Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

Last week, my organization — the Union of Concerned Scientists — received a subpoena signed by Lamar S. Smith of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The subpoena orders me to hand over correspondence between my staff members and state attorneys general, and between my staff members and environmental organizations and funders. This demand impinges on our group’s constitutional rights, and it would set a terrible precedent affecting many other advocacy groups were we to comply with it.

The subpoena concerns our efforts to inform state attorneys general of our research into Exxon Mobil. Our research details, among other things, how much Exxon Mobil knew about the dangers posed to the planet from carbon emissions from its products at the same time it was spending millions to misinform the public about the science of climate change.

Mr. Smith makes no claim that our organization violated any law or regulation; he simply demands to see our correspondence. This is a deeply troubling request. It is, in effect, a bullying tactic that threatens the work that advocacy groups like mine do under the protection of the First Amendment when we “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Are we to expect a subpoena every time we have a conversation with a public official if some committee chairman dislikes or disagrees with us?

read more

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/o...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
 
Your team started this stuff... I find it all sad. Particularly that govt officials would use this crap to stifle first amendment rights and attempt to extract settlements and silence.... when there is no peer reviewed research showing man made co2 causes warming tha that is not failed models.

---

The Virgin Islands attorney general has withdrawn a controversial subpoena against a prominent libertarian D.C. think tank, after being accused of bullying the group as part of a broader probe into whether ExxonMobil misled the public about global warming.

Attorney General Claude Walker had issued the subpoena, demanding the Competitive Enterprise Institute hand over 10 years' worth of its communications related to climate change, in April.

CEI fired back with a lawsuit of its own, seeking to fine Walker for what the group called a breach of their First Amendment rights.

Walker's office dropped the subpoena Friday, according to court documents. The office did not respond to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.

CEI said it would still seek sanctions against Walker -- noting that while this subpoena has been dropped, a more expansive subpoena against ExxonMobil still stands.

“CEI is going forward with our motion for sanctions because Walker's withdrawal only strengthens our claim that this subpoena was a constitutional outrage from the very beginning, violating our right to free speech and our donors' right to confidentiality, and threatening the right of all Americans to express views that go against some party line,” CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman said in a statement.

The probe into whether Exxon misled the public on the risks of global warming is itself part of a broader battle against the oil giant by a coalition of attorneys general, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman, and environmental groups.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-subpoena-against-libertarian-think-tank.html


futurecurrents said:
Last week, my organization — the Union of Concerned Scientists — received a subpoena signed by Lamar S. Smith of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The subpoena orders me to hand over correspondence between my staff members and state attorneys general, and between my staff members and environmental organizations and funders. This demand impinges on our group’s constitutional rights, and it would set a terrible precedent affecting many other advocacy groups were we to comply with it.

The subpoena concerns our efforts to inform state attorneys general of our research into Exxon Mobil. Our research details, among other things, how much Exxon Mobil knew about the dangers posed to the planet from carbon emissions from its products at the same time it was spending millions to misinform the public about the science of climate change.

Mr. Smith makes no claim that our organization violated any law or regulation; he simply demands to see our correspondence. This is a deeply troubling request. It is, in effect, a bullying tactic that threatens the work that advocacy groups like mine do under the protection of the First Amendment when we “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Are we to expect a subpoena every time we have a conversation with a public official if some committee chairman dislikes or disagrees with us?

read more

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/o...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
More...
 
Wow.

futurecurrents said:
Last week, my organization — the Union of Concerned Scientists — received a subpoena signed by Lamar S. Smith of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The subpoena orders me to hand over correspondence between my staff members and state attorneys general, and between my staff members and environmental organizations and funders. This demand impinges on our group’s constitutional rights, and it would set a terrible precedent affecting many other advocacy groups were we to comply with it.

The subpoena concerns our efforts to inform state attorneys general of our research into Exxon Mobil. Our research details, among other things, how much Exxon Mobil knew about the dangers posed to the planet from carbon emissions from its products at the same time it was spending millions to misinform the public about the science of climate change.

Mr. Smith makes no claim that our organization violated any law or regulation; he simply demands to see our correspondence. This is a deeply troubling request. It is, in effect, a bullying tactic that threatens the work that advocacy groups like mine do under the protection of the First Amendment when we “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Are we to expect a subpoena every time we have a conversation with a public official if some committee chairman dislikes or disagrees with us?

read more

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/o...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
More...
 
jem said:
ricter how many times do I have to link you to the study and show that that co2 blocks some of the warming rays?

or are you trying to be cute and arguing that blocking us from warming is not a cooling impact?

is that all that is?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
More...
Just as I thought, it's the same article as always. The one that the author of wattsupwiththat has himself debunked as "cooling".
 
If we really want to cool the earth we will disperse SO2 in the stratosphere. It would definitely work. We would be making artificial volcanic eruptions. This would counteract the warming from the CO2 in the troposphere. This should be the argument the deniers should take if they were smart. But for some reason they can't get that far.
 
Nobody debunked the study from NASA.

Some people had a problem with the way a website/group spun it.

Ricter said:
Just as I thought, it's the same article as always. The one that the author of wattsupwiththat has himself debunked as "cooling".
More...
 
this guy who wants more risk of fukishimas and now is will to fuck up the environment with so2 distribution.

maybe we should wait until you can produce one peer reviewed article saying man made co2 causes warming? huh?


futurecurrents said:
If we really want to cool the earth we will disperse SO2 in the stratosphere. It would definitely work. We would be making artificial volcanic eruptions. This would counteract the warming from the CO2 in the troposphere. This should be the argument the deniers should take if they were smart. But for some reason they can't get that far.
More...
 
jem said:
this guy who wants more risk of fukishimas and now is will to fuck up the environment with so2 distribution.

maybe we should wait until you can produce one peer reviewed article saying man made co2 causes warming? huh?
More...
There can never be simply one paper, because there are too many alternative hypotheses to test, too many variables to account for, too many observations of many types to be made and analyzed. This is why it has taken thousands of scientists working for decades to refine the process. You're asking for a snapshot that tells the same story as a movie.

It would be nice if our actual scientist in residence, piezoe, would at least confirm that there cannot be "just one paper", even if he doesn't agree with the so-called consensus.

But as I said before, if you want to start reading papers then start drilling down in the IPCC website.
 
The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced, involving forces from volcanism tosolar variation. In the 1960s, the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing, although some scientists also pointed out that human activities, in the form of atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution"), could have cooling effects as well. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. By the 1990s, as a result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, a consensus position formed: greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human caused emissions were bringing serious global warming.

Since the 1990s, scientific research on climate change has included multiple disciplines and has expanded, significantly increasing our understanding of causal relations, links with historic data and ability to model climate change numerically. The most recent work has been summarized in the Assessment Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions (i.e., more or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic processes (such as oceanic circulation), biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions, and human-induced alterations of the natural world; these latter effects are currently causing global warming, and "climate change" is often used to describe human-specific impacts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top