Jump to content


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

An asteroid strike poses a bigger threat.



Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming


By Christopher Booker


Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.


Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.


Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.


But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.


Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.


How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.


This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).


... snip ...


In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as “the hottest years since records began”. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.


One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.


But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.


... snip ...


To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.


But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.


An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.


Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).


By far the most comprehensive account of this wholesale corruption of proper science is a paper written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?”, by two veteran US meteorologists, Joseph D’Aleo and WUWT’s Anthony Watts (and if warmists are tempted to comment below this article online, it would be welcome if they could address their criticisms to the evidence, rather than just resorting to personal attacks on the scientists who, after actually examining the evidence, have come to a view different from their own).


One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.


In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.


But at least, if they’re hoping to see that “universal climate treaty” signed in Paris next December, we can be pretty sure that it is no more going to happen than that 2014 was the hottest year in history.


Like I've said from the beginning, AGWAlarmism is the biggest scam of all time.


It's instigators should be in jail.


And now pg can provide his usual Truther response. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

dear idiots,


the entire scientific community is not on your side.


all you have it a couple of BOUGHT smucks cherry picking the science of others to deny the very science they say is lies.


Now why can you only find a couple of fvcking smucks in the field to babble your redicules lies?



Yea, YOU keep telling yourself that... EVEN though we KNOW:


1) 500 Million years of geological evidence indicating that WHAT we are experiencing is NOT unusual...


2) Modern day scientist LYING about the evidence that THEY claim "proves" global warming, and THEN switching their arguments from calling it "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" because the evidence became overwelming that the earth was NOT warming...


3) The scientists that STILL persist with the FARCE are ALL sponsored and funded by a federal government run by Liberal Democrats...


4) American BILLIONAIRES (Tom Steyer), who are hevily invested in "green" energy, are donating MILLIONS to Liberal Democrats to PUSH this FARCE...


4) Russian Oil Companies funneling MILLIONS to American "Greenie" groups to FIGHT against fracking and the Keystone Pipeline..


BUT, YOU continue to BELIEVE what YOU WANT to believe... the FACTS be damned... Just don't expect the REST of Us to follow your BS !!

Thanks for labeling yourself so plainly, Manspew. You are indeed a total Nut Case.


NO YOU are mistaken... YOU are the NUT CASE !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming. By Christopher Booker


Like I've said from the beginning, AGWAlarmism is the biggest scam of all time. It's instigators should be in jail.

And as everybody else has said from the beginning, you are a delusional nutjob, a complete retard, and a shameless liar. You are are also a very gullible conspiracy theory crackpot.. You believe cranks, liars and frauds over real scientists.


Christopher Booker


Christopher Booker is a columnist for the Sunday Telegraph in the UK. He also writes regular columns for The Spectator and is a long-standing contributor to Private Eye.


He is an anti-science crank with a range and depth quite astonishing for a journalist of such eminence. Possibly, his long association with Private Eye, which habitually pokes fun at The Great And Good has clouded his judgement. In seeing scientists as "establishment" figures, with their obscure language and ivory towers, he mistrusts them as a reflex reaction. While it is possible to hold plausible opinions on politics without much expert knowledge, the same is not true of science. Many deniers and cranks do not appear to appreciate this difference - Booker is certainly among them.


Climate change denial


Climate change is one of Booker's signature campaigns. He has written a book on the global warming "hoax" that a review in the Observer described as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual".[1]


The book is in fact well argued, well written and thoroughly referenced. It is also complete bollocks from start to finish. His favoured tactic is to misunderstand (being charitable) or misrepresent the sources he quotes. As with creationists, it's only if you check what the references say that the deceit becomes plain.




Booker is a creationist of the Intelligent Design variety. He is not particularly interesting or original in his claims; he merely regurgitates a selection of favourite creationist tropes such as Darwin's "eye problem", the fossil record, etc. As usual, he reconciles this with his world view by blaming the scientific establishment that insists on the Darwinian orthodoxy and resists any challenges to its authority.

