Asbestos Removal Tracking Form - Environmental Health And Safety: Fill & Download for Free

I will answer this 2 ways:Straw man.“Catastrophic climate change” IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TERM.Its media exaggerations and denier cry wolf tactics to talk down the real dangers of global warming. Climate change" and "catastrophic climate change", are often made up "distinctions" by climate change deniers to make them seem more "moderate" and those who accept global warming as "paranoid".Deniers wants people to believe that the scientists have predicted doomsday, and as long as this never happens, they are wrong again and there is nothing to worry about, we can continue to burn fossil fuels like never before.Its basic smear tactic and propaganda.There is no fear mongering from scientists.Scientists warns about food, security and economy. Still serious matters.WHO ARE THE REAL FEARMONGERS AND WHY?The “fear mongering” and “Hollywood doom and gloom scenarios” are denier myths and media exaggerations so they can sell more papers and get more clicks online.The polluters benefits from any fuzz and noise added to the information stream between the scientists and the public.And this is “funny”, the polluters are now accusing the people who warns about the dangers of climate change for being “hysterical” and “doomsdayers” etc. Now, where have we heard such terms before?Yes, the tobacco industry used those terms to smear the people who warned about the dangers of tobacco smoking.If the internet had been around in the 60s and 70s, climate deniers would be arguing against the health effects of smoking, and dredging up historical/anecdotal examples to insist that lung cancer was "natural", while warning that smoking cessation efforts were all part of a global conspiracy of taxation and socio-economic control.Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway PublicAnd climate deniers favorite think tank, The Heartland Institute, which funds their favorite clime denier conspiracy blog WUWT,are in fact still using said terms to smear the people who warns about the dangers of tobacco, even asbestos:Heartland Institute 2018:"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science"."The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."“The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”"There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places."Anti-smoking activists give smokers a stark choice: Stop smoking or die! In fact, there is a third path: reduce the harm by shifting to less-hazardous products that provide similar enjoyment.Smoker's Lounge | Heartland Institute"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."https://www.heartland.org/news-o...The fossil fuel industry is spending millions of dollars spreading every lie they can to convince people that global warming is nothing to worry about.They love to claim that scientists says CC is “catastrophic”. And as long as this “apocalypse” dont happen, CC is nothing to worry about and no need to stop burning fossil fuel. (Tobacco industry used the same tactic; If smoking can kill you, dont stop smoking, just smoke less or switch to a “milder” type of cigarettes.)Anything to draw the attentions away from C02 emissions, their monetary crane. This monetary crane is their holy grail which they worship and protect.Baldfaced lies planted in your head by the fossil fuel industry’s many minions, in a billion-dollar disinformation campaign lasting for decades, promoting over 190 lies like this one, using the old Soviet model of flooding the information marketplace with chaff—numerous fake science concoctions that most people lack the background in science and crticial thinking to process.The goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources. To do this they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can engorge itself in even more wealth.https://cleantechnica.com/2016/0...That’s why they call the over 99%, who relate to AGW as a fact, for “warmists” or “alarmists” and such. The use of other snarl words like CAGW is also common."CAGW", for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming", is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate"Warmist" is a snarl word used by global warming deniers to describe anyone who is perceived to "believe" in anthropogenic climate change. The term is comparable to "Evolutionist" among YECs.Global warming - RationalWikiThe concerted effort to discredit the scientific consensus over man-made global warming has been continuing for two decades in the United States, and shows no sign of stopping anytime soon. It is very often described as an attempt on the part of corporate America, most notably the fossil fuel industries, to hinder governmental regulations on their activities.HOW THE POLLUTERS SWAY THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC:"Denialists know that they have no valid scientific argument; if they did they would present it in scientific journals, conferences, and debates. Their goal isn’t to demonstrate science, it is to manipulate public opinion. That is what lobbyists do, and they do it well. Their goal is to create the illusion of debate, the façade of uncertainty. By continuing the “discussion,” such as it is, in the media, they win. They know that a majority of the public won't understand the intricacies of the science, either by choice or by its complexity. Denialists know that the public will get an overall sense of whether the science is settled or not, and that it is on this vague feeling the public will make judgments as to whether immediate action is needed. Perception is more important than fact, and illusion of reality is much more powerful than actual reality. [...] What is critical in this game is not what the science tells us, it’s the fact that to the public it appears as if there are two sides arguing with each other. Two sides + arguing = not settled."Once the professional denial lobby has seeded the internet via their paid bloggers (e.g., Climate Depot, WUWT, etc.), they rely on the amateur deniers to saturate the blogosphere with every sciencey-sounding, but already debunked, misinformational tidbit. Actual science by NOAA, NASA, the IPCC, and every other scientific organization is dismissed as "unreliable," while a blog post by some non-scientist with his pet conspiracy theory is taken as gospel. [...]The combined information of nearly every climate scientist, every climate science organization, every National Academy of Science in the world, a hundred thousand peer-reviewed scientific studies, more than a century of research, millions of data points, and the realities of basic physics can all be washed away by an anonymous blogger posting easily debunked misinformation on a blog by a non-scientist receiving funding by lobbyists."Michael Mann:"When it comes to attacks on climate scientists specifically, this strategy follows a familiar script. On the eve of a critical Congressional vote, hearing, or climate policy summit, a late-breaking “scandal” suddenly erupts. Individual scientists are typically charged with claims of misconduct, fraud, or data manipulation, and soon enough, right-wing blogs, climate-denying websites, and the conservative establishment media are trumpeting the accusations. In time, more objective media outlets are forced to cover the uproar, lending it credibility and oxygen, even as it is responsibly dissected."THE DENIAL MACHINE:-a well-funded, highly complex and relatively co-ordinated denial machine. It includes “contrarian scientists, fossil fuel corporations, conservative think tanks, and various front groups”, along with “amateur climate bloggers … public relations firms, astroturf groups, conservative media and pundits, and conservative politicians”. The goal is simple and clear: no regulation on industry, and what environmental sociologist Robert Brulle calls the “institutionalisation of delay” on climate policy. The tools are simple as well: lies, obfuscation, defamation and the creation of an image of scientific uncertainty."The AEI was one of dozens of the new thinktanks bankrolled by hundreds of millions from the Kochs and their allies. Sold to the public as quasi-scholarly organizations, their real function was to legitimize the right to pollute for oil, gas and coal companies, and to argue for ever more tax cuts for the people who created them. The amount of spent money has been staggering. Between 2005 and 2008, the Kochs alone spent nearly $25m on organizations fighting climate reform. One study by a Drexel University professor found 140 conservative foundations had spent $558m over seven years for the same purpose.[...] The genius of this strategy was to “turn corporate self-interest into a movement among people on the streets”.The tricks propagandists use:https://www.technologyreview.com...Exposing Climate Denialism - The SeriesHow Climate Change Denialists Use Front Groups to Lie About the ScienceClimate Denial on the Internet - Who are the Deniers?How Climate Deniers Control the MessageHow Climate Deniers Create Fake ExpertsScience Denialist Tactics | Debunking DenialismInternet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and SadistsTrolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.ARE CLIMATE PREDICTIONS “ALARMIST”? LETS FIND OUT:STUDY FINDS IPCC PREDICTIONS ARE CONSERVATIVE:Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming.Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate responseClimate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on board‘True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nationsClimate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on boardA COMPREHENSIVE STUDY SAYS CLIMATE SCIENCE RESULTS ARE NOT BIASED:Study Reviews 1,154 Climate Science Results, Finds No Evidence of Publication BiasIn our research, published in the journal Climatic Change, we analysed more than 1,100 published results from the field of climate change science and found no evidence of under-reporting or missing results – even results that were not statistically significant or showing no positive effects were reported.[...] In scientific terms, we reject the accusation made by climate change skeptics and can confirm that there is no publication bias in climate change research.We looked at 1,154 climate science results and found no evidence of 'publication bias'No evidence of publication bias in climate change scienceNOAA ARE EVEN ADJUSTING THE TEMPERATURES TOWARDS COOLING:"Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend."The data are made available on their website as the original data, the quality controlled and the homogenised versions on a station-by-station basis. The methods by which they undertake the analysis are fully documented in several papers in the peer-reviewed literature available from their websiteftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data...The code they use to determine the adjustments is made available without restriction via their website.https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/...Breitbart repeats blogger’s unsupported claim that NOAA manipulates data to exaggerate warmingRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is opposition to climate science more common in the United States than other countries?_______________________________________________________________2.Since all the warming since 1950 is due to our C02 emissions, the obvious answer will be to reduce our carbon footprint ,which is now 45% of the atmosphere C02.“Our only hope is to change the energy and transportation infrastructure of our society — for us to drive electric cars powered by clean energy sources like wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower. We must advocate for clean energy production at all levels — energy that doesn’t emit greenhouses gases — and especially vote in representatives who recognize the the threat of global warming and will do something about it at the state and national level.”David Appell's answer to What causes global warming to start? And how do we control it?If we are to reach the 2 C goal, emissions must begin to descend, and then sink rapidly for decades. That this will require a blend of renewable energy, efficiency, carbon capture and CO2 removal from the atmosphere, we can say without taking a strong political standpoint. But the concrete solutions become political. Do we choose to facilitate strong growth in solar power and a global carbon tax that will go beyond the fossil industry? Are we focusing on carbon capture and storage, which can extend the use of oil and gas? Do we have the capacity to do both, which will be even better for the climate, without going beyond the rest of society?Researchers should not take these choices. However, their job is to help understand the consequences of them. The challenge for the dissemination is that the debate debate moves beyond the research front.The scientific method is slow and thoughtful by nature. Are we supposed to say that we would like to have a few decades to consider every single measure? Or should we dare to guide, with the proviso that we speak out of the best of today's knowledge?In my opinion, our social responsibility requires us to do more of the last than we do today.RENEWABLE ENERGY BENEFITS:1. reduction and ultimate elimination of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector;2. reductions in air and water pollution, water use and land degradation;3. reduction in respiratory diseases and cancers from pollution;4. energy security for as long as human civilization exists;5.a cap on energy costs, because most RE sources have no fuel costs;6.more local jobs, per unit of energy generated, than fossil or nuclear power;7. no risk of causing a nuclear war, or radioactive waste escape, or devastating accident.Why 100% renewable energy is feasible – INSURGE intelligence – MediumGoing green is getting cheaper and cheaper:Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first timehttp://www.independent.co.uk/env...Renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020 - The PenThis is how coal dies — super cheap renewables plus battery storage6 Myths About Renewable Energy, Busted!In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. SourceMore and more countries are preparing for the end of the Petroleum Age:France - France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040The UK - Wants production of petrol and diesel cars to end by 2040China - Beijing’s plan to stop producing petrol and diesel carsThe Netherlands - Confirms plan to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030India - India to sell only electric cars by 2030Many large car producers are already on the same track:This is Toyota's plan to stop making gas and diesel carsTesla & Rivals May Kill The Petrol Car As Early As 2025VOLVO WILL STOP PRODUCING GAS-ONLY CARS BY 2019Opec faces a mortal threat from electric carsAnd that’s just cars. Flying on Alternative Fuels.Even Lego is abandoning petroleum:Lego to stop producing petroleum-based plastic bricksRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How will we ever truly battle global warming when going green is only afforded by the wealthy?BONUS:What simple truths in your opinion Liberals "get" that Republicans simply don't seem to understand?In no particular order:“Voluntary charity” doesn’t work. We’ve tried it in the past — it’s like trying to fight a forest fire with a water gun that only works when it wants to, not when you need it to.The existence of public social safety nets is a win-win-win for the poor, middle class, and the rich. The cost in taxpayer dollars is more than offset by the benefits.Tax cuts are only beneficial when taxes are absurdly high. The US is far, far beyond the point where further tax cuts will benefit the country.Taxing the extremely wealthy at higher rates than the rest of the country is morally justified and pragmatically desirable.What’s good for corporate profit margins isn’t necessarily good for the country as a whole. There are other priorities which need to come first.Building on #5, protecting the environment is both a moral imperative and an economic benefit. Our natural environment is an enormous source of health and wealth. Keeping it safe and healthy at all costs is infinitely more important than keeping the oil and gas industries profitable.Building on #5, what’s good for stakeholders and business owners isn’t necessarily good for workers or consumers. The interests of all of these parties need to be factored into economic policy.Politics is about compromise and tradeoffs. No one can have everything they want.“Free” markets are more of an ideal than a reality. Real-world markets have all sorts of inherent imperfections and imbalances which necessitate government intervention.Government regulation of businesses is not axiomatically bad. Some businesses don’t like it, but that’s not important.If you can’t take it, you shouldn’t be dishing it out. You can’t spend 30+ years whining about how “political correctness” is “stifling” you, and then get your knickerbockers in a bunch when liberals/Democrats/progressives insult you in return.Words matter. They can inspire people to heroism or incite them to violence. Politically-motivated violence doesn’t happen overnight. It’s normalized, slowly, word by word and mindset by mindset. The politically-motivated violence we have seen recently in this country didn’t come from nowhere — it is the culmination of a President and a GOP which has been verbally assaulting political opponents and pushing already-unhinged followers over the edge. Certain forms of rhetoric send subtle signals to neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and white supremacists that the time has come to act.The Republican Party of Trump is not “conservative.” The only true conservatives in your community have denounced your party.Christopher Anderson's answer to What simple truths in your opinion Liberals "get" that Republicans simply don't seem to understand?

I will answer this 2 ways:Straw man.“Catastrophic climate change” IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TERM.Its media exaggerations and denier cry wolf tactics to talk down the real dangers of global warming. Climate change" and "catastrophic climate change", are often made up "distinctions" by climate change deniers to make them seem more "moderate" and those who accept global warming as "paranoid".Deniers wants people to believe that the scientists have predicted doomsday, and as long as this never happens, they are wrong again and there is nothing to worry about, we can continue to burn fossil fuels like never before.Its basic smear tactic and propaganda.There is no fear mongering from scientists.Scientists warns about food, security and economy. Still serious matters.WHO ARE THE REAL FEARMONGERS AND WHY?The “fear mongering” and “Hollywood doom and gloom scenarios” are denier myths and media exaggerations so they can sell more papers and get more clicks online.The polluters benefits from any fuzz and noise added to the information stream between the scientists and the public.And this is “funny”, the polluters are now accusing the people who warns about the dangers of climate change for being “hysterical” and “doomsdayers” etc. Now, where have we heard such terms before?Yes, the tobacco industry used those terms to smear the people who warned about the dangers of tobacco smoking.If the internet had been around in the 60s and 70s, climate deniers would be arguing against the health effects of smoking, and dredging up historical/anecdotal examples to insist that lung cancer was "natural", while warning that smoking cessation efforts were all part of a global conspiracy of taxation and socio-economic control.Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway PublicAnd climate deniers favorite think tank, The Heartland Institute, which funds their favorite clime denier conspiracy blog WUWT,are in fact still using said terms to smear the people who warns about the dangers of tobacco, even asbestos:Heartland Institute 2018:"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science"."The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."“The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”"There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places."Anti-smoking activists give smokers a stark choice: Stop smoking or die! In fact, there is a third path: reduce the harm by shifting to less-hazardous products that provide similar enjoyment.Smoker's Lounge | Heartland Institute"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."https://www.heartland.org/news-o...The fossil fuel industry is spending millions of dollars spreading every lie they can to convince people that global warming is nothing to worry about.They love to claim that scientists says CC is “catastrophic”. And as long as this “apocalypse” dont happen, CC is nothing to worry about and no need to stop burning fossil fuel. (Tobacco industry used the same tactic; If smoking can kill you, dont stop smoking, just smoke less or switch to a “milder” type of cigarettes.)Anything to draw the attentions away from C02 emissions, their monetary crane. This monetary crane is their holy grail which they worship and protect.Baldfaced lies planted in your head by the fossil fuel industry’s many minions, in a billion-dollar disinformation campaign lasting for decades, promoting over 190 lies like this one, using the old Soviet model of flooding the information marketplace with chaff—numerous fake science concoctions that most people lack the background in science and crticial thinking to process.The goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources. To do this they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can engorge itself in even more wealth.https://cleantechnica.com/2016/0...That’s why they call the over 99%, who relate to AGW as a fact, for “warmists” or “alarmists” and such. The use of other snarl words like CAGW is also common."CAGW", for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming", is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate"Warmist" is a snarl word used by global warming deniers to describe anyone who is perceived to "believe" in anthropogenic climate change. The term is comparable to "Evolutionist" among YECs.Global warming - RationalWikiThe concerted effort to discredit the scientific consensus over man-made global warming has been continuing for two decades in the United States, and shows no sign of stopping anytime soon. It is very often described as an attempt on the part of corporate America, most notably the fossil fuel industries, to hinder governmental regulations on their activities.HOW THE POLLUTERS SWAY THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC:"Denialists know that they have no valid scientific argument; if they did they would present it in scientific journals, conferences, and debates. Their goal isn’t to demonstrate science, it is to manipulate public opinion. That is what lobbyists do, and they do it well. Their goal is to create the illusion of debate, the façade of uncertainty. By continuing the “discussion,” such as it is, in the media, they win. They know that a majority of the public won't understand the intricacies of the science, either by choice or by its complexity. Denialists know that the public will get an overall sense of whether the science is settled or not, and that it is on this vague feeling the public will make judgments as to whether immediate action is needed. Perception is more important than fact, and illusion of reality is much more powerful than actual reality. [...] What is critical in this game is not what the science tells us, it’s the fact that to the public it appears as if there are two sides arguing with each other. Two sides + arguing = not settled."Once the professional denial lobby has seeded the internet via their paid bloggers (e.g., Climate Depot, WUWT, etc.), they rely on the amateur deniers to saturate the blogosphere with every sciencey-sounding, but already debunked, misinformational tidbit. Actual science by NOAA, NASA, the IPCC, and every other scientific organization is dismissed as "unreliable," while a blog post by some non-scientist with his pet conspiracy theory is taken as gospel. [...]The combined information of nearly every climate scientist, every climate science organization, every National Academy of Science in the world, a hundred thousand peer-reviewed scientific studies, more than a century of research, millions of data points, and the realities of basic physics can all be washed away by an anonymous blogger posting easily debunked misinformation on a blog by a non-scientist receiving funding by lobbyists."Michael Mann:"When it comes to attacks on climate scientists specifically, this strategy follows a familiar script. On the eve of a critical Congressional vote, hearing, or climate policy summit, a late-breaking “scandal” suddenly erupts. Individual scientists are typically charged with claims of misconduct, fraud, or data manipulation, and soon enough, right-wing blogs, climate-denying websites, and the conservative establishment media are trumpeting the accusations. In time, more objective media outlets are forced to cover the uproar, lending it credibility and oxygen, even as it is responsibly dissected."THE DENIAL MACHINE:-a well-funded, highly complex and relatively co-ordinated denial machine. It includes “contrarian scientists, fossil fuel corporations, conservative think tanks, and various front groups”, along with “amateur climate bloggers … public relations firms, astroturf groups, conservative media and pundits, and conservative politicians”. The goal is simple and clear: no regulation on industry, and what environmental sociologist Robert Brulle calls the “institutionalisation of delay” on climate policy. The tools are simple as well: lies, obfuscation, defamation and the creation of an image of scientific uncertainty."The AEI was one of dozens of the new thinktanks bankrolled by hundreds of millions from the Kochs and their allies. Sold to the public as quasi-scholarly organizations, their real function was to legitimize the right to pollute for oil, gas and coal companies, and to argue for ever more tax cuts for the people who created them. The amount of spent money has been staggering. Between 2005 and 2008, the Kochs alone spent nearly $25m on organizations fighting climate reform. One study by a Drexel University professor found 140 conservative foundations had spent $558m over seven years for the same purpose.[...] The genius of this strategy was to “turn corporate self-interest into a movement among people on the streets”.The tricks propagandists use:https://www.technologyreview.com...Exposing Climate Denialism - The SeriesHow Climate Change Denialists Use Front Groups to Lie About the ScienceClimate Denial on the Internet - Who are the Deniers?How Climate Deniers Control the MessageHow Climate Deniers Create Fake ExpertsScience Denialist Tactics | Debunking DenialismInternet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and SadistsTrolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.ARE CLIMATE PREDICTIONS “ALARMIST”? LETS FIND OUT:STUDY FINDS IPCC PREDICTIONS ARE CONSERVATIVE:Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming.Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate responseClimate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on board‘True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nationsClimate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on boardA COMPREHENSIVE STUDY SAYS CLIMATE SCIENCE RESULTS ARE NOT BIASED:Study Reviews 1,154 Climate Science Results, Finds No Evidence of Publication BiasIn our research, published in the journal Climatic Change, we analysed more than 1,100 published results from the field of climate change science and found no evidence of under-reporting or missing results – even results that were not statistically significant or showing no positive effects were reported.[...] In scientific terms, we reject the accusation made by climate change skeptics and can confirm that there is no publication bias in climate change research.We looked at 1,154 climate science results and found no evidence of 'publication bias'No evidence of publication bias in climate change scienceNOAA ARE EVEN ADJUSTING THE TEMPERATURES TOWARDS COOLING:"Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend."The data are made available on their website as the original data, the quality controlled and the homogenised versions on a station-by-station basis. The methods by which they undertake the analysis are fully documented in several papers in the peer-reviewed literature available from their websiteftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data...The code they use to determine the adjustments is made available without restriction via their website.https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/...Breitbart repeats blogger’s unsupported claim that NOAA manipulates data to exaggerate warmingRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is opposition to climate science more common in the United States than other countries?_______________________________________________________________2.Since all the warming since 1950 is due to our C02 emissions, the obvious answer will be to reduce our carbon footprint ,which is now 45% of the atmosphere C02.“Our only hope is to change the energy and transportation infrastructure of our society — for us to drive electric cars powered by clean energy sources like wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower. We must advocate for clean energy production at all levels — energy that doesn’t emit greenhouses gases — and especially vote in representatives who recognize the the threat of global warming and will do something about it at the state and national level.”David Appell's answer to What causes global warming to start? And how do we control it?If we are to reach the 2 C goal, emissions must begin to descend, and then sink rapidly for decades. That this will require a blend of renewable energy, efficiency, carbon capture and CO2 removal from the atmosphere, we can say without taking a strong political standpoint. But the concrete solutions become political. Do we choose to facilitate strong growth in solar power and a global carbon tax that will go beyond the fossil industry? Are we focusing on carbon capture and storage, which can extend the use of oil and gas? Do we have the capacity to do both, which will be even better for the climate, without going beyond the rest of society?Researchers should not take these choices. However, their job is to help understand the consequences of them. The challenge for the dissemination is that the debate debate moves beyond the research front.The scientific method is slow and thoughtful by nature. Are we supposed to say that we would like to have a few decades to consider every single measure? Or should we dare to guide, with the proviso that we speak out of the best of today's knowledge?In my opinion, our social responsibility requires us to do more of the last than we do today.RENEWABLE ENERGY BENEFITS:1. reduction and ultimate elimination of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector;2. reductions in air and water pollution, water use and land degradation;3. reduction in respiratory diseases and cancers from pollution;4. energy security for as long as human civilization exists;5.a cap on energy costs, because most RE sources have no fuel costs;6.more local jobs, per unit of energy generated, than fossil or nuclear power;7. no risk of causing a nuclear war, or radioactive waste escape, or devastating accident.Why 100% renewable energy is feasible – INSURGE intelligence – MediumGoing green is getting cheaper and cheaper:Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first timehttp://www.independent.co.uk/env...Renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020 - The PenThis is how coal dies — super cheap renewables plus battery storage6 Myths About Renewable Energy, Busted!In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. SourceMore and more countries are preparing for the end of the Petroleum Age:France - France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040The UK - Wants production of petrol and diesel cars to end by 2040China - Beijing’s plan to stop producing petrol and diesel carsThe Netherlands - Confirms plan to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030India - India to sell only electric cars by 2030Many large car producers are already on the same track:This is Toyota's plan to stop making gas and diesel carsTesla & Rivals May Kill The Petrol Car As Early As 2025VOLVO WILL STOP PRODUCING GAS-ONLY CARS BY 2019Opec faces a mortal threat from electric carsAnd that’s just cars. Flying on Alternative Fuels.Even Lego is abandoning petroleum:Lego to stop producing petroleum-based plastic bricksRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How will we ever truly battle global warming when going green is only afforded by the wealthy?BONUS:What simple truths in your opinion Liberals "get" that Republicans simply don't seem to understand?In no particular order:“Voluntary charity” doesn’t work. We’ve tried it in the past — it’s like trying to fight a forest fire with a water gun that only works when it wants to, not when you need it to.The existence of public social safety nets is a win-win-win for the poor, middle class, and the rich. The cost in taxpayer dollars is more than offset by the benefits.Tax cuts are only beneficial when taxes are absurdly high. The US is far, far beyond the point where further tax cuts will benefit the country.Taxing the extremely wealthy at higher rates than the rest of the country is morally justified and pragmatically desirable.What’s good for corporate profit margins isn’t necessarily good for the country as a whole. There are other priorities which need to come first.Building on #5, protecting the environment is both a moral imperative and an economic benefit. Our natural environment is an enormous source of health and wealth. Keeping it safe and healthy at all costs is infinitely more important than keeping the oil and gas industries profitable.Building on #5, what’s good for stakeholders and business owners isn’t necessarily good for workers or consumers. The interests of all of these parties need to be factored into economic policy.Politics is about compromise and tradeoffs. No one can have everything they want.“Free” markets are more of an ideal than a reality. Real-world markets have all sorts of inherent imperfections and imbalances which necessitate government intervention.Government regulation of businesses is not axiomatically bad. Some businesses don’t like it, but that’s not important.If you can’t take it, you shouldn’t be dishing it out. You can’t spend 30+ years whining about how “political correctness” is “stifling” you, and then get your knickerbockers in a bunch when liberals/Democrats/progressives insult you in return.Words matter. They can inspire people to heroism or incite them to violence. Politically-motivated violence doesn’t happen overnight. It’s normalized, slowly, word by word and mindset by mindset. The politically-motivated violence we have seen recently in this country didn’t come from nowhere — it is the culmination of a President and a GOP which has been verbally assaulting political opponents and pushing already-unhinged followers over the edge. Certain forms of rhetoric send subtle signals to neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and white supremacists that the time has come to act.The Republican Party of Trump is not “conservative.” The only true conservatives in your community have denounced your party.Christopher Anderson's answer to What simple truths in your opinion Liberals "get" that Republicans simply don't seem to understand?