Marc Morano's imploding cabal of delusionals.

“NY Post: ‘The imploding cabal to criminalize climate dissent’” reads the headline on Morano’s latest installment at his ClimateDepot.com

climatedepot.com/2016/07/01/ny-post-the-imploding-cabal-to-criminalize-climate-dissent

Morano begins:

“These know-it-alls claim there’s a “consensus” on climate change and what to do about it. 

_________________

Mr. Morano,

There certainly is a fundamental consensus on the basics of what climate science can tell us about our planet and the impact of humanity’s centuries long burning of ever more stupendous amounts of fossil fuels which release CO2 and other greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and oceans.  

It’s not that complicated, we live on a geophysical planet which behaves according to understandable dynamics.  Determined people aren’t that stupid.  Given resources there’s not much they can’t figure out, as the past centuries of progress make plain.  

Air Force scientists of the post WWII years certainly received the resources to study our atmosphere and how energy moves through it.  It wasn’t just the US either.  Working independently were Australian and Russian Air Force scientists along with other lesser players.  All in the interest of developing better weapons and communication.  Succeed they certainly did and by the seventies the fundamentals were resolved (Independently even! It’s not like the USSR or USA was sharing information back then) and it remains solid. 

As proof of that solidity we have an assortment of modern marvels that are absolutely dependent on a superb level of understanding of the radiative properties of our atmosphere.  It’s paranoid and thoughtless to believe it’s still up for debate.  That can only be done by remaining rigidly ensconced within one’s own echo-chamber.

“CO2 Science dependent modern marvels, For your consideration”

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/06/co2-science-dependent-modern-marvels.html

“Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab”

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

We know how much fossil fuels humanity has been burning!

We know the physics of greenhouse gases and infrared radiation!

We know that because of this fundamental unavoidable physics that greenhouse gases act as atmospheric insulation, slowing down the escape of heat to outer space.  Scientists observe and measure this phenomena.

SB1161 - Response to Kyle Feldscher's misleading 6/3/16 Washington Examiner article

Regarding the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 - CB1161

Kyle Feldscher, 

you wrote about Democratic State Senator James Monning withdrawing California Senate Bill 1161, though the bill had passed both the state Senate's environmental and judiciary committees and can be reconsidered at a later date. The reason I want to examine your article is because you used that opening to launch into a Marc Morano love fest while completely misrepresenting what this bill was about, or why many people believe such action is needed.  

In this post I will quote your 6/3/16 Washington Examiner article while explaining why your arguments don't hold any water.  In fact, your retelling is typical of the conniving disingenuous misrepresentation of facts that has made many feel they have no choice but to try and legislate honesty - extreme though that may seem.

__________________________________________

"Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt" by Kyle Feldscher  (Nope, if anything the bill wants to make deliberate malicious misrepresentation of true down to Earth facts and findings legally actionable!)

"... According to the reports, which have been criticized for being funded by anti-fossil fuel groups, {It doesn't matter who unearthed them!  What about acknowledging that the facts are accurate?  

Why no show of concern at such systemic disregard for critically important fundamental scientific facts, and honestly representing them?} 

the company then just known as Exxon, knew the burning of fossil fuels could cause global warming as early as the 1970s. However, the company suppressed that knowledge and continued with its practices, and even funded groups to promote an anti-climate change agenda, according to the reports. {They were much more than "reports."  Kyle why didn't you use the more accurate "according to overwhelming evidence"?}

Those reports have sparked a larger investigation into Exxon Mobil's practices by four attorneys general, and 16 others have promised to cooperate in some way. ...
{Kyle have you read some of this stuff?  
Why shouldn't citizens be outraged?
Please explain, how do you justify what Exxon executives and their PR bullies have done?}

The Road Not Taken: Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

By Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer, September 16, 2015

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

~ ~ ~

Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act SB1161. What it really says.

The latest round of right-wing internet hysteria is over the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 (full text enclosed).  Right now they are celebrating a victory since State Senator James Monning withdrew the bill, though the bill had passed both the state Senate's environmental and judiciary committees.  What I've found more interesting than the merits or failing of SB1161, is the Right Wing Media's melodramatic misrepresentation of the bill.  Here's a sampling.

May 31, 2016 by California Political Review's Stephen Frank: "SB 1161: Makes Questioning “Climate Change” a Sue-able Offense. Criminal?" ~ June 3, 2016 Washington Examiner's Kyle Feldscher: "Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt" ~ June 2, 2016 Washington Times' Valerie Richardson: "California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics" to name but the three that I've read.

