Comprehensive coverage

A group called "Americans for Prosperity" funded by Koch is responsible for changing the position of the Republican candidates on global warming for the worse

This is what Emily Pearce, the reporter for the Political Correction blog and a member of the MEDIA MATTERS organization, writes, citing the weekly National Journal that investigated the question of what happened to the Republican consensus regarding climate change?

Newt Gingrich, contender for the nomination of the Republican Party for the presidency of the United States. From Wikipedia
Newt Gingrich, contender for the nomination of the Republican Party for the presidency of the United States. From Wikipedia

Three years ago, prominent Republicans including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Fred Upton, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin expressed views that humans are responsible for climate change. Some have even openly supported carbon trading and emission reduction policies. Today all six have joined the rest of their friends in the Republican Party in regret either in silence or in direct denial.

When asked by the National Journal, only 65 of the 289 Republican members of Congress agreed to be interviewed at all. Of those interviewed, only 19 said that human activity is at least partly responsible for climate change. Of those 19, only five (that is, less than 2% of all Republican lawmakers) said that a significant proportion of climate change originates from human activity.

What happened

It is not the science that has changed, on the contrary, the evidence in favor of man-made warming has only increased, as Ralph Cicron, president of the Academy of Sciences and chairman of the National Research Council, said: the level of scientific acknowledgment that the greenhouse gases emitted by humans are the cause of climate change is complete and similar to that of vaccination Can prevent measles and polio.

What has changed, according to the journal, are the strength of the forces and the pressure on Republican legislators, in particular the rise of the Tea Party movement, the crusade against regulations of any kind, and the flow of funds directed to the candidates' campaigns from energy companies and sympathetic interest groups."

Prominent among these bodies is a movement known as Americans for Prosperity (AFP), backed by brothers Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries. Several reports have shown that the role of the AFP in promoting candidates who support the use of fossil fuels and promoting policies in this area is large.

Surprisingly, AFP is not shy and talks freely about its influence on politicians' election campaigns. In fact, in an interview with the National Journal, AFP President Tim Phillips took full responsibility for intimidating and even threatening Republican lawmakers to commit political suicide if they chose to support actions against climate change and in particular to support clean energy.

"If you look at the situation three years ago and today, you see that there was a dramatic turn. We succeeded in a big way. What does this mean for the Republican nominees? If you vote for energy in favor of green energy or abstain on the issue, you cause your political end, and that is our influence. Groups like Americans for Prosperity have done that.” Phillips said.

"A sudden change of almost an entire political party, from acceptance of climate change to silence and even withdrawal should raise suspicion in itself," Pierce writes. "Especially given the fact that to date no scientific body of national or international prestige has changed its opinion in the field of human influence on the climate. Here we have a president of an interest group that supports fossil energy causing the candidates to express his desired position regarding climate change and clean energy."

To the original article

More of the topic in Hayadan:


  1. Avi:
    Yes, but Eyal apparently does not suffer from this problem - otherwise he would not have been able to decide on his own about the roof insulation either.
    By the way - in condominiums it is possible to divide the investment (and also the refund from the electric company) between those who want it and those who do not invest will not receive a refund either.

  2. There is not always a roof that can be used, in condominiums the roof is shared, and usually housing committees are not interested in establishing such a facility because these are usually older people who do not want large investments, even if the return is large.
    With us, it is literally a war crime when the hot water is shared. They are heated by diesel, I offered to at least replace the diesel heater with a solar heater (something older than solar electricity) and I was waved off, even though one of the economists said it could save 70 thousand shekels a year.

  3. RAM:
    If you have an insulated roof, you may also have room for photovoltaic panels.
    I installed such panels on the roof and enjoy every time when I receive the electricity bill where they inform me that instead of paying - I get money.
    I didn't answer Yael because she returned to expressing disdain for the scientists whose work she does not understand.

  4. Yael
    Detailed plans were made for Germany, Great Britain and Denmark on how to maintain the same standard of living around 0 greenhouse gas emissions.
    B. Although Nathan Faldor is at Universata, his completely delusional opinions are respected, if a link to specific results were given, I would comment on them
    In the end, the basic requirement on the other hand is the predictions of the past. A model that does not predict the past cannot predict the future. And the models that predict the past predict warming.
    Getz regarding the FADH, the only logical possibility is that the source of the increase is in the melting of fossil fuels
    Not a volcanic activity that is not constant and its advice has not been in the last 100 years
    Not the windows that only increase the amount inside them
    Not just a relatively constant burning of fossil fuels while swallowing a significant part of the vegetation and oceans.
    post Scriptum. I hope to cut about 50% of my energy consumption next year by insulating the roof and replacing the air conditioner. If I could buy electricity from the thermal solar station in Eshil and buy a Herid car I would save even more.

  5. Fan,

    Thanks for the trouble in bringing the links, I will address one by one:

    The first link on the effect of the sun: take a look at the quality of the data... there is a game here in the graphics of the graph. Read the first comment on this link. Decide for yourself if this is science or bullshit.

    The second link: Reliability of models in long-term weather forecasting. Paradoxically, all the models so far have not scored. See link provided by commenter here.

    The third link: the human contribution to the increase in the concentration of the PADH - I could bring you convincing arguments to the contrary, but let's leave it at that for a moment. In order for there to be a difference and meaning, the number of 30% is thrown out as a required cut in the human emissions of FDF... Can you suggest how to make this cut? Can you suggest alternatives to the 30% non-carbon energy generation? Are you personally able to cut 30% of your personal energy consumption overnight?

  6. AGW skeptic:
    Nir Shabiv does refer to the problem there and verifies what I said about the only answer he can give to the question: denying the findings of the experiment.
    It does not seem so serious to me because it is an experiment conducted by many good experts.
    Among the other experts involved in the experiment was Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University, so I asked him what he thought about Nir Shabiv's words.
    He told me he was not involved in this part of the calculations but he knows those who were involved including Professor Rachel Pinker who is among the most serious expertise he knows.
    He suggested that I write to her if more detail is needed and I may do so (I still have to think about how exactly to explain to her the fact that she has to deal with a researcher who has not published his words in a peer-reviewed yearbook).
    The fact that he didn't write the things down when he was asked in a discussion attended by other experts who could have pointed out the mistakes speaks volumes.

    In this response ( ) It seems to me that you are wrong again.

  7. The links that Yael asked me:
    Regarding the lack of influence of the sun:
    Regarding models:
    Regarding the FDF cycle in Teva:
    Each page has a basic explanation of the science with links to additional studies and articles for those who wish to delve deeper.
    One more note, nature does not "know" how to overcome only the natural sources, but in nature there was a balance between the amount that is emitted and that which is absorbed and this balance was broken when man began to burn fuels in large quantities.

  8. AGW Skeptic,

    Indeed a very instructive and relevant link. But he will teach only those who want to learn, those who want to be right - will insist on being right even when he is not right!

  9. I think if they dropped that much aluminum people would be crushed to death. Something about your numbers seems excessive,
    And among the scientists are CIA, FBI and UJA agents (watch Woody Allen's film about we will not succeed in becoming a dictator of some banana republic).
    Give a link so we know where he went wrong and what he understood.

  10. Spring.
    How about the following topic:
    "Independent journalist Mike Murphy managed to do what the mainstream media failed or did not try to do - report on a threat that was revealed at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Diego. Geo-engineering scientists plan to spray us with 20 megatons (20 million metric tons) of aluminum every year."

  11. sympathetic:

    First of all - the lack of a response on the part of a person in a discussion that was entirely devoted to his responses definitely indicates that he has no response.
    Beyond that - in fact, this is not simply a lack of an answer.
    This is a fact brought up by a climate expert that contradicts Nir Shabiv's theory.
    There is nothing to be done - if this fact is true - it really contradicts the theory! The only answer that can "save" the theory is the claim that this is an incorrect finding (that the cloud survey was not done correctly).
    Theoretically this could be the case, but such a situation requires a mistake by many people because the cloudiness survey is not a project of one person.

    I also think that every person should be respected and in my eyes, ignoring the inappropriate behavior of a person (child or adult) is disrespecting their dignity.
    Yael not only expressed herself decisively.
    You are welcome to read her first comments.
    She expressed herself in an offensive manner.
    Beyond that - she made statements without supporting them in any logical way other than just stating them.
    The fact that later on she started making actual arguments (and it doesn't matter at the moment whether they are true or not) is a direct result of the comments she received for not doing so earlier.
    Her form of discussion also became more balanced and less offensive.

    I want to say: the method works and in my opinion Yael came out hired even if she had a moment of discomfort.

  12. Avi:
    They did not convince only Nature and Science.
    They did not convince the majority of the scientific community.
    I just wanted to set things straight.
    There is a dispute.
    The dispute is between a very small group and a very large group - but it exists.
    It seems to me that on the subject of evolution there is really no disagreement between the experts in biology (but only between the experts on evolution and those who do not understand it) but on the subject of the climate there still is.
    The fact that there is a dispute among the experts still does not mean that it makes sense on the part of a non-expert to side with both sides of the dispute equally.
    The only logical behavior for a non-expert is to act as if the opinion of the majority of experts is the correct opinion and in the problem we are dealing with there is indeed an absolute majority in favor of the theory of anthropogenic warming.

  13. Spring):
    Do not exaggerate in any direction.
    There is also controversy in the scientific community.
    Professor Nathan Faldor From Jerusalem, for example, is a climate expert who does not believe in anthropogenic warming.
    There is certainly a majority in favor of the theory, but it is not a total and absolute agreement.

  14. Ehud, it is indeed important to show the controversies in science when there are any.
    In the case of warming, this is established science and there is no dispute in the scientific community, otherwise it would have been reflected in Science and Nature. The dispute is all public.

  15. Michael,

    For me, the lack of response is not a factor by which a theory is disqualified. Maybe the question didn't reach its destination and maybe a thousand and one other reasons. Even the fact that the father of a scientist, and even a very important scientist in his own right, did not know the answer to the question still does not, in my opinion, lead to the disqualification of the theory.

    The explanation based on positive feedback does explain the ear, but it is not a proof. From time to time there are fluctuations in temperature that are cosmic in origin and sometimes statistical if there is a positive feedback it will increase any fluctuation or precisely one caused by man. What about cloudiness? We would expect that increased heating would lead to increased cloudiness and it would also affect the feedback? Although a certain explanation is plausible, this does not make it scientifically proven, since the weather is affected by various factors, we must be modest and not firmly state that there is only one possibility, especially in a field where it is difficult to conduct controlled experiments. By the way, Shabib does not claim that the greenhouses are not the actions of man, but only that her share is smaller than what is claimed, she is responsible if I remember correctly for half to three quarters of the afts we contract. By the way, the measurements of the temperature that demonstrate the warming are also problematic because it is only in the last century that there are enough stations and accurate means to monitor the temperatures in different places.

    In terms of respect for scientists, I believe in general that we must respect every person, including children who sometimes tend to express themselves in a decisive way.


    In my opinion, it is important not to speak as a politician and to state firm facts on scientific subjects in which no experimental information is provided. Discussion is an important thing and if it is done properly both parties learn from it. As mentioned, the issue of warming is not as simple as it is presented, in fact there are respected scientists who claim otherwise and out of respect for them we must understand that there is room for scientific doubt.

  16. sympathetic:
    An extension to my previous response written under time pressure:
    Regarding arguments with a doctor - even if you do this, it should be done with due respect - not out of condescension and broadcasting "I know better" but by presenting the considerations that I fear the doctor ignored.
    In any case - I wouldn't walk down the street and tell people he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

    That was not the case here.
    Here there was condescension (and not about one scientist but about all scientists), on the one hand, and a complete lack of presenting arguments - on the other hand, and all this - in a discussion in which the "doctor" does not participate at all (that's why I mentioned the matter of walking in the street in the previous paragraph).

    Regarding Nir Shabiv's claim in relation to the FDF - climate scientists say that throughout history - the connection is two-way.
    It is true that a high temperature causes an increased emission of GHG from the oceans, but GHG is a greenhouse gas and its absorption in the atmosphere increases the warming.
    There is a phenomenon of positive feedback here that creates a "snowball" (how ironic to use this expression regarding the smelliness).

    The positive feedback is further enhanced by water vapor being a highly effective greenhouse gas.
    They are also added to the atmosphere following the heat and increase the warming even more.

    In the pre-industrial era - the wheel of positive feedback always started from a natural event and often from the sun (perhaps this is what the song "To the world follows the sun" was written about) but the industrial era, most climate scientists claim, is an exception in this regard and of course has no precedent in history (although it is possible Also to say that all the industrial eras that preceded the current one caused global warming).
    Here the positive feedback started precisely from the addition of the FDF to the atmosphere and as mentioned - we are exacerbating the problem day by day.

    I see that in the reply you wrote to my father you asked a question that I already gave the answer given by the climate scientists.
    You asked: "Is its large amount in the atmosphere a result of factory emissions"
    The answer of the climate scientists is: "Yes! And it's proven!":

    Yael (

    I don't know if the claims you refer to one by one are supposed to be my claims, but it doesn't seem to me that you looked at the link I gave you, which proves quite clearly that all the addition of the FDF to the atmosphere stems from the industry.

    PADH does not convert light to heat.
    It is a greenhouse gas and as such it allows the radiation frequencies coming from the sun to reach the earth while it partially absorbs the radiation frequencies emitted from the earth.
    It works in a similar way to how a man-made greenhouse works.

    The sun is a major player - without a doubt - without the sun we would freeze and no greenhouse gas would cause the storage of heat that does not arrive at all.
    The question regarding global warming is not where the heat comes from, but what causes the climate to warm in recent years.
    To this question, most climate scientists think, it is precisely the PADH created by burning fossil fuels that is the answer.

    You said "The cosmic radiation theory is nothing more than another opinion, it is no more grounded than the warming theory."
    Right. In fact it is even less grounded.
    In fact, it is probably refuted by the findings as shown by the lack of answer from Professor Giora Shabib to the question asked by Professor Pinchas Alpert.

    Regarding smoking - for long periods there were scientists (including scientists from the tobacco companies) who claimed that smoking is not harmful.
    The fight against global warming started later and is currently at the same stage as the fight against smoking was during those times.
    After all, it is clear that the oil industries are stirring the pot just like the tobacco industries in the past.
    There are many examples of this and it's quite funny that you blame my father for this reaction (
    Inventing conspiracies while the article under which the current discussion is taking place talks about the fact that interested parties have admitted themselves that they are stirring the pot.
    Quote ” Surprisingly, AFP is not shy and speaks freely about its influence on politicians' election campaigns. In fact, in an interview with the National Journal, AFP President Tim Phillips took full responsibility for intimidating and even threatening Republican lawmakers to commit political suicide if they chose to support actions against climate change and in particular to support clean energy."

  17. Fan,

    What you don't understand is that all you have written are opinions that have no basis in fact. Please show me the results of measurements or experiments that support your version!

    How did you determine that nature knows exactly how to overcome the amount of PAD from natural sources and exactly not from human sources?

    How did you determine that the sun's activity is unchanged?

    Please point to the calculations and measurements that support the PADH as a cause of warming, are you able?

  18. Yael, what you don't understand is the meaning of change.

    Warming is the temperature change of the earth. For this reason, what is important to us is the change of the FDF in the atmosphere. Nature emits a certain amount of PAH into the atmosphere and reabsorbs a similar amount so that without man the change in PAH in the atmosphere is approximately zero (this does not mean that there are no changes, but they are relatively small and take a long time to become significant). Then comes man and emits a few more gigatons into the atmosphere that nature does not absorb and the result is that within a few decades this amount accumulates and creates a significant effect.

    The same applies to the sun, there is no change in the sun's activity (or cosmic radiation for that matter) that can explain the warming (and this is what my father meant by the sun being another excuse).
    The only factor that is able to explain the warming in a good way (and is supported by calculations and direct measurements) is the FDF.

    And the same is true for water vapor. Is there any change in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? And if so, what caused him?
    (And if you want to say warming, ask yourself what caused this warming)

  19. sympathetic:
    If you had read the discussion on which I pointed, you would have seen that none of your hypotheses on the matter is correct.
    The only possible explanation is that he has no answer.
    He didn't talk to me.
    The responses I asked Panchas Alpert to give were uploaded by the site manager and he did so in a completely civilized manner.
    After Shabiv addressed some of the things and ignored another part, I simply put in a response that points out the part that did not receive an answer and clarifies it - again in a completely matter-of-fact manner.
    As mentioned, Shabib went to the site specifically to answer questions.
    It's not like he was there by accident.
    Read the stuff and you'll know enough so you don't have to guess.
    I respect the Shabib family and you will find nothing in my words that is inconsistent with this respect.

    I see there are more comments in the discussion but I have to go.
    I will respond later

  20. to love
    I am not a climate expert, I had to be one when I saw how easily scientifically based arguments of researchers in the field are waved and the IPCC is underestimated. I refer you again to Prof. Yoav Yair's lecture. He is surely an expert in the field because he has been studying the atmosphere for many years.

    For Yael, the 30 gigatons that humanity emits do not balance out like the larger numbers of natural emissions that also had natural means of absorption.
    As for the power plant - there is no Carmel near Hadera, yet, even there the morbidity rates of lung diseases are relatively high. I don't know why the Ministry of Health does not order to investigate this, apparently it is more important for Minister Litzman to take care of more budgets for the ultra-Orthodox under the guise of health budgets for everyone and nothing else interests him.

  21. I don't understand why they repeatedly enter into the secondary debate about "warming". The main problem is the "pollution" of the atmosphere, part (albeit important) of its results, is warming. The acid rain that damages a very important part of Europe's forests is an existing fact, and there is no question at all about the connection between it and human actions. The smog over Gush Dan (or any other human concentration in the area) as above and countless other examples. So with all the respect that the XNUMXth grade girl has for her independence of thought and polemical courage, the problem before us is how to improve the air that we and the environment breathe. Actually, this has a double meaning because the knights of the right need on this occasion also to damage the quality of the thinking "environment" and not only the physical.

  22. sympathetic,

    I agree that there is a problem with the figure regarding the amount of PAD... there are numbers between 3-30 giga tons per year (assuming I don't need to refer to the wiki).

    The connection is that the contribution of the PADH is not significant (examine the numbers), which were perceived as a turn-off victim... especially if first there is sun... followed by warming... after vapors... followed by PADH...

    My father wrote in his response from 20:28 that the sun is just another excuse...

    It has nothing to do with "evil"... The warming theory may turn out to be correct in the end. Currently she is not established and the attitude towards her is an emotional attitude... religious feelings... Tanya Rosenblit.

  23. Yael, I will address some of your claims:
    - First of all, the human contribution is more than 30 gigatons per year. Besides, the point is that nature also absorbs PAD and not only emits. The human emissions disrupted the balance that previously existed in nature and caused a sharp increase in the concentration of PAD in the air.

    - So what if water vapor is also a greenhouse gas? Has anyone claimed otherwise? The argument is that a certain increase in the amount of PDH in the atmosphere will cause a certain increase in temperature. How does water vapor contradict this?
    If anything, the situation is actually to your detriment. The amount of water vapor in the air depends on its temperature. More PDH in the atmosphere also means more water vapor and more heating.

    – Who ever claimed that the sun has no role in the Earth's climate? What does this claim have to do with it?

    - The cosmic radiation theory is much less established than the warming theory and both are not opinions, but scientific theories (or hypothesis in the case of cosmic radiation).


  24. Yael
    The relationship of carbon dioxide to warming is a direct relationship that stems from the physical properties of the gas. Carbon dioxide is a gas that prevents the passage of infrared radiation. Infrared radiation is the form in which the Earth radiates the heat that reaches it from sunlight. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere prevents the infrared radiation from going out into space and actually leaves the heat in the earth. This process is supported by direct measurements of the radiation in the atmosphere by aircraft, ground stations and satellites.

  25. I will address your claims one by one:

    About 150-200 gigatons of PAH reach the atmosphere per year, it is estimated that about 6 tons come from human activity - therefore humanity's contribution is small to relatively negligible.

    Really inaccurate. A PADH converts a certain light frequency into heat, it does not prevent heat from escaping. Water (as steam) is a much more significant "greenhouse gas" and is found in much larger quantities in the atmosphere. There is a lot of controversy here!

    The rise of the water level has been continuous for the last 10,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. Ask any budding geologist!

    Even the most prominent proponents of global warming agree that the sun is the "main player" in determining the Earth's climate. Can you name one scientist who claims that the sun is not responsible for the climate?

    The cosmic radiation theory is nothing more than another opinion, it is no more substantiated than the warming theory.

    Who said the acidity in the sea is increasing? What is the connection between the acidity of the sea and the PAD? Underwater volcanic emissions emit huge amounts of sulfuric acid…

    Can you show me one study or one scientist that claims smoking is not harmful? And I mean one who even doubts the harms of smoking...

    I also read your comment in NRG: 20-30 years have passed since the establishment of the power in Hadera, where are the damages you wrote about? You quoted a doctor who "released steam" in the ears of a young reporter (perhaps because he was after a 26 hour shift), is this a scientific argument in your eyes? Where is the research on the relationship between the health of the residents of Nosh and Inversia?

  26. Avi,

    First I see you are more interested in politics than science. I personally do not investigate the motives of the claimants
    to man-made or natural warming. From a scientific point of view, your claims are very simple. Do you think that a scientist like Nir Shabiv is not aware of them or do you suspect foreign motives? I can guarantee you that he does not receive money from the oil companies.

    Indeed carbon dioxide is emitted from factory chimneys right. Is its large amount in the atmosphere a result of factory emissions? Is it not possible that the heating of the earth by cosmic radiation causes the release of carbon dioxide
    From the oceans causing warming and so on regardless of human actions? Does cloud formation play no part in the warming process? Things are not that simple and only politicians tend to present them in a simple way. Science is a field that requires humility and sometimes we have to say we believe because we know the mechanism but we are not sure. Correlations are an important thing but the distance between correlations and causation is great.

  27. Carbon dioxide is a gas emitted from factory chimneys - mainly power plants and cars. So far I understand that there is no problem.
    The second fact is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it allows visible light to enter the ground but prevents the reflected infrared light from going out into space and cooling. And this is also a proven scientific fact that cannot be disputed.
    We do one and another, and we see that the amount in the atmosphere is only increasing, from here we throw on.
    It's simple.
    Beyond that, there are actual measurements that have shown a rise in temperature and a rise in sea level to this day, and also predicted other phenomena that have already begun to be measured, such as increasing the acidity of sea water.
    All the arguments of the deniers simply ignore unequivocal scientific evidence, and try to look for others and say it's not me, it's a puppet - or the sun - or the radiation from the galaxy - or the position of the earth in front of the center of the galaxy or all kinds of other things, like the scientists who passed for the tobacco companies tried to claim that it was In the flower allergy that increased the number of lung cancer cases.

  28. Spring.,

    How are you different in your abrogation in front of Science and Nietzer Haredi who abrogates in front of the Bedz and Kohlat??? What is the difference between what is removed before experts and what is seasoned before rabbis???

    Why is it forbidden to examine the data yourself, form an opinion and submit it to criticism?

    All these personal attacks of you and the supporters of warming is low and libelous in my eyes. You have proof of someone taking a bribe, go to the police - no, register your accusations on conspiracy sites.
    Can anyone present answers to why the Fed causes global warming? To give an explanation without providing links that have no explanation... links that only prove that you are arguing without reading the material!

  29. I trust the editors and peer reviewers of the articles in Science and Nature to know what to do. Indeed 30 years ago when climate science was in its infancy, there were those who predicted cooling (by the way, relatively few but prominent in their public relations) and there were those who predicted warming. As the models are refined, the science develops and matures, and climate science is a mature science.
    A climate debate could have been relevant if it had taken place 30 years ago. Today, when the feedback mechanisms are even known, there is nothing to argue about except the interests of the oil companies.

    I can't understand why a right-wing opinion has to come with the denial of science? Just because the oil knights finance activists in right-wing parties?
    I would expect that there would be a debate regarding liberal versus socialist economics and a hawkish versus ionian political position and that science would be left aside as a consensus. If you were to read the daily Capitalist in Maariv today, you would see exactly the views of the American extreme right, which is unequivocally opposed to green energy, imported into Israel. Who needs it? After all, there will soon be pressure on Gilad Erdan to choose between his political views, which he does not hide that they are right-wing, and the truth about global warming, which he also supports.
    I would expect science as the compass of truth to be shared by everyone and not be dragged to one political side or another.

  30. Michael,

    I think you misunderstood me regarding my claims for your reliance on Giora Shabib's inability to answer a simple climate question. The meaning of personal was not that you have something personal against them but that it is your personal experience that is difficult for others to rely on. It is possible that Giora Shabib did not answer the question because he was personally offended by you or maybe he did not know the answer and consulted his son and then forgot about the whole matter. When it comes to personal experience and not scientific information, all kinds of doubts can arise. That's why I wouldn't rely on an event that happened to you to invalidate Nir Shabiv's theory.

    You claimed that when a person is not an expert in the field there are two options "one is to specialize in the subject and the other is to listen to the experts". In principle you are of course right but have you not had the opportunity to argue with a doctor (an expert in his field) about his medical diagnosis. Although I am younger than you, I have come across and also heard about wrong medical diagnoses by experts. This is of course my personal knowledge, so I don't expect you to comment on it, but haven't similar incidents happened to you? Medical science is not an exact science, therefore there are many misdiagnoses even by experts. A person from the settlement can argue with a doctor even without studying medicine.

    Regarding showing respect to experts and not disrespecting them, I completely agree with you. I think that the Shabib family also deserves respect because they are two excellent scientists of the first rank, therefore I believe (personal bias) that their words should be listened to. By the way, if you pushed me against the wall, I would probably be on the side of global warming as a result of human actions, but I would not fight for this position decisively.

    Giora Shabib's claim that I got to hear is that there is a correlation between global warming and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the arrow of causality is reversed, global warming leads to increased evaporation and evaporation releases a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the oceans where it is abundant and not the other way around, the release of carbon dioxide Oxygen causes heating.

  31. Avi,

    Relying on Science and Nature, both good newspapers, is indeed a good strategy, but I would expect a little more from the editor of a scientific website. There are scientific subjects that are very difficult to doubt and there are fields of science that are at the beginning of their journey. You don't need to be an expert in the field to understand whether the field is scientifically based or not. For the sake of demonstration, if climate science is so well established, can anyone accurately predict the weather for me in three weeks? It is important to differentiate between different levels of knowledge and argument and it is also important to encourage debate as long as it is relevant. The basis of science is not gagging but investigation towards the truth by raising well-founded doubts.

  32. By the way, Ehud:
    If you read my answer to Yael and the links from it you will see that it is much more than correlations.
    for example:
    That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a proven fact.
    The fact that the source of the CO2 culture in the atmosphere is industrial is also proven.

  33. sympathetic:
    I do not understand.
    Is this supposed to be an answer?
    Does this make my presentation of the debate with the Shabib family, in which the lack of an answer was silenced, a personal matter or a matter that less disproves the theory that contradicts the findings?
    I claimed that the science in the field is based?
    All I always say about this is that there are two ways:
    One is to specialize in the subject and the other is to listen to the experts.
    Anyone who argues with the experts without knowing their arguments (ie - being an expert) - is just a charlatan.
    I do not silence anyone who expresses an opinion.
    I just ask that he give reasons.
    Do you find anything wrong with that?
    I also ask that non-scientists not show disdain for scientists.
    Do you think this is wrong?
    I also ask that they speak the truth and not describe a matter-of-fact debate with matter-of-fact arguments as a personal attack.
    Maybe it's wrong?

    I agree with Ehud's call: keep exploring the world.
    But I add to this reading: check the data and don't underestimate the people who studied the subject you are talking about in depth. Stupidity is not a necessary condition for receiving a professorship.

  34. Yael:
    A list of climate scientists is a suitable argument for a debate between people who are not climate scientists.
    This response is the first in which you raised any argument and you shouldn't have expected me to answer the arguments you didn't make.
    You can find answers to all the questions you can raise on the following websites:

    Besides, I brought you a list of articles by serious climate scientists.
    I assume you know better than all the people in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences in Tel Aviv or anywhere else, but it still won't hurt you to read.
    Here is an article by the head of the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences in Tel Aviv:
    A summary based on the conclusions of scientists in Israel (including Pinchas Alpert and Nir Shabiv)
    And another link to a summary of the opinions of several scientists:
    And one more thing:

    More specifically to your question, I will answer that there is overwhelming evidence that the source of the CO2 added to the atmosphere is fossil fuels.
    This is a clear result of the industrial age.
    Do you want to claim that the industrial age is a result of warming?

  35. Ehud and Yael. I do not compete with YNET and do not have to give an opening here to global warming deniers, I see Science and Nature as reference sites. They are the compass of the scientific consensus. Convince them that the science has changed, I will change too but as far as I know every year that passes this science is becoming more and more established.

  36. Michael,

    My claims are very simple.
    Climate science is not an established science, it is still in its infancy. Most of the climate theories are not well-founded and in particular the theory about global warming. A scientific field at its beginning is often based on correlations. as you know
    Well correlations do not necessarily indicate causation. Nir Shabiv attacks the consequences of the correlations that some climate scientists use to point to global warming. Not only does Nir Shabiv attack these consequences, he also offers an alternative model. It is true that both Nir and Aviv are not climate scientists, but I can assure you that in statistical analysis of correlations they understand much more than climate scientists. That's why I tend to respect Nir Shabiv's statements even if his father didn't know how to answer a basic question in the field of gods. Sometimes the error in a scientific theory (if there is one) is discovered by someone outside the scope... In the story about the king's new clothes, it was even a small child, so in my opinion there is also danger in silencing children who express an opinion. Even if Shabib is wrong, there are still a number of scientists who doubt the global warming theory or at least the decisiveness of the claims made in it based on the data available to the researchers.

    Keep exploring the world yourself and don't blindly believe everything that authority figures tell you. Even great experts can make mistakes. The way of science is the way of skepticism.

  37. Michal Hasul,

    "List of scientists" is not considered a valid scientific argument! In democracy it does work, in science it doesn't. You again attack me personally (this time my age) and do not speak to the eye.

    What will you answer to the fact that the entire link between FDH and the earth's temperature comes from the data of the ice cores, but the same cores show: that the increase in FDH concentration comes hundreds of years after warming (therefore it is the result and not the cause). that there were very cold periods with PADH concentrations 10 times higher than today. The increase in temperature is not consistent with human emissions (since the 40s).

    Flies off to sleep, tomorrow with a bird.

  38. Yael:
    I talked about Nir Shabiv because you talked about him and not for any other reason.
    I gave you the general answer to the subject through the list of scientists.
    So far I haven't heard a single factual argument from you.
    At your age - not knowing everything - is a natural situation - but acting as if you do is not.

  39. sympathetic:
    What do you want exactly?
    Giora Shabib wrote an article in Galileo about global warming.
    In the article he presented his son's theory and said so.
    He volunteered as a guest on the Galileo website to answer questions.
    It must be assumed (a very reasonable assumption considering the circumstances) that he is on speaking terms with his son and if there is anything he does not know about the theory he set out to defend, he can ask him.
    There is nothing personal in what I wrote and it is not at all clear to me why you describe it as a "personal" example.
    There are arguments there against Shaviv's theory - arguments that disprove it - that have not been answered at all.
    In other words - the response deals with the theory and shows that it is refuted by the findings. Science par excellence. Do you have anything against it?

    What's wrong with bringing up the story again?
    Did the issue come up again?
    Only nonsense is allowed to be repeated and uploaded and the answers to which it is legal to give only once?

  40. sympathetic,

    After you said that... it's really funny that the global warming theory will stand or fall in the end because Prof. Nir Shabiv expressed an opinion... that turned him into a joker... because his father didn't answer the questions of one... who has an asterisk in the middle of his name.

    And my father will still be severely punished for writing from my email with my name!

  41. To Yael's father:
    The truth is that I saw that Yael was really a child and the fact that she towers above adults and is more educated than her and attacks people personally without any justification I attribute to you.
    In the link I brought on the subject of the backing for anthropogenic warming - a link I repeat here, there is also a link to the list of organizations of climate scientists in the world - this is better than a definition.

    You probably didn't read what I wrote (and this is probably the education you give your daughter).
    I did not speak at all about Nir Shabiv as a person or as a scientist.
    All in all, I was talking about an event that happened in reality and was documented on the Internet.
    Is there anything wrong with that?
    Is it forbidden to give substantive reasons and only ranting and lashing out are the discussion tools you want to instill in your daughter?

    Regarding filtering the comments, your daughter explained something wrong to you.

  42. Michael,

    Again the story about Giora Shabib, father of Nir Shabib? First of all, this is about Nir's father and not Nir himself. Second, one personal example is not a basis for a theory. Third, science is built on raising doubts and examining them. Challenging theories is how science progresses. I think and I apologize because I am not knowledgeable in the field, because the situation of the global warming fools is similar to the situation of the fools of established physical theories. Climate is a new science in which there are many complicated questions and we still do not understand all its mechanisms clearly. Therefore, a scientific place must be given to the global warming hoaxes, treating them in the same way as the evolution theory hoaxes are treated, is completely unjustified. In science, different levels of certainty must be distinguished. The problem in the field of climate and in particular in the question of global warming is the fact that it is more about politics than science and also the fact that it is about big money.

  43. Hi friends, this is Yael's father.

    For the not really expensive commenter, Yael is only a XNUMXth grader and I am very proud of her responses. I am really ashamed of your comments and your style.

    "He who dismisses in Momo, rejects in Momo" you say, you say and do not reason. Could your honor tell me what a "climate scientist" is? Who is the one who studied climate for a first-second-third degree? How would you explain that the mechanical engineer Dan Shechtman received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2011?
    And disqualify Prof. Nir Shabiv like that? Full professor at the Hebrew University. And what did his honor learn? Is your honor a climate scientist?

    To the editor of the site and the commenters of the site, please keep this site clean for our child - please!

    (My wife explained to me that there is a filtering of comments on the site based on my "suitable for me" considerations. So with the commenters, I apologize for the vague language)

  44. And since Nir Shabib's joker was brought up again, those who fell into the trap should also read this:
    Regarding the sun as the source of the increase in warming - one of the bearers of this flag is Nir Shabiv.
    On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
    He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
    Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
    I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
    He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
    The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
    The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
    Here is a link to that section of the discussion:

    About a month ago, another comment was suddenly added to the discussion - an article written by the head of the Department of Environmental Sciences - Tel Hai Academic College

    Sorry, friends, that instead of sending you to search the Internet I bring you the information straight away.
    This is probably because there are words to trust.

  45. Yael ( )
    how do you say?
    Invalidating own imperfection invalidates.
    Your statements are thrown into the air without any reasoning and proof: "Yes! No!" as you like.
    I'm not an expert on the subject but from my experience with commenters like you I can guess that I understand it more than you.
    What's certain is that I respond more honestly: I'm not making up grandmother's stories about scientists who didn't answer questions they didn't know how to answer ( )
    I do not declare myself as an expert on the subject without being one and I do not pretend to know better than the experts (all your responses)
    I don't distort the logic with idiotic claims like "it's probably not the majority of scientists - fact - they couldn't convince". After all, you could equally argue that most scientists do not believe that there is famine or AIDS in Africa because the fact is - they failed to convince the world to solve the problems. But you know that and you used this reasoning because you are not honest.

    I guess when you're sick, you're going to get treatment from a doctor.
    Has anyone ever accused you of hiding behind a doctor's blindfold?
    All your responses are empty demagoguery and many times they are based on a blatant lie.

  46. to the "other self",

    Definitely yes! Start searching on Google for "Nir Shabiv", continue to the movie that Nir appeared in... continue to the analysis of PADH concentrations against time... continue to the data of ice cores... I can't, and you don't need, all the mirrors of the place here.

    If I was wrong... I would really appreciate it if you could correct me. Also regarding the data I mentioned regarding the human effects on the environment.

  47. Oops, I made a lot of spelling mistakes and linguistic mistakes - I apologize!

    Just to add to the complexity of the picture... I don't think the oil suppliers have an interest in fighting the "green" views, because today humanity has no real alternative to carbon fuel. I saw an interview with the oil minister of Saudi Arabia, he claimed that economically the wisest thing for him was to leave the oil in the ground and let its price climb up. I think he is right. But he also knows that if he doesn't sell then many countries will come to visit Saudi Arabia riding on tanks...

    I want to say that the energy problem is a real scientific problem, all the politics on the side are just nonsense. For over 60 years they have been working on electric energy from fusion (radioactive clean energy), meanwhile it is not succeeding and not because of the oil companies.

  48. Yael,

    You wrote like this:

    "Has the Earth been warming in the last 50 years? Yes!
    Is the cause of warming carbon dioxide? No!
    Does man cause warming? maybe yes, maybe no!"

    Can you back up your three very decisive assertions with research? Preferably ones that are from a reliable source (as much as possible).

    And I'm also interested in your statement about the nylon particles in the oceans. From what I've learned it's much worse than what you described. Do you have anything to rely on?

  49. It is not necessary for everyone to receive money from the blacks, it is enough for a few public opinion makers to accept and drive the others crazy, and this is not my claim, they themselves admit that this is their agenda. In the US, such blatant lobbying is legal, with the idea that Lobby A will offset Lobby B. In this case there is no one to offset because the scientists are busy in their laboratories. Moshe's arguments, for example, are taken from a pamphlet that the blacks repeat all the time. It is true that there were mistakes with the corn, but if you don't make mistakes, you don't learn. Now they are developing ways to use the parts of the plant that are not edible, and there was an article about this not long ago by Dr. Moshe Nachmani.

  50. Avi,

    I'm sure you don't get money from "greens", can you be sure that I don't get money from "blacks" either? (I hope we're not going to get into trouble with the Mizrach testimony... because I'm already apologizing!)

    I haven't seen mammal surgeries full of nylons. Did you see? Do you think one sea turtle dying from nylons is science? Sure it's very sad, but it doesn't say anything about the "big picture".

    And yet, I am very much in favor of preserving the flora and fauna and the environment, only that the real causes need to be addressed. And not by forgiving 6,000 persons for two weeks in South Africa at the expense of the public.

  51. Yael, there are many such things that will amaze you, but later you will find some 'black' (the opposite of green) who will tell you that it is nonsense. Earth is in crisis at every corner. And the greens have no money, it's an urban legend. I can at least testify about myself. I have never earned a dime from expressing these opinions, what I am saying is simply the scientific truth, which is a stronger thing than money.
    By the way, you probably haven't seen postmortems of marine mammals and sharks with their stomachs full of nylons.

