"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise."
Seems to me Fukushima was a government failure in emergency management more than anything else.
Its all fine and dandy to call me names, but do you have any proof of the contrary?
I'll submit as exhibit A, all the western governments public budget reports for the last 3 decades.
Oh yeah, and this too:
Main Signatory of that RICO letter, been siphoning up to a Million a year from grant money he's getting through his NGO for a part time job. http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
I'm not ignoring anything. I know that that CO2 is increasing. I know it causes some warming, current studies put climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at around 1.1C. Which means that much of the observed warming in the last 100 years cant be attributed to CO2 alone.
It still has to be demonstrated that a warmer planet is harmful to humans.
About the sub, your right, its not east Antarctica per say, the following article shows exactly where they did their measurements:
They have been steady and satellites which have a much better world wide coverage than sea and land data show it clearly.
Glaciers are melting because we are coming out of an ice age. The amount of melting is not increasing at an exponential rate, its been steady for hundreds of years, with year to year natural variability going up and down, but on a slow decline.
Arctic ice has been recovering nicely for the last 4 years, however as I said, its supposed to be melting and the rate isnt alarming.
Greenland had its shortest warm season in decades this year.
Western Antarctic ice shelf is unstable because it sits above underwater geothermal activity. Eastern Antarctic ice thickness was determined to be MUCH thicker than anticipated last year, when for the first time they sent a small sub under the ice to measure thickness.
Sea level rise is still rising at the same rate as it has been for the past centuries with no acceleration in the rate.
BTW, after all that is said, it has warmed up, about 0.8c over the last 120 years. Which again, is nothing to worry about, as it has been warmer in recorded history (the last 2000 years), unless you look at the data in 2015 after it has been "adjusted" to reduce past temperatures to make current ones look warmer.
Seriously, don't repeat what the alarmists are telling you about the data, go find it yourself. Pick a specific subject and region and read the papers on it. Not one that confirms your bias, but half a dozen. You will see, what the MSM is selling, is not what the actual scientists are publishing.
Oh, and one last thing, do not make the mistake of only reading the conclusion. Scientists in climate science add in general statements about how it "could" get much worst in the future. This is necessary to get the grants. You'll find these wishy washy statements everywhere.
I'm sorry, you linked to the spin about the subject.
You do know John Cook runs SKS and he is Mann's best bud.
If you want to know what its all about, by the person who debunked it (you can believe him or not) this is what you need to read: http://climateaudit.org/2009/1...
Show me one study that can demonstrate CURRENT harm to basal invertebrates and its link to global warming or CO2 with certainty. And show me one study that shows with 95% certainty that the entire marine ecosystem is about to collapse. Citation needed.
Humanity, the planet and its ecosystem has been putting up with alarmists such as yourself literally for since the beginning of mankind. And we are thriving.
Scientists haven't voted. What the hell are you talking about?
"... so it is fact." Do you even know how science works?
There is an opposing opinion, because the elites are trying to muffle it.
The cognitive dissonance in this thread is thick.
The progressives are the ones who will kill the poor and the minorities by raising the cost of energy worlwide.
Or do you deny that cheap energy is the ONLY reason society has advanced so much in the past 150 years, improving health, education and quality of life?
Are you telling me, with a STRAIGHT face, that a few scientists commissioned in the 70's by the oil industry knew more about our climate than the hundreds of billion dollar climate pseudo science industry currently knows?
Every IPCC assessment report reduces the number for climate sensitivity. With every report it gets clearer and clearer that their projections are wrong.
You believe what MSM is telling you, but you have no idea what the actual science says.
I'm a standard citizen, just going through life and decided to do some research into this. I'm very skeptical of this propaganda machine being touted as "science" when it fact is resemble nothing of such.
You would call me denier. However, I have no skin in this game, except not wanted to be fleeced for more money to go to bankers.
I will assume you aren't being disingenuous and explained to you that when extra costs are added to doing business, these costs are passed on to consumers. Corporations strive to maintain their profit margins.
Everyone but the gullible know this will raise the price of energy for consumers.
You still havent shown a crime, except for speech.
You first have to demonstrate harm, which even the IPCC hasn't been able to do.
Knowing that CO2 can slightly increase trapping of heat, does not mean that a slightly warmer earth is harmfull by any stretch of the imagination. And it does not show that it will affect climate beyond natural variability.
Slashdot Mirror
They are indeed scammers and charlatans.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...
At the very least, its being profited by those who know how to game the NSF grant system.
Like the author of the RICO letter.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...
I would agree.
Lets start with the main author of this letter.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...
We should first address the fraud perpetrated by the main author of this RICO letter.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...
Ah, but they are right.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...
At least, the main author of this letter has been part of a conspiracy to defraud tax payers money through NSF grants.
Seems the host and main author of the RICO20 letter has been playing fast and loose with NSF grant money.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...
And yet, the report says, and I quote:
"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise."
Seems to me Fukushima was a government failure in emergency management more than anything else.
You expect answers to your insults?
Ask a clear question and an answer you shall get, but a "are you stupid?" IS not a question.
have a reading comprehension fail.
Its not the entire economy, its only the budget for climate change.
If you can't read a simple budget report, its no wonder you believe the media.
Its all fine and dandy to call me names, but do you have any proof of the contrary?
I'll submit as exhibit A, all the western governments public budget reports for the last 3 decades.
Oh yeah, and this too:
Main Signatory of that RICO letter, been siphoning up to a Million a year from grant money he's getting through his NGO for a part time job.
