Understanding Consensus

The press refuses to report what tens of thousands of skeptical scientists say, because the press believes that skeptics are in the minority. However, the MSM is more than happy to report on the 6% of idiot Republicans in Congress who still support the climate scam, while ignoring the 94% who don’t.

‘A priority for us all’: 17 Republicans introduce legislation to combat climate change — RT America

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Understanding Consensus

  1. Gator says:

    Tony, you are using the wrong math. Actually it is 97% of republicans, you simply forgot to dismiss 91% of the sample.

  2. Brad says:

    RT America- more proof those darn republicans are working with the russians.

  3. Kyle_Fouro says:

    What do you think are the best, non-monetary ways, to support you and other skeptics?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Spread the URL far and wide.

    • Steve Parker says:

      For starters, don’t use the term skeptic. From what I see, the author and most followers of this blog are not at all skeptical of science. We don’t reject science, we reject bullshit. The CAGW crapola isn’t based on science, it’s based on fantasy.

      • Gail Combs says:

        We use ‘skeptic’ because ALL scientists should be skeptical.

        Science is based on validation and verification BY OTHERS who have no skin in the game. ClimAstrologists do not use either one so are in no way scientists.

      • Louis Hooffstetter says:

        This is paraphrased from a good post a couple of days ago.
        (Sorry I can’t remember who posted it).

        What global warming skeptics object to:

        1. We object to insane public policy based on computer projections that have been proven to be wildly inaccurate when compared to observed climate.
        2. We object to fear mongering politicians who constantly use ‘climate change’ for self-promotion and to gain personal wealth.
        3. We object to the use of taxes to fund dubious “science” that supports a political position/agenda. And we object to the vast amounts of money squandered to “find” evidence that humans are responsible for a climate disaster that simply isn’t happening. It intentionally corrupts scientists and demeans science in general.
        4. We object to the ideology that humans are unworthy parasites destroying the planet. And we object to the dishonest and underhanded methods used to vilify and discredit anyone and everyone who questions this cultist belief.
        5. We object to the irresponsible ambulance-chasing style of the MSM, who luridly reports every local weather event as proof of impending environmental Armageddon.
        6. We object to the minority groups that attempt to thwart democracy by shrilly insisting their desires be prioritized over the voice of the majority.
        7. And while global warming skeptics are accused of condemning our children and grandchildren to a fate worse than death (from imaginary climate change), we are the only ones warning that the actions of our politicians and minority groups will have real and crippling financial impact on future generations.

    • Dale says:

      Learn details of some of the more incontrovertible facts- the Medieval Warming, the frozen Thames, the Global Warming “Pause” from 1998-today- and ask True Believers to explain them using AGW. Have graphs showing projections over the last 20 years of warming vs reality of zero warming.

      Good luck!

    • Dale says:

      Ah, yes, a few quotes from Feynman about the difference between science and consensus will impress the Science Nerds. Feynman is a god to them.

  4. Squidly says:

    Well, those stupid 17 Republicans are going to have a difficult time. It doesn’t look to me like Trump will be willing to sign any such bill, even if it were to pass.

    https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/842461602783854592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

  5. eliza says:

    I think it is very important to pursue legally, the fraud which climate scientists carried out at NOAA and NASA and elsewhere ect, to adjust surface worlwide thermometer temperatures to show warming, Only this would actually convince vast numbers of AGW believers worlwide, how they have been had for years. Thanks mainly to yours truly, Paul Homewood, Mahorasy ect who actually checked the data!

    • Gail Combs says:

      I certainly agree that that needs to be done. With luck, if the records have not been all destroyed, it will happen.

    • Griff says:

      You cannot shut down climate science because it is a fraud without an investigation and trials for fraud.

      Or you would be committing the fraud.

      where is the investigation?

      where is the evidence?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Soon , griff.

        Is your real name on the list of climate scammers anywhere, griff.

        I sincerely HOPE SO. :-)

        Karma cometh !!!