  52. Avi,

    My father says that money is a common resource, the green parties also have it in abundance... therefore this factor is "offset" and the war remains on public opinion. It's a shame that you slide into "political" aspects and don't contradict my statements scientifically (if you can, of course?).

    I once accompanied my younger sister's classmate to the "Sea and Lake Research Institute" in Haifa, where the children were told that there are more nylon and plastic particles in the oceans and seas than organic matter... and marine creatures are suffocating from this pollution. At first I was shocked by the figure... then I calmed down and studied the subject more in depth - it's nonsense in clothing! There is more mass of plankton than all the other animals and plants combined on the planet, the human race has not yet produced a mass of nylon and plastic that approaches a promil of annual mass of plankton!

    So you can babble and threaten the laity, but this is still neither truth nor science.

  53. rationalize.
    It is not that they are competing for the politicians against an empty space. They are competing against huge money from the oil companies, so it's not forces. Science has its power in discovering the truth. Money has its power in hiding the truth, and it wins. It's just a shame that for our children who will inherit a world much poorer than ours, it's already too late.

  54. To Moshe, a small addition from me - I would not be proud of having this group because they are an arm of the Koch company, it is not a group that arose in a popular way.

  55. to the previous commenter,

    You can hide behind the apron of "the majority of climate scientists"... and this figure itself is highly questionable, as evidence - it's been several years that the "supporters of warming" have not been able to convince a single policy maker, Al Gore is already unsolicited!

    Unlike you, I studied the subject and the raw data. And these are the results:
    Has the Earth been warming in the last 50 years? Yes!
    Is the cause of warming carbon dioxide? No!
    Does man cause warming? maybe yes, maybe no!

    Your rant and your dismissive style is not science, it's just the empty arrogance of a fool!

  56. Moshe:
    There is a difference between market forces and the laws of nature.
    We have some control over market forces and can handle them.
    The laws of nature are the laws of....nature. They are not ours.
    Most climate scientists think the warming is anthropogenic.
    that's a fact:

    You write "most sane scientists admit that they do not have a proven and clear explanation for why warming occurs"

    So there are two alternatives:
    Either it's just a lie, or a "sane scientist" in your opinion, is defined by the phrase "a scientist who agrees with your opinion" (but since you only said "most" and not "all" then the second option is ruled out and we are left with only the lie).

    The story of the different prices ranges from temporary failures of the bag to your misunderstanding.
    The high electricity rebates in favor of solar electricity are a government policy designed to encourage the rapid equipping of such systems.
    The prices offered to additional stockists drop rapidly as the promotion achieves its goal.
    Even if it is not clear to you that the earth is warming, you should be clear that fossil fuel resources are being depleted and eventually other solutions will be needed.

    The high food prices are a temporary situation created as a result of the lack of regulation that matches the state of technology.
    This problem will be solved by regulation, by electricity from the energy of the sun, wind, water, and other non-plant sources, and by the development of biological energy sources that do not compete for human food.

    What jumps out, of course, is mainly the belligerent and condescending opening paragraph in your previous response:
    Lucky to have this group that will save us from the green sect
    The greens prove that every person in the world needs some kind of fanatical belief to feel good about themselves."

    In conclusion:
    You are not right in your claims, but more than that, you are not right in your approach.

  57. Michael:

    Maybe tell me what is wrong with the facts I brought?

    Obama's subsidy program did not cause the destruction of thousands of dunams that were intended for food and were transferred to corn fields?
    The growing of the corn itself in the place for food but for fuel did not cause the price of corn to rise which is fed to the cows, which raised the price of meat?

    Is the electric company not in deficit? And the state appoints her?
    Selling solar electricity to the electricity company 4 times the price of electricity does not cause electricity prices to rise?! Someone has to pay it!

  58. Moshe:
    Your response was blocked by the automated system for reasons I didn't bother to find out.
    It turns out that in this case the computer is smarter than you because the comment really wasn't worthy of publication.
    I unblocked her so everyone can see what I mean.
    This is an inflammatory and defamatory response in which everything that can be described as "information" is false.

  59. I don't understand why my politely written comment was deleted.
    Do you only approve comments that reinforce your agenda?
    How are you different from religious censorship?
    You reinforce my opinion that you are a fanatic sect!
    And that you are so fixated on your agenda that any real criticism drives you out of your mind.

  60. Lucky to have this group that will save us from the green sect
    The greens prove that every person in the world needs some kind of fanatical belief to feel good about themselves.

    You destroyed the world economy, you starved millions of Africans, you destroyed food fields intended for human existence and turned them into corn fields.
    Do you know from this an increase of another dollar in the price of food for an African that is his monthly salary? Don't you have a heart? Pity for these poor people?

    You are forcing the electricity company to buy solar electricity, and where do you think the money is coming from? from the sky? From the consumers of the electric company who are forced to finance this and the large deficits of the electric company and here in Israel poor families who barely have money for electricity, are forced to save electricity and not heat the water and take a stingy shower once a week, and I say this from personal knowledge,
    Don't you have an ounce of shame you spoiled brats?

    And for what? For something that is still unclear as to why it is happening, most sane scientists admit that they do not have a proven and clear explanation as to why the warming is happening, but you have already made up your mind.

    I used to believe in this nonsense, I'm glad there are sane blogs on the net that gave me some sense about what you're selling, I'm disgusted with myself when I remember how religiously and stupidly I believed it.

    You ruined the world

  61. Later they will also reach the scientists... oh... actually it has already happened.
    There are real conspiracies.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.