Carbon trading is just as much denialism as drilling the Arctic.
If the 2 Parties are the left and right hands of the Capitalist Beast humanity is being choked by them together. Adding a market aspect to a problem is no fix. See what they did to medical care? Wealthy beneficiaries of fossil fuel speculation are not doing anything we wouldn't expect. What is unusual is that they are being allowed to get away with these crimes. In fact, the Media and 2 Parties they have bought glorify high crimes over everything else. And a humanity jaded by parlor tricks enjoys their own demise as if it were fireworks. The deniers are those who wish to die most and take the rest of us with them.

Take a look at Whitley Strieber's essay 'Climate Change Denialism' (listed under Whitley's Journal) at www.unknowncountry.com . It's well worth the reading .

Another article with gnashing of teeth about "climate change," while these same people vote for perpetual war every 4 years. War "denialism," by the far right wing, war loving climate change people.

The "climate change" movement exists to turn people's attention away from perpetual war and to keep people's minds off of important issues such as inequality.

Rich white people care about climate change. Screw the rich, especially rich white people.

Until the "climate change" people join in the effort to end wars and punish war criminals (an effort done by a tiny handful of people), screw them and all the rich war mongers worried about "their" climate.

If all the ice in the world melts that will benefit a lot more people, animals, and plants than it harms.

Tom Carberry, are you on Bjorn Lomberg's payroll? Clearly you can differentiate between various issues....you know, walk and chew gum?

You should understand also that War, and it's Industrial Complex and maintenance, is one of the greatest contributors to climate change and environmental degradation, inequity and poverty.

So not only are your comments just plain false, they are borderline mental.

One will never find a more anti-war, pro equity, and futurist group of people than one finds in the environmentalist community.

Huh?? I've never read so much claptrap.

To say that it's the same war mongering rich white people who are pushing the phony climate change rhetoric couldn't be more stupid.

Well, Tom I do feel your rage against "rich white people". They, for the most part, are, indeed, THE PROBLEM. And, I don't doubt that some of them are using human-created climate change - an indisputable fact, imo - as a diversion from a host of other deadly serious world problems. However, tell me, how will polar ice melting benefit "a lot more people, animals and plants, than it harms?"

what's worse, it's much more insidious than that. the stupid public is manipulated by "lesser of 2 evils" or "electability" tropes into voting in for the same old same old YEAR AFTER YEAR.

fool me once....but in duh'mer'kah, the public can be fooled EVERY SINGLE ELECTION.

we only have the stupidity of the public to blame.

We are skeptics because of:

1. so-called scientists who do not change their theories when the data changes. There has been no warming for over 18 years now, not a single climate model has ever generated a “pause” this long, and yet there is no change in the theory.

2. The Vostok core clearly shows that CO2 follows temperature by some 8,000 years http://wattsupwiththat.com/... , showing that CO2 cannot drive the change and yet the theory doesn’t change.

3. The “warmest year yet”, turns out to be the result of cooked data http://www.telegraph.co.uk/... .

4. Looking back at Climategate, it became very clear that these aren’t scientists at all. Remember that ClimateGate isn’t just emails, its CODE: http://www.americanthinker.... and http://wattsupwiththat.com/... .

5. The actual purpose of the hoax has now been admitted:

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled. ( http://news.investors.com/i...

)

And finally, we are skeptics because every single solution proposed involves massive government takeover and loss of personal freedom. See “watermelon” for more proof.

So, is it any wonder that the public puts global warming at the bottom of their list of concerns http://www.gallup.com/poll/... ?

Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!

The more you guys post, the dumber you sound ..
..and the more it shows everybody what you DON'T read.

Fascinating, I provide links to hard evidence and you ignore them and accuse me of not reading....

You're skeptical because your politics dictate you be skeptical of some things and an unquestioning believer in others. How else could there be so many errors can in one post?

1. There is no PAUSE. In 1996, 18 years ago, annual average temperature was 0.32 above the 20th century average. In 2014, it 0.69 more than double. Not only that, but: If there was no warming for the past 18 years, none of the following could be true.

