Ah solar energy.... robbing the tax payer once again... World's largest solar plant applying for federal grant to pay off federal loan http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ant-to-pay-off-its-federal/?intcmp=latestnews After already receiving a controversial $1.6 billion construction loan from U.S. taxpayers, the wealthy investors of a California solar power plant now want a $539 million federal grant to pay off their federal loan. "This is an attempt by very large cash generating companies that have billions on their balance sheet to get a federal bailout, i.e. a bailout from us - the taxpayer for their pet project," said Reason Foundation VP of Research Julian Morris. "It's actually rather obscene." (more at above url)
CHELSEA HARVEY Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are responsible for climate change, debate still exists in the general public. In the United States alone, at least 15 states are currently governed by known climate deniers, and several states have taken measures to keep the best climate science out of public policy. But a quick look at the science leaves little doubt that the rising temperatures we've been observing for decades now are our own fault. This chart, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shows two different models of climate change's effects in different parts of the world between 1910 and 2010. Each graph below corresponds to a different region of the world and a different climate effect: sea ice cover — the white charts, temperature — the tan charts, or ocean heat content — blue. The graphs each present two models: The purple stripes are the climate changes we'd expect from including only natural events, like solar variations, in the model. The pink stripes show the changes in a model that includes human actions, like burning fossil fuels. The black lines show the effects we've actually observed in real life. You can see the real-life effects match up with the pink bars, which are the models that include human-actions. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report If human actions had no effect on climate, the purple stripe and pink stripe would be similar on each graph. Instead they're different in almost every case, meaning human actions make a difference when it comes to climate change. The chart was released as part of the IPCC's fourth and final installment in its Fifth Assessment on Climate Change, a compilation and analysis of the best and most recent climate science, conducted by thousands of researchers around the world. Charts like these show how our Earth has already changed and why we need to accept that humans are the cause — but the document also contains a wealth of projections for the future, including rising temperatures and sea levels, and provides firm recommendations on what humans need to do to prevent the most catastrophic effects from happening. Slashing carbon emissions and switching to renewable energy sources are just a few of the many actions world leaders must take, according to the IPCC — but the first step is acknowledging that climate change is real, it's happening now, and it's happening because of us.
No sooner did President Obama and President Xi Jinping of Chinaannounce goals for combatting climate change than Senator Jim Inhofe denounced them. The Oklahoma Republican called the accord a “non-binding charade” on Wednesday and told The Washington Post that he would do his utmost to let environmental devastation continue apace. In his actual words: “As we enter a new Congress, I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA’s unchecked regulations.” That power isn’t minimal, given that Mr. Inhofe will take control of the Environment and Public Works Committee in January. Comforting, isn’t it, that the G.O.P.’s top guy on the environment plans to spend his time bullying the agency dedicated to protecting the environment? Mr. Inhofe’s anti-environmentalist record is as pristine as an old-growth forest, which the senator would surely vote to turn into a logging site. He published a book in 2012 called “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future” and said in 2006 that that United Nations invented the idea of global warming in order to “shut down the machine called America.” Once the U.N. kicked things off, moneyed interests kept up the scam. “Those individuals from the far left,” he told Fox News in 2007, “and I’m talking about the Hollywood elitists and the United Nations and those individuals, want us to believe it’s because we’re contributing C02 to the atmosphere that’s causing global warming. It’s all about money. I mean what would happen to the Weather Channel’s ratings if all of a sudden people weren’t scared anymore?” The Weather Channel bit might have been a joke. Mr. Inhofe showed his lighter side in the winter of 2010, after a snowstorm hit D.C., by building an igloo with a sign that read “Al Gore’s New Home.” Another sign read “Honk if you love global warming.” Or maybe he wasn’t joking. He doesn’t appear to have been kidding around when he called the E.P.A. a “Gestapo bureaucracy.” Confusingly, for someone so committed to the argument that climate change is a hoax, he also thinks that anyone who believes in it is unconscionably arrogant. In 2012, he said on a Voice of Christian Youth America radio program that “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” Carbon emissions aren’t to blame for climate change. God is." **************************************************************************** And this is where ignorance, delusion, money and religion meet to form a perfect evil union. What he is spouting is evil. His ignorance is no excuse. Evil shows most easily when knowledge is absent.
