Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- Are JPMorgan's Losses a Canary in a Coal Mine?
Popular content
Today's Top News
02.01.12 - 11:46 AM
What Me Worry? "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," Say "Scientists"
Tales of Grotesquely Irresponsible Bias: Likening themselves to Soviet biologists "sent to the gulag" for politically unpopular views, 16 prominent climate change deniers took to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue there is "no compelling evidence" we need to do anything "dramatic" to stop "global warming" (sic). At the same time, 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable, but scientifically accurate, essay saying, actually, there is - and the WSJ refused to run it.
Comments are closed
45 Comments so far
Show AllThese guys are scientists the same way that creationists are scientists, and what they expect us to believe is just as ridiculous. The only difference is that creationists are doing it because they believe in superstition, and the climate change deniers are doing it because they are being paid by corporations who find it inconvenient to have man-caused global warming. These people should not be allowed to use the word scientist in describing themselves. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not everyone who has an opinion is a scientist.
These guys are scientists the same way that creationists are scientists...--George A. Markley
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
once i substitute taught in an oklahoma reading class. the teacher had selected an essay about apples. one sentence blew me away, "Many scientists now believe that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was not an apple, but an apricot!"
last night nbc's brian williams wondered aloud about this summer that refuses to go away. he even used the phrase "global warming". however, this 'hummingbird' predicts a short but awesome blast of winter. could arrive this month or might be march or even april. i might miss by a long shot, but i know enough to expect the unexpected!
"Many scientists now believe that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was not an apple, but an apricot!"
Actually, it was not the 'Tree of Knowledge' but the 'Trees of Knowledge'. Collectively, these trees pinpointed and supported our ecological relationship with the rest of the biosphere. The Trees of Knowledge included mangoes, coconuts, papayas, plums, bananas, etc. http://www.zazzle.com/adam_tshirt-235241191830075166
Sorry, couldn't resist.
But, if we could accept the intelligence inherent in Nature and our co-evolved human anatomy, we would be one decided step closer to dismantling all the falsehoods that have led to climate change concerns in the first place. http://allinharmony.org and http://allinharmony.org/from_empire_to_ecology
"Many scientists now believe that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was not an apple, but an apricot!"
But, this statement also reveals something fundamental about making disinformation credible... create two opposing sides, each advancing 'evidence' to encourage participation from the audience. Why? because as one considers which of these two viewpoints is correct, they are not looking for (or open to recognizing) other possible explanations.
"When presented with two choices, always pick the third."
In the case of "global warming', I was presented with some facts often overlooked in the argument between 'deniers' and 'credible scientists'. These facts have to do with the extreme excitement in the US military, governments of Britain, Canada, etc. and some rather huge corporations surrounding the melting of the arctic.
As everyone worries and speculates about our impending doom from 'global warming', preparations are advancing at quite a clip to exploit the resources soon to be accessible... and to protect, secure and regulate the much anticipated opening of the Northwest Passage.
"England called the hypothetical northern route the "Northwest Passage". The desire to establish such a route motivated much of the European exploration of both coasts of North America. When it became apparent that there was no route through the heart of the continent, attention turned to the possibility of a passage through northern waters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
Many people still do not realize that planning for the events of 9/11 spanned at least two decades. And, disinfo scripts were written and widely disseminated (over a period of years) in preparation for the TV spectacular so that reasoning minds could more easily be led to conclusions that would serve the expansion of the military police state and its roll out of many new surveillance and social control programs.
Likewise, I think it is worth considering what we possibly are not being told by either 'global warming' argument. Are there technologies that are being employed in a targeted melting of the ice cap? Might this not explain the 'inexplicable' volumes of dead fish washed ashore and so many other anomalies? What technologies developed in the twentieth century could melt the arctic?
You get massively different opinions even among the best doctors. But, I'll trust the vast majority of scientists, that Global Warming is real. I wonder if any scientists who signed the article are getting funded by oil companies.
Here's the list:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Only a couple of them are even tangentially qualified in climate science! What would Burt Rutan know about climatology?
I had Prof. McGrath for a chemistry class way back in the 1970's at Va. Tech (not "Virginia Technical University"). I recall that he was a rather eccentric sort.