      • gator69 says:

        How about we start prosecuting mass murderers?

        Care to tyestify Ms Griff?

        Or is it OK to hate poor brown people?

  6. dave1billion says:

    One has to cynically wonder whether there are “green” companies in the districts that they represent.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Or ‘Other’ strings. Like McCain is funded by Soros.
      https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/10/13/mccain-and-soros/

      According to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, and available at OpenSecrets.org, Soros Fund Management employees donated nearly $40,000 to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
      These Republicans, who are famous for their inflammatory speeches against Russia and Trump. SURPRISE!

      • In July this camel and family will move to Queretaro which is about two hours north west of the federal district of Mexico. We hope you will be able to visit us.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Just did some quick research on Queretaro. Looks like a really nice area! Hope it works out well for you and the family!

      • McCain wants confrontation with Russia. He is pees his pants when Trump talks about “Getting Along” with Putin.

        John McCain and Lindsay Graham need to get over themselves. They don’t represent anyone.

    • Griff says:

      Do you never ask about fossil fuel companies funding campaigns? or think tanks? Or funding anti climate organisations which in turn pay ‘skeptical’ scientists?

      The Koch brothers alone have put tens of millions into such funding.

      • AndyG55 says:

        …Versus how many BILLIONS from Soros, and his totalitarian anti-humanity socialists?

        You really have to get some vague perspective on the HUGE disparity of funds before you stick your foot in your yappy Chihuahua gob yet again, griff

      • gator69 says:

        Please detail the expenditures of the Koch brothers Ms Griff. We already know that government grants go soley to alarmists, and that is to the tune of billions annually, so here is some non-government alarmist funding that eclipses anything the Kcho brothers are alleged to have donated…

        $20,826,664,000 in a Decade, Not Including Government

        The American Land Conservancy issued a $178 million grant to the California Rangeland Trust — Hearst Ranch, the single biggest Big Green grant. (AP File)
        Although the public image of environmentalist finance has shifted from the 1960s Birkenstock-clad hippie, the results of my new survey of Big Green grant amounts may pop a few eyes.

        In the past decade or so, there were 345,052 foundation grants for the environment, totaling $20,826,664,000 (that’s twenty billion dollars and change), according to an authoritative database.

        In the mid-1990s, I began using $10 million as the baseline for a Big Green big grant, which is what I surveyed this week. That was generous for a single gift at the time, but things changed. Generosity had less and less to do with foundation donations as “prescriptive grants” appeared and took command.

        “Prescriptive” is foundationese for “here’s some money to do what you’re told, and we want an accounting of the results.” Environmental groups complained, but pioneer “prescriptivist,” Donald Ross, then executive director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, told an audience of fellow foundation executives in 1992, “Too bad. They’re players, we’re players.”

        Donor foundations formed cartels such as the 200-plus member Environmental Grantmakers Association and the smaller, farther-left National Network of Grantmakers.

        Donors began posting notices saying, “We do not accept unsolicited applications,” and “Applications by invitation only.” Foundations had quietly taken substantial control of the environmental movement by 2000.

        However, I tracked foundation grants to see who was really the power and direction behind the campaigns and protests and lawyers and lobbyists. Today, foundations are the backbone of Big Green.

        My survey found the Pew Charitable Trusts at Number 10, the bottom of the big-grant heap with $40 million to Oceana, a Washington-based ocean-only group formed in 2001 by — who else? — the Pew Charitable Trusts, Oak Foundation, Marisla Foundation, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund — foundations creating Big Green activists to satisfy foundation agendas.

        Number 9: Colorado’s Denver Foundation, a “community foundation” with numerous endowments, as distinct from individual or family endowed “private foundations,” such as Pew and Rockefeller (both types are classed 501c3).

        Denver Foundation gave $50 million to Wildlife Experience, a museum where you go inside to learn about the outside, in five $10 million grants at the same time, a “cluster grant.”

