More CO2 might be good for us in the long run

[Michael Barwell]

Horizon investigates the real dangers of radiation
"Horizon: Nuclear Nightmares (BBC TWO, Thursday 13 July 2006) speaks to a number of scientists who are asking whether we need to think again about the dangers of radiation as there is evidence to suggest that there is a threshold below which radiation may be harmless - or even beneficial."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressre...izon.shtml

[Lauren Johnson]

Yet another AGW denier: Daniel Estulin. It's getting harder and harder to find anyone who accepts a globalist elite perspective, i.e. NWO, are getting on the anti-AGW. It seems to come from Anthony Sutton as far as I can tell. Here is the link Estulin provided from the LeRouche website:

The capitulation of Pope Francis to the British Royal Family's Malthusian princes to Gaia, in his new 'climate change encyclical' Laudato Si' , is an extremely grave threat to mankind, and to human life. The British royal ecologists and their agents for 70 years have been insisting that the human population be reduced over some period to 1-2 billion people at most, claiming this is Earth's maximum 'carrying capacity.' Executing such a Gaia policy means death rates will rise without limit across the planet.
The claim that man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic changes in the earth's climate is one of the biggest, most criminal frauds ever perpetrated in human history. The assertion itself requires manipulation of scientific data, heavy-handed blackmail and fraud to create the false claim of a scientific 'consensus', and the transfer of trillions of dollars from an already depressed world economy into a known scientific dead-end. However, it is the intended effect of peddling that lienamely the rapid 'decarbonization' of the world's economy and stifling the economic growth of the third worldthat will perhaps one day earn those peddling that lie their own Nuremberg trial.

I fully accept the science on AGW. Period. However, it entirely possible and even likely to use it for nefarious purposes.

[Magda Hassan]

Yet another AGW denier: Daniel Estulin. It's getting harder and harder to find anyone who accepts a globalist elite perspective, i.e. NWO, are getting on the anti-AGW.

It is sad to see people siding with the Koch bothers and oil and fracking corporations.

I fully accept the science on AGW. Period. However, it entirely possible and even likely to use it for nefarious purposes.

Undoubtedly so. Just look at Emissions Trading Schemes. Does nothing for the environment but Goldman Sachs just loves it.

[Magda Hassan]

I remember watching 'Who Killed the Electric Car' and there was some discussion about well, they have the technology to mass produce electric cars and the consumers who want to buy them and make the internal combustion engine cars obsolete so why don't they? He suggested there was still a lot of oil in the ground and the oil interests still wanted to make their money out of that. So first they go hybrid engine to maximise the profits remaining for the oil people. I'm sure the road to zero emissions is paved with such decisions.

[Lauren Johnson]

Stunning photo essay[URL="https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/lake-poopo-dries-up?utm_content=buffer3c7fb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer"]

Lake Poopo gone[/URL]

[Magda Hassan]

Chart Shows Why 'CO2 is Good' For Climate Science Denial Groups Funded By Exxon and Kochs

By Graham Readfearn Monday, January 11, 2016 - 12:51




What difference does influential corporate cash make to the arguments that climate science denial groups make in public?
This was a question that Yale University's Dr Justin Farrell tried to answer in an exhaustive piece of research published late last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Farrell's paper - Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change contained this remarkable chart, which I missed at the time but reckon it deserves a bit more daylight.

So what's it all about?
From previous academic papers and his own research, Farrell had compiled a list of 164 organisations that were part of the "climate counter-movement".
The list includes US groups like the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, together with a few non-US groups including the UK's Global Warming Policy Foundation and Australia's Institute of Public Affairs.
Then Farrell looked at which of these organisations had received money from either oil giant Exxon Mobil or from groups linked to the Koch brothers the billionaire owners of the oil, gas and petrochemical conglomerate Koch Industries.
"Donations from these corporate benefactors signals entry into a powerful network of influence," wrote Farrell. Farrell found that 84 of those 164 organisations were part of that "powerful network" having taken funding from Exxon, the Kochs, or from both.
Then Farrell compiled a huge dataset of "every text about climate change produced by every organization between 1993 and 2013" that's 40,785 texts with more than 39 million words. Thankfully Farrell didn't have to read all that bilge.
Instead, he used some clever and sophisticated algorithms and computer content analysis to do it for him. With this dataset and method, Farrell looked at how often these 164 organisations covered particular issues.
Did the organisations that took cash from the Kochs or Exxon behave differently to those that were not funded as part of that "powerful network of influence"?
Two arguments in particular seemed to stand out. Organisations that took that influential funding were far more likely to use that disingenuous climate science denialist talking point that CO2 is good for the planet. That's the chart above.
Another favourite contrarian talking point that climate change was just part of a natural long term cycle rather than being driven by humans was also more popular among the Exxon/Koch group. Here's what that looked like.

