Craig Idso is currently the head of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group dedicated to attacking the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In February of 2012, internal documents detailing budgets and strategies from the Heartland Institute were released to DeSmogBlog. These documents indicated that Heartland pays Craig Idso $11,600 per month for his work attacking legitimate climate science. Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration. He is the son of the Center for the Study of CO2 and Climate Change's President Sherwood Idso and brother of VP Keith.
I also looked into just one more contributor, i see a pattern emerging.
Scafetta has concocted his own theories regarding global warming, which he presented to the EPA in a presentation titled "Climate Change and its Causes, a Discussion about some Key Issues." According to his beliefs the world should be facing an imminent cooling period. However, Scafetta's theory has been disputed by other scientists.
Source: DeSmogBlog profile Nicola Scafetta.
Unfortunately those different motivations now include being paid to subvert truth.
There is lots of evidence that groups representing such industries as oil and coal are paying people to post and confuse the issues, this leads to a disconnect for most people. There has been concrete evidence about their activities in the past with large amounts of money paid to sully the facts and i think there is a good reason to think they have moved on.
We all make a choice in what we think on balance and evidence is happening.
It is easier to be cynical and just carry on, if people cannot be bothered i accept that, when people deliberately try to subvert actions i will not accept this.
Maybe i am being too idealistic but i just do not understand how any right minded person can just ignore the findings of such an eminent groups as The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) - http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
I found this argument on a site.
The climate change debate is, in almost every aspect, a 'no brainer' but a perfect example of the oft stated truth that humans are very bad at assessing risk.
If the pro climate change faction is right, action is already overdue. If they are wrong, we still need to get a grip on pollution and all the other negative effects of over population and over consumption. Even dealing with a problem which is not as bad as those who believe climate change to be proven might be, (it certainly is glaringly obvious however much the deniers might wish to dispute the human element) action will still have a beneficial effect on the human experience.
But what about the risk factor?
If the pro climate change lobby is right, we are possibly well on the way to destroying any chance for the medium term survival of a civilised human race. Even if they are wrong, dealing with the effects of too many people using too many resources would be no bad thing for humanity.
What back up plan for either eventuality is the anti climate change lobby proposing? 'Culling' a few billion people? Somehow, I don't see them as being willing volunteers to join the ranks of the culled.
I'm not as well read as you guys and can't use links and graphs to support my views but nevertheless, loathe that climate change has become political issue.
Climate change hasn't been as dramatic as predicted but it is still happening. Even if we cannot agree on the exact figures, the majority of the scientific community is in agreement to our involvement in it.
Would it not be better to err on the side of caution?
Do people remember CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer? Governments acted promptly to resolve the issue. It's depressing that due to misinformation we are unable to get a similar outcome this time round.
Can't help but see the irony when people freak out over small changes to things like interest rates or sports scores, but are happy to discount 'minor' changes to the climate.
**"This is part of the problem. All looks very reputable. But it looks like a press release in the news section to me, anyone can release a press release. The report seems biased in it's language and seems to be trying to have it's cake and eat it too, by making a grand claim of 97% but discounting 2/3 of the papers surveyed."**
11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 (figures rounded up).
66.4% - 7,950 - expressed no position on AGW
32.6% - 3,800 - endorsed AGW
0.7% - 80 - rejected AGW
0.3% - 40 - uncertain about the cause of global warming
You would have to look at all of the papers but I would assume that not all even touched on the subject, they could have been about cloud formations, these make up the 66.4%. It is important to use the figures on papers that have GW as part of the conclusions or ones who actually expressed a view that AGW played a part in the area they studied.
The important figures are those who expressed the view that it happening at 32.6% as opposed to 0.7% who reject it. In figures that is 3,800 supporting, 80 against.
Pretty conclusive that any person who thinks scientists who spend their lives studying Climate may have points that are worth considering as worrying.
I did not ignore the other 66.4%, simply those papers where not relevant to any discussion on AGW.
*I do though admit my first statement was incorrect when i stated all Peer Reviewed Papers on climate, I should have written something like - all those papers who's area of study was affected by the possibility of the effects and possible existence of AGW.*
Your point you make about me attacking the person running the Anti site while not the person who runs the pro site, how valid is that point?
" . . documents indicated that Heartland pays Craig Idso $11,600 per month for his work attacking legitimate climate science."
They are a group promoting an virulent anti AGW, they are funded by industry, the likes of the - ExxonMobil gave Heartland more than $530,000 (2001-2011) while the American Petroleum Institute--the oil and gas industry's trade association--slipped the think tank $25,000 (2008). Two of the Big Three Detroit automakers also chipped in. Chrysler donated $105,000 (2004-2006); General Motors, $165,000 (2004-2010). Also $2.79 million from the three main Koch family funds, (Anything the evil Koch Brothers fund should be seen as being a nasty Free Market sod everything else cause).
They fund many such sites and groups set up to attack AGW and confuse the issues to protect their own businesses.
Craig Idso takes money to propagate his views from a very seedy bunch of industrialists and my conclusion is he should be seen as not being a reliable source.
You also think we cannot afford it. Governments always find money for what they want to spend money on, the WMD fiasco, an illegal war that coast the Americans alone more than a trillion dollars (my view is the only reason they went to war was to feed those very industrial entities that are funding the likes of Heartland, animals such as Haliburton who made billions of profit from it).
How much will bush fires cost us if they become more frequent and more intense as is predicted? Apart from the loss of life this will affect insurance, cost of infrastructure, food supplies. As thousands arrive by boat from islands that have become too dangerous to inhabit, what will that cost us? Low lying coastal towns being swamped? Floods? It goes on.
The sad reality is that many people are 'over' it, are cynical and have the attitude so what, 'I can't do anything', 'I'll be dead before it happens' all makes me sick to the stomach. How selfish is that? Not just selfish but sickens me that people are so dam self centred and lazy they stick their heads in the sand and ignore the overwhelming proof by experts.
I do not think I will convince you because you seem to want conclusive, hard facts, whereas science does not work like that. I do though hope you will have another look at the balance of information and what motivates those who say AGW is some construct of corrupt scientists and governments, I have yet to find anyone who can elucidate why they would do this. Whereas the opposition has very obvious reasons that motivate them, profit.