        Number 8: The Foundation for Deep Ecology was created in 1998 by Douglas Tompkins by cashing out his share in clothing firm Esprit in a divorce settlement.

        FDE ranks Number 8 for its $70.1 million gift to Tompkins’ Conservation Land Trust, through which he rules over large swaths of Chile and Argentina that he purchased, generating conflicts with the government over access to resources.

        Number 7: The Walton Family Foundation (WalMart money) gave $118 million to Arlington, Va.-based Conservation International, a group notorious for meddling in Third World countries with orders from offices that field employees and locals do not agree with.

        Number 6: The Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust (fortune of the legendary short seller) gave $155 million in similar grants to the Nature Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Society.

        Skipping Number 5, Number 4 is the Sierra Club Foundation (501c3), which gave the Sierra Club (501c4) and its chapters $186 million.

        The Top Three are computer-related endowments:

        Number 3 is the David and Lucile Packard Foundation that gave $280 million to ClimateWorks Foundation and two others.

        Number 2 is the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation that gave $332 million to Conservation International Foundation and others.

        Number 1 is the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with its $341 million award to ClimateWorks Foundation and others.

        Now about Number 5, which was actually the biggest single grant, $178 million from the American Land Conservancy to the California Rangeland Trust — Hearst Ranch, for a “conservation plan” with a “conservation easement” preventing future development.

        The point of this green-eyeshade bean counting is simple: If you believe the noisy bolster-President-Obama anti-oil-sands Keystone XL pipeline campaign wasn’t launched by a foundation (the Rockefeller Brothers Fund did it), welcome to reality.

        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-10-jumbo-foundation-grants-fund-big-green/article/2534312

        Gaia is doing fine.

        Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Ms Griff regrets, but she is busy right now. She hopes to get back to you in 2018 or 2019.

        • Griff says:

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

          to start with.

          and you can google for many more examples.

          Scientific American is a respectable publication with a long history of supporting science and the truth.

          • gator69 says:

            That’s why you hate poor brown people?

            “Dark Money” is just that, dark. And Fake News!

            This new study and the media reports surrounding it are pure bunk! The study counts all money raised by all conservative groups as somehow being for global warming issues! But the study itself admits this is not true.
            Excerpt: ‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’

            So much for Ms Griff being for science and truth over fake news. She has an agenda, and millions to starve.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The Koch brothers are ANTI-TRUMP Griffy.

        Think about that.

        Most of us are very much against corporations donating to campaigns because they can ‘out donate We the People’ and essentially PURCHASE a Senator or Congressman. Mother Jones has a very good article on the problem link

        Unfortunately the traitorous Supreme Court ruled they could.

        Citizens United v. FEC (January 21, 2010)

        In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010 struck down the 60-year-old federal prohibition on corporate independent expenditures in candidate elections in Citizens United v. FEC. By a vote of 8-1, however, the Supreme Court, upheld the electioneering communications disclosure provisions that were enacted as a part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)…

        A lot more on Major Campaign Finance Cases
        …………

        One thing Trump did was refuse PAC (corporate) money and relied on his own and that of the little guys like us.

        Trump Shattered All Prior GOP Fundraising Records – 2.1 Million Small Donations in 90 Days

        ….All told, Trump is approaching, and has possibly already passed, $100 million from donors who have given less than $200, according to an analysis of available Federal Election Commission filings, the campaign’s public statements and people familiar with his fundraising operation. It is a threshold no previous Republican has ever achieved in a single campaign. And Trump has done so less than three months after signing his first email solicitation for donors on June 21 — a staggering speed to collect such a vast sum.

        “I’ve never seen anything like this,” said a senior Republican operative who has worked closely with the campaign’s small-dollar fundraising operation….

        ……
        Our elections are rigged in such a way that the rich and the corporations can out influence elections via the amount of money donated for use in advertising and other campaign activities.