Nine out of 10 of the hottest years in recorded history occurred in the last 10 years. There are no record hot years before 1983.There are no record cool years after 1977. 2014 was the hottest year in Recorded history, 2010 was second and 2011, 2012 and 2013 were in the top 10. The last decade was the hottest decade in history. The Next hottest decade was 1990 to 2000.

Here are the Years with the Highest average Global

1. 2014 - 0.6900
2. 2010 - 0.6574
3. 2005 - 0.6501
4. 1998 - 0.6339
5. 2013 - 0.6207
6. 2003 - 0.6199
7. 2002 - 0.611
8. 2006 - 0.5973
9. 2009 - 0.595
10. 2007 - 0.5893
11. 2004 - 0.5769
12. 2012 - 0.5746
13. 2001 - 0.5501
14. 2011 - 0.5309
15. 1997 - 0.5168
16. 2008 - 0.5118
17. 1999 - 0.4553
18. 1995 - 0.4511
19. 2000 - 0.4284
20. 1990 - 0.4011
21. 1991 - 0.3795
22. 1988 - 0.3444
23. 1987 - 0.3332
24. 1994 - 0.3277
25. 1996 - 0.3209
26. 1983 - 0.3185

2. Vostok ice cores don't show that CO2 trails temperature. Here is a peer reviewed paper published in the Journal Nature that shows temperature increases trails CO2 increases:

"Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation."

http://www.nature.com/natur...

Your links to Anthony Watt's web page, "Watts Up With That," completely undermine your arguments:

A. None of what Watt presents on his web page is from peer-review scientific research.

B. Anthony Watts has no credentials. He has no degree meterology, climatology or any field of science. In fact, he has NO COLLEGE DEGREE of any kind. He's a retired TV Weatherman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/...

C. Anthony Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which is funded by the fossil Fuel industry.

https://www.heartland.org/a...

The Heartland Institue is also famous for claiming the Cigarettes don't cause cancer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

C. Watts' ideas have been repeatedly and throughly rebutted.

http://www.skepticalscience...

3. The Telegraph Article is by Christopher Booker. His claims have been completely debunked:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

In addition, Booker has been on the wrong side of all kinds of other science issues. Among other things, Booker believes that cigarettes don't cause cancer, asbestos doesn't cause cancers and he doesn't believe in evolution.

4. Once again you are quoting the much discredited Anthony Watt. It would help if he could 1) understand computer programming, 2) posted more than just a tiny snippet of CODE.

When you actually look at the full block of code, it turns out that none of correction factors were used and the subroutine was never called. In other words, the correction factor was never used in the final data:

http://residualanalysis.blo...

Thank you !!!

I appreciate your thoughtful response to the above troll, I've frankly pretty much given up on trying to educate such types, just too exhausting. They are faith based, just like evolution deniers, and as such cannot be moved...droughts, record temps, floods, storms et al... have zero effect on them.
We can only wonder who's payroll he is on? Or if it's just true, unabashed ignorance? Or at worst, willful ignorance? All bad.

There are none so blind as those who will not see .

That is true. Nor are there any more vehement than those who claim that the facts for a case they do not make are indisputable. When you say someone is a 'denier' you present a remarkable conundrum - of someone with opinions you present as fact, yet without the courtesy of considering them seriously...certainly understandable for hearsay contention.
There are no facts. If there were, they could be considered. Rather we have suppositions and models based on them presented as if that were evidence of anything. They are not.

1. The problem is that scientists (and I am speaking of those with more than "zero" credibility") admitted to the pause. The IPCC even admitted in the fifth report that warming only happened at a quarter of the rate it predicted and satellite measurements showed "no increase at all". This fifth report spent much time dealing with this issue (I say issue; what it really was was an incorrect prediction). Then this year, scientists backtracked and said, essentially, "We were wrong about being wrong". They said there were technical glitches that cause incorrect measurements. But that is a change of opinion three times in less than three years. That is not settled science; that is trying to save face. And there are still many 'credible' scientists who stand by the findings of a pause.

