Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[jem]

your charts are always suspect fc because you provide no links.
and the construction of TSI data that goes into those charts is a bit suspect too...

so here are some other charts to consider.


http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/sun.php

 

[Snarkhund]

The current situation is clear.

Solar activity is at a historic low and the Earth will cool as a result. Hopefully it will not begin to ice.

Flux density, CMEs and charged particle bursts are as low as has been seen since the Dark Ages and temperatures have historically correlated well with flux density variation.

This AGW guy futurecurrents seems to me to be a kid maybe. The shallow inarticulate comments citing non-peer-reviewed results followed by the hurling of insults when his sketchy arguments are challenged is the sign of teen.

I could be wrong but I think you folks are arguing with a kid.

None of the wild predictions for sea levels or anomalous weather or die-offs of flora or fauna have occurred. Not one. The polar caps have not melted and indeed the South Pole is accumulating ice.

Its all a load of horse shit and nobody is going to accept the stunting of our economic progress over a steaming pile of bad science. Man is going to use every available fuel whether fossil, nuclear, solar, wind et al.

I mean, feel free to argue this for another 97 pages but it should be obvious that you aren't going to dissuade a teenage ideologue from thinking that there is something important or special about his generation and their quest to save the world.

 

[futurecurrents]

The current situation is clear.

Solar activity is at a historic low and the Earth will cool as a result. Hopefully it will not begin to ice.

Flux density, CMEs and charged particle bursts are as low as has been seen since the Dark Ages and temperatures have historically correlated well with flux density variation.

This AGW guy futurecurrents seems to me to be a kid maybe. The shallow inarticulate comments citing non-peer-reviewed results followed by the hurling of insults when his sketchy arguments are challenged is the sign of teen.

I could be wrong but I think you folks are arguing with a kid.

None of the wild predictions for sea levels or anomalous weather or die-offs of flora or fauna have occurred. Not one. The polar caps have not melted and indeed the South Pole is accumulating ice.

Its all a load of horse shit and nobody is going to accept the stunting of our economic progress over a steaming pile of bad science. Man is going to use every available fuel whether fossil, nuclear, solar, wind et al.

I mean, feel free to argue this for another 97 pages but it should be obvious that you aren't going to dissuade a teenage ideologue from thinking that there is something important or special about his generation and their quest to save the world.

Oh jeez, another moron conservative. Just what we need here,


You do realize that every science organization and climate scientist on earth agrees with me right ?

Here, check it out. Learn something.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



So which alternate account are you?

 

[gwb-trading]

Oh jeez, another moron conservative. Just what we need here,


You do realize that every science organization and climate scientist on earth agrees with me right ?

Here, check it out. Learn something.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



So which alternate account are you?

We have provided lists of thousands of scientists who do no agree with you including leading climate scientists such as Dr. Judith Curry. But keep beating your AGW fantasy drum.

 

[futurecurrents]

We have provided lists of thousands of scientists who do no agree with you including leading climate scientists such as Dr. Judith Curry. But keep beating your AGW fantasy drum.

Liar. We have gone over this multiple times. Curry agrees with the consensus and there are no thousands of CLIMATE scientists.

You just refuse to learn.

Liar.

 

[gwb-trading]

Liar. We have gone over this multiple times. Curry agrees with the consensus and there are no thousands of CLIMATE scientists.

You just refuse to learn.

Liar.

And just to think of all the nasty names you previously called her and others who disagree with your AGW fantasy.

 

[jem]

We have produced detailed lists of climate scientists who doubt the consensus.
I have linked you to over 1000 papers which state things other than man made co2 cause warming on the earth.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

and here is a peer reviewed survey finding the majority of scientists are skeptical...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#4c634f88171b


your claims about 97 % of scientists believe in man made co2 causing warming have been proven to be b.s.

Liar. We have gone over this multiple times. Curry agrees with the consensus and there are no thousands of CLIMATE scientists.

You just refuse to learn.

Liar.

 

[futurecurrents]

Research Confirms ExxonMobil, Koch-funded Climate Denial Echo Chamber Polluted Mainstream Media


A new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS) shows that the climate denial echo chamber organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Koch family foundations produced misinformation that effectively polluted mainstream media coverage of climate science and polarized the climate policy debate.

