Can some please post the transcript where the Pope said he sides with FutureCurrents? I never knew the Pope read these forums, much less sided with FutureCurrents. It sounds like Nitro is making up shit again.
Oh the Vatican -- you know the same crowd for centuries stated the earth is the center of the universe while imprisioning or executing those who disagreed. Maybe having the head of the Vatican siding with you is not such a good thing. Furthermore maybe the Vatican should stay out of scientific matters.
^^^ Here example a modern day example. There is little doubt the AGW fanatics of today would have persecuted Galileo. The Exxon Climate Change Case Is Outrageous By Rich Lowry April 20, 2016 It’s not easy to make one of the world’s biggest fossil-fuel companies a sympathetic victim, but a collection of state attorneys general, led by Eric Schneiderman of New York, has managed it. They have launched a campaign against Exxon Mobil that is a transparent — nay, an explicit — attempt to punish dissent on climate change. The members of the self-described “Green 20” are demonstrating a banana-republic-worthy understanding of the law and their responsibilities. They shouldn’t be entrusted with the power of a meter maid, let alone a top position in law enforcement. Schneiderman subpoenaed Exxon Mobil last year, in what purports to be a fraud investigation. The alleged offense is having less alarmist views on global warming over the years than the green clerisy deems acceptable. How this would constitute fraud is unclear. Investors would have found Exxon Mobil alluring even if the company had maintained that the planet was in danger of becoming uninhabitable, for no other reason than oil is a miraculously efficient source of energy that we aren’t close to replacing. Consumers would have filled their cars with Exxon Mobil’s product regardless, and surely felt defrauded only if the gasoline didn’t get them to work or to their kids’ soccer practice as advertised. Usually, officials charged with law enforcement at least try to obscure their political motivations. Not the attorneys general who stood with Schneiderman at a saber-rattling press conference a few weeks ago. Dispensing with any pretense of disinterestedness, they dubbed themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” Al Gore appeared at the presser, not as a legal expert, but as a totem of the green Left. Schneiderman said that President Barack Obama’s climate agenda has been frustrated, so he and his colleagues would work “creatively” and “aggressively” to advance it. That is certainly his right — if he resigns and becomes an official at the Sierra Club or runs for Congress. Instead, he is using the powers of his office to harass a company with opinions he finds uncongenial. The attorney general of the Virgin Islands, of all places, has joined in, even though Exxon Mobil has no assets or staff there. He has subpoenaed the company’s documents going back roughly 40 years under an anti-racketeering statute and, for good measure, also has subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank that once received donations from Exxon. The conceit of this campaign is that if it weren’t for the likes of Exxon Mobil, the climate debate would be settled by now. This is a view that doesn’t allow for honest disagreement about a hideously complex subject that, even if you accept the premises of the alarmists, isn’t susceptible to a ready solution. Besides, Exxon Mobil has accepted elements of the climate orthodoxy for years now. It has included statements about the potential risks of warming in official documents going back a decade, and it favors a carbon tax. Even if Exxon Mobil has deliberately tilted toward the side of the climate debate most convenient for it, that’s not a crime. If having a self-serving opinion were against the law, much of the political debate in this country would shut down. The Green 20 needn’t win a case against Exxon Mobil or any other fossil-fuel company to achieve its ends. Every time that Exxon Mobil has to say that it believes in global warming and no longer funds climate skeptics, it is a moral victory for the AGs. The mere example of Exxon Mobil being forced to expend resources defending itself is a warning to everyone else. And if a settlement can be extorted out of the company and used to fund the green Left, all the better. All of this is a blatant abuse of power, which is why anyone who values the First Amendment and the rule of law has to side with the massive multinational corporation over AGs who are a disgrace to their offices. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...climate_change_case_is_outrageous_130337.html
They have launched a campaign against Exxon Mobil that is a transparent — nay, an explicit — attempt to punish dissent on climate change. No it is NOT an attempt to punish dissent on climate change. Crap article right off the bat, no need to read further. It's an attempt to punish a corporation for knowingly lying to maintain profits and in so doing endangering the public welfare.
Are liberals impairing our ability to combat climate change? For starters, they stand against the only technology with an established track record of generating electricity at scale while emitting virtually no greenhouse gases: nuclear power. Only 35 percent of Democrats, compared with 60 percent of Republicans, favor building more nuclear power plants, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. It is the G.O.P. that is closer to the scientific consensus. According to aseparate Pew poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 65 percent of scientists want more nuclear power too. Continue reading the main story Amid a Graying Fleet of Nuclear Plants, a Hunt for Solutions MARCH 21, 2016 ON THE ENVIRONMENT Can Economies Rise as Emissions Fall? The Evidence Says Yes APRIL 5, 2016 Wood-Burning British Power Plant Is Emblem of an Industry at a Carbon Crossroads DEC. 10, 2015 Ted Cruz’s argument that climate change is a hoax to justify a government takeover of the world is absurd. But Bernie Sanders’s argument that “toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit” might also be damaging.
bernie has is right. do we need another fukishima to wake you up to reality. we should be taking all this money being wasted on a fake agw crap... (there is no science showing man made co2 causes warming... 2. we probably need more co2 to feed our growing world population.) and invest it into projects like thorium nuclear power which apparently is far less dangerous.