Marc Morano's June 3rd Climate Depot post sums up their mentality quite well via Kyle's puff piece, it reads:

June 3, 2016 Washington Examiner: "Marc Morano, a climate change doubter who runs Climate Depot, said the California bill is the logical end point of the debate between believers and doubters. 

(Morano) said those who believe in climate change have been trying for years to silence doubters and now, given the calls to investigate Exxon Mobil for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and the California bill, there are attempts to actually charge people for their beliefs.

"You can't even question the predictions of 50-100 years from now or that's considered hate speech," (Morano) said. 

"That goes against everything this country was founded on." Morano said climate change believers want to delegitimize their critics instead of engaging in any sort of debate over the science. 

He said the bill proposed by Allen is another step in silencing dissent. "This is the language of religion, not science," (Morano) said.

Sounds quite frightening and extreme, but then I know a bit about this Morano character, a true master of malicious misinformation campaigns.  So I decided to look at California SB1161 myself.  Surprise, it's turns out to be nothing like how Morano represented it.  

Here we have yet another example of how the right-wing PR machine misrepresents issues from the gitgo, reframing everything to suit their own simplistic and painfully myopic storylines.  I mean they refuse to even listen to what's being said.  Instead they are busy constantly spinning their paranoid machinations about the bad greenies.

How can rational constructive adult dialogue exist if one side refuses to hear what the other is saying?  It's no wonder that our critically important Anthropogenic Global Warming education dialogue of the past decades has been such a tragic endless dog-chasing-tail squandering of precious time.  

Back to SB1161, let's look at what this bill actually says.  

Behind Marc Morano's facade

A bit of unfinished business.  In my last post of 2015 I wrote about Marc Morano's contempt for learning about our Earth and his disregard of anything beyond his own ego-centric interests.  At the end of my thoughts, I tacked on over a dozen links to further articles giving various details into the ways and means of this climate science denial fabricator.  

Since sharing authoritative information with others is one of my main goals, here's an easy to copy and share index of articles that look behind the facade of Marc Morano.

 The Hustler arrives for his Paris "Red Carpet" entrance.

A look behind the facade.

This peek courtesy of Baerbel W

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVezyqdxIE

________________________________________________________________

Here's a look behind the faux science of the hustler,

courtesy of Graham Readfearn

The faulty science of the Climate Hustle documentary 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM62eTr8gqA#t=11

____________________________________________________________________________

The Fakery of the Paris ‘Red Carpet’ Premiere of Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Film

By Graham Readfearn • Wednesday, December 30, 2015 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/30/fakery-paris-red-carpet-premiere-marc-morano-s-climate-hustle-documentary

Marc Morano, Champion of Willful Ignorance, contempt, and oblivion

(Final touch up edits shortly before midnight 12/31/2015, my time)

Another year has come and gone and what do we have to show for it?  More Earth observations confirming that our 'global heat and moisture distribution engine' is in a state of increasing transition towards a hotter more energetic regime.  More climate science and communication outreach programs (and here and here and here and here). 

The COP21 climate agreement in Paris?  To be honest, I have no idea what it actually means or how it will impact the climate or me, and I doubt anyone else does either.  What about the most important thing?  Did we as humans in a global society learn anything?

Have the folks who've been battling climate scientists moderated their outlandish attacks in light of what's been happening before our eyes?  Has the Republican PR machine slowed down enough to learn anything?

ClimateDepot's (and Senator Inhofe's pal), Marc Morano is happy to supply the answer:

(This article is followed by a dozen+ interesting Marc Morano related articles and links, 

for the curious.)   

Looking at that picture I can't help wondering, did Marc transport that thing over there for this one show of utter in-your-face contempt towards people who think our finite physical planet is worth worrying about and conserving?

His display of contempt underscores a profound disconnect from the physical realities of our planet.  These people remain in love with their Reaganomics mantra of Greed is Good and Too Much Is Never Enough - they can't see through the lie because they are on top of the heap and honestly don't give a rat's ass about the rest. 

It really is that simple.  It's why observation and fact-based rationalists continue losing this "debate" - which is supposed to be a learning process, not a PR game.  

1000frolly and how the science denying PR machine operates

Lately I've been marveling at the prodigious output of disingenuous climate science ridiculing videos by a certain 1000frolly at YouTube.  He went into over-drive around the Paris climate conference:

4 in the past 24 hours (+4)

11 in the past 2 days (+7)

19 in the past week (+8)

27 in the past 2 weeks (+8)

31 in the past 3 weeks (+4)

39 in the past month (+8)

Everything from "The rise of eco terrorism" - "our last year of freedom?" - to "human CO2 emission are wholly beneficial" - to claiming the scientific understanding of greenhouse gases is a big hoax, of course, ignoring all the modern marvels that demand and in their own way prove that thorough understanding!  

His videos exude such a contempt for Earth's physical being and processes - along with hostility and a contrived paranoid attitude towards their 'opponents' and the established scientific community at large, that I've been increasingly curious about who's behind this YouTube Channel.  

Today I came across an indication that this 1000frolly might be the infamous  Lord  Monckton himself.  This piqued my interest since I've had a few go-arounds with both 1000frolly and the Lord himself, whom I'll admit I studied closely for a while and am in awe of, as a political performer that is.  Unfortunately, the substance of his rhetoric is loaded with malicious fraud.  

Trying to solve the mystery I visited two of his YouTube vids and asked him straight out if he was Lord Monckton, so far no response. (1000frolly has responded with the highbrow: "Sorry; I only answer scientific questions.")  Later while trying to track down more information I came across this excellent exposition on one particular chapter in the War on Science which did such a good job of detailing the networks and connection at work, including Monckton and 1000frolly, that I thought it should be added to my collection.  Regarding the mystery of who's behind 1000frolly if anyone out there has any information please do share.

Now I will hand it over to John Mashey who has done some detailed research into the ways and means of the climate science contrarian PR campaign again people's right to learn about serious climate science and their one and only planet.

\

https://www.desmogblog.com/2013/08/25/defamation-by-internet-part-1-murry-salbys-short-lived-blog-storm

part 2 - Debating a sock-puppet

AL won't respond over here, so I'm sharing his response to my previous post made regarding Prof Ivar Giaever's pathetic YouTube PseudoScience talk where he denounces the scientific understanding of CO2 with truly childish distractions and misrepresentations that any honestly interested person ought to be able to see right through.  

Unfortunately most of his fans are not honest, they are brainwashed into thinking the whole world is against them and that if scientists have information they don't like, they should ignore it - in fact it's worse, in their minds it's OK to misrepresent the facts, fabricate scandals, attack scientific leaders and champion kindergarten arguments if in support of their political ideology.
(touch up edits 11/25/15 am)

AL (9:46 AM -11/23/15) writes: 

+citizenschallengeYT Not sure what you want with that link, but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with

"This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science"

isn't directly proof of anything. The links on that page are just links to other blogs and not scientific papers (You should take a closer look.  Plus you'll find links within links, just gotta poke around.).

I already know the alarmists point of view and as I said it's easily refuted with science and the latest data that we have. (OK, so when are you going to share some of that!?)

___________________________________

AL, I don't believe you do understand anything of substance about the "alarmists point of view." 

I infer this from your shallow response that indicates you won't even allow yourself to actually read any of that information. Let alone digest any of it, nah you're too busy throwing up transparent defenses.  Pretending you have some "science and latest data" that disputes the accepted understanding - but never coming up with more than arm-waving, which I looked at in my previous post.
___________________________________

"… but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with … isn't directly proof of anything."

AL, you serious?  Looking for "direct proof" from an internet dialogue?  

Why are you playing this game?  Serious people appreciate that there is no "proof" in Natural Sciences.

It's always been about a preponderance of evidence, appreciation for understood natural laws and the flow of time, good faith assessment of evidence and learning from mistakes, along with a healthy sense of self-skepticism, such is the currency of "science" and learning to understand our planet.  

AL, I wonder if you appreciate the concept of consensus and to the best of our current understanding.

  

Beyond that I think you're confused about our discussion.  Let's go back to the start of our "debate" - you said:

debating a sock-puppet and another collection of informative links

This time we're at a comments thread to a YouTube video

The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate by professor Ivar Giaever

By virtue of sharing a Nobel for "experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors" back in 1973 - contrarians bathe Ivar in an aura of climate science authority which the old guy certainly does not possess.
(fyi - http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html )

  

Heck he even admits he's only done the most cursory reviews of articles - evidently he hadn't been paying attention to anything outside his microscopic tunneling and solid state physics for the past half century - not much of a background for pontificating on climate science, but oh boy, pontificate he certainly does.  Incidentally, it's not too difficult noticing that he nurses a grudge.

