StreetScooby

I have moved beyond shock to genuine fright with these people. It's clear they are going to be balls out in the last two years in office "implementing their agenda", independent of the restrictions imposed by our Constitutional government. I work in the financial industry, at the dealer level. For years now, every employee (whether client facing or not) must take internal training/tests regarding client onboarding and money laundering. These tests are a big deal, and are taken very seriously by management because they are required to by federal regulators. In addition, Dodd-Frank rules have yet to be implemented, and I expect they are simply going to kill this industry. Trading volumes have already decreased to low levels, and are expected to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Don't be surprised when cash is removed from our society, and other western democracies. Be prepared to the best of your ability should that day arrive. And, be sure and send me an email saying how you did it We are all engines of karma

There are many boiling hot spots around the world right now, IMO. Things can easily get out of hand, with significant repercussions to our way of life. Couple this with the fact that western democracies are losing their ability to fund their military (i.e., Britain is down to one aircraft carrier with no airplanes, and 14 dinghies ). It should be cause for great concern to all thinking people. In addition, there's also the increasingly nationalistic Chinese, the ever insane Kim-worshiping North Koreans, the jew-hating Iranians who want to bring about conditions for the 12th imam, and the peaceful jihadists who are better funded by the day. Those are the ones that come to mind rather quickly. Outside of Obama's immediate circle, most people don't know the words to Kumbaya in this violent world that we actually live in. “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” -- Winston Churchill No truer words have ever been spoken. It's best we not lose sight of them, IMO. We are all engines of karma

Man is aiding climate change, but we're far from the only force driving that, IMO. We're not even the dominant force driving that. Here's more articles re: the 97%. In a nut shell, politicians should not be saying that "97% of all scientists agree..." Likewise, the only "urgent action" needed here is for rationale adults to show up in Washington. I believe the original article that started this whole nonsense number is here: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Here's another article "debunking this number", this one from Forbes. I've included the link here as the article references several other articles that are worth the read. Full text of the Forbes article is shown below. Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims Comment Now Follow Comments Global warming graphic (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action. Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus. Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.” When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification. “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.” “What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).” “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added. To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist. Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.” “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon. “I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized. Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case. Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis. These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is. We are all engines of karma

And I'm sure that's the case in New York state, also. I've done this before, and it's never been a problem with previous employers. It was actually quite eye opening the first time I did this. Did not realize how extensive they went into it, and how much information that actually collected. We are all engines of karma

Ok, I'll consider myself forewarned. Kind of expected this any way, but for this one, I'm going to go in with an open mind. It's striking to me how progressives rely on false narratives to make their points. I should probably spend some time looking over a few of Saul Alinsky's writings. I'm sure I can come up with 15 minutes, somewhere...

Ok, I'll track this down and watch it. We are all engines of karma

Really? Obama, Biden, and just about every other person who engages in this question claims it's going to be "catastrophic". My take on the various articles was that the bulk of these scientists had words put into their mouth. CO2 makes up 0.0004 weight fraction of the atmosphere. Over the next approx. 100 years, with China and India increasing their CO2 output, it's expected this weight fraction will rise to 0.0008. Using the low end of the IPCC climate sensitivity estimate (which continues to decrease with each publication), and assuming their models are reasonably complete (...which I don't think is the case), that would net a 2 degF rise in temperature. Considering that water vapor is the dominant green house gas by far, and it alone is responsible for about 60 degF in warming (life as we know it wouldn't be here on this planet without that), I can no longer take AGW alarmists seriously, at least not in any technical sense. Politicians are using this issue for a power grab. The solutions they are advocating are insane (...the US must shut down it's coal plants NOW...), will have no positive impact on the problem at all, will end up causing far more harm than good, and will give them ever increasing control over our lives. Not a good trade off, IMO. The way you phrased that makes it sound like your an AGW activist who feels government action is mandated and worth what ever else happens. Is that a fair statement on my part? My understanding is the Sun drives the climate far more than man made activities. We don't even fully understand it, yet. To claim that a "modeled 2 degF increase over 100 years" justifies current actions of EPA, Europen bureaucrat, et. al., is simply insane, IMO. We are all engines of karma

I'm not surprised with your comment. You should see it. You'll learn something. We are all engines of karma

Below is a WSJ article "debunking" the 97% number. This is one of several I've seen, not all in the WSJ. I realize the authors are controversial, but WSJ is pretty good with their opinion pieces, IMO. ========================================================================== The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming? By Joseph Bast And Roy Spencer May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent." Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers. Enlarge Image Getty Images/Imagezoo Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor. The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make. In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus. In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters. Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change. Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous. Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing." Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. We are all engines of karma

This is an outstanding movie. Highly recommend it to both sides of the aisle. We are all engines of karma

That is a very clear answer to my question. Thank you. We are all engines of karma

No, it was you that quoted that number... See post# blah-blah, ...oh, never mind. I really do want to find "that list", and see who is on it. We are all engines of karma

IIRC, I am entitled to full disclosure of a company's background check run for purposes of employment. Am I missing anything? Just wanting to double check before taking upcoming action. I'm also in the process of reviewing NYState law on this, somehow. We are all engines of karma

Thanks for the post. I will review this. We are all engines of karma

billvon, in the interest of accurate communication, can you post the list of scientists you are referring to, please? As I mentioned in a previous post, I would love to see this list. Again, I want to see the list you are referring to. IIRC, the vast majority of these scientists did not feel it was going to be a significant life altering event, and did not count themselves as "AGW-alarmists". We are all engines of karma

IIRC, the US paid significant compensation to the victim's families. We are all engines of karma

Because the Russians have some really big guns. And that seems to scare the Obama administration? Just guessing... We are all engines of karma

By now you should realize that Russia has some really big guns. And that scares most people. We are all engines of karma

I read this plane was flying at over 30,000 feet. Their stuff can reach that height??? Wow... We are all engines of karma

I continue to wait for someone in that group to write a book along the lines of "Living in Trees for Dummies". I think it would be a best seller. I for one would buy it, and read it. Then, I'd fully advocate they lead by example, beginning with the author and their supporting cast. Show us how its done, please. We are all engines of karma

Besides what the 97% of social scientists think, you and I have had this conversation before: 1) Yes, it's clear that CO2 has an impact on climate. 2) It's also clear that there are many drivers in our climate, many of which are not understood, and that the impact of CO2 is no where near the dominant force in our climate. 3) It's becoming increasingly clear that this impact will be not be catastrophic, or anything remotely catastrophic. 4) It's crystal clear that what's is being proposed by AGW proponents is worthless, in terms of effectively mitigating this effect. We are all engines of karma

Have you read any of his papers? He's a salesman. Thank goodness there are real scientists working on this problem. He most certainly is not one of them, IMO. We are all engines of karma

This is the "australian study" that looked at abstracts? Debunked. Not keeping my sources on this, but will start. We are all engines of karma

Please, pretty please, provide your sources for that. I for one would love to see it. Thanks. We are all engines of karma

FIFY, billvon. I really think you should stop quoting this. It's been widely debunked now. Too many sources to count. It's unbecoming of someone like yourself, IMO. We are all engines of karma