Arresting the boisterous band of lavishly funded climate skeptics won’t solve the problem.
That would be a band of zero individuals.
They should be made to go in public, with a spotlight on them, and get them to explain why they are denying the fact of climate change
That is exactly what we have been trying to do, but they refuse to debate us. And it would be refuting the big lie of catastrophic climate change.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/dont-arrest-climate-deniers
Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those that tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious who comes ambling along.”
– Carl Sagan
Interview with Charlie Rose
Thanks, Scott, for the quote. Carl Sagan published one of our 1980 papers on the enigma of strange xenon and primordial helium.
And… Sagan, I understand, believed in runaway global warming on Venus from CO2.
I don’t suppose the fact that venus is 27 million miles closer to Mr. Sun has any effect
The distance from the Sun isn’t a bug factor. Most sunlight reflects off Venus thick cloud layer, which is why Venus appears so bright in the sky.
steve I hate to disagree with you (i’d rather fight the global warmest) but in rough terms the earth receives about half the solar constant that venus does, The earth reflects about 30-40% back and venus reflects about 70-80% (albedo effect). One of the big differences is sulfur dioxide (SO2). Which has a larger effect (pound for pound) on the greenhouse effect than does CO2.
Scott: Venus has a black body temperature of 184, vs. earths at 254.
As Steven said, most of that extra energy is reflected off.
Venus surface receives little sunlight, and in fact is pitch black for months at a time due to the planet’s very slow rotation. It behaves nothing like a greenhouse.
scott allen,
The temperature of Venus has more to do with the amount of atmosphere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/ (By Steve Goddard)
In fact Steve, I don’t believe that Venus has a so high albedo. When you look at pictures of Earth and Venus, Earth appears brighter. Of course it could be a picture effect. So I tried to find the absolute magnitude of Venus and Earth but I couldnt. Then I looked at apparent magnitude, of Venus and Mars. The first has -4,6, the other -2,9. A difference of -1 means 2,5 times more luminosity. So Venus is 2,5^1,7=4,8 times brighter than Mars. Venus is closer to the sun than Mars, and the solar flux is 4,4 times more important. It’s not enough to reach 4,8, but we are talking about apparent magnitude ! That means brightness seen from Earth ! Venus is about 40 millions kms from Earth, while Mars is about 80 millions kms away… I guess that being 2 times more far away implies 4 times less brightness ! So Mars probably has a bigger albedo than Venus !
Strange isn’t it ?
Very Very true.
Consensus has NEVER been a part of science. It is actually Anti-science.
I read part of the article. Hysterical. I’m going to remember this last comment, and use it for every comment board:
A post on the Heartland Institute’s website links Weinstein to “liberal fascism”: “Liberals who are that soaked in the ideology of catastrophic man-caused global warming are fascists. Full stop.” Even those normally on Weinstein’s climate-change-believing side are pouring scorn in the comments section: “I also want a unicorn. One that shoots rainbow-colored lasers out of its ass.
Fascists and totalitarians are what they are, regardless of what they CALL THEMSELVES.
BTW, ever notice that “progressives” have so many parallels to primitive, tribal, and ever more SAVAGE cultures? Odd that, huh? I thought that was REgressive.
There are so many skeptical blogs with very detailed information. Does this guy know how to read? It already is in public, vast amounts of explanation.
Thanks, Tel.
To turn the spotlight on sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946 = 68 yrs) of deceit disguised as “settled science,” nine (9) pages of precise experimental data [1] were published three months ago to show, beyond doubt:
1. Neutrons repel neutrons
2. Stars make and discard hydrogen
3. The Sun itself
_ a.) Made our elements
_ b.) Birthed the Solar System 5 Ga ago
_ c.) Sustained life’s origin and evolution on Earth after 3.5 Ga ago
_ d.) Still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system today.
1. “A Journey to the core of the Sun,” – Chapter 2: Acceptance of Reality https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
The next chapter – Chapter 3 (in progress): The Forbidden Force of Einstein, Planck and Aston – will show why the integrity of constitutional governments and science collapsed together after WWII, just as George Orwell predicted in the book he started writing in 1946.
So.. skeptics have a massive, well funded campaign, yet they need to be brought out to explain themselves? Apparently the massive, well funded campaign is causing a huge problem, yet it can’t be understood by alarmists.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
The best comment at MotherJones IMHO this
And another great comment is this
Which makes me think of Adolf Hiter and ‘degenerate art’ as well as Lysenkoism.
