-
USPS: Radical Surgery Needed
May 17, 2013 | 19 comments
-
No Fisker for Your Garage
April 22, 2013 | 50 comments
-
A Breakthrough in Ukraine?
April 17, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Thatcher Passes
April 8, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Moving Ukraine’s Democracy Forward
March 13, 2013 | 8 comments
Eminentoes
Ms. Henny-Penny Meets Mr. Comb-Over
The UN’s leading climate changeling in disarray.
“I just laid an egg and I’m resting,” said Henny-Penny, founder of The Holy Order of The Sky is Falling and its recording secretary. “While you’re resting,” I replied, “Let me give you some news.”
Ms. H-P: You mean you’ve stopped being skeptical about all the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?
Me: On the contrary, a new independent investigation cited that claim in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as one of several errors. It also called for “fundamental reform” of the IPCC.
Ms. H-P: What are a few little errors when the 2007 consensus of the IPCC report is that climate change is “unequivocal” and “probably caused by humans”?
Me: Bear in mind that the writers of IPCC reports are appointed by their respective governments and reflect the views of those governments, many of which have a political agenda. That is, they want a massive redistribution of wealth and resources from industrialized countries to non-industrialized ones.
Ms. H-P: The IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says the errors were minor.
Me: He’s the guy with the unruly comb-over, right? Maybe it’s folk wisdom, but behind an untidy appearance may lay an untidy mind. The InterAcademy Council, a group of national scientific academies called, for a limit of one six-year term for the IPCC leader plus a strong conflict-of-interest policy. That’s indirect criticism of Mr. Comb-Over’s eight years as the head of the IPCC and his desire to stay in that position for another four, through 2014 when the next IPCC report is due. It also reflects on his several contracts to advise energy and financial companies. He says there’s no conflict and that he donates the money he receives from them to a think tank he heads. No conflict?
Ms. H-P: The next IPCC Conference on Climate Change will be in Cancun in December and this time we must come up with a global agreement to curb greenhouse gas.
Me: Good luck. The last one in Copenhagen laid — if you’ll excuse me —an egg.
Ms. H-P: You skeptics will never be satisfied. What is it you want this time?
Me: One scientist who participated in two IPCC reports told the investigators that his doubts about man-made global warming were ignored. Others with doubts about the melting glaciers who reviewed the 2007 report before it was published were also ignored. The 2007 report also didn’t have a clear way to measure the “uncertainty” often expressed by scientists. For example, the report expresses “high confidence” that rain-fed agriculture would drop by 50 percent by 2020. The investigation concluded this assertion was based on weak evidence.
And so it goes.
Mr. Comb-Over claims he initiated the InterAcademy Council investigation. The fact is that the Himalayan glaciers statement was so far off base scientifically that when the report came out it caused a great deal of criticism, if not outright ridicule, and Pachauri found himself issuing a statement of “regret” about the blooper, and agreeing to an outside investigation.
Since this and other errors happened on his watch, it’s time for him to resign so that — as Washington politicians say when caught out — he can spend more time with his family.
Ms. H-P: Nevertheless, the last few years have been warmer than normal.
Me: To which I can only say, so what? Furthermore, this year your Global Hysterics friends have no cause of joy because the wild fire season has been much tamer than expected and the hurricanes have pooped out to tropical storms.
About the Author
Peter Hannaford was closely associated for a number of years with the late President Reagan, beginning in the California Governor’s office. His latest book is Presidential Retreats.
Rolf| 9.13.10 @ 7:07AM
The fairy tale about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 has not only been stated in the 2007 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A lot of the big, most prestigious peer reviewed science journals have uncritically reported this fiction, citing the IPCC as source. This goes against the official policy of these journals that demand that you have to quote the original empirical study if you claim a certain fact. I can prove that among others, "Nature" and " Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" offended against that rule.