His hook for a story in the Spectator[2] was a conference that he attended on intelligent design. This was held at a secret location, with participants that were (seemingly) there by invitation only. The meeting was bankrolled by an unnamed billionaire.[3] Booker seemed unaware that the heroes of his article represented the kind of conspiracy that he habitually condemns. The scientific bodies that make up "the establishment" can at least be named and are not secretive (at least, not in the way he implies).




Denying the health risks posed by asbestos is a fringe activity, even for hardcore cranks. Booker rises to the occasion. Indeed, one of his most famous claims is that asbestos "is chemically identical to talcum powder".[4] It isn't, of course, but this information has not led him to a retraction or even an acknowledgement of his nonsense.


Most people would trust a professor of chemistry to know such things as chemical structure. As a member of the scientific establishment, professors are not to be trusted. Instead, Booker turns to John Bridle, who claims an honorary doctorate from the Russian National Academy of Science and a position at the University of Glamorgan, for his information. In reality, Bridle has no connection to either academic institution: he simply says he has, and he is a known fraudster.[5]


The dubious qualifications of his source have been pointed out to Booker. Facts appear to have little impact.[6] Presumably, he either thinks that a proven liar is a reliable source or he regards this as an attempt by the scientific establishment to discredit him and his source.


Second-hand smoke


Pretty much what you would expect. No evidence that it causes cancer, a cover up to hide the evidence, blah, blah.[7]

Oh, and he's a DDT nut as well.[8]


Crusading journalism


Booker is a persistent and tenacious campaigner for victims of stupidity caused by government and other forms of officialdom and bureaucracy. This is a very worthy aim and he ought to be applauded for it. However, it appears he is just as incompetent and oblivious to reality as with his anti-science crusades. In his summing up on a case where a child was taken into care, Judge Bellamy singled out Booker for criticism:[9]

"Mr Booker's articles contain significant factual errors and omissions. [...] this underlines the dangers inherent in journalists relying on partisan and invariably tendentious reporting by family members and their supporters rather than being present in court to hear the evidence which the court itself hears.




George Monbiot has been a persistent critic of Booker's nonsense.[5][10] In response, Booker has offered a robust defence of his claims, wheeling out a set of unreliable and discredited sources in his defence.[11]




An article written by Booker with Richard North about the IPCC chief Rajendra K. Pachauri was retracted by the Sunday Telegraph on the grounds that it was a pack of lies.[12] This seems to be part of a general attack on Pachauri by climate change deniers.[13]

Link to post
Share on other sites




Like I've said from the beginning, AGWAlarmism is the biggest scam of all time.


It's instigators should be in jail.


And now pg can provide his usual Truther response. :D


Their problems are


1) They don't have useful models to back up their claims, they come up with an idea then look for data to fit the idea rather than the reverse, and they've been incredibly unsuccessful at it.


2) Even if they turn out to be right, they don't have a useful solution.


This is why most Americans either don't care about global warming or don't care enough to worry about fixing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their problems are


1) They don't have useful models to back up their claims, they come up with an idea then look for data to fit the idea rather than the reverse, and they've been incredibly unsuccessful at it.

Completely deranged bullcrap denier cult myths.


Climate scientists have some fairly good climate models that have proved successful at both hindcasting and predictions.


Global warming predictions prove accurate

Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

The Guardian

Duncan Clark

27 March 2013

Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.


The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.


The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.







Even if they turn out to be right, they don't have a useful solution.

More total bullcrap. The solutions to the rising CO2 levels that are driving the current abrupt warming trend are clear....stop burning CO2 emitting fuels and switch over to renewable energy sources.....stop deforestation.....start reforestation.....try to find effective ways to draw down the current massively elevated CO2 levels.






This is why most Americans either don't care about global warming or don't care enough to worry about fixing it.

Another denier cult myth and more total bullcrap.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry religion lover. You can spew your progressive crap all you want cause at the end of the day nobody cares.

Actually, imbecile, most people care quite a bit about the warming and climate changes that mankind's carbon emissions are causing.......just not you bamboozled brainwashed rightwingnut retards.