"Dr Ed Hawkins, a principal research fellow at Reading University, who no one could ever call a sceptic, wrote in his blog that even if one accepts NOAA’s data revisions, ‘there has clearly been a slowdown in the rate of warming when compared to other periods’."

And now, the same problem with Antarctic ice. Which has been growing ice in contradiction to humans saying it isn't supposed to aka IPCC. And causing the same excuses to ring out from the alarmists.

http://www.ibtimes.com/glob...

2. The VAST majority of ice cores collected do show, over the last 1/2 million years, a lag between carbon dioxide increasing and surface air temp rise. To say otherwise is just dishonest or wrong. The study done about the most recent deglaciation only shows that CO2 lagged by "only" 200 years. But 200 years is still a lag.

http://www.scientificameric...

(again, this is not from a right-wing denier site)

What should be happening is scientists saying we have a lot more work to do before making cataclysmic predictions and prescriptions about human induced climate change. We are not saying it is now just myth, but we are still in the earliest stages of this research. And at the moment, overpopulation, ocean acidification and habitat destruction are much more pressing concerns.

But in this world, overpopulation is the myth and global warming is the undisputed truth even when the predictions are undeniably wrong. Oops. Nothing is undeniable when it comes to advancing the warming alarm. This site proves it.

With regard to "the lag" please see this article. Nothing new and even predicted by Hansen.

I read the scientific American article. What it actually said was "less than 200 years". (Did you perhaps notice that immediately to the right of that statement was a link to an article about the fact that Exxon Mobil knew about climate change 40 years ago.)

It is my understanding that ocean acidification is the result of CO2 being absorbed by the water to form carbonic acid. It is logical to assume that increased acidity is due to increase CO2.

Overpopulation and habitat destruction are indeed very pressing problems. Both are human activities, and they are major, major causes of increased CO2: more people use more fuel (which is still largely coal, oil or gas) and cutting down trees removes natural carbon sinks.

Actively addressing these problems is a far better use of your time than quibbling about the interpretation of 80,000-year-old ice-cores.

The article is clear that there was a lag. Whether is was exactly 200 years or slightly less is quibbling.

I am actively addressing these problems and have long been part of the environmental movement. It is precisely because environmentalism and global warming have become synonymous for all intents and purposes that I do challenge the findings. These issues should be addressed without attaching to an issue that is still in much need of research.

Wow, you just can't handle the truth. Well, its nice to be a very small part of stopping the largest power grab ever attempted! National Geographic has had to admit

In the U.S., climate change skeptics have achieved their fundamental goal of halting legislative action to combat global warming. They haven’t had to win the debate on the merits; they’ve merely had to fog the room enough to keep laws governing greenhouse gas emissions from being enacted. ( http://ngm.nationalgeograph... )

Now, as the incredible amounts of money drain out of the field and climate science returns to being a normal field of science instead of a tool wielded by the watermelons, we’ll see it catching to us skeptics. In 20 - 30 years, this whole mess will be looked at like the Alar scare.

As for skepticalscience.comhttp://joannenova.com.au/ta... and http://www.forbes.com/sites...

1. Did you bother to read the second sentence of your own quote?

"They haven't had to win the debate on the merits; they've merely had to fog the room enough to keep laws governing greenhouse gas emissions from being enacted."

Basically you are admitting that your arguments don't have merit and their only purpose is to produce "fog" to cloud the issue.

2. The incredible amounts of money are all on the anti-global warming side to the tune of $1 billion a year. That's compared with $153.3 million regular climate research:

http://www.theguardian.com/...

http://link.springer.com/ar...

http://www.scientificameric...

http://www.corporateservice...

3. Speaking of fog, bringing up "Alar Scare" is good example of heavy fog. A more apt comparison would be the "tobacco-cancer scare," since most of the people who try discredit global warming were also discrediting the link between tobacco and cancer.

4. I can't handle the truth? So now instead of focusing on facts, you are making comments about me. Isn't that the definition of ad homenin?