The abstract and full text of the study can be found here: Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change.

The analysis of 20 years' worth of data by Yale University researcher Dr. Justin Farrell shows beyond a doubt that ExxonMobil and the Kochs are the key actors who funded the creation of climate disinformation think tanks and ensured the prolific spread of their doubt products throughout our mainstream media and public discourse.

“The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust,” Dr. Farrell told the Washington Post which was first to cover the news of the study's release. “This counter-movement produced messages aimed, at the very least, at creating ideological polarization through politicized tactics, and at the very most, at overtly refuting current scientific consensus with scientific findings of their own,” Dr. Farrell said.

From PNAS’s press briefing note about the article by Dr. Farrell:

Corporate funding likely influences the nature and content of polarizing texts pertaining to climate change, according to a study. Political polarization has become a hallmark of climate change policy discussion, with multiple groups in various sectors contributing to public discourse regarding climate and energy. To quantify the influence of corporate funding in climate change discourse, Justin Farrell analyzed more than 39 million words of text produced by 164 organizations active in the climate change counter-movement between 1993 and 2013. The author examined the ideological content of the produced texts, as well as the funding behind the organizations that produced the texts.

Organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have produced polarizing texts, the author found, withExxonMobil and the Koch family foundation acting as influential funders (emphasis added). Further, according to the author, corporate funding may have influenced the ideological content of produced texts. The results suggest quantitative evidence of the influence of funding in the climate change debate that had previously been hypothesized, and suggests an analytical model for integrating texts with the social networks that created them, according to the author.

This study confirms once again the central thesis of industry-funded attacks on climate science, which inspired the DeSmog book Climate Cover-up and countless articles about the deception campaign over the past decade.

Now let’s see how the mainstream media cover this story — that is what I’m most curious to see. (The Washington Post article was pretty straightforward, although it gave ExxonMobil an unchallenged last word, and Joby Warrick seemed to pose a bogus question to Dr. Farrell equating the fossil-funded disinformation campaign with pro-climate-action campaigns, but Dr. Farrell correctly rebutted such a comparison.)

Will this study, published in a highly authoritative journal, finally compel the newsrooms and boardrooms of the traditional media to take responsibility to undo some of the damage done by their complicity in spreading fossil fuel industry-funded misinformation?

Will false balance — quoting a distinguished climate scientist and then speed-dialing Pat Michaels at the Cato Institute for an opposing quote — finally stop?

Will editors commit to serving as referees to ensure the same industry PR pollution isn’t published any longer?

It’s critically important today that the public hears the scientific facts about climate change without the confusion injected into the policy debate by well-funded think tanks and their highly paid PR operative counterparts.

Dr. Farrell’s research also provides further evidence of the public deception orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry, and should prove valuable to investigators examining ExxonMobil as well as other current and future efforts to hold polluters accountable for their PR pollution.

 

[nitro]

Almost there FC

Space solar: The global race to tap the sun’s energy from orbit
Solar panels in orbit could generate round-the-clock green energy and beam it down to Earth. Has the time for this epic feat of engineering come round at last?

"PG&E, one of the world’s biggest utilities, has an unusual deal on its books. It has pledged to buy all the solar power produced by a tiny, secretive California start-up. But you won’t find these panels laid out in orderly rows across a baking desert – they will be in orbit 36,000 kilometres above Earth. There, they will collect the sun’s limitless energy and beam it down to power grids.

This isn’t just California dreaming. A surprising number of space solar projects are under way around the world, with some heavyweight backers. China is in on the act, and aims to have prototypes in orbit in the 2020s. Russia has already built a prototype, and Japan is so committed to the idea that it has launched a national space solar programme and plans to have operational satellites by the 2030s. The US Navy and several aerospace firms are interested too. So are we seeing the start of a second space race?