They are getting paid by the oil industry:
The first name I googled - "William Kininmonth oil industry" brought up this article -
DeSmogBlog investigated sponsors behind the conference and found that they had collectively received over $47 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations.
http://desmogblog.com/william-kininmonth
and this one:
Deniers Secrets - William Kininmouth - Exxon Mobile
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Scientists:William_Kininmonth
The winter has been so mild here in SW PA that growing season for some of the hardier weeds never really ended. Crocuses and dafodils are popping out of the ground for Groundhog Day.
64 degrees F. here in south central (Harrisburg) on Feb. 1.
There is only ONE most important issue... The Arctic methane threat.
The Arctic area of Earth is mostly ocean and covers about1/8th of the globe.
In one small area of the Arctic, named the East Siberian Shelf Area, scientists determined there are 1.5 trillion tons of methane hydrates or methane gas, which is safely locked in permfrost or ice in the shallow Arctic Ocean's sub sea floor.
Global warming is a fact, now even the GW Deniers admit that fact, but they say it's not a worry... They are corrupt liars. In reality, they are actually hired asassins.
Global warming is effecting the Arctic region of Earth more so than any other area of the planet and the perennial sea ice and the permafrrost are rapidly melting off.
As the sub sea permafrost melts, the methane gas which has been safely locked in the permafrost escapes into the atmosphere and joins the greenhouse gases in the troposphere.
For the first 20 years methane is in the atmosphere, it is 105 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than Co2 is... Methane gas or CH4, is far more effective trapping the heat which rises from the surface of the planet every day than Co2 or water vapor is..
Scientists were very concerned that human activity emitted 44 billion tons of Co2 in a year's time and a lot of that Co2 was sequestered by green plant life, the rest entered the greenhouse gas mixture in the troposphere.
As the Arctic permafrost melts it is very reasonable to imagine a billion tons of methane gas will escape from the thawing permafrost and enter the atmosphere every year, just from that one small area of the Arctic, the East Siberian Shelf Area.
If scientists were very concerned about human activity releasing 44 billion tons of Co2 in a year, they should be (extremely concerned) about a billion tons of CH4 entering the atmosphere, an equivelent of 105 billion tons of Co2, not just 44 billion tons .. And green plant life does not sequester any CH4, when it releases, it all enters the greenhouse gas mix.
Scientists now estimate the Arctic Ocean will be ice free all summer long by the year 2015, or three more years. Methane gas is already spewing out in hundreds of huge plumes from the Arctic Ocean floor and that will have to accelerate as the permafrost continues to melt even more every year from now on.
The most dangerous feedback loop to global warming will trigger and there will then be nothing at all that can then be done to stop global warming from continuing to very rapidly accelerate until a trillion or more tons of methane gas eneters the atmosphere.
Based upon all of that, the (global warming deniers) who say there is nothing to worry about are incredibly stupid... So are the editors of the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times and other such news people.
At the current rate of how global warming is adversely effecting the Arctic region of Earth, I personally give us no more than 15 year until we humans on Earth will not find it possible to exist, or in other words, a mass extintion of life will once again occur on Earth,,, unless some way is found to stop the Arctic methane from releasing.
Now none of us wants to hear all of that, but that's how it is and there is nothing to argue about (how it is)... Reality is reality... We cannot alter reality.
So, unless something is done very, very soon, to prevent it, you can bet your ass you will be dead by the year 2030, or probably much sooner than that... Be nice to your children, because they also will all be dead.... Sorry, I cannot alter (reality).
This does seem very serious to me, too. Many scientists have reported huge methane plumes in the Arctic. From Yale's e360 Digest:
"In 2010, Semiletov [an oceanographer from the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences] estimated that the emissions of methane — a powerful heat-trapping gas — bubbling from the seabed in this region were about 8 million tons a year, but he said the recent expedition has shown that methane releases could be far higher. “We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale,” Lemiletov told the UK’s Independent newspaper. Scientists fear that continued warming of the Arctic could release so much methane that the global climate could pass a tipping point and be pushed into an era of rapid warming."
We have no snow in Colorado. That means low rivers, which means water shortages in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Water shortages lead to despotism. See Oriental Despotism, Karl Wittfogel. Or for a more accessible example, watch the movie Chinatown.
Rapid global warming not only would destroy the ecological balance, but it will have enormous effects on societies, most not so good.
Don't worry. Jesus Christ will soon return and rule a world at peace for a thousand years.
//* sarcasm off
This planet may be ruined, or nearly so, but just imagine how much PROFIT is to be made betweend now and 2030.
lol I admit I`m shocked WSJ wouldn`t print the article. I would certainly promote it, and have no use whatsoever for the proposition that computer models purporting to foretell the future - a culturally superior crystal ball - conform to the essential need for verifiability required by scientific method. And yes, any number of propositions are made about the nature of Deniers. Nobody talks about how this is not science at all - but orator`s tricks using Strawman Argument.
