AGW vs Terrorism? Open Letter to Matt Ridley, Benny Peiser, WSJ

Dear Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser,

The ease with which you two misrepresent the facts in your Wall Street Journal op/ed “Complete Guide to the Climate Debate” is appalling.  Your opening shot reveals a determined self-imposed ignorance regarding the seriousness of today's AGW threat to our planet's life support system that demands a pointed rebuttal.  

You write:  "In February President Obama said, a little carelessly, that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism." What do you mean?  "A little carelessly"!??  Where do you two get off belittling the physical reality and future consequences of ongoing documented trends?  You willfully ignore decades worth of global news so as to remain "innocent" to the evolving situation.
(At the end this letter I share a response to the op/ed's lies from 7 leading climate scientists.) 

What terrorist threat to New York is greater than the threat of it's streets, subways and subterranean infrastructure being inundated by the ocean?  What terrorist threat is greater than killer heat waves, such as the one visited on France in 2003 and sure to revisit?  What terrorist threat is greater than the potential impacts of continued severe drought on California?

Any objective awareness of the evolving world news would make you understand that I could fill pages with examples of such monstrous real world threats from our warming and rapidly evolving global climate system - threats that far outweigh our self created and fueled, terrorist problems.

STOP HIDING !    TAKE A LOOK !

http://www.climatehotmap.org

_____________________________________________________________

The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters.  1995-2015

http://www.unisdr.org/2015/docs/climatechange/COP21_WeatherDisastersReport_2015_FINAL.pdf

The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)

CRED’s Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT)

The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

Foreword

Who we are

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1 . . .  Weather-related disasters 1995-2015

Chapter 2 . . .  Human costs of weather-related disasters

Chapter 3 . . .  Impacts of weather-related disasters by country

Chapter 4 . . .  Weather-related disasters & national income

Chapter 5 . . .  Counting the economic costs of disasters 

Acknowledgements 

_________________________________________________

A warming planet promises threats for our modern top heavy society, that only an appreciation for it's complexity will allow one to grasp.  Sadly your Republican/libertarian PR Machine has been very successful at confusing and dumbing down the public.  When honest education is what's required, you conjure fairytales, hostility, lies, bullying and slam your minds shut.

It is simply ludicrous pretending our weather doesn't have a deep impact on the wellbeing of our economy at every level, from agriculture, to transportation, construction, communication, the power-grid, even your beloved military-industrial complex and beyond.  Not to mention our own wellbeing as we go about our day to days. 

Considering Poptech's defense of funding (#3 in comment series)

This is the third Poptech comment, actually two sent minutes apart, it hardly needs introduction except that I hope it will help enlighten some to the tactics and base attitudes of your Republican/libertarian contrarian type.  

Andrew Poptech's comments are in comic sans font, where he quotes me I changed the type to back verdana and my commentary is mostly blue verdana.
Link to see the first comment, second comment.

________________________________________________________

Andrew at 6:44 PM, January 26, 2016

has left a new comment on your post "Poptech's boilerplate response": 

Poptech: 

The first link I actually provided was - Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

Yes and what kind of refutation is that post supposed to be?

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

     "direct" nice touch

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

     And you were expecting them to respond how?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

     And you were expecting them to respond how?  

CC: Besides, we all know (the evidence is pretty clear cut and copious) this is sort of a class war thing.  With the crisp clean-cut right-wing military-industrial-complex types, pissed at the environmental types and long haired scientists with their increasingly strident messaging that humanity was exceeding its limits for a comfortable sustainable life style - and that we needed to think about what we were doing and perhaps trying to change some of our unsustainable habits.

With the Reagan White House at their backs, they created a PR machine that made "sustainability" - "environmentalism" - "stewardship towards our biosphere" - "slowing down our ravenous consumption" into bad words and demonized notions.

Ivar Giaever explains climate science = pseudoscience

There was a gent over at SkepticSociety forum who started a new thread with the title: "Ivar Giaever explains climate science = pseudoscience"

Giaever is one of the signies of the infamous Wall Street Journal letter, see here.  He's also a person who ignored a number of emails asking him for details regarding why he signed that letter.

The gent who posted these YouTube links didn't offer any comments for what he thought we should learn from these video.  Although he does tend to sound like he actually believes AGW is a hoax.  I tell you, it is one disappointingly juvenile speech and I would have loved surveying the learned audience's opinion of it.  If I could get the audience list, I would send them all emails and try to find out... anyone out there know how to get that list?

I listened to the first video, it was awful and I couldn't help mading notes with time signatures that I posted over at SkepticalSociety.  If I had the free time I'd clean it those notes, endure the rest of his speech and post an unauthorized review of it.  But, that's not happening. 

Fortunately, those archivers of climate science for the lay public SkepticalScience.com are on top of it again with this recent review of the long retired superconductor and solid state physics expert's talking points.  

So with the permission of SkepticalScience.com I proudly reprint another one of Dana's excellent posts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 12 July 2012 by dana1981 We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example.  As he admits in his own words…