Yes, there is 'another side' in that there is a commercial and Marketing side of outright lies to take business-with-no-morals, "free market libertarianism", and profits at all costs, all to extreme greed.

And the world and everyone else be damned.

It always amazes me how many people think that this only applies to the "Dark Side", i.e. the oil and coal companies. Yet have the idea that the Wind and solar farm operators are somehow divine beings who only want what is best for humanity and the planet at large.

Big Business is totally agnostic in this matter, they don't care at all, as long as the balance sheet is in the black.

To quote Shakespeare, "Lord what fools these mortals be."

T.A.

And you are totally correct. This IS a 100% manufactured controversy. Just so when when your electricity bill and general cost of living rises by 200 or more percent, you can get a nice, smug, rosy, warm glow that you are helping to save the planet

Anyone who disagrees with the party line is decried by people like you as being funded by Big Oil, Big Coal or Big Whatever and therefore any statement they make is meaningless and worthless.

What a load of horse manure....

Do you honestly think that the Green lobby is socially and morally pure and pristine ?

As I drive around the country I see many "wind farms". The funny thing is that irrespective of the wind speed, most of the turbines are stationary. Despite this, the owners of these wind farms are being paid by the government just to have them sitting there. When they are turning, the government is paying the owners well above the going rate per kW hour for the "clean and green" energy they produce.

In other words, the owners of the wind farms and solar farms have as bigger vested interest in the debate as any other operator and therefore they will fund the more politically correct research and web sites in order to make sure their income is maintained.

So please, let's stop making an issue of who is funding which research or web site, research is not necessarily invalidated by who is paying for it.

Let's accept the fact that one side is as corrupt as the other and the actual truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Earth on track to be hottest in human history: study

Earth is on track to becoming the hottest it has been at any time in the past 11.3 millennia, a period spanning the history of human civilisation, a new study says.

Based on fossil samples and other data collected from 73 sites around the world, scientists have been able to reconstruct the history of the planet's temperature from the end of the last Ice Age around 11,000 years ago to the present.

They have determined the past 10 years have been hotter than 80 per cent of the past 11,300 years.

But virtually all the climate models evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict Earth's atmosphere will be hotter in the coming decades than at any time since the end of the Ice Age, no matter what greenhouse gas emission scenario is used, the study found.

Also, we need to come up with some reliable models on what warmer (and cooler) global average temperatures will do. We need to know just how 'bad' things will get. Remember, in the past, CO2 levels were MUCH higher than they are today. About half a billion years ago, CO2 levels were between 10x and 20x what they are today. (thats 4000 to 8000 ppm). They declined. About 200 million years ago they went back up to around 5x what they are today (thats 2000 ppm). Again, they went down. In both cases, life went on. Likely some species went extinct, but still, life went on.

Ok Martin I withdraw. I should have learned that having a discussion with you is like debating "I.D" on the existence of God. You just cannot admit there is another side to the argument.

Yes, there is 'another side' in that there is a commercial and Marketing side of outright lies to take business-with-no-morals, "free market libertarianism", and profits at all costs, all to extreme greed.

And the world and everyone else be damned.


What world do you prefer to live in ?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

+1

This whole manufactured controversy will go down as just a shameful part of history as the lobbying by the tobacco industry when science started to show the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer.

The idea that there is a "debate" on the science is a fiction. That is what I find so frustrating.

The only debate left between scientists is if its going to be bad or really bad. I am fed up with the way people decide when to pick and chose which science they will "believe" as if belief has anything to do with science.

I put the deniers in the same class of people who think the moon landing is hoax, who believe in chemtrail conspiracies, who think that 9/11 was an inside job and that aliens killed Kennedy and I am tired of arguing with kooks who can't face reality.

@ Мишель:
Easy. It (at almost 3,000,000 employees) is one of the biggest employers on the planet, if not the biggest. It also has spending of several Trillion US$ per year. And it funds the great majority of the climate research, or at least that done in the USA. The US Government. While it can not be properly called an industry (but listed in the political interest category) it *IS* the big dog in the room. If you want an actual private industry that backs the Warmists, I would say 'Hollywood'. But then, Hollywood usually supports the left-wing elements of the US Government in whatever the issue-of-the-day is (and now it appears to be AGW), so really Hollywood is just another mouthpiece for the US Government on the party-line. I will address the bias(es) of the US Government later.

People are paying for studies on who pays for studies? You kidding me? What a COLOSSAL waste of money. Doesn't ANYONE ever think for themselves any more?

It doesn't get away from the point that depending upon which side of the fence you stand on, there is "evidence" to say there is or that there isn't global warming going on due to greenhouse effects. Neither side has 100% proof either way. So why argue about it until the cows come home?

CO2 traps heat:

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites

Richard Branson tells climate deniers to 'get out of the way'

How truly green is thy valley, Mr Branson?

How truly green is thy valley, Mr Branson?

Have you nothing better to add than pseudo-religious cynicism?

You missed out on "He who can cast the first stone" gibberish.


So, we can assume you remain stubborn in your disbelief of the world around you? All for no useful discussion other than your personal 'wish-claims' of "it can't be so"...?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

It's just that, Martin I clearly happen to know more about all this than you do.

It's just that, Martin I clearly happen to know more about all this than you do.

So that we don't do you an injustice with whatever assumptions... Would you care to explain your angle?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

It's just that, Martin I clearly happen to know more about all this than you do.

So that we don't do you an injustice with whatever assumptions... Would you care to explain your angle?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

I don't have an angle, an angle is for those who think they know something so
follow it religiously without actually knowing if they are correct.

Please name your best two examples that we can examine in a little detail.

OK, #16, #32 and #135

The link to the SS page is at the top of my post. The numbers refer to the points in the SS page.

T.A.

Will consider and link the first two. I can let you expand on that third one to see if you can press a convincing case.

So that's one set of work for you vs the two threads of work for me.


(Note how Denialists and armchair critics can never be bothered to offer any helpful links or any useful links at all? Yet, they are very happy to see everyone else run around the web for them... Part of their Denialist game?)

#16) Neglects to mention that temperatures were higher higher 2000 years ago and up to 2 deg C than the 1934-1960 and in the north, up to 4 deg C higher during the [Watts Up With That?:] Medieval Warm Period