I decided to read up on what was out there on science blogs. Lo and behold life is not so simple and predictable as represented.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2010/03/climate.html
Your blog is full of crank-nonsense gibberish mixed with outright falsehood from one end to the other. When I see this crap, I despair that we are indeed re-entering the dark ages.
There should always be room for skepticism in science. But the issue of global warming has gone beyond that.
The real questions now are what to do and when to do it. Even these deniers can't say they're 100% sure that global warming is NOT occurring. So, the question is: Is it prudent to wait 50 years doing little or nothing only to discover that the threats of global warming are real?
The reality of global warming doesn't need to be proven with 100% certainly; even a reasonable likelihood is enough that the rational thing is to do as much as we possibly can, and do it now.
Actually, even just a very remote liklihood of the worst-case climate change scenarios, such as repeat of the P-Tr ocean death/extinction event or even just the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, warrants serious action.
A high hazard-potential structure like a dam is not designed for "reasonable" liklihood (i.e. lifetime P>50%) earthquake or flood - or they would fail more than 50% of the time. They are designed to withstand the best estimate of the maximum credible earthquake or storm - events theortically possible only once in infinity. And this is done even if a failure would kill only a few people. If only we would take the same conservative apporach to our oceans and atmosphere. The "failure" of them will kill far more than a few poeple.
And, if you visit the linked blog, it goes way beyond scientific skepticism, and puts forth all kinds of crackpot theories - cosmic rays are casuing the warming, the solar system crossing the glactic plane casuing global warming, then the absurd "the climate has cooled in the past 10 years" (actually 9 out of the 10 warmest years on record were in the past 10 years.
Spreading of nonsense and falsehoods is not "scientific skpeticism".
Yeah ~oldephartte~, I'm not a fan of "computer modeling" either.... However; the more than 400 scientists, most who have earned doctorates in their fields of study, Earth Scienc, Geology, Ocenaic Bio-chemists, etc, who have been studying the Arctic permafrost issue for the past 20+ years, have not relied upon "compute rmodels".
They have conducted (hands on, on site) research and they have taken very careful measurments of how much methane is safely locked in the Arcic Ocean's sub sea permafrost.
And it requires no doctorates or any scientific education, for a half intelligent person to know that when ice melts, anything which was frozen in the ice will be released.
There is ONE issue of the very most importance, the Arctic Methane Issue.... Nothing else matters at the present time... There is no other pending issue that can cause a mass extintion of life on Earth... That's reality.
Oddly enough, on the methane question I have no disagreement. Even the NOAA flags it. - though a physicist writing on such dangers relating to the Deepwater Horizon blowout pointed out methane is soluble in seawater. That would be Dr. John von Kampen at my.opera.com nepmak2000 blog
And to say that my collection runs the gamut of opinion is exactly the point.
When you claim to predict the future - the proof of validity of your conclusions is unobtainable. Likely this is why climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. is unpopular when pointing out modeling lacks essentials like understanding and quantifying energy transfers - let alone projecting from a base as obviously fluctuating as atmospheric temperatures driven by moisture and change of state of water.
When you tell me `scientists say` my reaction is impolite.
I also collected cases where the idea of conspiracy theory is mere recorded instance : not that I understand how anyone can visit the PNAC website and read their mission statement without understanding the role of Think Tanks in driving public policy - including education.
Nor should the mission of UNESCO driving global education - or should I call it social conditioning - be ignored.
But the BBC has been caterwauling about an essentially contentious hypothesis for 3 decades now while the drive to tax energy use is bundled into environmental outrage. What will the effects of this policy be - enabling fraud in trading in plant food justified by alleged scientific consensus and hobbling national attempts at remedial action.
There is no such thing as consensus in scientific method. That is why I collected a variety of articles to show it does not exist outside a designer meme alleging an understanding of natural processes and an ability to predict the outcome of same.
Nonsense. We aren`t that talented. And there are many posts outlining my growing conviction that counter argument is mere propaganda.