Many around the world see climate change as a major threat

Global climate change was the top-rated threat in a 39-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in spring 2013.

Pew Research

MARCH 31, 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more discussion of some issues around the similarity of the AGW denier cultists to members of the Flat Earth Society.


Was There Ever A Flat Earth Consensus?

National Center for Science Education

Josh Rosenau

Posted on February 25, 2014

Richard McNider and John Christy, atmospheric scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed defending their climate-change-denying views. The errors there are legion, with debunkings already posted by Joe Romm, Dana Nuccitelli, Scott Mandia, Mike McCracken, and Andy Dessler. McCracken, a member of NCSEs Advisory Council, sums it up by saying, McNider and Christy are blowing smoke.


Rather than re-examining the scientific errors in their discussion of climate change, I want to look more closely at the opening paragraphs, where they seek to establish their credibility using a deeply flawed claim about the history of science and geography. They riff on a speech Secretary of State Kerry gave in Indonesia, where he compared climate change deniers with the Flat Earth Society, insisting, We dont have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society. McNider and Christys op-ed picks up that flat earth theme in the opening paragraphs, and even the title and deck: Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change: It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the consensus and said the Earth was round.


In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the Flat Earth Society for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.


But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among todays scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?


Theres an important distinction thats muddled here, between the Flat Earth Society (Kerrys comparison) and the views of the ancients (McNider and Christys). The International Flat Earth Research Society was founded in 1956 (and relaunched as the International Flat Earth Research Society of America in 1973), and the Flat Earth Society of Canada was founded around 1971, becoming the Flat Earth Society in 1972. Kerry was clearly referring to these groups, which did the bulk of their work and came to public prominence after satellite images of the decidedly spherical Earth had been widely publicized. These groups are a major theme in Worlds of their Own, a collection of essays by former president of NCSEs board of directors Bob Schadewald, who befriended IFERSA president Charles Johnson and (for ethical reasons related to his knowing that the earth isnt flat) declined the offer to take over the societys presidency.


McNider and Christy prefer to take the discussion back to ancient times, when they allege there was a scientific consensus about a flat earth. Christine Garwood reviewed that history in her comprehensive history Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. She notes that the idea of a flat earth is common in Middle Eastern religious cosmologies, including the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians/Babylonians, and early Hebrews. The ancient Greeks held a range of views on the shape of the earth, with some considering it flat, while others insisted it was cylindrical.


The Pythagoreans introduced the idea of a spherical Earth, but not based on scientific measurement. As worshippers of numbers and geometry, the Pythagoreans insisted that the Earth must take on the most perfect shape: the sphere. The idea of a flat or cylindrical earth persisted through the 5th century BCE, but the argument remained focused on questions of philosophy and theology, not on scientific observation. Plato surveys this range of views, and Garwood notes: by the time [Platos] pupil Aristotle was writing, later in the fourth century BC, the globe concept seems to have become widely accepted among educated people.


Aristotle suggests several proofs of the planets sphericity, including that sailing ships drop over the horizon gradually, hull-first, as well as the shape of Earths shadow on the Moon, and the shifting arrangements of the stars at different latitudes. A few early Church Fathers attempted to offer defenses of a flat earth based on allegedly literal readings of the Bible, but they were not influential. Indeed, Garwood argues that these rare voices have been dramatically over-emphasized by later writers trying to construct a narrative of a conflict between science and religion. By the time of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, there was no educated dispute about the shape of the earth, though estimates of its size still varied. Columbus novelty didnt rest in advancing a spherical earth, but in proposing a size for it that was far too small; this strategic misestimation was necessary to justify his belief that well-provisioned ships could reach the Indies by sailing west.


I think we can safely regard the flat-Earth cosmologies of the ancient Middle East as pre-scientific, and not reflecting a scientific consensus of the sort that McNider and Christy are talking about. The debates over the shape of the Earth that prevailed through the age of the Pythagoreans were also not primarily scientific. Indeed, itd be about 2000 years before anything wed recognize as science and true scientific discourse really became established in the West. Aristotle, Thales, and other Ancient Greeks set the stage for science and established some critical early results, but the notion of scientific consensusa shared vision among a community of scholars united through a process of peer review and valuing evidence-driven, repeatable, testable hypotheseswould have to wait for a few millennia. In summary, then, there was probably never a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat, and that idea was first overturned not by science, but by a different philosophical system. Any lessons for modern climate science in that history 2500 years ago are hard to identify.