RD
Science Writer
Germany
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 8:44AM
Peter - Do us all a favor and stick to what you know. Your understanding of science in general, and climate science in particular, is nil. It's embarrassing and irritating to see your sarcasm directed at something about which you are totally ignorant.
A.M. Mallett| 9.13.10 @ 9:07AM
What was "ignorant" in particular or is this just more ad hominem noise?
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 9:18AM
Peter's ignorance has many aspects. One is his belief that a small number of isolated errors discredits all the rest of climate science. In fact, this is the way science works. Errors are exposed and corrected.
Another aspect is that he gives full credit to his own belief (based on nothing discernible to anyone else) that climate science as a whole is just hooey, while assigning no value to the work of thousands of dedicated scientists. There is no other word for this kind of self-importance based upon nothing - it is ignorance of the highest order.
Booger| 9.13.10 @ 9:40AM
Thinker Right is really just deeply concerned for all those poor, endangered Yetis, so cut him some slack. It's really getting abominable up there in the Himalayas.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 11:08AM
You're a disgrace to the human race.
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 1:04PM
Algore, is that you?
John II| 9.13.10 @ 1:43PM
"Disgrace to the human race"? THAT can't be right. Don't you mean "Alarmist against the global warmist?"
My God, "Thinker Right" is either an ironist, a plagiarist, or Jimmy Carter. Whichever, we're in deep doo-doo.
Purple Lips| 9.13.10 @ 2:50PM
Thinker Right,
It appears quite a few statistics the IPCC used came right out of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) -a advocacy group that is shall we say Pro AGW? Further more, when independent auditors asked the WWF where they got thier data, they refused to answer. It appears that the Peer Review process that people like you love to hide behind has the deck stacked.
BTW, I would love to deabte you on Dr Michael Mann's use of Principal Components Analysis in his infamous Hockey Stick..
Paul from SA| 9.13.10 @ 10:45AM
Thinker Right,
Where in the article does the author state that a small number of isolated errors discredits all the rest of climate science?
How can a scientist distinquish between man-made and natural climate change?
What part of man-made global warming is credible?
I've read dozens and dozens of books, dozens of research papers, and over a thousand articles on this subject. To this day, there is still no evidence of man-made global warming.
Why don't any global warming people participate in a public (videotaped) debate?
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 11:07AM
I'll leave you and all the other uneducated morons who think they are qualified to judge real science to wallow in their ignorance. It's a waste of time to argue with people who don't even understand what the science is.
Ray| 9.13.10 @ 11:23AM
Can you say: pompous ass? Your comments sure do!
Paul from SA| 9.13.10 @ 12:07PM
You're afraid to debate.
You and the others cannot debate because you would be exposed as frauds.
Why not have a huge public debate, with green commercials and celebrities... and then they could finally put the skeptics, deniers, and ignorants in their place? Just think of the fame, money, power, revelance and Nobel Prizes!
Nope, you cannot risk the embarrassment and shame. A public debate would destroy the entire global warming industry. You people are cowards. Come on! Let's have a genuine scientific debate!
Why can't any of you anwer a direct question? You are wrong. The author did not say what you accused him of saying. Why no honesty?
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 12:39PM
You say:
"The author did not say what you accused him of saying".
I say: did you even read the article?
And, Paul, neither I nor any scientist is afraid to debate. But we all have more important things to do than to debate with people who don't even understand what the questions are.
However, I will admit to this much. Scientists are expert in science. If you want to engage in political debate, the scientist is not going to be any better at it than any other amateur. This is why climate science is losing the political argument. But the scientific facts remain the same. You may not live to see the consequences, but your children and grandchildren will, and they will be cursing the self-indulgent blindness of their denialist ancestors.
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 1:03PM
"Denialist ancestors." LOL! Now THAT is funny. Almost as funny as "Evolutionist Deniers."
John II| 9.13.10 @ 1:48PM
Actually, I've compiled a rather long list of the frauds admired by Professor Thinker, in the course of following this one-sided contretemps since the mid-1990's.