But if you want to show my reading is outside mainstream reporting - that`s no chore.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2012/02/1-february-institute-for-southern.html
Do you think those are the interests of one ignoring environmental threats and unaware of the devastation of big business lol :)
@ ("though a physicist writing on such dangers relating to the Deepwater Horizon blowout pointed out methane is soluble in seawater. That would be Dr. John von Kampen at my.opera.com nepmak2000 blog")
That is true in (deep) water... The Arctic Ocean is (very shallow), average of about 250 feet, the Deepwater Horizon well was over 5,000 feet.
In the Arctic Ocean the methane is erupting out of the water and entering the atmosphere, hundreds of huge plumes of methane erupting from the water were counted in just one small area.
No one can predict the future to a positive degree, but I'll offer an anology: Say you find termites have invaded a support post for a back porch of your wood frame house.. You are aware of it and say, "someday we'll have to take care of that".
You know if you don't take care of it that sometime in the (future) the termites will eventually get into the foundation of your house and could eventually destroy the house... You would be predicting the future and you would be correct and you would not require a computer model to do that prediction. Common sense would apply.
Global warming is causing the Arctic perennial sea ice and permafrot to melt away, we know that is a fact... If we don't do something to stop it, eventually enough methane will enter the atmosphere and destroy us, all of us... When is the question. not if ... So we may with justification term that predicting the future and no sensible person should or would argue it.
Fair point on the need for time for absorption - which won`t happen. But you are still saying the mechanism of warming is understood when we both know warming precedes co2 rise by - I understood 800 years ! Rather I still relate much better to the maligned Australian professor who puts himself out in front of ridicule ; and if he`s colourful doing it...tsk.
Have you noticed we have veered to methane from co2 and remedial action from decrying inaction. I haven`t heard of any remedial action worth the power to blow it to perdition. Then again what would such actually be.
Nor have I seen any conscious evaluation of our growing shortage of minerals in an economy torpedoed by killing money supply as signaling a clear change to recession past all experience.
China looks to be in the catbird seat. We aren`t looking nearly as good.
I suspect industry is having its wings clipped just fine.
As far as adapting there is another fly in the ointment which is not mentioned. Check out military secrecy about energy technology advances past certain parameters. Killing innovation seems crazy - but change is the enemy of both monopoly and empire. Anyone familiar with military control of society aka military industrial media banking drug complex etc. knows that things don`t always make obvious sense : from spending wealth killing abroad to neglecting public needs at home.
And if you think that`s conspiracy theory....that`s just as much spin as saying military intelligence is an oxymoron.
You wrote,,, > ("the mechanism of warming is understood when we both know warming precedes co2 rise by - I understood 800 years !").
You are reading and quoting global warming denier's lies... Global warming is caused by an excessive amount of Co2 and or other potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,... You have it backwards.
For many thousands of years the atmospheric Co2 level was in the 200 ppm range.. After the industrial revolution and humans began burning coal, the atmospheric Co2 level began to climg and it is now at the 394 ppm range and that is causing dramatic world wide climate change.
For just one prime example of global warming, about a 100 glaciers in Glacier National Parkk have disappeared in the past 90 years. There are hundreds of othe prime examples of what AGW has done in the past 90 years... And don't forget the acidification of the oceans from burning coal, which is killing the very foundation of life on Earth.
I switched my TV to fox news and they say global warming doesn't exist so I don't have to worry about it anymore, thanks fox news!
I am Buddhist and I do not exist, my Guru is Alfred E, Nueman ( "What Me Worry?"), Bradley Manning look alike.Snark, sort of.
Right off - 7 who signed the letter are on the link below as having been funded by the fossil-fuels industry:
1. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
2. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting
3. William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of
Meteorology
4. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT
5. Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
6. Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
7. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
link:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008
-----------------------------------------------------------
These further names who signed the letter also have direct ties to the oil industry - see link below and explanation of their roles below - some were employees at Exxon:
8. James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University
9. Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences
10. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator
11. Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society
12. Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering
http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008
Roger Cohen and Edward David are both former employees of ExxonMobil. William Happer is the Chairman of the Board for the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received funding from Exxon. Rodney Nichols is also on the boards of the George Marshall Institute and the Manhattan Institute, which has been funded by Exxon and the Koch Foundations. Harrison Schmitt was the Chairman Emeritus of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, which was funded by oil refiners and electric utilities in the 1990s, according to a Wall Street Journal report (via Nexis). Richard Lindzen also served on the Economic Advisory Council of the Center, was funded by ExxonMobil through the 2000s.