McNider and Christy are thus wrong on the science, and root their claim to being revolutionary scientists in a misreading of the history of science. On the other hand, John Kerrys analogy between the modern flat earth and climate change denial movements is instructive, a theme Ill pick up in a later post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You silly moron, I do not "keep insisting it's not a political problem". I keep telling you that the science supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists on AGW is not affected by the political dance you denier cult retards and your greedhead billionaire oil baron puppetmasters are putting the world through, as the sane people try to deal with this climate change crisis and the oil barrons try to hold on to their economic ascendency. There are some very serious political problems involved with trying to deal with the crisis but they have nothing to do with the validity of the science supporting the reality of AGW. Because you denier cult retards are so ignorant and distrustful about science, your resistance to accepting the reality of AGW is entirely about your political /economic ideologies and superstitions.



Global warming is a scientific fact and I am appropriately scared. Now what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could start by not being such a retard, JayDumb. Read real science instead of denier cult myths and pseudo-science for a change.

. I read other people's work that you posted here Prof. Pogorocksoff. Really scared like you. Now what?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more relevant material from the writer I just quoted earlier.


Denying the Globe vs. Denying Global Warming

National Center for Science Education

By Josh Rosenau

February 25, 2014

I recently took umbrage at Richard McNider and John Christys claims, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, to being like the scientific skeptics who "dared question" a "scientific consensus" of a flat Earth. The idea of a globular earth was first bruited about for theological/numerological/philosophical reasons, and was established as a consensus well before a recognizably modern science could be said to exist. But what of the claim McNider and Christy were responding to, Secretary of State Kerrys charge that the climate change denial movement is like "a meetingof the Flat Earth Society."



Image via Donald Simanek's site on flat earth beliefs, credited to George Gamow.


That comparison is actually quite instructive. Bob Schadewalds Worlds of their Own and Christine Garwoods Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea survey a lot of this history in great detail; Schadewald, a past board president of NCSE, was close friends with International Flat Earth Research Society of America founder Charles Johnson, and was offered IFERSAs presidency in the event of Johnsons death (he declined, citing ethical concerns given his lack of belief in a flat Earth).


The modern flat Earth movement starts with Samuel Rowbotham, who started developing flat Earth arguments under the pen name Parallax in the 1830s. He arrived at his flat Earth beliefs through the sort of supposedly literal Biblical interpretation favored by modern young Earth creationists (whether he actually believed these religious claims is unclear). He resurrected a geography that is probably not so far from what the ancient Hebrews would have had in mind in assembling texts like the Apocryphas Book of Enoch. Purporting to support that view with observations from flat water in the Cambridgeshire fens as well as Biblical authority, Rowbotham argued that the Earth was flat, with the North Pole at its center and surrounded by an insurmountable wall of ice. "How far the ice wall extended, how it ended, and what existed beyond it were questions," Garwood explains, "that Parallax believed no human being could answer."


And what inspired Rowbothams public crusade? "Evidently an ingenious character, who delighted in controversy and dispute, he could not resist the ultimate challenge of toppling orthodox ideas and a fact so established as the earths rotundityhe had seen the passions that scientific and religious topics could evoke and, moreover, the money that people would pay to listen to a feisty debate on these themes." His 20th-century intellectual heirs shared the religious fervor that Rowbotham drew on in his writings. They had the advantage of being able to tap into the existing creationist milieu, and a large body of people who had committed themselves to the idea that a tortured reading of the Bible was a preferable source of information about the world than empirical evidence. They created their own newsletters and journals.