In any event, I owe "AL" an apology, he did post this list of specifics way back on the 9th, sorry for missing that, glad I stubbled on it this evening.   I don't want to ignore your challenge so better late than never (I have not changed or eliminated any of your words).  I'll keep it simple and let the links fill in the rest of the story. (I did some touch up editing 11/24/15 am)

______________________________________________________________

AL wrote Nov 9, 2015:  +citizenschallengeYT

"Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis."

____________________

Nonsense - You can find countless sources explicitly explaining that mankind is to blame for the warming of the past 50 years.  Claiming otherwise is an out and out lie!  Stop denying the CO2 we've put in the air, and the impacts of that increased atmospheric insulation on our climate.  Besides human drivers of global warming are not limited to increasing greenhouse gases, but that's a whole different compounding story I'll save for another time.

IPCC 2007

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html

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

Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report 2. Causes of change

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

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

2013 - IPCC PRESS RELEASE

Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says

https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf

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

Summary - Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis - 27 September 2013

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.VlPZrulyHww

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

HOW MUCH GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED?

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-is-only-part-human-caused

Part 6 - Debating ClimateDepot fan: AGW religion (epilogue)

Will responded to the final installment of my series back at #1, and considering that he tossed the "AGW is religion" turd at me, I decided Will's comment deserved the spotlight and a closer look.  (supporting links at the bottom)

=======================================================================

Will at 3:48 PM November 16, 2015 wrote:

Yours is not a debating site (1) but instead is an AGW religious site (2). I destroyed the AGW conjecture with one of my arguments that you did not disagree with but then decided just to ignore. (3) There is evidence that the climate sensitivity is 0.0 (4) and hence CO2 does not affect climate. (5)

____________________________________________

Will, good to hear from you, sad to hear you didn't learn a thing.  
Now let me say this about that:

Yours is not a debating site (1)

    If not, it's because AGW contrarians hide from anything that forces them to produce rational responses in writing.  They fear it because it exposes their weak underbelly, no substance, just a lot of flimflam.
____________________________________________

but instead is an AGW religious site (2)

    Then as if to highlight the hopelessness of attempting to communicate with one of your persuasion you lob that idiotic religion meme at me.  Religion is a belief system, our climate understanding is based on a huge body of scientific facts - even if you choose to ignore most of it and misrepresent the rest.

I challenge you, or anyone else, to explain how you arrive at such a conclusion?  Heck, can you even explain what it means; what do you think makes AGW a religion? 

Part 5c - Debating ClimateDepot fan: final thoughts

WillH - 10/26/15

Will:  ... I myself was once a Sierra Club member. I developed a soft spot for that part of the world after having gone to summer camp between Sequoia and King Canyon National parks and then doing a lot of back packing in the Southern Sierras but since then the club's politics has driven me away. 

__________________

This is ridiculous, what in the world does the Sierra Club have to do with honestly learning from the body of authoritative evidence regarding manmade global warming? 

I agree the Sierra Club isn't what it once was, so what?

_______________________________________________

Will:  Maybe I inherited a soft spot for the mountains from my father who was born in a mining town in the mountains of southern CO. 

__________________

So what?  Besides, consider the miner's legacy - knowing how to take stuff out of the ground, maximize profits, then run and leave huge messes behind for others to clean up.  Trust me, I've seen it, I lived in Silverton 79/85 and worked at the Mayflower Mill 83/84ish (crusher operator and ball/rod mill operator) - even worked underground (track crew - Gladstone) for a few months - so I've seen it from the inside.  I also watched the Animas River run orange/yellow yuck this past autumn.

But, what's all that got to with understanding climate science?

Will, take a peek at Morano's Climate Hustle

Speaking of ClimateDepot's Marc Morano, that alpha attack-dog of the Republican/libertarian machine.  A character who I believe is an exemplar of the sorts of individuals who have became the force driving the past decades meltdown in constructive-dialogue and statesmanship.  With bigger than life egos and never learning from their mistakes.  Instead always doubling down with ever more self-certainly, extreme slander, hostility and misrepresentations - and never ever an ounce of self-skepticism; or curiosity about the available Earth observation information.

Will, I just found out that Marc's created a film Climate Hustle (yeah, talk about  bringing politics into it) and he's scheduled a world premier at the Cinéma du Panthéon in Paris during the upcoming climate conference.  Guess it's his way of making the case for willfully ignoring down to Earth realities.  