Big Oil Finally Admits Climate Risks — To Its Business AND The Planet For decades, oil companies have tried to ignore the truth about climate change. 04/20/2016 12:49 pm ET | Updated 1 hour ag "After decades of denial, and in some cases outright coverup, a few of the world’s largest oil companies may be waking up to the realities of climate change. "American giants Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Valero Energy have started to tell investors that they face financial and physical risks as the planet warms and the world begins to use smaller amounts of fossil fuels, according to a review of their recent public filings with securities regulators. "These risks include increased government regulation aimed at making dirty energy more expensive to produce or limiting how much of it can be burned. Extreme weather, another danger, could disrupt operations or damage company assets. "A report published last November found that more than half of the 20 largest public U.S. energy and industrial companies had not disclosed information about the potential risks of climate change to their businesses. Since then, negotiators have reached a historic agreement in Paris to try to limit climate change, a new report found that sea levels could rise even faster than researchers had previously anticipated and state attorneys general continued to investigate companies that may have withheld information about the dangers of climate change. "Influence Map, a nonprofit group that examines the corporate influence of climate change policies, released both the November and April reports. "The recent disclosure by Exxon is perhaps the most significant. The story that the company tired to hide evidence of climate risks was first revealed by the L.A. Times and Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental reporting program and is now the subject of investigations by state attorneys general. “ExxonMobil believes the risk of climate change is real and warrants action. ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options,” said company spokesman Alan Jeffers. "In its annual report to investors, released in February, Exxon said it assumes “governments will enact policies that impose rising costs on energy‑related CO2 emissions.” It also assumes carbon emissions will be priced at $80 per ton in 20 years, as governments around the world enact policies to make fossil fuels more expensive and renewable energy even more competitive. "Currently, there is no stated, national price on carbon in the U.S., but some states have implemented carbon pricing plans, and hundreds of companies are using internal carbon prices to make investment decisions. "U.S. companies are not currently required to disclose climate change risks to investors. "Financial regulators are doing “almost nothing” to push companies to disclose climate risk, Mindy Luber, head of sustainable investing coalition Ceres wrote earlier this month. Previously, the Securities and Exchange Commission seemed poised to enact rules requiring that companies tell investors about the climate risks their businesses face. But that was in 2010, when the SEC was headed by Mary Shapiro. Under the current leadership of Mary Jo White, the agency has not moved forward with that effort. "In contrast, the Financial Stability Board, a group of national regulators, is working with executives to develop voluntary climate change disclosure standards. “It’s encouraging to see the energy sector providing greater disclosure,” Timothy Smith of Walden Asset Management, a sustainability-focused investment firm, said in a release. “This is an indicator that post-Paris, companies are increasingly aware of new realities that will inevitably affect their business.” "Reached for comment, Chevron referred The Huffington Post to its proxy statement, where it recommends investors vote against proposals requiring additional climate change reporting. ConocoPhillips, Valero and the SEC did not immediately respond to requests for comment." That's ok, Chevron, we already know your position on AGW. You believe it's real, and you're taking action. Thank you. https://www.chevron.com/corporate-responsibility/climate-change
Study: Global warming giving U.S. type of weather we prefer – for now April 21, 2016 Updated 5:00 a.m. By SETH BORENSTEIN / The Associated Press WASHINGTON – "Global warming has mostly made the weather more pleasant for Americans over the last 40 years, which may explain why much of the public doesn’t rank climate change as big a threat as do scientists and the rest of the world, a new study suggests. "But that perceived benefit of global warming – mostly milder winters – will soon be outweighed by more oppressive summer heat, according to a study in the journal Nature that’s dividing the scientific community. “Americans are getting the wrong signal from year-round weather about whether they should be concerned about climate change,” said study lead author Patrick Egan, a public policy professor at New York University. “They’re getting the good parts and haven’t had to pay the price of the bad part.” "At least, not yet. "If heat-trapping gases aren’t controlled, nearly nine out of 10 Americans will have noticeably worse weather – not better – by the end of the century, especially in the summer, the study found. "To try to understand America’s reluctance to tackle climate change, Egan and Megan Mullin, an environmental policy professor at Duke University, created a weather preference index for Americans based on past studies that look at where people move, taking employment and other factors into account. It is essentially calculated on where people choose to live. "And all things being equal, the average American prefers the weather to be warmer in the winter and less hot and humid in the summer. In other words, Miami, San Diego and Phoenix, which topped the chart of the new index. At the bottom are Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit. "Over the past 40 years, America’s weather has trended closer toward Miami than Pittsburgh. “For the average American, the daily weather has gotten better,” Mullin said. They like going coatless in December, as many did this past year. "For 99 percent of Americans, winters have warmed by 1 degree Fahrenheit a decade in the winter and only a seventh of a degree a decade in the summer, the study found. "America “may have been lulled into complacency when it comes to the impacts of climate change,” said Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, who wasn’t part of the study but called it a solid analysis. He and other scientists said the study raises interesting points, but climate change has other major impacts on people. It can trigger droughts, floods and heavy rainfalls; increase sea levels; make food and water scarce; and spread insect-borne diseases. "Other scientists dismissed the study. Matthew Nisbet, who studies climate communications at Northeastern University, said it was seriously flawed. He said looking at where people live is a not a good indicator of the weather people prefer. "Nisbet and University of Oklahoma meteorology professor Renee McPherson said politics, more than weather, colors people’s perception of climate change, according to studies and surveys. "Critics also noted that the study doesn’t deal with extreme weather like this week’s downpours in Houston, California’s four-year drought or Superstorm Sandy. George Mason University professor Ed Maibach said surveys show that nearly 40 percent of Americans say extreme weather hit their community in the past year. “People moved from New Orleans because of Katrina, not because they thought Houston, Dallas or Oklahoma City had better evening temperatures,” McPherson said. "Mullin and Egan said their study could not incorporate the effect of extreme weather on people’s preferences, adding that a key message is that scientists should talk more about extreme weather than average temperatures. "According to Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, hot summers are more of a problem than the study suggests. The fires, droughts and heat waves of a record hot 2012 cost $75 billion. In an email, he added: “It is unconscionable to say the climate has improved when the only reason is because one can use air conditioning.” http://www.ocregister.com/articles/weather-712978-study-climate.html