Correction
Adolf Hitler or maybe Hitter? 😉
He should be careful with what he says: In MSNBC Poll shows 75% sees no threats from climate. These are all deniers. Deniers are the majority of the population. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/quote-of-the-week-mckibben-calls-for-a-climate-strike-while-an-msnbc-poll-goes-horribly-wrong/#more-106822
I was just talking to the lab tech at my vets and mention Gorbull Warming. After Hrrrumphing she said every scientist she knows thinks it is a crock of …..
The last quoted comment appears to be from Richard Feynman.
Kind of ironic, because that is exactly what they are doing. They are going in public and showing the data. Which is all the explanation that is needed.
Over and over, again and again, the Alarmists/Warmists keep saying that we “deny” climate change. NO we do not. We disbelieve MANN-Made climate change.
You have to understand the progressives changed the language AGAIN.
The new definition of ‘Climate Change’
The USA signed on 12/06/92 the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and ratified it in 21/03/94.
That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, end even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.
So we’ve been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people like you an me assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” (their definition) is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, and that may be true, but it might still be that the change in (natural) climate is negligible.
Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated? How the general public is hoodwinked?
This is typical lying by the progressives and they do it all the time. Another example: http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/history-of-democrat-racism/
The fanatics that whipped up this frenzy should have the spotlight focused on them, after this record cold and snowy winter. They are the ones that brought us the hockey stick and “snow is a thing of the past” at the cost of hundreds of billions. They should all be tarred and feathered.
Hmmmm…. Tar…And feathers… Sounds warm. A sort of permanent overcoat to protect against Global Cooling.
There is one thing I can say in favor of the anti-technology shift, the Luddite step into the past which CAGW enthusiasts push for. It is only in today’s high tech civilization that the ignorant and stupid can survive. If we did, in fact, return to the low CO2 society that they long for, they would likely be the first to succumb to being kicked in the head by a mule. Even Jove may doze, but Murphy’s Law will always punish the foolish.
No, there would just be an initial rush, on their part, to man the new Temple, to be priests or shamans, vestal virgins and eunuchs. Or of course to Serve the King at Court, in a lifetime capacity, with one’s Expertise and Sage Counsel. They’re not so stupid they wouldn’t fight for positions of power and control, just as they have done here. The evil that man does is not correlated with IQ; it is a conscious choice, and an easy one for those with the will to do it. And throwing away your reason to blind acceptance of dogma is evil of the first order, in my view, so “we must accept what the experts tell us” is no excuse, when it conflicts with what you can see or find out for yourself.
Boy do you have that correct!
Brings to mind the idiotic mother holding up her two year old daughter to pet the nice Horsey. She was darn lucky the STALLION her daughter was patting on the nose was the old stallion who had a sweet disposition and not the newly bought young stud who would just as soon take your hand off or strike at your head as look at you. Image of a horse striking
City Folk.
Related….A MSNBC poll finds that 79% do not think climate change will threaten their lives. (as of midmorning, 4/2)
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-see-climate-change-threat-your-life-or-well-being
Wow! Don, that is GREAT news! Than means that more than 3/4 of us are members of “the boisterous band of lavishly funded climate skeptics”! No wonder our Great Leader seems so unconcerned about the unemployment figures; most of us don’t need a job, we are already living off of checks from Big Oil! What a country!
Up to 83% now.
I would argue with your idea that venus is not a greenhouse, per se because of CO2, its a greenhouse because of a variety of factors (the least of which is CO2) including pressure (Gail you are correct) but in addition to pressure, is humidity (which runs 60-80%) and SO2. CO2 has a limited ability to hold heat but water under pressure can hold a lot more heat, and does not give up heat readily, add, in the SO2 (which retains heat better than CO2) and you get the heat retention of venus
The climate must be changed. That is they must change this to a climate of fear. They must castigate, accuse, expose, ridicule and threaten anyone who might consider disagreeing with them. This attempt at creating a climate of fear is not so much to change the current skeptics opinion but rather to put the fear into people considering “coming out” as a skeptic. This is right out of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.” Make no mistake, there is an email and phone calls to all the players telling them what they strategy is. This is all about creating fear and keeping people in line.
You mean a spotlight like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or PBS? Bring it!