Graham Readfearn has written an article about Morano's "Climate Hustle" which I'm reposting for your edification (without ads even  ; ).  But first, here are some other information rich articles regarding this political thug and denier of our collective dependence on a healthy planet:

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano: Never forget we have Murdoch madness and Andrew Bolt

Peter Imrich | old dog thoughts.com | Posted on January 19, 2015

ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano has been called “the Matt Drudge of climate denial,” the “king of the skeptics,” and “a central cell of the climate-denial machine,” and he revels in these descriptions. Although he has no scientific expertise, he is adamant that manmade global warming is a “con job” based on “subprime science.”  

Morano gained prominence working for two of the most vocal climate deniers in the U.S.: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who notoriously called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” and Rush Limbaugh, who we named Climate Change Misinformer of the Year in 2011 for his steadfast denial of climate science and wild conspiracy theories about the climate change “hoax.” 

These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media’s attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. … (link to read all of it)

_______________________________

The Planet Wreckers  | 10 Jun 2012

Climate-change deniers are on the ropes - but so is our planet.

_______________________________

This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax

Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story and effectively stalled John Kerry's presidential run. Now he is working against an even bigger enemy: belief in climate change.

Somehow, he seems to be winning. 

By John. Richardson  |  MAR 30, 2010 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a7078/marc-morano-0410/

_______________________________

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

______________________________________________________________

Marc Morano's Climate Hustle Film Set For Paris Premiere With Same Old Denial Myths

Marc Morano is never short of a superlative or two, but when it has come to promoting his long-gestating documentary Climate Hustle, the climate science denialist extraodinaire has been outdoing himself. "We are putting together what I think is the most comprehensive, unique, entertaining and humorous climate documentary that has ever been done or attempted," Morano…

Part 5b - Debating ClimateDepot fan: of politics and environmentalism

In this installment I'm taking another bite out of WillH's last comment.  It's only the next sentence, since he continues getting personal and rather than be reduced to calling him names or some such nonsense, I'd rather explore his words in more detail.  Admittedly, I'm also hoping I'm not the only one getting something out of this.

WillH - 10/26/15

Will H writes: .. (see 5a) … "Concerning Our Failure to Appreciate the Weather"  I did read your article. You seem to be primarily into the politics of AGW and are an environmentalist. …"

________________

"Primarily into the politics" ?  What does that even mean?  Do you have a rational explanation?  What are you yourself doing if not "politics"?  You certainly aren't contributing to the science.  What about your pal ClimateDepot's own Mr. Morano,  that alpha political operative, Mr. Swift Boat himself, he doesn't know anything but power-politics and slashing his way through a campaign.

WillH, it is your side that's deliberately politicizing climate science and scientists right to explain their science in a complete and clear manner.  It's politics that's out-screaming their rational message with manufactured scandals and misrepresenting what climate scientists have actually been saying and doing.

Then you crank it up another notch branding me an "environmentalist."

Ah what a fantastically contrived Republican attack tactic that one is.  Hate the environmentalist, the tree hugger, the people who care about this planet from which we evolved and upon which we depend for our sustenance and quality of life.

Why despise the people who recognize that humans and society are dependent on a healthy biosphere, clean air and water and space to move?  Why hate the people who want to slow down the relentless destruction of the very resources that all of us and most especially our children depend on?

Why all the self-destructive paranoia and contrived hatred for everyone who believes differently than the Republican/libertarian mindset?  What's with using every advantage modern science has to offer when it comes to your profits and comforts - but then ridiculing, attacking and ignoring those segments of the same solid scientific community who's information is inconvenient for your self-centered expectations?  It's childish and ultimately self destructive... and that we are really doing this to ourselves is beyond comprehension to me.

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

Will, as for my essay, 

Concerning Our Failure to Appreciate the Weather

By Peter Miesler • 20 October 2015 • The Humanist

http://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2015/up-front/concerning-our-failure-to-appreciate-the-weather

Allow me to run through my main points.

To begin with, it was a reflection on "An Essay Concerning Our Weather" written in 1995, which itself was my reflections on the previous couple decades of weather/climate/scientific/political history.

The first essay was inspired by a cartoon in the Denver Post by Mike Keefe, this revisit was built around the cartoon with speculation on what was going through the cartoonist's mind.  I'm gratified to have Mike assure me I got it.

used with permission from Mike Keefe

I explain the basic outline of what's understood about our climate system and what increasing our atmospheric greenhouse gases, (read global insulation), will be doing to our planet.  The Keeling Curve is certainly not politics, nor is the paragraph describing our planet's changing CO2 levels and likening it to one of our climate engine's regulators.

Then a brief outline of, what for that time, were a foreboding string of extreme, even unprecedented, weather events over the previous couple decades.

This led to our Great Dilemma back in 1995 -