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
Direct documents are here:
http://www.guidestar.org/ViewP...
http://state-employees.findthe...
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDo...
You should tell them that those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.
I'm not ignoring anything. I know that that CO2 is increasing. I know it causes some warming, current studies put climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at around 1.1C. Which means that much of the observed warming in the last 100 years cant be attributed to CO2 alone.
It still has to be demonstrated that a warmer planet is harmful to humans.
About the sub, your right, its not east Antarctica per say, the following article shows exactly where they did their measurements:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
They have been steady and satellites which have a much better world wide coverage than sea and land data show it clearly.
Glaciers are melting because we are coming out of an ice age. The amount of melting is not increasing at an exponential rate, its been steady for hundreds of years, with year to year natural variability going up and down, but on a slow decline.
Arctic ice has been recovering nicely for the last 4 years, however as I said, its supposed to be melting and the rate isnt alarming.
Greenland had its shortest warm season in decades this year.
Western Antarctic ice shelf is unstable because it sits above underwater geothermal activity.
Eastern Antarctic ice thickness was determined to be MUCH thicker than anticipated last year, when for the first time they sent a small sub under the ice to measure thickness.
Sea level rise is still rising at the same rate as it has been for the past centuries with no acceleration in the rate.
BTW, after all that is said, it has warmed up, about 0.8c over the last 120 years. Which again, is nothing to worry about, as it has been warmer in recorded history (the last 2000 years), unless you look at the data in 2015 after it has been "adjusted" to reduce past temperatures to make current ones look warmer.
Seriously, don't repeat what the alarmists are telling you about the data, go find it yourself. Pick a specific subject and region and read the papers on it. Not one that confirms your bias, but half a dozen. You will see, what the MSM is selling, is not what the actual scientists are publishing.
Oh, and one last thing, do not make the mistake of only reading the conclusion. Scientists in climate science add in general statements about how it "could" get much worst in the future. This is necessary to get the grants. You'll find these wishy washy statements everywhere.
If ice is melting at an exponential rate, how can WWII planes crashed on Greenland be buried under 260 feet deep of ice?
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08...
citation please.... for your blatant lies.
You seem to like black and white, when we live in the gray.
The argument is also that we will make the price of energy skyrocket to prevent (even if this where all true) only 0.03C rise in 30-50 years.
That is not a good ROI.
Vast?
I think a few years back they calculated maybe a billion dollars on the skeptical side over 20 years.
The USAs budget alone is about 20 billion.
Now tell me about the "VAST amount of money" again?
I'm sorry, you linked to the spin about the subject.
You do know John Cook runs SKS and he is Mann's best bud.
If you want to know what its all about, by the person who debunked it (you can believe him or not) this is what you need to read:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/1...
Conjecture.
Show me one study that can demonstrate CURRENT harm to basal invertebrates and its link to global warming or CO2 with certainty.
And show me one study that shows with 95% certainty that the entire marine ecosystem is about to collapse.
Citation needed.
Humanity, the planet and its ecosystem has been putting up with alarmists such as yourself literally for since the beginning of mankind. And we are thriving.
Scientists haven't voted. What the hell are you talking about?
"... so it is fact." Do you even know how science works?
There is an opposing opinion, because the elites are trying to muffle it.
The cognitive dissonance in this thread is thick.
The progressives are the ones who will kill the poor and the minorities by raising the cost of energy worlwide.
Or do you deny that cheap energy is the ONLY reason society has advanced so much in the past 150 years, improving health, education and quality of life?
Motive to what?
Are you telling me, with a STRAIGHT face, that a few scientists commissioned in the 70's by the oil industry knew more about our climate than the hundreds of
billion dollar climate pseudo science industry currently knows?
Every IPCC assessment report reduces the number for climate sensitivity. With every report it gets clearer and clearer that their projections are wrong.
You believe what MSM is telling you, but you have no idea what the actual science says.
Look, just because you bought the cool aid, doesnt make it true.
You say the end if nigh, but you have no proof.
What exactly is starting to "assert itself"? Temperatures have been steady for 18+ years.
You have bought into this so hard, you just believe everything thats in the mainstream media that confirms your bias.
Talk to some scientists. Not MANN, SCHMIDT, ORESKES and HANSEN, but the 96.9% of the others that have been supposedly lumped into this fake consensus.
They will EACH AND EVERYONE of them tell you that nothing catastrophic is about to happen.
No they aren't.
I'm a standard citizen, just going through life and decided to do some research into this.
I'm very skeptical of this propaganda machine being touted as "science" when it fact is resemble nothing of such.
You would call me denier. However, I have no skin in this game, except not wanted to be fleeced for more money to go to bankers.
I think you don't get the concept of a market.
Who pays for the traders? Brokers?
Its exactly like communism, where it looks good on paper, but does not work.
i.e. The multiple instances of major fraud in the carbon markets and corporations and bankers gaming the system.
I will assume you aren't being disingenuous and explained to you that when extra costs are added to doing business, these costs are passed on to consumers. Corporations strive to maintain their profit margins.
Everyone but the gullible know this will raise the price of energy for consumers.
You still havent shown a crime, except for speech.
You first have to demonstrate harm, which even the IPCC hasn't been able to do.
Knowing that CO2 can slightly increase trapping of heat, does not mean that a slightly warmer earth is harmfull by any stretch of the imagination. And it does not show that it will affect climate beyond natural variability.