Now of course, it's possible that the corporate funding was not influencing the specific talking points that the organisations were using. Perhaps the fact that they liked to say "CO2 is good" simply made them attractive to funders like Exxon? That could be so, although Farrell tested other favourite subjects too.
For example, funding appeared to make no difference to the timing and frequency of attacks on former US vice president and climate change campaigner Al Gore. Nor did it make much of a difference to arguments about cap and trade laws.
In a separate study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, Farrell looked at how the 164 different groups were networked together.
In that study Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement Farrell found that organisations were more powerful in the network if they had financial ties to Exxon and/or the Koch brothers. In this chart below, the green dots are organisations with funding from at least one of those two corporate players. The red dots don't get Koch or Exxon money.

Koch or Exxon cash seems to help place an organisation closer to the epicenter of the climate science denial movement.
But if you do take their money, then it seems you also have to be willing to deny the science linking carbon dioxide to dangerous climate change.



http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/11/cha...-and-kochs

[Lauren Johnson]

Thanks for @15. Great find.

[Albert Doyle]

2015 hottest year recorded:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/scienc....html?_r=0

[Phil White]

1st post
Hello, DPF.
Let me begin by saying that I do not agree with the theory that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is to blame, or that any warming to date is catastrophic. I do not agree with most of the information which has been posted in this thread. I have been researching the issue at hand for quite some time, and I started from a neutral position. I have never received any money from the Kochs, either. I find the term 'denier' to be disingenuous; I prefer the term skeptic. In my estimation, the IPCC has a mandate which is political rather than scientific. Many of the contributing scientists involved in draughting their reports have migrated away from the organization into the skeptic camp. I believe computer models are over-rated and that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is not pollution, but plant food. (CO is pollution.) Nor do I believe that the world is over-populated. I agree with many of the tenets of globalization yet I oppose it. These are my views and I do not wish to debate them here. There is enough Hegelian argumentation on the subject as is.

"In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774

The 'conspiracy-minded' (for lack of a better term) agree on most aspects of the political and even the financial spectrum yet remain divided on the subject of AGW. I believe this is by design. I do not believe that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is responsible for any warming, however, I do see a possibility for AGW to exist. Despite the fact that man has not influenced the climate to the extent which is portrayed in the MSM, I believe this to be the future intent. Every climate conference to date has been a confluence of lawyers and policy-makers, and each has ended with some new international diktat or other about a global environmental policy which supersedes the law of sovereign nations. Many trade agreements follow the same structure. This is the foundation of fascism, not environmentalism.

Some posit that there is an organized effort to warm the planet in order to further the goals of future hegemons-to-be. This would be accomplished through techniques of weather modification and geo-engineering. Melting the ice caps would accomplish (at least) four things: lessen the population somewhat, and increase its dependance; corner the food and seed market; cash-in on the 'disaster capitalist' derivatives market; and open up an enormous area to mineral exploitation. To wit, from Bloomberg: "The World Has Discovered a $1 Trillion Ocean."

The people participating in the forum at Davos have been assembling a plan to control the resources which would abound from the polar region. My opinion is that whether or not the poles will melt, and whether or not this is due to human activity, these people will do all they can to make it so, and as quickly as possible. (It is useful to remember, at this point, that classified technology is 30-40 years ahead of public information, and on an exponential curve, this makes the potential for current knowledge unimaginable. Google and NASA just verified their proof of concept for a quantum computer, after all.)

Man-made global warming is a possibility and a danger, but not for the reasons we think. The rest remains, in my opinion, a distraction.

[Albert Doyle]

Funny how the trends are coming in right in line with what was predicted.


Just one of those chaotic coincidences I guess...


.