Patterico's Pontifications

1/30/2010

More Climate Change Questions (Updated x2)

Filed under: Environment — DRJ @ 11:13 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is having a bad year. Not only were serious doubts raised about global warming following the East Anglia email scandal, but earlier this month IPCC had to retract a report that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035:

“Calls for the resignation of the embattled head of the UN climate change body were dismissed by its vice-chairman today as the organisation sought to repair its damaged credibility.

The discredited claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 because of global warming was just “one page in a 938-page report”, said Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

The UK report, as published in the Times of India, said the glacier evidence formed the basis for much of last year’s Copenhagen summit but that IPCC Chairman R.K. Pachauri waited two months — until after the conference — to correct the error.

As if that weren’t enough bad news for the IPCC, the UK’s Sunday Telegraph revealed today that 2007 IPCC reports of melting ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa are also suspect:

“In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.”

Mistakes can happen in science and every area of life but the global warming fiasco is more than a mistake, it’s a delusion.

— DRJ

UPDATE — Cue clueless Senator Lindsey Graham:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said today that skeptical Republicans and Democrats should throw their support behind climate change legislation not only because it’s good for the economy and the environment, but because Congress desperately needs a win under its belt.

“We tried immigration. It’s hard. And we failed. We tried Social Security. It’s hard. And we failed. We tried health care. It’s really hard. And it looks like we’re going to have to start over again,” Graham somberly told a luncheon audience of energy and climate advocates on the Hill. “On the energy, climate change front, I don’t want to add that to the list. There is no reason in my mind that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party can’t come together.”

UPDATE 2: Bradley J. Fikes has more details on the climate change meltdowns mentioned above.

301 Responses to “More Climate Change Questions (Updated x2)”

  1. The saddest thing to me about the latest environmental fiasco — in this case, global warming — is that children, going back to my childhood, have been infested with the notion that every thing we do, as a nation, is intended to subjugate and enslave while ignoring or applauding those who actually subjugate or enslave.

    They have only been taught that the advancements and labor of the entire Western civilization is an affront not only to the Earth, but to the millions of lives saved by something as simple — and complicated — as the Salk vaccine.

    Ag80 (1592cc)

  2. I updated the post regarding Lindsey Graham’s position on global warming.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  3. That’s an incredible statement by Lindsey Graham. That he would exhort both parties to agree to global warming, or anything for that matter, just so Congress can have a win is really staggering. At least he’s up front, in an unintended way, about his lack of principles.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  4. Oh God…

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    BfC (5209ec)

  5. Lindsey Graham desperately wants to tell his constituents “You asked me to ‘do something’, and look, i did something”.

    Icy Texan (2d4b53)

  6. Another proof that my decision not to contribute to National Republican organizations in the 1980’s was corect. Contribute to individuals after you have checked them out. Run a re-check when they stand for re-election. Look out for those, like Graham, who have become captives of “process” over substance. Washington works to make elected and/or appointed officials “grow” in office. The same applies to state and local governments. Conservative officeholders are under constant pressure to “grow” in a manner acceptable to the Left. I have seen more than one honest conservative become entrapped by the desire to please the Washington powers.

    Longwalker (996c34)

  7. Hey Lindsey, how about a win for the Constitution or the American people you schmuck!

    Voluble (1e2a18)

  8. We aren’t playing kick ball here. No one needs a win. We must get it right.

    Congress needs to find a PhD mechanical engineer who can explain the principles of thermodynamics because climate change is a thermodynamics problem. Any credible model of the process must, at its core, apply the laws of thermodynamics – profound principles of nature which cannot be repealed.

    The first law of thermodynamics restates Conservation of Energy – heat engines cannot put out more energy than they consume.

    The second law, entropy, states that thermal systems seek equilibrium. Heat naturally flows from hot to cold, that systems end state is disorder, and heat engines are inefficient; they consume more energy than they produce.

    Climatologist’s theories may be traced to outdated, 19th century ideas of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. These scientists mistakenly believed that the atmosphere was similar to a green house. The green house effect cannot work because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

    How do modern Anthropogenic Global Warming acolytes account for the heat? They do not. Why? There are no data or valid models of climate. We have no temperature database from which to judge whether the atmosphere is cooling or warming. The models are without scientific basis. In the absence of evidence, we should not destroy our economy by imposing a massive energy tax.

    Lindsay Graham is not a physicist; he’s a lawyer, a politician and the 41st vote. Before he makes a judgment on question well beyond his depth, he would be wise to seek out and listen to an expert witness. Today, it appears he is (again) on the wrong side of the facts.

    arch (24f4f2)

  9. I’m pretty sure than a lot people consider that the US already has enough laws and badly drafted legislation. If Lindsey Graham thinks people want more laws passed just because otherwise congress hasn’t passed any laws recently then he’s an idiot who deserves to lose the next time he comes up for re-election.