You might say I'm a denialist with the bile-list.
Albert| 9.13.10 @ 2:59PM
I wonder why "Thinker-Wrong" has his panties in a bunch over this article and those who employ a healthy skepticism of AGW. He claims that "climate science" is losing the debate because it is a "political" debate, not a scientific one. He should congratulate himself and his hero AlGore for making this entirely political. Science has been subverted by Pro-AGW politics, not by skeptics. What has been proposed on this page (and been challenged for many years now) is a scientific debate between knowledgable people, not a shout-fest by political hacks. AlGore claims the science is "settled" but that in itself is a political statement which he can not substantiate and will not formally defend. So, what has this guy's panties in a bunch? Why the vitriol? Why the ad hominems? Does "Thinker-Wrong" have any facts to present? I have not seen any. AlGore's motivations are clear: 1) Money. AlGore makes millions from this hoax. 2) Ego. AlGore is widely acclaimed and presented with gushing awards and accolades, and this serves his ego very well. AGW is ALL about politics.
Mark James| 9.13.10 @ 2:25PM
Based on what there genius?
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 4:21PM
TR, just answer this:
Why is it that the other planets of this solar system were warming at the same rate as the Earth (that is, until 1998 when the warming stopped)? That is a FACT, not an opinion, and is well researched. Is it just POSSIBLE that the warming is coming from the SUN? Or, are you going to tell me it's because of my Durango?
Man-made global warming is a MYTH and a SCAM, promoted by those who stand to make MILLIONS of of the rest of us.
Mark James| 9.13.10 @ 2:23PM
I am somewhat educated on this. Paul from SA is accurate. Your straw man argument is apparently we do not agree with AGW therefore we are ignorant morons? Go study the well established concept of climate change due to sun spot activity and get back to us there Genius boy. Scientists are actually split whether or not that there even is a greenhouse gas effect and many claim that even if there is one, the effect is negligible compared to sun activity. AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is just one more in a long line of politically fabricated "doom machines" that the left has long since touted in search of more money and power. Wilson's first world war fiasco, the supposed overpopulation "bomb", pollution caused ice age, the "global Warming" now "Climate Change". They all were political fabrications. It's bunk!
Purple Lips| 9.13.10 @ 2:52PM
Please explain the difference between a Gaussian filter and a Gaussian distribution.
Texas Mom 2010| 9.13.10 @ 1:26PM
The problem with your belief is evidence that the science was cooked and massaged to reach a preordained conclusion, ie. hockey stick graph. None of the many scientists who had valid qualifications were allowed to give competing theories. The leaked emails showed that the organization was actively involved in suppressing dissent rather than testing it via the scientific method. The actual models used to predict the effect of man on global warming cannot be duplicated or tested which is another vital part of the scientific process. The IPCC itself has become a political animal not a scientific one destoying its credibility in the process.
Mark James| 9.13.10 @ 2:24PM
Actually, it din't "become" a political animal, it was born one.
A.M. Mallett| 9.13.10 @ 4:00PM
Those are fine assertions if true but what does it have to do with this letter and specifically, what statement was ignorant?
greghawk| 9.13.10 @ 9:32AM
You voted for the current administration - you live with the betrayal of your 'well schooled' agenda. Sucker!
Sarbo| 9.13.10 @ 9:09AM
As some of you already know, I am from India. And, apart from my schooling in the Himalayas, I used to go on regular treks on the higher altitudes. Some glaciers, esp in the northwest, were clearly retreating. But others in the northeast were advancing. So Pachauri, a railways engineer, never had my confidence on a multi-discipline science like Climatology.
However, I must take issue with TAS on the conventional conservative trope from America. Rather than poorer countries seeking a massive transfer of wealth from the richer countries, from this side of the global aisle, it looked like a bunch of westerners of the Obama breed seeking non-elective judicial powers over the world.
So, in Copenhagen, we politely said 'No".
Big Leo| 9.13.10 @ 10:35AM
A very astute observation, Sarbo. It looks a lot more like Westerners telling third world and developing countries that they should remain poor than it does transferring Western wealth to the third world.
Sarbo| 9.13.10 @ 11:14AM
Yeah, Big Leo, you are mostly correct, not entirely. I have written about this before on TAS. Did you read Krugman's recent article in NYT? He blames the Chinese for keeping their currency cheap, for the benefit of their domestic economy. True as hell. But what Krugman can't bring himself to say is that America kept its dollar artificially high, again for her domestic purposes.
What does this have to do with global warming? The fact is, carbon is priced in dollars, an artificial currency. So, we get this weird result ... a lawn mower in upscale America is counted the same as a low-wattage irrigation pump in rural India. Same carbon emmission. Both should go, saith Obama.
We said 'No'.
It's not that America wants us to stay poor. We are on a trajectory which America cannot stop.
Albert| 9.13.10 @ 3:12PM
Generally, when you hear of redistribution of wealth from rich to poor , what is really intended is confiscation of wealth by government so government can spend such wealth on itself.
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 4:25PM
Excellent points, well said.
Big Leo| 9.13.10 @ 7:28PM
India has reduced government controls over business and is growing exponentially. America is increasing them and has economic problems.
Anybody else getting this?
rolf| 9.13.10 @ 12:01PM
Some people are regurgitating that this was only one small isolated "error". Boy you know nothing. This was one gigantic bullshit. They were telling that all glaciers would be gone in 2035. But there was no study whatsoever backing this. It all was based on a misquoted Interview the New Scientist did whit an indian Physician, who believed the glaciers would be gone in 2350. He was even misquoted. But it landed in the IPCC report and later in a lot of peer reviewed journals as "proven facts". For such idiocy we will have to pay billions and the Learjets of the world saviours, and their caviar.
Texas Mom 2010| 9.13.10 @ 1:29PM
I believe if was also reported in Runner or Climber Magazine... as fact and also alluded to in the IPCC report. Just really sad.
mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 1:40PM
I am only a pseudo-scientist, a computer programmer to be exact. But I grew up among scientists, and a lot of our friends are. Those people do not sound like "Thinker Right", who appears to be a fanatic. I think science is not only his profession (if it is), but his religion.
Besides, if it is admitted that the bill will make no appreciable change, why hurt people out of religious fanatacism?
A note on settled science. In the year I was born, a number of top scientists were asked how old the Universe is? Most said, "eternal". Within ten years, this bit of "settled science", present since Aristotle, had been almost completely overturned.
Mark James| 9.13.10 @ 2:30PM
Good point mzk1.
CalMark| 9.13.10 @ 2:34PM
More about "settled science": hundreds of years ago, it was "settled science" that the Earth was the center of the universe. Disagree at your own peril, heretic! A fellow named Galileo (even Right Thinker may have heard of him) was even convicted of heresy and kept under house arrest for several decades.
Whoops.
So much for "settled science."
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 3:37PM
Your example of Galileo vs the Church has nothing to do with any questions about "settled science". The dogmatic theory that the earth is the center of the universe is a religious belief. Galileo was prosecuted for heresy, not scientific misconduct.
And since he died 9 years after the trial, it's hard to see how he was "kept under house arrest for several decades".
Since you have one fact wrong, we can apply Peter Hannaford's logic to conclude that your whole argument must be wrong.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 4:02PM
Yes, mzk1, you clearly are a pseudo-scientist. If you were to ask those same top scientist how they know the universe is eternal, they would have admitted that there is no compelling evidence one way or the other. This is not "settled science", it is only a convenient hypothesis which was accepted because nothing obviously precluded it.
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 4:32PM
So how is it possible that climate change science is "settled"?
Truth is, true science is NEVER settled.
I will also add, the Scientific Method requires that all experiments must be replicatable by other scientists. Now the scientists who created the "hockey stick" graph claim they've lost their original data, to which I say "BS!!" As a college freshman Chemistry major, I'd have received an "F" in my class had I lost my data.
"Climate change" has become a religion, it is not science.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 4:55PM
Excellent point. Science never is settled. But in the real world, we have to make decisions based upon what is known. And what is known is that we are facing the substantial likelihood of a climate catastrophe unknown in previous human existence.
Is it 100% certain to happen? No. Is it 100% certain not to happen. No, not that either. We can be pretty sure the chances are somewhere between the 1% the denialists would have you believe, and the 99% the advocates claim.
But even a 1% chance of a catastrophic event is too much. Would you get on an airplane if the chance of it crashing were 1%, instead of the one in a million which it actually is?
And since most of the denialists seem to be Republicans (judging by their dislike of "liberals") I would remind you of the Cheney doctrine:
"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. ..."
By the way, Mann's raw data upon which the hockey stick is based was not lost. In fact, Mann supplied it to McIntyre, one of his principal opponents.
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 5:00PM
TR, I'll take my chances with a 1% possibility of catastrophe. That at least gives me a 99% chance of non-catastrophe, where any legislation that the current crop of idiots in charge would pass guarantees 100% chance of failure and economic collapse.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 5:06PM
Cut out the bravado. Would you really get on that airplane?
You dismiss the predictions of climate science but accept the predictions of economists and politicians? Science may not be perfect, but it's right almost all the time. How often are economists and politicians right?
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 5:19PM
I repeat to you your own question: "How often are economists and politicians right?"
Why then would we want to make LAWS based on flawed and incomplete science?
As to the economists vs. politician question, I'll take the economist over the career politician every day.
Big Leo| 9.13.10 @ 7:30PM
Both my father and grandfather were taught that the universe was eternal. It was one of the arguments against religion. When I read my father's textbooks from the thirties, it is amazing to note the very high percentage of incorrect statements-- or at least statements we consider to be incorrect today.
And that's why I love mathematics so much.
Paul from SA| 9.13.10 @ 4:03PM
Liberal global warming/global cooling scares go back to the early 1900's. Every thirty years or so, they start up again. The headlines are practically identical to today's, except they switch between warming and cooling.
While they have many things in common -- man-made, world-wide disaster, flooding, droughts, massive storms, disease, famine, locusts, ... -- they were all wrong in their predictions.
Thinker Right,
We know you are afraid to debate, no matter what you say. You're a coward.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 4:32PM
"Liberal global warming/global cooling scares go back to the early 1900's".
First of all, Paul from SA, the question of "global warming/global cooling" is not a "Liberal" question. It is not a "Conservative" question either. It is a scientific question.
I'll be glad to debate anyone who understands the scientific issues involved. But it's pointless to discuss these things with the scientifically illiterate.
Give me a coherent explanation of why all the evidence we have now -- starting with the dramatic increase of atmospheric CO2, and including all that we know about how the climate works -- will lead to climate stability and then we will have something to discuss.
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 4:38PM
Well... to start with, CO2 increases historically occur AFTER the Earth warmed, not BEFORE as Algore claims.
Also, let's not forget that the Earth has been MUCH warmer in recent history. The Medievel Warm Period was significantly warmer than today, to the point that England was raising vineyards and making wine.
Just check the science books, it's all there.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 5:01PM
Nunya, you are a good example of why it appears that climate scientists are afraid to debate the opposition. Your "facts" are simply not facts. They are right-wing talking points. The denialists are going on the theory that they can make climate change go away if they just throw up enough dust for a long enough time.
And they are right in one respect. They can win the political argument in this way. But that won't change the science, and it won't change the unpleasant reality that your children and grandchildren will be stuck dealing with.
GW| 9.13.10 @ 5:09PM
Thinker right: Anyone who denies my "scientific" religion of Global Warming is an ignorant, unscientific no-nothing who is too dumb to believe in what "scientists" tell us. However, when they do bring up factual data that show the Earth has been warmer previously than now and humanity has survived, nay, *prospered*, then I use lame-ass terms like "right-wing talking points."
That's right, thinker, the world is going to end if we don't believe in global warming. Let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya to save the earth.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 5:14PM
GW, if you have "factual data that show the Earth has been warmer previously than now and humanity has survived" then by all means let's have it. This would be a fact of capital importance to climate science.
Fenestra| 9.13.10 @ 8:50PM
You're a fool TR. And absolutely not a scientist.
Here is one point for you. 800 years ago the Vikings had cattle farms on Greenland. It turned cold, and they all starved. It is still too cold to have a cattle farm on Greenland.
OK, fool, you pointed out that "Since you have one fact wrong, we can apply Peter Hannaford's logic to conclude that your whole argument must be wrong." So everything you have said is wrong.
Got it? Good! Now shut up!
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 5:14PM
TR, you are dead WRONG on this one. I've done the research. Now I suggest you quit regurgitating Democrat talking points and do some independent research on your own.
AGW is a MYTH and a SCAM brought to us by those who stand to make MILLIONS off of the rest of us. If you want to believe differently that's your choice, but don't stand there and tell me I'm stating "right-wing talking p0ints". That's just drivel, coming from someone who wants to believe that the idiots in power are going to save the world with new legislation. It's BS, bottom line.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 5:31PM
Nunya, get a grip. I have said nothing about any proposed legislation. That's an entirely different discussion, which presupposes that we have all agreed that AGW is real and asks the question: "now what do we do about it".
But since we clearly do not all agree on the existence of AGW, there's nothing to discuss regarding legislation.
As for your research, it's very hard to imagine what it could consist of, since the vast majority of scientists who are knowledgable about climate science agree that AGW is for real and that it is not going to be fun for the human race.
Perhaps you could clue us in as to what your sources are. But if they are Monckton, Inhofe and Milloy you'll pardon me if I simply dismiss you as a fool who can't distinguish science from ignorance.
Marc Jeric| 9.14.10 @ 3:24AM
Well, well - our "scientist" TR tells us to shut up. I am a scientist (PhD, UCLA) in engineering, with concentration in heat and mass transfer and in thermodynamics. Together with 31,477 other American independent scuentists, of whom 9,029 hold PhD degrees, I state that that AGW is a scam concocted by government-paid drones who first invented the globaloney cooling hoax in the 1970's, then the globaloney warming scam in the 1990's, followed by the climate change flimflam in the 2000's, and came up with the cap & trade power grab now. See the Internet under "Global Warming Petition" and "Manhattan Declaration" to see the truth of this 40-year old socialist, UN-sponsored world government conspiracy. And no - we have received no money from the nazi-like oil companies. Some years ago 3 eco-nazis tried to sabotage the GWP by submitting phony names with phony degrees - it took us several years to verify all the names and titles listed in the Petition. So these government-paid drones, almost all of them rejects of private enterprise, just keep inventing and falsifying until they put us all in abject poverty and slavery. In the meantime the world again is cooling.
Big Leo| 9.13.10 @ 7:32PM
The fact is that ice core samples clearly show that CO2 increases AFTER the temperature does. That isn't in dispute.
GW| 9.13.10 @ 5:03PM
Do I hear crickets? Where did Stinker wrong go?
Paul from SA| 9.13.10 @ 6:11PM
Is there a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures? Show me some data, and not the bogus stuff from CRU, and Hansen and Mann.
Lead to climate stability? Huh?
What happened to global warming? What causes global cooling?
Our understanding of climate science is in its infancy.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 6:17PM
Paul - you really don't even get what you say yourself. If you are claiming that climate science is bunk because sometimes it predicts warming, and sometimes cooling, and none of it happens anyway, then what you are really saying is that all the evidence and theorizing we have now actually should be interpreted to mean the climate will remain stable. I only ask you to explain how you come to this conclusion.
Paul from SA| 9.13.10 @ 6:24PM
It becomes pointless. You make up stuff to object to and never answer any questions. I never said any such thing, 'as climate science is bunk.' Those are your words, just like you made up stuff about what the author wrote.
We know why you can't. You can't answer. You can't debate.
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 6:31PM
"global warming/global cooling scares go back to the early 1900's ... they were all wrong in their predictions."
If that's not claiming that climate science is bunk then you are writing in some language other than English.
But I guess if you can make up your own science then you can make up your own language too. It's a free county! Nobody can abridge your right to free speech! But nobody has to take you seriously, either.
Fenestra| 9.13.10 @ 8:56PM
You're still a fool TR. Tell me why the Greenland Vikings starved?
The hard cold reality is that we don't believe you or AGW anymore. We are going to vote you out. Even if we are wrong.
Life's a bitch isn't it?
Thinker Right| 9.13.10 @ 9:42PM
Fenestra - Thank you for your kind and insightful comments.
Not to pop your balloon, but the reality is that over the last 1100 years the global temperature has varied by plus or minus 1/2 degree from its mean value - execept for the last century. The temperature is now a full degree above that mean. What happened in Greenland is still in dispute, but whatever happened it was a local effect, from which no global conclusions can be drawn.
And you can vote "us" out even if you are "wrong", but the facts will remain and your grandchildren will curse you. That's a bitch.
Pete| 9.13.10 @ 4:13PM
Just beware of a call from the Goracle asking you to "massage" his numbers.
arlo price| 9.14.10 @ 12:32AM
The obamagedon PIMP thugocracy chugs along.....
Some facts to consider:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Rajan Alexander | 9.14.10 @ 2:41AM
Salute this man! Pachauri did what no climate sceptic is able to do. A Trojan Horse that destroyed the IPCC from the inside.
If Pachauri did not exist, we climate sceptics would have had to literally invent him. He is in fact every sceptic’s dream. How could we have asked for more when he embodies the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in all completeness? Interestingly, he also strongly epitomizes the typical climate activist and their organizations that they are attached. Did he mould both in his image or its vice versa is however for history to judge.
Next month 194 governments of the IPCC are scheduled to meet in Busan, South Korea. This is where a plot to ouster Pachuari could be unleashed. Pachuari remains defiant: “At the moment, my mandate is very clear. I have to complete the fifth assessment” The Indian Government who Pachuari is their candidate is equally defiant, backing him to the hilt. If Pachauri goes, we leave the IPCC! And if India leaves the IPCC, it can trigger an exodus.
Read More: http://devconsultancygroup.blo.....at-no.html
Cheeseburger in Paradise| 9.14.10 @ 9:56AM
Most of the northern and much of the southern hemispheres were buried under a sheet of ice 20,000 years ago. It began melting (good). Around that same time, mankind began civilizing the world. We didn't cause the warming of the planet then, and we are not causing the warming of the planet now. The planet has swung through several cycles of glaciation and warming. We didn't do it then, and we didn't do it now.
May all your drinks be boat drinks
'Burger!
Biblioholic Bill| 9.15.10 @ 3:50AM
The so-called 'Thinker Right' is an obvious leftie,
(they wear their hearts not on their sleeves but on their adjectives)
Amidst his strident vituperations he pops an ignoramus blooper:
"the reality is that over the last 1100 years the global temperature has varied by plus or minus 1/2 degree from its mean value"
That's not what the cover of the first IPCC report said, but no, he's spouting the hockey-stick catechism.
Talk about a denialist. This clown denies the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Roman Warming, and the Holocene Maximum. There's no way the world was only half a deg C colder in the depths of the Maunder Minimum. Try -2C.
If we can only stall these ruinous turkeys for a few more years deeper into the ongoing solar Minimum, with a few more record-breaking winters, then we'll see them slink away for good.