        (Hopefully I untangled this correctly)
        “,b>An Individual can donate $2,700* per election to a Candidate

        An Individual can donate $5,000 per year to a “PAC”
        “PAC” here refers to a committee that makes contributions to other federal political committees. Independent-expenditure-only political committees (sometimes called “super PACs”) may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and labor organizations. This is the real I gottcha because these “super PACs” can put up advertising.

        An Individual can donate $10,000 to a State/District/Local Party Committee per year and a (combined) $33,900* to a National Party Committee.

        An Individual can donate an additional $101,700 per account, per year to National Party Committee Accounts”
        FROM: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml
        ………….

        As far as I am concerned it should be limited to $1,200* per election per Candidate PERIOD. That would allow the little guy to toss $100/month at a candidate he really likes and not get out classed by a Koch Brother or a George Soros.

      • AndyG55 says:

        The imbalance between climate scam funding and climate realist funding is something like 3000 : 1.

        Tell us griff, how much of that 3000 do you get paid for your meaningless fantasy waffle?

        • Griff says:

          Nothing. Not a jot. I have no connection with any green organisation, I am not paid by an employer (e.g. Heartland) to write on climate, I am in no left wing party I am not a lefty.

          I value science and truth over fake news, propaganda and mindless insult.

          • gator69 says:

            I value science and truth over fake news, propaganda and mindless insult.

            Another lie.

            Here is the truth.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            But you have an agenda, and millions to starve.

  7. CO2isLife says:

    First of all, science isn’t done by consensus, it is done by numbers. Second, real science is done by disproving the consensus.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-the-consensus-is-more-con-and-nonsense-than-science/

  8. Griff says:

    There are not ‘tens of thousands of skeptical scientists’.

    There are a bare handful even remotely expert in the area of climate science or anything related to it and quite a few of those take money from political advocacy organisations opposing climate change.

    • gator69 says:

      There are tens of thousands of skeptical scientsist Ms Griff. You can find them on the Oregon Petition, which has been vetted.

      Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

      The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

      All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

      Now that we have proven you wrong once again, why do you insist on starving 21,000 innoicenrt hmans every day? I have asked Genocide Jim to explain this, and he cannot, he simply wimpers about fossil fuels and then crawls back under his rock.

      Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        And when will you stop lying, Ms Griff?

      • Griff says:

        The Oregon petition is a joke.

        I am honestly baffled you think I or climate science is starving anyone. why 21,000?

        Perhaps I am a poor brown person, for all you know?

        I hope you are giving to the Unicef appeal for starving kids in Nigeria – who are starving due to the vile terrorism of Boko Haram, not climate science, me or climate scientists.

        • gator69 says:

          Good God Ms Griff you are one of the most wilfully ignorant trolls I have ever experienced. How many f*cking times must I repost Lomborg’s TED presentation which clearly states how alartmists are diverting funds that would save 21,000 innocent humans daily?

          These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.
          The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.
          And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

          http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

          Ms Griff, the 21,000 per day is only those who perish from starvation. I have yet to tally up the totality of your genocide which includes those who die from curable diseases, lack of shelter, and lack of proper medical attention among others.

          As for the Oregon Petition, it stands, and has over 30,000 verified signatures of working scientists. Of course you deny this just as you deny natural variability and just as you deny life saving resources to millions.

          Ms Griff, you are the absolute lowest life form in the universe. You are aiding and abetting genocide.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “The Oregon petition is a joke. “

          The Oregon petition was DONE TWICE. The second time to make sure the Commies did not infiltrate the list and to make sure the people had the credentials they say they did.

          If “the Oregon petition [was seen as ] a joke, “it is because of the unethical dishonesty of the left.

          With the recent election of Trump we have seen that the Left will use anything up to and including;
          fires,
          vandalism,
          lying,
          bodily harm,
          vote tampering,
          killing and even starting a nuclear war to try and smear those who oppose them.

          Any positive feeling I might have had for those on the left has turned to disgust and COLD ANGER after the last couple of years. There is no description vile enough to describe the nastiness of the Left.

