Aggrotologist says he must be right and that Forbes must be wrong.

I've met his type before, he writes stuff like this:

According to YOUR theory, no car can be charged with hitting a pedestrian unless the pedestrian is already dead or too crippled to move.

It must be something to do with the Toronto air.

Yet another fix needed for climate models – this time due to aerosols

Posted on October 5, 2012 by Anthony Watts
There are so many updates and fixes needed to the climate models these days its almost like watching a car undergoing a perpetual repair process. When does the time come when the owners realize that maybe they should take advantage of the “lemon laws” and get a new model? From Johannes Gutenberg University:

International research group shows that the aging of organic aerosols is caused by OH radicals

Climate models need to be updated

Originally Posted by Aggrotologist

So Forbes magazine is arithmetically challenged as it is on science.

Even your limited intelligence shoulod[sic] have been able to calculate that those annual figures could not possibly reach the total Forbes claims.

Forbes was only the source of Larry Bell's article, dumbo, if you had bothered to read it, you'd be as wise as me, but you decided to make a fool of yourself instead:
The Alarming Cost of Climate Change Hysteria

September 9, 2011
Climate change spending won't slow any time soon, says Larry Bell, a professor at the University of Houston.
Indeed, there are several indications of substantial spending increases on climate change:

• According to the Government Accountability Office, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period.
• Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period.
• An addition $79 billion was spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy."
• Subsidies intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions accounted for $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone.

Additionally, the Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year, though the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the proposed 70 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions will have negative economic consequences as well, including:

• A rise in gasoline prices of 77 percent over baseline projections.
• The loss of more than 3 million jobs.
• A reduction in the average household income by more than $4,000 each year.

In addition to costing hundreds of billions of dollars, these policies are in place at a time when our gross national deficit following a ceiling rise exceeds the size of our gross domestic product, and the U.S. credit rating has been devalued for the first time in history.
Source: Larry Bell, "The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria," Forbes, August 23, 2011.
For text:
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

So Forbes magazine is arithmetically challenged as it is on science.

Even your limited intelligence shoulod have been able to calculate that those annual figures could not possibly reach the total Forbes claims.

The report is completely innocuous. The Forbes writer is just doing the usual right-wing horrorshow-spin thingy.

Recommendation: To improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal climate change programs and activities, we recommend that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, including the Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Office and Management and Budget, and Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with Congress, should work together with relevant federal agencies and interagency coordinating bodies to assess the effectiveness of current practices for defining and reporting federal climate change funding and aligning funding with priorities, and make improvements to such practices as needed for Congress and the public to fully understand how climate change funds are spent.

The article is from a "contributor" Larry Bell, a professor of architecture who has never published a line of research on climate change or its economics. His "contributions" consist of adding his yawp to the denialist echo-chamber.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11...ne/191545#bell

Some words of wisdom from The Conversation.

In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes..... Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.

There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.

The consensus of evidence is fairly obvious. The Climate Change Debate Thread

The consensus among scientsts is confirmed by three studies at least.

Expert credibility in climate change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2012 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

There is no such thing as climate change denial

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

There is no such thing as climate change denial

How hard were you biting your lip when you posted that?
Ö¿Ö

According to the Government Accountability Office, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period.

And that was only the USA.

Try proportioning that evidence to your belief, Odious.

Is Glowbull warming turning Earth into an asteroid magnet?


Feb 11 2013

CNN Anchor Blames Asteroid on Global Warming

Posted by Dan McGrath in Cause/Effect, Extreme weather, Loonies
By Jazz Shaw
We’ve seen some pretty incredible things blamed on Global Warming over the years, ranging from hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards to earthquakes and plunging penguin populations. But for your Sunday morning entertainment, one anchor at CNN may have finally set the bar higher than anyone else shall ever manage. Deb Feyerick was caught by the folks at Newsbusters chatting with Bill Nye, “the science guy” and suggesting that an entirely different phenomenon might be pinned on the changing climate.

CNN anchor Deb Feyerick asked Saturday afternoon if an approaching asteroid, which will pass by Earth on February 15, “is an example of, perhaps, global warming?”
Moments earlier, before an ad break, she segued from the Northeast blizzard to a segment with Bill Nye “the science guy,” by pointing to global warming: “Every time we see a storm like this lately, the first question to pop into a lot of people’s minds is whether or not global warming is to blame? I’ll talk to Bill Nye, ‘the science guy,’ about devastating storms and climate change.”

An interesting paper on climate change opinions among petroleum engineers and geoscientists in the Canadian state of Alberta, home of the Tar Sands, where there is an obvious economic dependence on fossil fuel.

Two important caveats:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” ...

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct.

The important statement is in the conclusions:

A potential, yet so far unused discursive opportunity to ‘broker’ between pro-regulation frames and ‘economic responsibility’ may lie in a more comprehensive (i.e., including financial) understanding of risk (Hoffman, 2011b). Nagel (2011) discusses how the insurance and reinsurance industry is supremely concerned about exposure to financial risks associated with extreme weather events.

The US military is concerned about security risks associated with ‘population displacements, increased potential for failed states and terrorism, potential escalation of conflicts over resources’ (Nagel, 2011, p. 206).

Risk management is of fundamental concern to all – including energy – companies, insurance and finance industries, military and other government agencies. Professional engineers and geoscientists (and lawyers, accountants, corporate officers, etc.) are in the business of managing risk. Indeed, engineers have recognized these risks, been working behind the scenes, and revised the Canadian Building Codes to adapt to the changing climate

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals

Denialism From Forbes Courtesy of Heartland Hack James Taylor – denialism blog

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

The report is completely innocuous. The Forbes writer is just doing the usual right-wing horrorshow-spin thingy.

Why not check facts before hitting the post button?
Climate Change

Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete

GAO-05-461, Aug 25, 2005

[snip] GAO was asked to examine federal climate change funding for 1993 through 2004, as reported by both agencies, including (1) how total funding and funding by category changed and whether funding data are comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed and whether funding data are comparable over time.Federal funding for climate change increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $5.1 billion in 2004 (116 percent), as reported by OMB, or from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation. During this period, inflation-adjusted funding increased for technology and science, but decreased for international assistance

U.S. GAO - Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete