. . . so is the entire actual Jersey shore. A Princeton study has found that global warming is causing a rise in sea levels that is far greater and more accelerated than previously thought. The report predicts that the Jersey shore could be underwater in a matter of decades and low-lying areas thrashed by increasing storm surges.
The study of Princeton-based research group Climate Central forecasts an increase of three to four feet in water levels and that the danger of massive killer storms will double by 2030. On their site, you can pick an area to look at the potential damage.
Even if half of this rise in sea levels is realized, it would produce widespread damage within our lifetime. It will be interesting to watch those people denying this environmental trend swim out of that problem.
As for that more painful reality, my greatest concern is that Jersey Shore will then combine with Waterworld in a terrifying mutation that will lead millions to throw themselves into the sea to make it stop.
Source: CBS
There is no showing you.
Why? because you can’t. You can not show me where tornadoes, floods drought, hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunami’s, snow etc etc are increasing over the long term trend. They are decreasing at the moment in spite of atmospheric CO2 increases.
Bdaman,
Show you? You’re either paid to pimp your denier nonsense or you’re a true believer. There is no showing you.
And let’s take a look at your new BFF’s . . .
“Same Skeptics, New Badges
One of the free-market think tanks listed as a “co-sponsor” of Heartland’s climate change skeptics conference is the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). SPPI founder and president Bob Ferguson is a featured conference speaker. (Co-sponsoring the skeptics conference does not imply financial support, as Heartland’s website explains.)
SPPI is one of a number of seemingly new climate skeptics groups. However, many are little more than a new website involving veteran skeptics, many of whom are listed as advisers to numerous such groups. SPPI describes itself as “a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science,” and proclaims that it is “free from affiliation to any corporation or political party.”
In late January, a supporter of SPPI stated on Wikipedia that, according to Ferguson, SPPI “has NEVER had any affiliation with, or funding from, Frontiers of Freedom Foundation (FOF) or Exxon — not ever!” To its credit, Exxon is one of the few corporations that details at least some of its donations to think tanks”
To its shame, Exxon has been a major funder of think tanks that dispute the science of global warming and oppose policies to address it. According to Exxon’s 2007 disclosure report, the oil giant didn’t fund SPPI that year. (Exxon’s 2008 report has not yet been released.)
But that doesn’t say much. SPPI was only founded in mid-2007, after Ferguson left the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), where he had been the Executive Director since CSPP’s formation. CSPP was a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF). And Exxon funded FOF (pdf), providing $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the “Center for Sound Science and Public Policy” (sic), with $97,000 more for “Global Climate Change Outreach Activities,” and a further $35,000 for “Global Climate Change Science Projects.”
According to its 2004 financial report (pdf), FOF paid Ferguson $100,000. In addition to being the Executive Director, Ferguson served on the group’s Board of Directors. The group’s 2007 financial report (pdf) listed Ferguson as working 40 hours a week for CCSP, but not being paid. So — at least as of 2007 — SPPI has not received Exxon funding, and its only connection to FOF was through Ferguson’s previous employment.
But who funds SPPI? On its website, the group discloses nothing about its funding sources, and does not say if it has a policy on what types of funding it will or won’t accept. Asked directly whether SPPI receives funding from companies with energy interests, Ferguson was not forthcoming. “Funding comes from private interests,” he told me. “That’s all I’m going to say.”
Perhaps Bob Ferguson is trying to be as discreet as Heartland’s James Bast. Perhaps he even thinks, like Bast, that his silence on funders will “keep the focus on the issue.” But the lack of disclosure should sound alarms. News of a global warming skeptics conference automatically raises questions about the funding behind the event. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the increasingly alarming projections of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions has cause to wonder about the interests being served.
Why Ferguson and Bast think that any sensible person would accept their secrecy — focusing on the activities of the monkey instead of the organ grinder — is beyond me.”
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8258
“The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
SPPI is not a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
In August 2011, Institute President Robert Ferguson spoke on “Benefit Analysis of CO2″[1] (previously known as “Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2″[2]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[3] He was accompanied by Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[3]
ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC’s operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org.
Mission
SPPI describes itself as “a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science.” It also proclaims that it is “free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.”[4]
Questions
SPPI’s legal status? (not an IRS nonprofit)
Although in March 2011 SPPI’s webpages described it as “a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy…”, in early 2011 Ferguson said SPPI had not been granted nonprofit status from the IRS[5], 3+ years after it was formed.
(An entry in Virginia’s Corporation Records [1] for “Science and Public Policy Institute, The” (#0673507-0) shows SPPI’s directors as Robert E. Ferguson, and two attorneys. But this was reportedly a shell corporation, with no income and no expenditures.[6])
Ferguson employed by CO2Science
The 2009 Form 990 for the Idsos’ Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reports the Center paid Ferguson a base salary of $247,500 plus a $60,000 bonus.
Background
Connections to FoF’s Center for Science and Public Policy
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, SPPI’s Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute. SPPI’s blog is run by a web designer who has also reported helping at Frontiers of Freedom.[7]
SPPI is in the same building as CSPP, though in different offices – SPPI at Suite 299[8] and CSPP at Suite 2100.[9]
Timeline
March 2005-May 2007, Ferguson edits CSPP weekly bulletin[10][11]
June 2007, First known SPPI press release issued, supporting the statements made by the then NASA Administrator Michael Griffin questioning global warming. Heartland Institute’s Harriette Johnson was listed as media contact.[12]
July 2007, SPPI begins publishing SPPI eWire, identical in content style to CSPP’s Climate Weekly, Climate and Environment Weekly and Climate and Environment Review.[13]
On SPPI name confusion with Carlo’s SPPI
Ferguson founded and named this group approximately eight years after George L. Carlo had founded the identically-named, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute, to work on issues such as electro-magnetic radiation and health issues.
Ferguson states he was oblivious to the existence of Carlo’s group, and that it was only after registering his organization in Virginia that he discovered Carlo’s group existed, but by then his group had created the website and printed their stationery.[14]
Funding
On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding or outline its approach to disclosure.
For past funding (of CSPP) by Exxon, see the “Exxon funding” section of the Frontiers of Freedom page.
Personnel
Displayed
On SPPI’s “Personnel” page, the following names appear:[15]:
Robert Ferguson, SPPI President
Lord Christopher Monckton (UK)
William Kininmonth, (Australia)
Bob Carter (Australia)
Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
David Legates
Joseph D’Aleo
Previously
These additional names were reportedly present in Feb. 2009:
Willie Soon, Chief Science Adviser
James J. O’Brien
Contact Details
Science and Public Policy Institute
209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 299
Washington, D.C. 20003
5501 Merchants View Square,# 209
Haymarket, VA 20169″
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
ALEC and Monckton!
Who’d have thunk it.
None of which negates that you went against other deniers by cherry picking data from IPCC.
You can try and spin it however you like the FACTS are AGW can not be blamed for extreme weather events. Go ahead it show me.
Oh and by the way Dr. Jeff Masters has referenced Bouwer’s study here.
2011’s Billion-Dollar Disasters: Is Climate Change to Blame?
by Jeff Masters
http://www.weatherwise.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2012/March-April%202012/dollar-disasters-full.html
and Dr Roger Pielke here.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/rewriting-academic-literature.html
Two from both sides of the camp who agree with the assessment.
Face it. You appealed to the wrong authority for your cherry picked data. You followed up with a composition error concerning the IPCC. Try to spin it however you like.
No shit, Sherlock. I didn’t pick them because I agreed with their agenda. I picked them because they pointed out your expert of choice wasn’t really an expert you should be appealing to as an authority.
Not only mine THEY GOT A WHOLE FREAKING LIST.
Or better yet, let me dumb this down for you: the authority you as a denier appealed to was already discredited by other deniers.
That’s quality work in the cherry picker there, Bdaman.
No Gene my point is that you brought up how he didn’t have a PHD so there for could not be trusted and he worked for THE IPCC. Then later we find out that many who work for the IPCC while being lead authors on subject matters did not have PHD as well. By your thinking this would mean that like Bouwer all who work for the IPCC who do not hold a PHD are not to be trusted and they must not know what they are talking about.
In other words most of the lead authors to studies on climate change to which the worlds leaders base their decisions are from kids 30 years old or less who don’t have a PHD at the time of the authorship.
It’s truly a fascinating article.
No shit, Sherlock. I didn’t pick them because I agreed with their agenda. I picked them because they pointed out your expert of choice wasn’t really an expert you should be appealing to as an authority.
Gene next time after you do your google search you may want to click on the homepage of the link you pick to get an idea of what kind of site YOU PICKED.
http://sppiblog.org/ is a denialist site.
And your point is? Not all of the IPCC agree on AGW being real. Just the majority of them. You lapping up the ones who don’t agree that AGW is real only goes to show your bias even further. You mistake me for somebody who thinks cherry picked data is worth a damn.
Hey Gene did you notice the title to the article you linked to. I just looked and had know idea this is what it said
Meaning I posted this comment
Gene I love you. You are truly one of the best and brightest.
only to go read in full top to bottom the Article you linked to
“Not Really the “Best and Brightest” at the IPCC”
Thanks for the link at of all I’ve read on the matter I have never read that.
Well I’m glad you love me because I’m completely indifferent to the opinions of me held by anonymous cherry picking trolls.
Not all of them are grad students, Bdaman. Just the one you had the misfortune to cherry pick.
Gene I love you. You are truly one of the best and brightest.
Oh how I love this one Gene
So, in the 15 years prior to earning her PhD, Kovats served once as a contributing author and twice as a lead author for the IPCC.
Which means governments around the world have been relying on the expertise of grad students when they make multi-billion-dollar climate change decisions.
And I could give a fuck what a troll like you thinks about me, Bdaman.
What I did was point to a source that discredited your source of choice for cherry picked data. That they happen to have a spin agenda that coincides with yours simply shows your ineptness a cherry picking data. That what happens when you leap before you look, Bdaman.
A little more for you Gene had you read on instead of cherry picked. Your gonna love this one it just backs up what I said to start.
QUOTE
The IPCC’s task is to evaluate all the relevant scientific findings pertaining to climate change and to write a report summarizing what we know and don’t know – so that governments around the world can make sound decisions.
Are there people capable of performing this task who don’t possess a PhD? Yes. Eminent theoretical physicist and longtime Princeton University professor Freeman Dyson, for example, never got around to completing a doctorate. But one of the reasons we know Dyson is an exceptional intellect is because he has been winning international science awards since the 1960s. Bouwer’s academic bio provides little indication that he is the next Dyson.
The IPCC surely needs to explain how research assistants and those-working-on-their-masters qualify as the worlds best experts and top scientists.
UNQUOTE
Your not the best or the brightest either Gene even though you claim your smarter than 99 oops, 97 percent.