And when are you going actually address the facts and peer reviewed scientific evidence I've presented? Links pointing to climate denier, non-scientists don't count.

The money spent on research should absolutely change. More is needed.

But the failure to admit incorrect predictions on the part of the IPCC also has to change instead of 1001 reasons why "they" were right even when "they" were wrong.

A prediction is just an educated guess. Sometimes they do not work out. That does not make them incorrect. Personally, I am very happy when the predicted disasters aren't all that bad. That says to me that perhaps, just perhaps, the world is taking notice, and taking actions which change the circumstances on which the predictions were based.

If the world had taken notice and done what extreme global warming activists prescribed, I would agree. But it didn't. And the results weren't that bad. Which means the science is faulty. But the only thing that is apparent is that there is no middle ground at this point. You're either, just like W hollered, "with us or against us." No thanks. But the minute the Anthropogenic Warming crowd starts calling for population control, they can at least be arguing from a less hypocritical place.

I guess it depends who you ask whether the results weren't that bad.

I have yet to meet one of the Anthropogenic Warming crowd who does not think that the ever-expanding population is a problem. Anything that increases consumption is a problem.

And actually, I think that warming is the least of our problems. Let's agree to not talk about the climate, and concentrate instead on water and agriculture.

The first thing that had to be done was to stop any more damage from being done. That has happened, now the science will catch up, as the 18+ year pause is demonstrating.

As for the funding:

Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.


Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails. (Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.c... )

The science does not catch up. Ridiculous-- you go to the dentist, use a computer, gave your SO a real or not real diamond-- all the same good s ience!

Huh? That's where those links come from. I read the articles in detail to pick out the pull quotes that I used.

It is not about the quotes the people, the links-- it is about the numbers. All this editorializing is dust!

Would overturning the current model of capitalism be such a bad thing? Are you OK with just 80 individuals controlling half the wealth of the entire planet? If you are one of those 80, you answer will obviously be yes, but I'm guessing that you are not one of them. That means you are quite happy to continue being screwed by the very few. Well,I'm not, and I think that the capitalist system needs a serious overhaul. Go Bernie!

Go , Jill !!

I'm OK with her, too.

I agree with everything you said. That doesn't have anything to do with scientists and the IPCC being wrong more than once in their predictions. 80 individuals shouldn't controls half the wealth. And global warming shouldn't be accepted based on wrong predictions or not challenged because scientists say so and anyone who disagrees is working for EXXON.

I don't need scientific predictions to convince me that the world is warming. In the 32 years I have lived in the States my area has officially gone from Zone 5 to Zone 5.5.
With all the evidence of record temperatures, melting ice, floods, droughts and fires (look at what is happening in Indonesia right now), can you honestly say that the climate is not changing?
Why is it so important to you to prove otherwise?

I am not denying anything. I am saying that saying 2013 is the hottest year on record is disingenuous as what is really saying is that 2013 or 14 or 15 is the hottest year since record keeping began, so possibly the last 100 years. We can confidently say these are the hottest years of the last half century; the 50 years before that, technology was much more primitive but still useful.

Droughts and fires have always been happening. Just when (as in Texas) it is proclaimed the drought is permanent or the new normal, record flooding happens. As examples, Katrina was supposed to be the new normal and thankfully has not been. The worst Hurricanes on record (far worse than Katrina and Sandy) by any marker happened on a frequent basis well before man-made C02 was put into the atmosphere. Or Greenland's Ice is melting while Antarctica's is growing. These show a changing climate but not necessarily all due to man or all leading to the end of civilization.

I have long been an active member of environmental advocacy groups and know for a fact they play with stats to fit their beliefs. You can accept this anecdotally or not, but I can only speak from my experience. And I don't like bullies on either side, be it Exxon or James Hansen and his ilk. And they are all bullies to anyone who challenges them. Exxon and their cronies may be guilty of the same thing as tobacco companies. And that would make them worse when it comes to ethics and the law. But to say Hansen and co are right, always right, and those scientists who disagree or say, "Wait. Slow down. There is still a lot we don't know and to act otherwise is simple hubris" are just stupid or in league with the devils (as most global warming folks do) is just hubris on display.