For that matter, what would happen to Fox News’ ratings if all of a sudden people weren’t scared anymore?
Well, as we have seen from the psych studies, the fear is innate to conservatives, Fox News just feeds on it.
GREENBELT, Md. — I’M a climate scientist and a former astronaut. Not surprisingly, I have a deep respect for well-tested theories and facts. In the climate debate, these things have a way of getting blurred in political discussions. In September, John P. Holdren, the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was testifying to a Congressional committee about climate change. Representative Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas, recounted a visit he had made to NASA, where he asked what had ended the ice age: “And the lead scientist at NASA said this — he said that what ended the ice age was global wobbling. That’s what I was told. This is a lead scientist down in Maryland; you’re welcome to go down there and ask him the same thing. “So, and my second question, which I thought it was an intuitive question that should be followed up — is the wobbling of the earth included in any of your modelings? And the answer was no... “How can you take an element which you give the credit for the collapse of global freezing and into global warming but leave it out of your models?” That “lead scientist at NASA” was me. In July, Mr. Stockman spent a couple of hours at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center listening to presentations about earth science and climate change. The subject of ice ages came up. Mr. Stockman asked, “How can your models predict the climate when no one can tell me what causes the ice ages?” I responded that, actually, the science community understood very well what takes the earth into and out of ice ages. A Serbian mathematician, Milutin Milankovitch, worked out the theory during the early years of the 20th century. He calculated by hand that variations in the earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit around the sun start and end ice ages. I said that you could think of ice ages as resulting from wobbles in the earth’s tilt and orbit. The time scales involved are on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. I explained that this science has been well tested against the fossil record and is broadly accepted. I added that we don’t normally include these factors in 100-year climate projections because the effects are too tiny to be important on such a short time-scale. And that, I thought, was that. So I was bit surprised to read the exchange between Dr. Holdren and Representative Stockman, which suggested that at best we couldn’t explain the science and at worst we scientists are clueless about ice ages. We aren’t. Nor are we clueless about what is happening to the climate, thanks in part to a small fleet of satellites that fly above our heads, measuring the pulse of the earth. Without them we would have no useful weather forecasts beyond a couple of days. These satellite data are fed into computer models that use the laws of motion — Sir Isaac Newton’s theories — to figure out where the world’s air currents will flow, where clouds will form and rain will fall. And — voilà — you can plan your weekend, an airline can plan a flight and a city can prepare for a hurricane. These data are crucial for assessing and understanding changes in the earth system and determining whether they are natural or connected to human activities. They are also used to challenge and correct climate models, which are mostly based on the same theories used in weather forecast models. This whole system of observation, theory and prediction is tested daily in forecast models and almost continuously in climate models. So, if you have no faith in the predictive capability of climate models, you should also discard your faith in weather forecasts and any other predictions based on Newtonian mechanics. The earth has warmed nearly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century and we are confident that the biggest factor in this increase is the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. It is almost certain that we will see a rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before 2100, and a three-degree rise (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher is a possibility. The impacts over such a short period would be huge. The longer we put off corrective action, the more disruptive the outcome is likely to be. It is my pleasure and duty as a scientist and civil servant to discuss the challenge of climate change with elected officials. My colleagues and I do our best to transmit what we know and what we think is likely to happen. The facts and accepted theories are fundamental to understanding climate change, and they are too important to get wrong or trivialize. Some difficult decisions lie ahead for us humans. We should debate our options armed with the best information and ideas that science can provide. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/wobbling-on-climate-change.html?ref=science&_r=0
Stopped reading right there, if the guy admits hes a snakeoil salesmen right out the gates no point in reading further.
So scientists that study climate are snake oil salesmen in your world. Interesting. By interesting I mean holy shit you are an idiot. LOL Typical denier.