It’s not hard to see the appeal. In space, solar power overcomes three obstacles that frustrate terrestrial producers. There are the obvious issues of night and clouds, but also a less discussed problem. Namely, even on the clearest, longest, brightest day, the atmosphere scatters and absorbs the sun’s incoming energy until only a fraction of its original strength remains. “How much it’s reduced depends on your location,” says Paul Jaffe, who is working on space solar modules at ..."

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...lobal-race-to-tap-the-suns-energy-from-orbit/

 

[jem]

Study of every piece of peer reviewed literature confirms those who fund skeptics have the right to be skeptical because there is zero peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming.

Abstract

Studies of comprehensive databases susceptible to search on google manifests a complete lack of studies indicating man made co2. While there are at over one thousands peer reviewed papers challenging the idea that man made co2 causes warming... or show that the sun and the tides do influence warming an cooling.

Attempts to crowd science any science showing man made co2 causes warming (at sites such as elitetrader) have also resulted in zero science showing man made co2 causes warming.

In conclusion all the govt funded studies pretending man made co2 forces temperature change, lack any scientific support and and consequently may be deemed unreliable by any sentient person.

Research Confirms ExxonMobil, Koch-funded Climate Denial Echo Chamber Polluted Mainstream Media


A new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS) shows that the climate denial echo chamber organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Koch family foundations produced misinformation that effectively polluted mainstream media coverage of climate science and polarized the climate policy debate.

The abstract and full text of the study can be found here: Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change.

The analysis of 20 years' worth of data by Yale University researcher Dr. Justin Farrell shows beyond a doubt that ExxonMobil and the Kochs are the key actors who funded the creation of climate disinformation think tanks and ensured the prolific spread of their doubt products throughout our mainstream media and public discourse.

“The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust,” Dr. Farrell told the Washington Post which was first to cover the news of the study's release. “This counter-movement produced messages aimed, at the very least, at creating ideological polarization through politicized tactics, and at the very most, at overtly refuting current scientific consensus with scientific findings of their own,” Dr. Farrell said.

From PNAS’s press briefing note about the article by Dr. Farrell:

Corporate funding likely influences the nature and content of polarizing texts pertaining to climate change, according to a study. Political polarization has become a hallmark of climate change policy discussion, with multiple groups in various sectors contributing to public discourse regarding climate and energy. To quantify the influence of corporate funding in climate change discourse, Justin Farrell analyzed more than 39 million words of text produced by 164 organizations active in the climate change counter-movement between 1993 and 2013. The author examined the ideological content of the produced texts, as well as the funding behind the organizations that produced the texts.

Organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have produced polarizing texts, the author found, withExxonMobil and the Koch family foundation acting as influential funders (emphasis added). Further, according to the author, corporate funding may have influenced the ideological content of produced texts. The results suggest quantitative evidence of the influence of funding in the climate change debate that had previously been hypothesized, and suggests an analytical model for integrating texts with the social networks that created them, according to the author.

This study confirms once again the central thesis of industry-funded attacks on climate science, which inspired the DeSmog book Climate Cover-up and countless articles about the deception campaign over the past decade.

Now let’s see how the mainstream media cover this story — that is what I’m most curious to see. (The Washington Post article was pretty straightforward, although it gave ExxonMobil an unchallenged last word, and Joby Warrick seemed to pose a bogus question to Dr. Farrell equating the fossil-funded disinformation campaign with pro-climate-action campaigns, but Dr. Farrell correctly rebutted such a comparison.)

Will this study, published in a highly authoritative journal, finally compel the newsrooms and boardrooms of the traditional media to take responsibility to undo some of the damage done by their complicity in spreading fossil fuel industry-funded misinformation?

Will false balance — quoting a distinguished climate scientist and then speed-dialing Pat Michaels at the Cato Institute for an opposing quote — finally stop?

Will editors commit to serving as referees to ensure the same industry PR pollution isn’t published any longer?

It’s critically important today that the public hears the scientific facts about climate change without the confusion injected into the policy debate by well-funded think tanks and their highly paid PR operative counterparts.

Dr. Farrell’s research also provides further evidence of the public deception orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry, and should prove valuable to investigators examining ExxonMobil as well as other current and future efforts to hold polluters accountable for their PR pollution.