    FrancisT (50dbe3)

  10. And on a completely unrelated matter, Al Bore has been silent since the Copenhagen carbon – fest. Quite frankly, I’m shocked.

    Dmac (539341)

  11. “And on a completely unrelated matter, Al Bore has been silent since the Copenhagen carbon – fest. Quite frankly, I’m shocked.”

    Given bin Laden’s latest harangue, where he blamed the U.S. for global warmening, the former VP is now known as Sheikh al-Gore, leader of the American Taliban.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    GeneralMalaise (0a4348)

  12. Somebody must ‘have’ something on Lindsey. Or he has some incredibly ignorant staffers who prepare him for his public statements.
    Cap’n’trade will kill the already moribund economy.

    WHY in H*LL would he agree to support such dreck?

    tom

    tomw (25170a)

  13. It’s an old question in a new form: Who will gate-keep the gate-keepers?

    Charles Perry (bcf7a2)

  14. Arch: Your thesis is full of sciencey talk, but is ultimately incorrect. There is actually a large chunk of scientific evidence that proves you wrong. It’s called Venus.

    It has an atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide and is about 467 degrees C (872F) on its surface. Some of this temperature is due to it being closer to the sun, but most is due to a runaway greenhouse effect.

    It *does* happen.

    You are missing the most important aspect of entropy. The fact that entropy only increases in a *closed system*. The solar system is by and large a closed system. The earth is not, because it has a tremendous energy input coming from the sun. If for some reason the earth became incapable of reradiating some of that energy back out, the net energy content of the atmosphere would increase.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  15. Given bin Laden’s latest harangue, where he blamed the U.S. for global warmening, the former VP is now known as Sheikh al-Gore, leader of the American Taliban.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Sheikh al-ManBearPig work better, Stashiu?

    [note: released from moderation, again. I think it’s the word “Sheikh” that puts it in there automatically. An old troll made that a bad word at one point, before my time. 😉 –Stashiu]

    GeneralMalaise (0a4348)

  16. Cue clueless Senator Lindsey Graham:

    Graham is a perfect example of a generally non-liberal person who nonetheless has a left-leaning voice in the back of his mind encouraging and prodding him. If such an individual has any sense, he’ll tell that sentiment: “Shut the hell up!!—you’re almost always naive and foolish, and any idealism and do-gooderism that’s supposedly inspired by your compassion (or “compassion”) is likely to be superficial and bound to lead to a pathetic outcome.”

    Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan listened to that voice and the result was secret negotiations with hostage-taking Iran. George Bush Sr. listened to that voice and he went along with raising taxes. George Bush Jr listened to that voice and didn’t veto bloated budgets and treat certain high-profile Supreme Court nominees and the issue of illegal immigration in a sensible manner.

    In the 1930s, Herbert Hoover listened to that voice and accepted the idiotic idea that the best way to deal with the Great Depression (not to mention the great stock market crash of 1929) was to make taxes soar and the government to reap the benefits.

    Arnold Schwarzengger is listening to that liberal voice in his mind and will push California farther down the toilet with new regulations and expenses due to Green-Earth, AGW-horror-stories! emotionalism.

    Of course, when a person is as leftist as, say, Obama, the liberal voice in the back of the mind will be a very loud, somewhat deranged (“Goddamn America!!”) chorus.

    Mark (411533)

  17. Russell,

    How much greenhouse effect is there on Mercury? And how many men have been to Venus effecting that global climate? Most of the temperature on Venus is due to runaway greenhouse effect and not because it’s closer to the Sun, but Earth has tremendous energy input coming from the Sun?

    “Your thesis is full of sciencey talk, but is ultimately incorrect.” If global climate was subject to change from irony, we’d be dead already. You really believe you’ve found proof that the Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong or just don’t apply to Earth? Sad.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  18. @13:

    Uh, care to rethink your statement about the “runaway greenhouse effect”? Because if it were truly “runaway”, the temperature would still be increasing to the same temperature as the Sun.

    Venus has hit a thermal equilibrium where the incident energy is equal to the reradiated energy.

    Some of that has to do with the much thicker atmosphere on Venus, after all it is about 90 time denser than Earth’s atmosphere. And we all know that the more dense a substance becomes, the higher it’s heat capacity.

    Also, since Venus is closer to the sun (orbit diameter is about 0.7 AU), it receives TWICE as much energy flux as the Earth. So while the dense carbon rich atmosphere does contribute to hotter surface temperatures, the greater solar energy flux is a major factor to the surface temperature.

