The Greens are losing the international climate fight

And there we have it. No resources. Just “hoax” & ‘belief’. And math that is driven by desire.

And this is from a self identified “… professional skeptics…”

On the other hand, we have nearly two hundred years of research. We have public /government policy. We have businesses and military with developed action plans.

“hoax” & ‘belief’.

Driven by
Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.”
http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en

” “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.”

To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.”

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
By Bart Verheggen

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/there-once-was-a-polar-bear-science-vs-the-blogosphere/
longer
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

…and Then There’s Physics also discusses it at
Polar Bears and Arctic sea ice
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

Well, Robert, I have been fighting climate alarmism more or less full time since 1992, so the reading is rather voluminous. Plus I have done hundreds of articles and original research projects of my own.

The hoax I referred to is that skeptics like me are getting $900 million a year. If that were true we would have stopped your alarmism a long time ago.

My skepticism is very simple. There is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous climate change. I also understand the hundreds of component issues that make up the climate debate, but I am not going to detail them here. Your request is ridiculous, as usual.

Yes.
:)

In fact, that is the same Heartland Institute that has been lying about science ever since epidemiology blew the whistle on tobacco.

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute’s web site, is a nonprofit “libertarin think tank” that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation.

These people represent all the predatory capitalist.

Apparently far right wingers, libertarians and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. Then use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that free market capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done by their product. These people are immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. They are some of the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute_and_tobacco

Oh. Let’s look.

Here I am, no funding. Yet I can present nearly a dozen compilations describing what the science says.

And your retort is you don’t get paid…..
An you can’t even get up the steam to link to one of your articles you claim proves something.

And, of course, conspiracy theory…..

https://www.heartland.org/sebin/l/y/chalkboard.jpg
Young school child pointing out what she learned about climate change thanks to Heartland Institute”s curriculum

“In fact “climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change. ”

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR SKEPTICISM IN SCHOOLS
JUNE 19, 2017
By David Wojick
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/join-the-fight-for-skepticism-in-schools

Yes, we’ve discussed the bit of “original research” you linked to and the quality of the three resources you used.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_greens_are_losing_the_international_climate_fight/#comment-3679180995

And we’ll note the bit of wordplay involved in your 2nd para query .

I mostly do original research, rather than building on what others have done. One reason for this is that to my knowledge no one else in the climate science community is trained in analytic epistemology, philosophy of science and mathematical logic, which are my primary fields (along with engineering). A lot of what I do is actually math not science.

So I am bringing a different set of tools to the job. One of the most important is my work on the logic of complex issues. I know of no other logicians working on climate change. So I am bound to see things that others do not.

“Google Scholar is not useful for finding my stuff”

stuff is right….also right is that you have nothing to do with scholarship or science.

Perhaps speech writing for TRUMP !?

The budgets for DAILY Caller, Breitbart, Twitchy and other PROFESSIONAL Opinion Media exceed $1 billion per year.

“…This Holocene Inter Glacial Warm Period PEAKED in Temps.
about 8000 years ago. Since then, temps have been slowly falling
as we were pulled toward the next ICE AGE…though Earth is still
Being Pulled in orbit away from the Sun…..We should still be colling
but in the mid 1700’s Earth’s MOST powerful natural Cycle,
the Ice Age
was terminated…abruptly…temps started to rise .
.
So Suddenly that people began questioning & Studying.
.
Direct observations
1799
Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that
Human Activites / pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
1799
Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper on observed changes in climate which he stated wasprobably caused by man.
.
….CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.
.
Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths.
.
Ocean and surface temperature measurements are rising.
.
**** These Research studies find the planet ****
continues to accumulate heat. Year after year.

HERE is a line of empirical evidence:
that human/industry CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
**
*
Climate Myth / The Skeptic-Denier position.

There’s no empirical evidence ?
.
“There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions
are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just
concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator,
so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.”
(noted DENIER David Evans)
***
The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:
.
We’re raising CO2 levels
.
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751.
.
CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century,
climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe.
.
Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
.
For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 180-to-280 parts per million.
.
Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased
by about 100 parts per million.
.
Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions.
.
The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the “airborne fraction”, has hovered around 43% since 1958.
.
CO2 traps heat
.
According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory Measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

Human Agriculture & Industry is producing 120-135 TIMES MORE CO2 than ALL of EARTH’s Volcanoes Combined….every year !
..
Leading
Scientists
Questioned
Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
So,
In 1970,
NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
.
Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
.
In 1996,
the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
which recorded similar observations.

Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
.
Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
.
What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
.
This research & paper found

“direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
.
This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
using data from later satellites

Google (Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
Google (Chen 2007 Research Astract )
.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
.
Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
Hence
we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
.
Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
of infrared radiation returning to earth

Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
.
A regional study over the central Alps found that
downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
enhanced greenhouse effect
.
Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
.
Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
.
Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
.
The results lead the authors to conclude that
*
*** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
by global warming.”
.
Figure 3:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
.
This Entire planet is accumulating heat
.
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
our climate accumulates heat.
.
The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
land and ice.
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
.
Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
and heat capacity of the troposphere.
Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice)
were also included.
.
Figure 4:
Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
.
Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
.
From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a
rate of 190,260 gigawatts
with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt,
imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants
pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
What about after 2003?
.
A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed
from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
.
Google (von Schuckmann 2009).

Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat
to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2,
consistent with other determinations of
the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009).
The planet continues to accumulate heat.
.
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
.
So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed
by satellite and surface measurements.
The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
.
Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
.
Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
of infrared radiation returning to earth

Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
.
A regional study over the central Alps found that
downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect
.
Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
.
Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
.
Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
.
The results lead the Research authors to conclude that
**** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
.
Figure 3:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
.
The planet is accumulating heat
.
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
our climate accumulates heat.
The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up
the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
land and ice
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
.
Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
and heat capacity of the troposphere.
Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
.
Figure 4:
Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
.
Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
.
From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
.
What about after 2003?
.
A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from
ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
.
Google (von Schuckmann 2009).

Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat
to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2,
consistent with other determinations of
the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009).
The planet continues to accumulate heat.
.
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
.
So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed
by satellite and surface measurements.
The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

Love it. A degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” says”…no observational evidence of any GHG warming”
And no supporting evidence beyond his own blog article that cites a whopping 3 resources in analyzing “There are at least ten things wrong with these statistical models. These flaws support the view that these crude temperature estimates are simply wrong.”

Your first resource is trying to sell a product.
“Company Reports FAQ
Why this report is so cheap?”

The second utilizes “..experienced online freelance writers who share in our mission to provide content that is not only reliable, but that leaves readers feeling educated, empowered, and understood.” I like the “feeling” bit. But the site looks like it’s there to serve up clicks for advirtizers.

The third looks to be broken or dead.

Really, this is the best a degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” sayING “…no observational evidence of any GHG warming” can offer up in support? Stuff that doesn’t meet even a cursory use of the

C.R.A.A.P. TEST

Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?
Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

Here’s a couple of simple worksheets to print out to help:
http://libraryguides.ccbcmd.edu/ld.php?content_id=14159298
http://www.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf

The 1 big dip in temps….take a look at when Mt. Pinatubo erupted…and cooled the earth

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/CRU_Norway_Raw.gif

Actually you cited your article which says :”
But the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period, where it should be if it were caused by greenhouse gases. The satellites show no warming at all over this crucial time. This zero warming strongly suggests that the surface statistical models are wrong.”

So attempting moving the goalpost a bit, then.
And rhetoric : “..spawned the global warming scare…”

Btw, interesting that you stopped responding : https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_greens_are_losing_the_international_climate_fight/#comment-3679180995

The smart buoys are not geostationary. They could be but it would be expensive. Some are moving as fast as ships because of ocean currents like the Gulf Stream. Stationary buoys would be swimming all the time so probably have to be nuclear powered.

But in any case we are talking about records going back to 1880, so the buoys are irrelevant. Almost all the records are from a few relatively small geographical areas, especially Europe and the US coasts.

My understanding is that the number of stations used in the HadCRU, GISS and NOAA models dropped dramatically over the last 50 years. It is argued by some statisticians that this alone may explain the warming.

The referenced article, which is not long, explains how the IPCC/CMIP modeling rules arbitrarily limit climate change to human causes, especially CO2. Then the IPCC concludes that only humans have caused climate change. This is circular reasoning, concluding what you first assume.

As you can see, my field is not about climate, it is about the reasoning about climate. I am a logician.

I have never suggested that proper sampling of the Earth’s surface would be uniformly distributed. In fact that would also be a bad sample. But a proper random sample would almost always include a lot of places in the oceans, as well as places on land where we have no historical data. Put another way, if we designed a system to properly sample the Earth’s surface, it would look nothing like the hugely lopsided distribution of stations that we presently have.

As for this argument — “splitting data into reserve and working sets to show the results are indistinguishable” — what puzzles me about it is that it cannot happen. If the overall data set has a significant distribution, as the local temperature anomalies certainly do, then the vast majority of subsets of that data will give results that are quite different from the whole set. They will also be very different from one another the vast majority of times.

So if someone is taking random subsets of the temperature data and consistently getting the same result, then something is very wrong.

There is no way to manipulate a convenience sample such that it will reliably tell you what the general population looks like.

Beyond that, I find it interesting, perhaps even telling, that alarmists cannot argue science without adding a lot of insults.