          The nastiness is so bad, Conservatives are severing long term friendships and even family ties due to the unhinged behavior of the Left.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “I am honestly baffled you think I or climate science is starving anyone. why 21,000?”

          Try following the dots Griffy.

          FIRST
          “Crops grown in the United States are critical for the food supply here and around the world. U.S. farms supply nearly 25% of all grains (such as wheat, corn, and rice) on the global market.’ — www(DOT)epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply

          …..
          Got that Griffy? What happens to US grain affects the entire world. England CAN NOT FEED ITSELF!
          ….

          SECOND POINT — CORN and soyabeans
          One third of corn production in the US is for biofuels.
          (wwwDOT)europeaninstitute.org/May-2008/biofuels-once-seen-as-a-climate-panacea-now-causing-food-headaches-and-transatlantic-second-thoughts.html

          “USDA closely monitors markets for many commodities, including corn and soybeans—important feedstocks for ethanol and biodiesel, respectively. Please note that, currently, cellulosic ethanol is not yet widely manufactured or commercially available in the United States. Therefore, only grain ethanol data are presented here….” (wwwDOT)ers.usda.gov/briefing/bioenergy/biofueldata.htm

          OTHER CROPS DISPLACED BY CORN and soyabeans
          July 13, 2008

          …After failing to block huge new ethanol mandates in the Senate last December, Jay Truitt, until recently the chief lobbyist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, complained about the “fervor” and “spirituality” that surrounded ethanol on Capitol Hill.
          “You can’t get anyone to consider that there is a consequence to these actions,” he said, adding, “We think there will be a day when people ask, ‘Why in the world did we do this?’ “

          Keith Collins was the longtime and widely respected chief economist for the Department of Agriculture….

          …in Rome at a United Nations conference on the food crisis, the agriculture secretary, Ed Schafer, echoed Mr. Lazear’s analysis in defending American biofuels policy.
          But
          Mr. Collins pointed out that the administration’s analysis was more like a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and that it hadn’t accounted for the impact of biofuels on crops other than corn. The push for ethanol has led farmers to grow more corn and less of other food crops, one factor in rising prices for commodities like wheat.

          Based on his own analysis, Mr. Collins maintains that biofuels have caused 23 to 35 percent of the increases in food costs….
          (wwwDOT).nytimes.com/2008/07/13/business/13feed.html?_r=5&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login

          And for those who hate food animals…
          “Domestic farm animals are crucial for food and agriculture, providing 30 to 40 percent of the agricultural sector’s global economic value. Around 2 billion people – one third of the global population – depend at least partly on farm animals for their livelihoods. Meat, milk and egg production will need to more than double over the next 20 years to feed the growing world population.” (FAO press release, Dec. 5, 2000)

          RESULT OF NEW USA AG. POLICIES?

          *******************************
          May 1, 2008, Surplus U.S. food supplies dry up – USATODAY.com The USDA announces “The Cupboard is BARE”
          *******************************

          And so we had the 2008 FOOD RIOTS…

        • Gail Combs says:

          The problem for Griffy is he never figures out WHO benefits from CAGW hysteria.

          For Bio-fuel – FOLLOW THE MONEY!

          Remember I sent you off to a Mother Jones article Griffy??

          …This type of brashness typifies Andreas and his company, whether the issue is possible price-fixing in Bulgaria or influence-peddling in Washington. For no other U.S. company is so reliant on politicians and governments to butter its bread. From the postwar food-aid programs that opened new markets in the Third World to the subsidies for corn, sugar, and ethanol that are now under attack as “corporate welfare,” ADM’s bottom line has always been interwoven with public policy. To reinforce this relationship, Andreas has contributed impressively to the campaigns of politicians, from Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole….

          Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”

          ….For all ADM’s size, the question now is not whether the government can survive without ADM but whether ADM can survive without the government. Three subsidies that the company relies on are now being targeted by watchdogs ranging from Ralph Nader to the libertarian Cato Institute….
          (wwwDOT)motherjones.com/politics/1995/07/dwaynes-world

          Biofuel has paid off very well for ADM.