    Other than that, yeah, it’s the same thing.

    And, for all this “open system” vs. “closed system” nonsense regarding entropy, it all depends upon where you draw your control volume.

    Dr. K (adb7ba)

  19. On the “Saved or Created Jobs” in Colorado thread, Carol in MT commented in part, that she wants a “do nothing Congress”. I agree. At this point, it should be the default position and taking action should be the exception: Deliberate, debated, well thought out, and all unintended consequences put under a microscope and examined and weighed before choosing to squeeze the voters. This is what Lindsey Graham needs to understand. The more they do just for the sake of appearing to do something, the more they undermine the will of the American people.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  20. Stashiu3: No, just his particular argument, which I read as “because you can’t get more energy out of a system than you can gput in, the greenhouse effect is bunk.” I put forth Venus as a disproof to that statement.

    Dr: K: “So while the dense carbon rich atmosphere does contribute to hotter surface temperatures, the greater solar energy flux is a major factor to the surface temperature.”

    I’m not arguing for or against global warming, just saying that the argument that carbon dioxide *can’t* cause it because you can’t get more energy out of the system than you put in is specious. Which you seem to agree with. There’s plenty of energy coming from the sun.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  21. You are missing the most important aspect of entropy.

    And I’m still waiting for global-warming fanatics and climatologists to correlate — very specifically and explicitally — the way that manmade carbon dioxide is somehow as important or more important than the existence and effect of high-pressure weather systems.

    Since I’ve always hated hot weather (unlike clowns along the lines of John McCain who choose to reside in furnace-hot places like Arizona), I’ve long been aware of the existence of an “H” on a weather map and it being an early warning sign — at least to my way of thinking — that high temperatures are headed this way, certainly as earth’s climate works in southern California—assuming the laws of climate in this part of the planet are not different compared with the rest of the globe.

    Beyond that, nothing makes me laugh more than when I see AGW fanatics (many of them living in California) grow unhappy when the weather turns cold and wet. I won’t say anything about such people choosing to drive around in SUVs and live in houses way out in the distant suburbs (Hi, limousine liberals throughout the USA!).

    Mark (411533)

  22. Mark, I live in Orange County, CA. I am not a conservative, but I did enjoy the rain a couple of weeks ago. I didn’t enjoy the swaying of my office building, but hey.

    As far as climate change goes, I believe it’s probably happening, to some degree. I think we’ve also had an impact on it. Whether it’s a huge impact or not is something I *don’t* know, but even if it isn’t, I think being environmentally responsible is just generally a good idea. But judiciously.

    I think the AGW deniers, as well as the global warming supporters, are both way too dogmatic for my taste.

    If it brings more rain to SoCal, hey, bring it on! Heh.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  23. Barbarians have gotten past the Orange Curtain? Another vestige of my golden youth falls by the wayside…

    GeneralMalaise (0a4348)

  24. “How do modern Anthropogenic Global Warming acolytes account for the heat?”

    Do you mean besides the sun?

    imdw (dc7a06)

  25. GeneralMalaise: I know about 80 of them. Yes, we are here, and we are lurking, and plotting. :-)

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  26. imdw: Exactly. A lot of heat gets radiated back to space, which is how the earth regulates itself. There are a lot of issues with the theories of AGW, obviously, but as to where the heat comes from? THAT is, in my opinion, not up for argument.

    A large ball of nuclear fusion 93 million miles away that radiates half of the earth with heat and light nonstop? Yeah. That.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  27. @20:

    Why do you insist on calling us “deniers” when it is incumbent for the proponents of a theory to prove it is true?

    Or did I miss the memo that states all new scientific theories are automatically valid and must be disproven by those who might show skepticism?

    Which is it?

    Dr. K (adb7ba)

  28. Dr.K: Fine, so what do you want to be called?

    I can be politically correct too. Would you prefer I called you “AGW challenged”? Or perhaps “Skeptically Enhanced”?

    I just say that because it’s the name that comes to mind.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  29. Russell:

    You forget a source much closer. How about that big radioactive core at below the crust? You know, the one that keeps the mantle liquid?

    Dr. K (adb7ba)

  30. Dr. K: Yes, that is a source for heat. But it would not surprise me if the sun dwarfed it for raw power output. Which is why I didn’t think to include it. (I don’t know the raw numbers)

    If the sun were to turn off now, I doubt the heat output of the planet would be enough to keep anything warm.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  31. Russell:

    How about “rationalists”? Nice counterpoint to “alarmists”.

    Dr. K (adb7ba)

  32. Dr. K. Fine. For those who are truly rational, I’ll call them that from now on.

    However, I have met a few on the “anti” side who are NOT any more rational than some of those on the “pro” side. I reserve the right to call them “bat*** crazy”.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  33. Actually the sun is a big anti-matter engine. This is the source of the heat, light, and neutrinos. The fusion just generates the anti-matter. Plus this all takes place at the core. It takes a million years for that energy to reach the surface.

    Climate change is undeniable, it has never been static. To propose that man is changing it is another matter entirely. It is like saying I cause night by turning on my house lights. Should I have to prove that I don’t before being allowed to do so?

    The levels of CO2 in our atmosphere have varied by an order of magnitude and we are near the bottom of that range now. We are actually below the level that plant life needs. To suggest the small increase being discussed is going to change our climate is silly. A small increase in CO2 could increase crop growth by 40% to 200% in water stressed areas. I would suggest this would do far more good to mankind than any possible effect from an unlikely temperature increase.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  34. Who’s paying Lindsey to spew that nonsense?

    happyfeet (713679)

  35. #31,
    Were those fanatics pushing measures that would cripple our economy and destroy our liberty in the name of their zeal? Isn’t this a big difference?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  36. “GeneralMalaise: I know about 80 of them. Yes, we are here, and we are lurking, and plotting.”

    I am told there are three known cadres in the Irvine, Fullerton and Laguna Beach communities, but they have so far limited their activities to pamphleteering on the college campuses and late-night coupling in the bushes of Heisler Park.

    GeneralMalaise (0a4348)

  37. I really don’t worry much about the woman who thought the rainbow in her sprinkler meant some exotic pollution of our water as much as I do the politician who wants to put me on the street to “save the planet”.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  38. I am not a conservative,

    That’s why if that little voice in the back of your mind keeps proclaiming “liberalism makes me a wonderful, compassionate, generous human being—to my fellow man and to Mother Earth in general,” don’t listen to it.

    A person who should know better (since he, unlike you, probably doesn’t describe himself as “not conservative”), Lindsay Graham, keeps getting lulled by that voice. The evidence (and stupidity) of that is even more apparent because Graham has to be fully aware of information like the following:

    TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING

    September 24, 2009
    Washington, DC

    Chairman Markey, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Members of the Select Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today.

    My name is Gabriel Calzada Álvarez. I am an Associate Professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos(King Juan Carlos University) in Madrid, where I teach Applied Economics at the Environmental Science Faculty.

    In March 2009 me and two colleagues from the same University, Raquel Merino Jara and Juan Ramón Rallo Julián, released our study on the Spanish experience with “green jobs” with the technical auditing help of José Ignacio García Bielsa, a professional with large experience in the electricity market. Our study (“Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources”) has been provided to the Committee.

    President Obama has made clear his intention to follow Europe’s lead in employing state intervention in the economy to “create” what are called “green jobs”, specifically as a path out of the current economic troubles. Europe’s experience actually suggests that this is precisely the wrong approach, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment for your hearing record on our research which put these claims to the test using official data.

    Our study sought to answer the seminal question—what was the price of Spain’s attempt to lead the world in a clean energy transformation. Our research shows that that price was very high.

    Here are some highlights from our study:

    • For every 1 green job financed by Spanish taxpayers, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost.

    • Only 1 out of 10 green job contracts were in maintenance and operation of already installed plants, and most of the rest of the working positions are only sustainable in an expansive environment related to high subsidies.

    • Since 2000, Spain has committed €571,138 ($753,778) per each “green job.”

    • Those programs resulted in the destruction of
    nearly 110,500 jobs.

    • Each “green” megawatt installed on average destroyed 5.39 jobs elsewhere in the economy, and in the case of solar photovoltaics, the number reaches 8.99 jobs per megawatt hour installed.

    Spain has already attempted to lead the world in a clean energy transformation. But our research shows that Spain’s policies were economically destructive.

    When the president of a country with a relatively low unemployment rate like the US decides to learn how to create jobs from a country like Spain with the highest unemployment rate among developed countries, it should be in a field where that country has a a demonstrable track record of job creation. Unfortunately, this is not the case of job creation in Spain through public support for the renewable energy.

    Mark (411533)

  39. “Would you prefer I called you “AGW challenged”? Or perhaps “Skeptically Enhanced”?”

    How about “non-emotionalist” or “unhysterical”?

    GeneralMalaise (0a4348)

  40. Mark: I am also not liberal.

    If you think that by my not being conservative, I am somehow stupid or ignorant, that says way more about you than it does me.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  41. Congress desperately needs a win under its belt.

    When it’s Congress versus the American people, I don’t think the former ever needs, let alone deserves, a win.