----------------
These three on the list are debunked below, reasons listed:
13. Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and
SpaceShipOne
Burt Rutan is not a scientist at all. He’s an engineer who admits that, on the subject of climate change, “I have a clear bias. My bias is based on fear of government expansion.”
14. Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller Universit
Jan Breslow, is a scientist, but he runs a lab that studies hardening of the arteries, not climate. Does Breslow have some data showing that we can understand global climate by examining blood vessels? If so, he has yet to release it.
15. Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of
Cambridge, U.K.
Michael Kelly specializes in the electronic structure of metals and semiconductors, as well as the development of microwave technology. These fields are not related to climate science.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2012/01/30/will-you-believe-scientific-journals-or-a-wall-street-opinion-page/
-----------------------------------------
"Virginia Technical University? No such thing. I assume the WSJ means "Virginia Tech" - or in full, "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University".
Burt Rutan, like so many technical geeks, always struck me as a member of the Ayn Rand cult.
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, is afraid of government expansion?
The aerospace, commercial & private, would not exist without government development and subsidy.
Another white male that owes their livelihood to the government but is anti-government.
Also, Rutan graduated from Cal Tech (a government school) in 1965 and then went to work as a civilian for the Air Force (a government paycheck). The civilian job kept our brave aerospace engineer out of Vietnam.
Burt Rutan is an egotistical asshole who gave absolutely no credit to the engine designer and builder of his around the world airplane, whatever it was called. Norman Schweitz was that individual and it is nearly impossible to find out anything about him on the 'net. I know Norman. I went to high school with Norman. He has very little presence on the 'net by his own design.
I expect better of Harry Schmitt, who was trained as a geologist and turned astronaut/engineer. He has been against climate change since the 70s., for reasons that do are not clear to me. Maybe there is such a thing as moon-madness?
Space launches are pretty bad for the atmospheric environment. They affect the ozone layer, they dump exotic rocket fuel chems into the air that then comes down on our lettuce, and there's the carbon dioxide argument. Harrison Schmitt and Burt Rutan both fear that government regulation will drive up launch costs and injure their careers.
And the last one:
16. William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton
Among the leading lights of the clueless crew is William Happer, a Princeton physicist, who as Chairman of the George Marshall institute, presides over one of America’s leading cheerleaders for Tobacco and oil addiction. Two videos on this page deal with Dr. Happer.
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/01/31/the-wall-street-16-hapless-happer-leads-clueless-geriatrics-in-wsj-fiasco/
-------------
Now the last of the 16 - Happer, is the most interesting. Yes, he's an oil industry cheer leader. He spoke before the Senate in defense of them. I just don't see where he's on the oil industry payroll lists. However, being a cheer leader for them would mean a climate bias. Looking at several links on him, He's been debunked because his work is not related to climate change. He published 1 paper on climate change.
What the dissenters of the Bancroft family feared when the Rupert Murdoch media empire took over has come to pass. Just as with the Times of London, Murdoch's media minions have irretrievably trashed the brand image of a 'news icon' it has bought as it seeks to use said publication's imprimatur to sanitize his pirate capitalism.
For a good debunking of the WSJ article, see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html
The credentials of the "scientists" are as pathetic as their arguments.
Wall Street Journal = Our Corporate Pravda
Today, some REAL climate scientists wrote the WSJ a letter, which they properly published: http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
It begins with a telling line: "Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?"
WSJ is just another Murdoch-owned propaganda rag obvioulsy.
Unfortunately, as the impacts of climate change become more obvious and dire, expect the reactionary denialists to become even more shrill, and if they start to lose their domination of the popular discourse, violent. It is a common psychological phenomenon to someone who clings to an increasingly discredited belief - especially when self-serving ideology is involved.
What do you expect, when the WSJ is owned by that global company, the man in charge is the warming denying octogenerian, Rupert Murdoch. Do you want the truth, or is your News Limited? His primary role is to protect the interests of the 1%. This includes large amounts of the profits in fossil fuel industries, which are to maintain the personal satisfaction of the super wealthy. Its more important to Rupert that the super wealthly have more than anyone else, rather than have serious investment in technology and changes designed to reduce carbon emissions. The US empire is the empire of the "all for me now". Damn the future and damn the inconvenient truth.
WSJ does present known lies as truth, as its main purpose is to tell the suckers where to put the money, so it goes to the investment vehicles of deserving rich people.
