeat myself. You seem like an intelligent person, but then you continue to talk past me and ignore what I say. That is not a sign of intelligence, that is more likely to be arrogance and/or dogma.

AGAIN...My belief is we address pollution. Because if we address pollution, it will take care of 99% of the goals of addressing AGW.

I am as far from Dr. Doom as you can get. As I mentioned before (again): The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. With a major investment in infrastructure and clean energy like solar and wind, we could, in a relatively short time have almost FREE energy, Every home could to become a power plant and put energy into the grid. It would be efficient and environmentally sustainable.

Dr. Doom would be the regressive right who falsely believe dirty energy like coal is a cheap energy source. Actually it's probably the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised.

Didn't talk past you at all.. You imagining crap??? Every word of my last response was in response to your request to "name one power plant ... or polluter that emits ONLY CO2"

When I did so --- you deflect back without a comment. Should I even ATTEMPT to please you in the future?

There is no earthly reason to not finish the clean-up of power plant emissions that we have already accomplished. Without the propaganda about "carbon" and pollution. Mitigating "pollution" by fingering CO2 is gonna lead down some really silly paths. For instance, agriculture is charged with about 30% of man's CO2 load. And LIVESTOCK is more than 1/2 that (shouldn't be with honest accounting for the wildlife it displaced, but the entire game has no honest auditors). You gonna IGNORE those components just to shutter the fossil fuel generators?

Lemme ask you a question... Have you EVER seen the daily production chart for a well built well sited wind farm? Think you can run an advanced society on an energy source that doesn't produce two days a week and every 5th hour?

You got approximately NOTHING that is a TRUE alternative.. Just a bunch of sketchy supplements. It's ante up time and the bluffing is out of control... WHAT are ya gonna replace it with???

 

[Bfgrn]

That's an easy one Dr. Doom.. Newly built Hydro facilities. For some odd reason, its only recently dawned on science that flooding massive sq miles of vegetation will produce CO2 rich water for DECADES. And the CO2 emissions from such a power source is actually quite massive..

Not that has any bearing on lumping CO2 with TRUE toxic emissions. THat's just fraud and misrepresentation.. Just like claiming hydro as a "clean" renewal GW friendly "alternative" like the state of Cali does...

Sadly, I continue to have to repeat myself. You seem like an intelligent person, but then you continue to talk past me and ignore what I say. That is not a sign of intelligence, that is more likely to be arrogance and/or dogma.

AGAIN...My belief is we address pollution. Because if we address pollution, it will take care of 99% of the goals of addressing AGW.

I am as far from Dr. Doom as you can get. As I mentioned before (again): The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. With a major investment in infrastructure and clean energy like solar and wind, we could, in a relatively short time have almost FREE energy, Every home could to become a power plant and put energy into the grid. It would be efficient and environmentally sustainable.

Dr. Doom would be the regressive right who falsely believe dirty energy like coal is a cheap energy source. Actually it's probably the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised.

Didn't talk past you at all.. You imagining crap??? Every word of my last response was in response to your request to "name one power plant ... or polluter that emits ONLY CO2"

When I did so --- you deflect back without a comment. Should I even ATTEMPT to please you in the future?

There is no earthly reason to not finish the clean-up of power plant emissions that we have already accomplished. Without the propaganda about "carbon" and pollution. Mitigating "pollution" by fingering CO2 is gonna lead down some really silly paths. For instance, agriculture is charged with about 30% of man's CO2 load. And LIVESTOCK is more than 1/2 that (shouldn't be with honest accounting for the wildlife it displaced, but the entire game has no honest auditors). You gonna IGNORE those components just to shutter the fossil fuel generators?

Lemme ask you a question... Have you EVER seen the daily production chart for a well built well sited wind farm? Think you can run an advanced society on an energy source that doesn't produce two days a week and every 5th hour?

You got approximately NOTHING that is a TRUE alternative.. Just a bunch of sketchy supplements. It's ante up time and the bluffing is out of control... WHAT are ya gonna replace it with???

Your hydro answer is true, and also based on deception. Not all hydro is the same. And even the worst case scenario over the life of a hydro plant is much more enviro friendly then any fossil fuel.

There is no single clean energy source that will run an advanced society. We need all hands on deck. And a smart grid is essential, so energy can be diverted where needed, shut down where needed. There is also a need for 21st century storage of energy. Parts of Europe are light years ahead of America.

Pollution...there is no silly path away from pollution and there is no propaganda attached to pollution. It is harmful to human, fish and foul. It can ONLY survive by a malfeasance of the free market. There is never anything cheap about it.

The more I hear what you have to say, the more I hear a cynic. No forward vision, no thinking outside the box, no progressive ideas. Just protect polluters at all costs and bury your head in the sand. Ignore real world realities and call them 'conspiracy theories'

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

 

[Avatar4321]

Not that has any bearing on lumping CO2 with TRUE toxic emissions. THat's just fraud and misrepresentation.. Just like claiming hydro as a "clean" renewal GW friendly "alternative" like the state of Cali does...

The lumping of CO2 with true toxic emissions is especially insideous when you remember the amount of CO2 we release into the air simply by exhaling.

Heaven forbid some environmental nutjob gets into power and concludes that the best way to stop CO2 emissions is mass genocide.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not that has any bearing on lumping CO2 with TRUE toxic emissions. THat's just fraud and misrepresentation.. Just like claiming hydro as a "clean" renewal GW friendly "alternative" like the state of Cali does...

The lumping of CO2 with true toxic emissions is especially insideous when you remember the amount of CO2 we release into the air simply by exhaling.

Heaven forbid some environmental nutjob gets into power and concludes that the best way to stop CO2 emissions is mass genocide.

Maybe you could ramp up the hyperbole a little more.

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]


Oooooooooops

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets face it......liberals have a tragic view of the world just about everywhere they look. As such, they tend to embrace anything as long as there is an element of hysterical to it.......Ive always suspected damage from too many viewings of the Wizard of Oz as a kid for these folks. They all think a house is going to fall out of the sky at any moment......and then spend the rest of their lives wanting everybody should be just as miserable as them.

 

[Bfgrn]

Lets face it......liberals have a tragic view of the world just about everywhere they look. As such, they tend to embrace anything as long as there is an element of hysterical to it.......Ive always suspected damage from too many viewings of the Wizard of Oz as a kid for these folks. They all think a house is going to fall out of the sky at any moment......and then spend the rest of their lives wanting everybody should be just as miserable as them.

Total projection. Liberals believe in progress and moving forward. You fear filled right wingers are clingers...cling to guns, cling to coal, cling to dogma and cling to punishment as the ONLY solution.