    What I can’t understand is why South Carolina Republicans renominated this jackhole two years ago. It’s not like they didn’t yet realize what a despicable creature they had elected.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  42. If you think that by my not being conservative,

    Just don’t fall for the notion that the liberal side of human bias automatically makes a person somehow beautiful, kind and generous. That’s best illustrated by a biography I’ve just read on Albert Einstein (certainly not a stupid person, and the very definition of genius), in which his leftist sentiments apparently made it tough for him to acknowledge the ruthlessness and horrors of Stalin’s Russia.

    There’s a passage in the book where Einstein rationalizes away the effect of ultra-leftism on the people of Russia, in effect saying they needed Stalinism/Communism for their own good. In today’s era, a good portion of latte-liberal Hollywood thinks that same way about Cuba, Venezuela and, for that matter, pro-global warming hyperbole.

    Knowing Einstein’s political instincts, I bet if he were alive today he’d be a big fan of pro-AGW propaganda. So a person can be both brilliant and foolish, if not idiotic.

    Mark (411533)

  43. I’m sorry, Mark, but what part of I’m not a liberal wasn’t clear?

    I tend to lean a bit left, true, but I’m independent. My primary beef with republicans is not what they stand for (fiscally, at least), it’s that they make no effort to live up to it and add all the stupid social stuff into the mix. If Republicans would have integrity and actually *be* conservative, I might even be one.

    But what passes for conservative these days isn’t. So I’m not. I am not a fan of stupidity from any side.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  44. The AGW true-believers have always discounted the influence of the Sun, since that negates their dogma of “man-caused” global warming.
    They had to re-invent the pretzel when data came in from various Mars probes that temperatures there were increasing also,
    and are now declining – seemingly in concert with Solar Sun-spot activity.
    I imagine there has also been a great flucuation there of SUV sales?

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  45. Why is it that the so-called “independents” so rarely are, and always seem to have that same sanctimonious I am more enlightened than you vibe to them?

    JD (4277eb)

  46. JD: I was initially going to take a little bit of offense to your comment, but then I figured it was probably the other way around – perhaps it’s because those who actually identify with a partisan side by definition don’t think about things for themselves as much as they toe the party line?

    I indeed *am* independent. I cherry pick what I like best about of the liberal and conservative movements (I like fiscal responsibility, but I also an pro-choice and think the government should keep its hands off my morals), and believe a few things that neither party will cop to.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  47. You are all racist godbothering Jesuslander troglodyte deniers. You can learn from Russell, just allow yourself to worship at the right altar, that of Mother Gaia. That is all.

    JD (4277eb)

  48. JD: wow. That is a huge, beautiful strawman you just built there – and, woo! The destruction was a sight to behold. Well done!

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  49. Sen. Graham is just auditioning to be the next IPCC chairman. Pay is good, fringes are better, and investment opportunities are world-beaters.

    Teflon Dad (f34af7)

  50. I don’t play well with others. Never have. For the most part, that was tongue-in-cheek. People who call me a “denier” for not believing a lie tend to push my buttons. And, Kyoto. Let’s just f*uck up our entire economy, even worse than they are already doing, so the Gaia-botherers can feel better about themselves. No thanks.

    JD (4277eb)

  51. I tend to lean a bit left, true, but I’m independent.

    Russell, in today’s era I find myself becoming very suspicious when people — registered Republicans or otherwise — describe themselves as centrist or independent, or certainly non-conservative. That’s because the mid-point of the political spectrum has shifted to the left since the 1950s.

    Over 30 years ago a liberal (or non-conservative) would have have wanted to ban things like sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury. Nowadays, they want to ban the very substance we all release every time we exhale: carbon dioxide.

    Over 30 years ago a liberal (or non-conservative) would have pointed out the unpleasantness of bigotry towards racially mixed couples. Nowadays, liberals want to promote and celebrate same-sex couples.

    Over 30 years ago a liberal (or non-conservative) would have pointed out the legal, symbolic rigidness imposed on women seeking an abortion. Nowadays, liberals display more touchy-feely emotion when dealing with Fido the dog or Tinkie the cat than the idea that underaged single girls (certainly in Calif) can get an abortion without the consent of the parent or guardian.

    If you wanted to describe yourself as “non-conservative” in, for example, the 1930s or 1950s that would be one thing. But in the 2000s, that takes on a whole different meaning.

    Mark (411533)

  52. JD: My reaction was because if you’d read anything I’d posted here, while I did use the word “denier”, I made clear that I haven’t “drunk the kool-aid”. I think that some climate change is happening but I don’t know why. Nonetheless being responsible to the environment, in my view, is a good thing and we should do more of it.

    One should respect life. ALL life. Ours, and that of the other beings we share the earth with. After all, we depend on many of them too. What happens if, for example, all the cows die?

    We just need to be responsible about it. I would think that people who live in the LA area would like to see a reduction in smog, for example, if for no other reason than it’s ugly and smells bad.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  53. Mark, you appear to by buying (by virtue of equating liberal and non-conservative) into the notion that there are two sides to the coin and nothing else – conservative or liberal. If I’m not for you, I’m against you, right?

    All of the examples you used are right off the social conservative platform, and demonstrate quite clearly what’s wrong with that point of view. Not only are you demonizing me for not believing in the same things that you do, you appear to have no concept whatsoever of the idea that those who don’t agree might actually have a *legitimate reason for believing that way*!

    I am for gay marriage. But I would be content with no one getting married (in the eyes of the state). It does not have to do in my perspective from advancing homosexuality, just for not demonizing a segment of society because I don’t agree with it. That is a legitimate point of view which you just dismissed entirely out of hand. Not only that, but you basically said that anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is “them”. Not “us”, in other words. There is no room in your worldview for differing viewpoints.

    I am proudly pro-choice. Not pro-abortion, pro-choice. A concept which many social conservatives don’t seem to understand, because it fits more with their goals to demonize anyone who doesn’t stand in front of abortion clinics with signs and pictures of aborted fetuses. Yes, I’m exaggerating a bit, but to make a point.

    Just because I do not agree fully with the three things you pointed out (and, yes, all three) does not make my point of view any less thought. It does make me disagree with you. And because I disagree with you, my points of view are not legitimate.

    This, Mark, is why I will not be conservative, even if I agree with the fiscal conservation platform. Middle of the road is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE to your kind, and I refuse to toe the line just to be accepted into a crowd.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  54. Mr. Miller,
    I would respectfully suggest that the Republican party is not conservative, though most conservatives are Republican. Look at how the Republican party despised Reagan and tried to ignore or marginalize him until he gathered enough support from both parties that they had to jump on his bandwagon. As soon as possible they tried to undo what Reagan accomplished. As a conservative I am a Republican because it is closest to my position. I am not between the two parties but find that while the Republicans are far to the left of me the Democrats have moved so far as to be opposite my values on most issues and in fact are my enemy as an American who values freedom and our Constitutional Republic. When one claims to be centrist I would suggest that is a position extremely far to the left.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  55. JD – You are just a misogynistic, homophobic, jingoistic, bigoted, denialist, carnivorous, bible thumping, gun toting, badge licking authoritarian.

    And Halliburton!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  56. Russell – Being against same sex marriage does not equate to demonizing a segment of society.

    JD (4277eb)

  57. I tend to lean a bit left, true, but I’m independent. My primary beef with republicans is not what they stand for (fiscally, at least), it’s that they make no effort to live up to it and add all the stupid social stuff into the mix. If Republicans would have integrity and actually *be* conservative, I might even be one.

    I find that this attitude typically translates to “I’m to the left of the Democratic party”.

    There are a lot of issues with the theories of AGW, obviously

    Then why don’t you stop sneering at everyone and simply state what those “issues” are?

    Subotai (14db42)

  58. “but find that while the Republicans are far to the left of me the Democrats have moved so far as to be opposite my values on most issues and in fact are my enemy as an American who values freedom and our Constitutional Republic.”

    The democrats are in some ways to the left of me and in some ways to the right. This is not because I am particularly left, this is because the democrats are, in some ways, indistinguishable from the republicans.

    That’s why I find it laughable when people act like democrats are socialist lite. Sure, they want nationalized health care, but when it comes to most other stuff, the arguments are generally about little of substance and mostly just because they have the other letter next to their name.

    Other than Obama trying to push through health care, I can’t think of very many things he’s done that Bush wouldn’t have. The only thing that makes him even remotely palatable to me is that he’s not McCain, and more to the point, Palin.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  59. Not only are you demonizing me for not believing in the same things that you do

    Danger! Danger! Irony overload imminent! Evacuate the blog!

    Subotai (14db42)

  60. My reaction was because if you’d read anything I’d posted here, while I did use the word “denier”, I made clear that I haven’t “drunk the kool-aid”. I think that some climate change is happening but I don’t know why. Nonetheless being responsible to the environment, in my view, is a good thing and we should do more of it.

    So why is it necessary to use junk science?

    the fact is, we can not predict the exact consequences of climate change.

    Michael Ejercito (6a1582)

  61. That’s why I find it laughable when people act like democrats are socialist lite. Sure, they want nationalized health care

    And nationalized energy, and a nationalized auto industry, and a nationalized financial sector, etc, etc, etc.

    They don’t look socialist to you because you’re to their left.

    Subotai (14db42)

  62. JD: It does when the rest of society *can*.

    That’s why I would be perfectly happy just abolishing it for everyone. Hey, everyone’s equal then!

    Only issue with that is we’d never hear the end about how they actually did “destroy marriage”. Never mind that they didn’t, people could still get married as much as they wanted, just that the government wouldn’t recognize it.

    Uh, Subotai: I did. There’s no solid evidence that we caused it. There’s a little bit of evidence that we have had some impact, like, for example, the oceans starting to get saturated with carbon dioxide and fish dying off, and the dead zones in the oceans. We did *that*. But as far as the ice caps melting? The jury’s out. We don’t know what influence the sun has, whether carbon dioxide comes from other sources, such as underground vents, etc. Just not enough information and this whole scandal with the scientists certainly made me a lot more skeptical.

    And I’m not sneering at anyone. I think you’re reading that into what I’m saying. I think I’m being quite civil, particularly for being in the lion’s den (I tend to respect patterico, even though I don’t agree with a lot of it, he does think things through and I read the site regularly just to see if there are any interesting nuggets).

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  63. #58,
    I would suggest that tripling the deficit, increasing the debt more than all previous Presidents together with no infrastructure to show for it, stealing large corporations from the owners and creditors, cap and trade, abandoning our Eastern European allies, and giving terrorists enemy combatants access to our civil court system are all things Bush did not and would not do.

    This is not a matter of different views, these people want to ignore the Constitution and remove my freedom by force. That is not tolerance but enslavement.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  64. Subotai, yes, the financial and auto sectors have done a wonderful job on their own. We’re in an era of unprecendented growth and prosperity for everyone.

    Truth be told, it would have hurt, but a part of me would have liked for the banks and auto industries to just collapse. The bailouts softened the blow, yes, but who knows if they just staved it off.

    And no, I am not to the left of the democrats. They are to the right of me, because I really don’t think they’re left at all. I think they and the republicans have, generally (with some minor differences) the same agenda. Corporations above all. It’s just a matter of implementation.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  65. Anyway, thanks for the chat, I’m out. I’m starting to remember the adage about arguing on the internet. Even if you win, you’re still arguing on the internet (making no claims to winning or losing because that wasn’t the point).

    Have fun, guys.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  66. From Powerline….

    “The Information Commissioner’s office in Great Britain has ruled that the East Anglia scientists who are at the heart of the global warming scandal acted illegally when they deleted emails rather than produce them in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. They will not be prosecuted, however, apparently because the law has a six-month statute of limitation. The linked news story speculates that the finding of illegality will make it difficult for East Anglia’s Phil Jones, the central figure in the Climategate aspect of the scandal, to return to the post from which he is now on a leave of absence.”

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  67. Russell’s ironymeter just exploded.

    I think we should re-name beef to make it a vegetable, that way vegetarians can eat cheeseburgers.

    JD (4277eb)

  68. I think I’m being quite civil, particularly for being in the lion’s den

    I don’t know why a centerist moderate such as yourself would consider this blog to be a lions den.

    Just not enough information and this whole scandal with the scientists certainly made me a lot more skeptical.

    Many things in life offer us only binary choices, and this is one of them. We can either start to place limits on the human production of CO2, or not. We can support the Democrats climate change legislation, or not. What say you?

    Subotai (14db42)

  69. #64,
    I might point out that one of the “Big Three” automakers made a profit, and it was not the one that got taken over by the government. The crash was entirely the result of political meddling, yet you claim it as justification for more political meddling and control? I find it hard to take that seriously. Do you really think the governments record regulating Fannie and Freddie justify their taking control of the private banks that these venal people caused to fail?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  70. “… and think the government should keep its hands off my morals”

    I see you also lean toward the conservative side. The only thing a lefty really believes should be left to your “free will” re: morality is what you choose to f*ck.

    GeneralMalaise (0a4348)

  71. “I work here is done.” Proof that being civil and being deranged are not mutually exclusive.

    They are to the right of me, because I really don’t think they’re left at all.

    Yet he’s not left or right, but center. Cognitive dissonance. The left is really far-right. I’m sure Russell is a very nice person and would be great to watch the game at a sports bar with. Anything requiring reason, logic, or consistency would ruin it though because he honestly believes he is in the center.

    Got news for you Russell… Palin is the center, McCain is to the left, you’re sitting with Code Pink and people who eat clay because it’s more “organic”. Good luck.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  72. Comment by Subotai — 1/31/2010 @ 12:47 pm

    You are kidding yourselves if you consider this blog ‘moderate’.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  73. Days that Stashiu, Machinist, and Pons comment are generally very good days. Assiology, not so much.

