Fighting Climate Change by Not Focusing on Climate Change - TIME

Yet when I spoke to Bloomberg before his donation became public, climate change wasn't foremost on his mind. He saw coal pollution first and foremost as a public health issue, one that is directly hurting Americans through higher rates of asthma and heart disease. He was certainly worried about the greenhouse gases those coal plants were spewing — coal is responsible for about 20% of global carbon emissions — but what really motivated him were the mercury emissions, the particulates, the arsenic and all the other conventional poisons created by burning coal. "Coal kills every day," Bloomberg told me. "It's a dirty fuel."
...
If we're smart, this approach might be the new way to attack climate change: by identifying actions that can provide a wealth of benefits — including on carbon emissions — rather than simply focusing on global warming alone. That's the message of a new paper called "Climate Pragmatism" that's being published today by a bipartisan range of thinkers on energy and climate issues. The best way to deal with climate change, as it turns out, is not to deal directly with climate change. As the authors write: "Policymakers today are likely to make the most progress to the degree that they refrain from centrally justifying energy innovation, resilience to extreme weather and pollution reduction as 'climate policy.'"

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds solar influence on El Niño and La Niña cycles

A paper published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds a "robust" effect of solar activity on the ocean oscillations of El Niño and La Niña, which in turn have profound effects upon global climate. The paper finds a lagged response with El Niño-like conditions following solar maxima a "couple of years later." The IPCC dismisses the role of the Sun on climate by only considering small changes in total solar irradiance, ignoring large changes in solar UV (which is capable of penetrating the ocean surface to cause heating unlike IR from 'greenhouse gases'), and ignoring secondary effects (e.g. the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al). This paper adds yet another secondary effect of solar activity on climate not considered by the IPCC.

96% of Scientists DON'T believe in Global Warming - Minnesotans For Global Warming

The study in question surveyed 1,372 known working climate researchers. and found 97% of them still believe in global warming. I think this pool is tainted because these are scientist who get paid to study "Global Warming" which is a conflict of interest. That's like asking PETA members if they're vegetarian, but regardless we will use their number.

On the other hand the Petition Project has 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that they don't believe in manmade global warming.

So let's do the math 97% of 1,372 is 1,330 who still believe in global warming compared to 31,487 who don't. That's only 1 out 24 or 4% of scientists who still believe in global warming.

I think those of us who are on the skeptical side of the debate should use the other side's tactic and repeat this over and over again ad nauseum. 96% of Scientists DON'T believe in Global Warming.