The unprincipled reason for the WSJ is that advertisers for fossil fuel companies will be spending big on "keep on burning" and corporate feel good messages in the WSJ, whereas real scientists and research institutions do not have descretionary funds for big advertising. Rupert prints what he is paid to print, and will not print what will offend his payers. No doubt the WSJ article was paid for in some back-handed way. Its is an info-mercial from the Koch Brothers and their like minded rich friends, and has as much truth as found in political advertising. The WSJ refusal to print a rebuttal says a lot about so called freedom of speech in the US. It is only free if you can pay big time. The rich are free to print and broadcast all the lies they want, whereas anything that goes against their lies and money is forbidden.
The biggest fear of the rich is that the government will make decisions causing them to have less money and income. Action on global warming is a very real threat to them. Anything requiring social investment, and some redistribution of wealth is a big threat to them. Any consequences that happen after they are dead will have none of their money or business. With current status quo, accelarating current atmosphere loading of carbon dioxide, global warming is unstoppable. The rich find it hardest to change, as the rich can pay for their denial. Addiction to fossil fuel energy, and a fear of physical hard work and hard times, cause us to bring on the hardest times of all.
I have spent the Austral Summer in Antarctica, and while here, have conversed with many scientists, not just climate scientists. It is now not only climate data that indicate rapid climate change, but geophysical and biological sciences as well.
E.g., the biologists are studying penguin population history, using radiological techniques to map dietary changes of penguins by looking at the last 8,000 years of guano droppings in rookeries. There was a rapid increase in penguin population 300 years ago as man slaughtered seals, and then whales, both natural predators of penguins. Now they are seeing an almost catastrophic collapse in penguin breeding pairs over the past 20 years with concomitant effects on the penguin population. It seems to track with the recent krill surplus which is understood to be driven by recent rapid climate change.
Who would have thought that penguins would be the canary in the coal mine?
combine them with the bees and the birds and all the other creatures disappearing.......................................
The original scientist who resigned, that the article opens with, has never published any work in the area of climate science. His Nobel Prize is from 1973 and he's retired now:
Ivar Giaever is a retired professor formerly with the Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute in the department of Physics. Giaever's field of expertise is in Biophysics—in 1973, he shared the Nobel Prize for physics. Currently, Giaever is the president of the company Applied BioPhysics Inc.
According to Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, the University of Oslo and Google Scholar, Ivar Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.
http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever
------------------------------
The climate change deniers are really grabbing.
climate change deniers
If you don't see that as putting words in people' mouths and claiming victory in a fake arena...it's because you prefer to deny this is a political issue where mutual respect and dialogue are not invited.
Why is the global warming subject made a political issue? Who can we trust on such profound issues?
What will Santa Claus do?
So when Manhattan is under a couple inches of water, how will they explain that? How about when their multi-million dollar beach homes are all washed away? When New Orleans is under several feet of water at all times, not just during hurricanes? When Antarctica has totally thawed and melted? Will they believe it then?
When your body has a disease, it uses antibodies to get rid of it. Think of global warming as mother nature's way of getting rid of an infection called man.
While we're waiting, sit back and enjoy the show. No doubt mother nature has a sense of irony and believes in karma. Remember all of the crackers in Texas and the Midwest dismissing and ridiculing global warming. Remember the brutal heat and drought in Texas last year? They handled it like true texans ... The governor had a statewide day of prayer. No need for any of that science stuff. Especially science stuff like weather models that predict the midwest will be the hottest part of the country. The point is that the bible thumping idiots in places like Texas will be the first to get fried.
I'm looking forward to next summer.
I was amazed at the way James Freeman led William Happer (the way attorneys lead witnesses) in the interview. Happer seemed unwilling or unable to speak for himself.
This incident -- the publication of a "denial" of GW and AGW and the refusal to publish the opposing view -- again highlights the problem of censorship in mainstream media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, major TV networks, etc. We need a study involving refugees from these sources explaining exactly how, and to what extent, they were muzzled. Only if we fully understand how censorship is imposed can we realistically attack the problem. Whatever else you can say, we know such a study won't happen in the MSM.
The Juan Williams case comes to mind. He was booted off NPR because of an off-hand comment suggesting fear of Muslims boarding airliners. I think we have a pretty full understanding of how that happened, partly because the MSM -- particularly, Fox News -- used it to attack "liberal" NPR. NPR also seems to have imposed a rule forbidding mention in its stories that waterboarding is torture. I don't recall hearing about any such control being exercised on employees by, e.g., Fox News. Surely many people are aware of such control and could relate cases in which persons were denied the right to air views contrary to the Fox owners.