          August 4, 2010 Biofuels Digest ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve

          Monsanto and Cargill, the grain trader, also had record earnings while there were food riots in third world countries in 2008
          (wwwDot)sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_World_Food_Crisis

          Monsanto Profit Up 23% on Corn-Based Ethanol Demand

          Oct 10, 2007: Monsanto posts record $8.6B in sales

          For the fourth consecutive year, Monsanto Co. reported record sales, the company said Wednesday.

          With fiscal year 2007 sales of $8.6 billion and net income of $993 million, Monsanto easily eclipsed last year’s record-setting sales of $7.34 billion and profit of $689 million.

          Record profits were also posted for Cargill but the link is now dead. (wwwDOT)familybusinessmagazine.com/index.php?/news/single/record_profits_for_cargill/

          And you can not leave out Goldman Sachs…
          FP: How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis

          2006 paper : the CUPBOARD is BARE

          The article reports on the current problems associated with the supply and demand of grains in 2006. According to the projection of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 2006/2007, consumers will consume more grain than it produce in the coming years. Transnational businesses rule world grain supplies and if current trend continues to erode these corporations may not maintain the grip….
          connection(DOT)ebscohost.com/c/articles/23343930/cupboard-bare

          • RAH says:

            I passed a big bio fuel facility in Minnesota. What a waste of soya beans, energy, and tax payer money. Same goes for ethanol from corn. If they can’t be competitive without government subsidies then let them die a natural death and that is exactly what I think the POTUS has in mind.

          • Gail Combs says:

            RAH,
            Here is a comment at CTH you might like to read: link

            Other military type discussion above it.

          • RAH says:

            Here is one to add to your saved images.

          • gator69 says:

            Love it RAH!

    • AndyG55 says:

      You would not have the VAGUEST CLUE about how many scientists of any expertise there is.

      You just make you your own NON-FACTS as you go.

      You are living in a fantasy, MAKE-BELIEVE land as always, griff.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “There are a bare handful WITH NO EXPERTISE in the area of climate science or anything related to it and ALL of those take money from political advocacy organisations SCAMMING climate change.”

      They call themselves “Climate Scientists™”

      • Louis Hooffstetter says:

        We call them “Con Artists”

      • Griff says:

        so people who study the climate, take ice cores, measure wind patterns, look at temp series, look at geology for clues to past climate, etc, etc, etc all those people doing detailed scientific observation related to climate, they know nothing about it? In all those different countries?

        But someone like Happer does? Or someone paid by Heartland does? Or some weatherman on a blog does?

        • gator69 says:

          Ms Griff, the vast majority of climate funding goes to alarmists, by design. If I pay you to produce blue widgets, how many red widgets will you build for me?

          Now back to the science.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Or are you simply hating on poor brown people for no good reason?

  9. TA says:

    I saw one of these 17 Republicans during an interview on tv the other day. A Representative Curbello, I believe his name was, from Florida.

    He is definitely a True Believer in CAGW. He sounded just like the Democrats. Said he was going to talk to Trump about climate change. He obviously has been staring at the Hockey Stick Graph for too long a time.

    The Alarmists would be lost without the Hockey Stick Graph. It’s the only “proof” they have of CAGW, and it is itself a Big Lie created by CAGW promoters to scare everyone. When this Big Lie gets busted the whole House of Cards will come down.

    • Griff says:

      Apart from the surface temperature record, warming seas, retreating glaciers, decline in arctic sea ice, change in species range, change in atmospheric circulation patterns, changes in extreme weather events and all the other hard, observed not modelled scientific evidence.

      What you got? A guy on a blog who says it is all lies? some people who take money from fossil fuel firms and say it is all lies?

      • gator69 says:

        Warming is to be expected as we exit the coldest period in 10,000 years. It is all perfectly natural, all beneficial, and has happened before.

        So Ms Griff, why do you hate poor brown people?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.