The point of the Red Team exercise is not to create the debate, which as you point out is quite old. The point is to officially recognize the debate, which has yet to happen. We have officially recognized alarmism via stuff like the IPCC reports and the National Climate Assessments, etc. The government now needs to include skepticism.

Debate is the opposite, enemy of science. Debate is the primitive practice of cultish ancient Greek political classes seeking to make the worse case seem the better by irrelevant reference to authority, abuse of logical fallacy, and manipulative appeal to emotion to sway an audience until the next debate. That’s how old debate is, and how wrong.

Science has its audience hold exact solely inference only from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation leads to amended or new inference.

Official recognition of debate? You mean like the Indiana Pi Bill? Of course you do. The fact is that there is official recognition already, from properly appointed jurists, applying the codified precedents of law in such measures as the Daubert standard.

You’re either wilfully ignorant of the actual state of things — which given your famed 1992 story we cannot call accidental or from naivete — or misrepresenting on purpose, again.

This shamelessness of yours, is it rooted only in greed, or is it from some past traumatic loss?

Was your candidate defeated in the Primaries, and you’re still nursing that ancient grudge? Was it Buchanan? Duke?

YOU SAY…I assume with a straight face…though I am smiling broadly at what you just said:
.
“The ocean statistics are even worse”
.
thousands of digital Ocean Buoys track and report a remarkable warming of the worlds oceans.

“….Putting Ocean Heating Into Perspective

The amount of global warming which has gone into the oceans over the past 55 years is quite impressive.

“The global linear trend of OHC2000 is 0.43×1022 J yr-1 for 1955-2010 which corresponds to a total increase in heat content of 24.0±1.9×1022 J”

This is an immense amount of energy being added to the oceans which Levitus et al. put into perspective (emphasis added):

“We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”

Levitus et al. note that of course this heat won’t be instantly transferred to the atmosphere (fortunately!), and that this comparison is simply intended to illustrate the immense amount of energy being stored by the oceans.

This heating amounts to 136 trillion Joules per second (Watts), which as Glenn Tramblyn noted in a previous post, is the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima “Little Boy” atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a 55-year period. And Levitus et al. note that this immense ocean heating has not slowed in recent years – more of it has simply gone into the deeper ocean layers….”

https://skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

The UAH graph shows just what I am talking about. There are three distinct phases.

From 1979 through 1997 we have an aperiodic oscillator. It is oscillating roughly about the -0.1 line, with no warming. From 1998 through 2002 we have the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle, which of course has no trend, being a single cycle. From 2002 until the end there is again an aperiodic oscillation with no warming. But the latter period is around 0.25 to 0.3 degrees warmer than the first flat period.

So yes there is warming, but it is all coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. (If you cannot see this obvious pattern, then I cannot help you.)

There is simply no evidence of GHG warming in this pattern.

Given the flat-step-flat pattern that I just explained, the overall linear trend is meaningless. Science is about specifics.

Plus we now have a fourth phase at the end, the recent El Nino-La Nina cycle that has yet to play out. It too might lead to a warming step, but it is too soon to tell. In any case there is still no evidence of GHG (or just CO2) warming. Oh and the pause is still there between the El Nino cycles, as well as from 1978 to 1997. It is almost all “pause.”

But I see that you would rather shout than listen. A common trait with alarmists.

There are nearly 1000 web site / Opinion Media…designed and funded to propagate the ‘MASSAGE’ of ANTI – GLOBAL WARMING….and INCOSEQUENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE….
…
thousands of blogs where RANK amateurs put their “OWN” spin on ANTI SCIENCE, ANTI LOGIC, ANTI GLOBAL WARMING.
…
TO FEED THOSE SITE, there have been set up 100+-
“THINK TANKS” to Critique any and all scientific reports, to find the most outrageous comments made by outlier science…
to create reports and studies the specifically refute major science studies.
…follow their references only to find that the references,
the appeals to authority…say nearly the exact opposite of what they are used express.

They intend to deluge science with science fiction.

Sorry, I guess I did denigrate SCI Fi….
I like Asimov etc….SHAME ON ME!

Follow the money, honey !!

OK. Now I know what happened in 1992. But I am no closer to understanding why you feel it is so important to fight “alarmism”.

You are a bit like someone standing in a burning building insisting that there is no cause for alarm because the smoke detectors and/or sprinklers didn’t go off.

You also seem to be totally unaware that climate change is a SYMPTOM and not the problem. The problem is that for some considerable time (but especially the past 250 years), mankind has abused the planet, decimating biodiversity through overuse, over-fishing, over-population, polluting the soil, water and air, blowing up mountains, draining wetlands, draining aquifers and on, and on, and on.

Whether the earth is warming due to chaotic climate or carbon dioxide matters only to the extent that we can do something about the latter, and not much about the former.