Charles Johnson, founder of the International Flat Earth Research Society of America, proclaimed himself "a natural sceptic." Johnson, who referred to the globe as a "grease ball" because people would naturally slide off a sphere, explained that he was driven to debunk "Satanic Grease Ball Science" by his having been "plagued or blessed or whatever you want to call it by having a critical mind."


Was Secretary Kerry fair in drawing a parallel between the climate change denial movement and groups like Johnsons? I'd say so. Decades after humanitys role in causing climate change was well-established, they continue concocting fanciful reasons to reject that science. They purport to be skeptics, and create Potemkin journals and conferences to create a semblance of scientific rigor, yet focus their efforts on political and cultural agendas, not on engaging with real science. Just as the flat-earthers piggybacked on the work of creationist groups, climate change deniers could draw on anti-science attitudes stirred up by the tobacco industry, and by a host of industry-funded anti-environmental campaigns.


In the end, the key issue with science denials is how useful the ideas are. Evolution gives us medicine, old Earth geology helps us find coal seams and drill oil wells, globes let us plan travel efficiently and explore the stars, and climate science lets us understand, anticipate, and prepare for imminent dangers. Denying each of those sciences cuts us from those benefits.


That was Secretary Kerrys point in Jakarta:

"Now, President Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society. One of the arguments that we do hear is that it's going to be too expensive to be able to address climate change. I have to tell you, that assertion could not be less grounded in fact. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Serious analysts understand that the costs of doing nothing far outweigh the costs of investing in solutions now. You do not need a degree in economics or a graduate degree in business in order to understand that the cost of flooding, the cost of drought, the cost of famine, the cost of health care, the cost of addressing this challenge is simply far less - the costs of addressing this challenge are far less than the costs of doing nothing. Just look at the most recent analysis done by the World Bank, which estimates that by 2050, losses from flood damage in Asian ports - fishing ports, shipping ports - the losses in those ports alone could exceed $1 trillion annually unless we make big changes to the infrastructure of those ports."


This point is, if anything, even more urgent in schools. Todays school children will be confronting the consequences of climate change for their entire lives. Even if we instantly switched the entire world economy to carbon-neutral energy sources, the inertia of the climate system means that a high school student today would live in a climate shaped by past emissions until well into her retirement. For our children to navigate this changed world, and make the critical decisions they'll have to make, they need accurate information about what climate change is and how it's playing out. Allowing climate change denial into their classrooms, or omitting climate change instruction, holds them back from being able to take part in those crucial decisions, just as surely as it would hold them back to take globes out of their classrooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillary Clinton took more than 200 privately chartered flights at taxpayer expense during her eight years in the U.S. Senate, sometimes using the jets of corporations and major campaign donors as she racked up $225,756 in flight costs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton took more than 200 privately chartered flights at taxpayer expense during her eight years in the U.S. Senate, sometimes using the jets of corporations and major campaign donors as she racked up $225,756 in flight costs.

. Doesn't matter. Like the high-flying Obamas Hillary professes to CARE and BELIEVE in Global Warming. And in a Warmist's world like Professor Pogorocksoff, BELIEVING = DOING something about Global Warming. She and her husband have the carbon footprint of Godzilla and Rodan, but by God they believe!
Link to post
Share on other sites

. Doesn't matter. Like the high-flying Obamas Hillary professes to CARE and BELIEVE in Global Warming. And in a Warmist's world like Professor Pogorocksoff, BELIEVING = DOING something about Global Warming. She and her husband have the carbon footprint of Godzilla and Rodan, but by God they believe!

At the very least, they know enough to say they believe....and the mice follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. Doesn't matter. Like the high-flying Obamas Hillary professes to CARE and BELIEVE in Global Warming. And in a Warmist's world like Professor Pogorocksoff, BELIEVING = DOING something about Global Warming. She and her husband have the carbon footprint of Godzilla and Rodan, but by God they believe!


Link to post
Share on other sites

*********NEWS FLASH*********SHOCKING NEWS*********NEWS FLASH*********

All Of The Rich Use More Resources Because They Can Afford It

The President And Other Government Officials Have To Travel As Part Of Their Jobs

Rightwingnut Retards Astonished

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...