Other people being wealthy doesn't bother me. They actually make possible to create a start up company. Without Angel investors, it would very much harder.

I used to work for one of the very wealthy and it was a pretty neat gig.

Bernie Sanders would be a very bad thing, because envy and hatred of the successful never ends well. I don't think he would be completely disastrous, because he'd be pretty ineffectual.

Wow,!!

All I can say is that you were very lucky. I wonder how many start up companies the six heirs of Sam Walton have invested in with their combined wealth of 104 billion dollars.

A guy running a start-up would never waste his time on Truthout.
He is a fraud. But he does want to gratify the lowest base desires of the wealthy elite. He's fixated on sucks-sass.

Thank god for your thoughtful reasoning and logical argument. I will continue to enjoy my SUV and continue my paleo diet guilt free.

I'm thinking you violated Poe's law...

"The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at
all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that
lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long
and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market
capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold,
work days have been halved and lifespans doubled."

that's some major bullsh** about capitalism. it wasn't capitalism that brought about those massive benefits to the public. it was the reforms and workers rights movements that challanged the capitalists dismal workers rights that brought about those changes. without workers rights, people would still be working 60 hour work weeks and dying an early death. without reforms, those capitalists wouldn't have had to curb their environmental pollution or selling crap poison to the public unregulated.

in short progress for the masses was made DESPITE capitalism not because of it.

Indeed, and with the recent deregulatory corporate pushbacks and Voodoo economics, we are rapidly returning to that very same Feudal order

Here’s Michael Tanner of the National Review:

Yet capitalism has done more to empower people and raise living standards than any other force in history.

Throughout most of human history, nearly everyone was poor. Even our wealthiest ancestors enjoyed lower standards of living than ordinary people in America today. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the masses started to enjoy real and growing prosperity.

What was the difference? Capitalism and its offspring, the Industrial Revolution. As Charles Murray explains, “everywhere that capitalism subsequently took hold, national wealth began to increase and poverty began to fall. Everywhere that capitalism didn’t take hold, people remained impoverished. Everywhere that capitalism has been rejected since then, poverty has increased.” ( http://online.wsj.com/news/... )

The transformation occurred first in the West, which was quickest to embrace capitalism, but is spreading now to the rest of the world. In the last 20 years, for instance, capitalism has lifted more than a billion people worldwide out of poverty, while the share of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day has been cut in half. In China alone, 680 million people have been rescued from poverty, and the extreme-poverty rate has gone from 84 percent in 1980 to less than 10 percent today. In Africa, inflation-adjusted per capita incomes rose by an astonishing 97 percent between 1999 and 2010. Hunger in India shrank by 90 percent after the country replaced 40 years’ worth of socialist stagnation with capitalist reforms in 1991. ( http://www.nationalreview.c... )

Yep, capitalism, or as I prefer to call it, free markets is the most amazing system to have been discovered! I don't like the word "Capitalism", since that term was coined by Karl Marx.

"Yet capitalism has done more to empower people and raise living standards than any other force in history.

Throughout
most of human history, nearly everyone was poor. Even our wealthiest
ancestors enjoyed lower standards of living than ordinary people in
America today. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that
the masses started to enjoy real and growing prosperity."

another bullsh** rewriting of history.

"Throughout
most of human history, nearly everyone was poor." this is STILL true today. nothing has changed. the top 1% own MOST of the wealth in the world today. capitalism, slavery, feudalism, it's all the same. the 1% remain on top while the working poor suffer.

For the first time in history, only a minority of people are existing at the starvation level. Hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians are entering the middle class.

We're starting to see a lessening of upward mobility here, but that will be solved by reducing the incredible number of regulations we're burdened with https://cei.org/10KC and reducing the taxes that make it harder to gain wealth.

Not sustainable, just a flare preceding a conflagration, a flit-fit before the implosion.

Of course its sustainable! Take a look at the ultimate resource http://www.juliansimon.com/... .