    JD (00db08)

  74. That’s not a comment, just passing gas!

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  75. You are kidding yourselves if you consider this blog ‘moderate’.

    Comment by Intelliology

    The fact that you are often engaged – let alone, tolerated – should help to characterize this site.

    Now let your wild-eyed lunacisms begin…

    GeneralMalaise (0a4348)

  76. Other than Obama trying to push through health care, I can’t think of very many things he’s done that Bush wouldn’t have.

    Talk about the classic “tell” from a Lefty. Anyone who can say this with a straight face is slightly to the left of Mao. I’d ask Russell to examine the exit polling results from Brown’s victory in ultra – Liberal MA, but I fear his head would explode.

    Dmac (539341)

  77. Intelliology,

    Have you been here before under another name? I asked you before and you never answered. A simple yes or no question that should be easy.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  78. You are kidding yourselves if you consider this blog ‘moderate’.

    And you’re kidding yourself if you think anyone here takes your blatherings seriously, idiotology. But let’s say you’re correct – how much would you be willing to wager if anyone here tried to post reasoned arguments on Kos, HuffPo or DU? Better yet, what if we posted the kind of rants that you regularly post here, do you think we’d even get past their Stalinist censors for even one time, or would we be summarily banned for life?

    What say you, assclown? Put your parent’s trust fund money where your blowhole is.

    Dmac (539341)

  79. “One should respect life. ALL life. Ours, and that of the other beings we share the earth with. After all, we depend on many of them too. What happens if, for example, all the cows die?”

    “I indeed *am* independent. I cherry pick what I like best about of the liberal and conservative movements (I like fiscal responsibility, but I also an pro-choice and think the government should keep its hands off my morals), and believe a few things that neither party will cop to.”

    Comment by Russell Miller

    Indeed a cherry pickin’ liberal to be sure. Wants to respect all life and other beings we share the earth with (is this ET aliens or the animal kingdom equated with humans?), but then wants to proclaim he is pro-murdering of other forms of life like totally innocent human babies.

    Go back to whatever rock you crawled from under you hypocrical piece of cow shit.

    What in the hell do you think laws are based upon, lack of morality? I guess we can’t have moral laws such as;

    1. Thou shall not steal. Statutes against theft need to be done away with then because they are based on morality.

    2. Thou shalt not kill. Statutes against murder and abortion (killing of preborn innocents) need to be done away with then because they are based on morality.

    3. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Got to do away with those pesky perjury laws also.

    Man, we’ve just gotta get away from all these pesky laws and just live by your lefty mentality of: If it feels good just do it.

    No thanks libturd, I prefer to live in an orderly society and not anarchy as you propose.

    “The problem with America is stupidity. I’m not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don’t we just take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?”

    DUMBASS

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  80. You are kidding yourselves if you consider this blog ‘moderate’.

    Regardless of what I consider this blog to be, I thought it was odd that a person who told us that he was neither a conservative nor a liberal would regard this place as a “lions den”.

    If we pretend for the moment that this blog is the acme of far-right-wing thought on the web, what sort of person considers such a blog to be the lions den? I think the answer is not “an independent moderate centerist”.

    In any case Russel already made it clear that he is what he was suspected of being – somebody to the left of the Democratic party.

    Nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes. I even agree with him that the Democrats are a corporatist party. It’s the pretense of being a moderate who bashes both conservatives and liberals which he’s being called on.

    Subotai (b7abdf)

  81. I think that some climate change is happening but I don’t know why.

    Duh. Climate change is always happening.

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  82. What people need to understand about the IPCC is that it has carried out its intended mission, namely, to set up the legitimizing basis for a massive wealth transfer to the Third World countries who dominate the U.N. The idea that there was gong to be some kind of objective science here could not have been further from their minds.

    VG

    Voiceguy (c9a7df)

  83. Comment by JD — 1/31/2010 @ 12:59 pm

    Those guys that you mentioned as ‘good’ posters seem to agree with you on almost every issue. It shows a lot of maturity to enjoy discussing issues with someone who offers no alternative viewpoints.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  84. OH my, a dis from someone who never offers a viewpoint whatsoever, just little snarky drive by attacks. I’m so devastated—NOT!

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  85. #83,
    You have not answered Stashiu3’s question.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  86. Just ban it, it will not answer questions, or even post anything that adds to the discussion. It only tries to insult other posters using kindergarten level tactics.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  87. I am for gay marriage….It does not have to do in my perspective from advancing homosexuality, just for not demonizing a segment of society because I don’t agree with it.

    Russell, do you feel as generous and tolerant towards polygamist couples?

    Beyond that, I have an economic interest in not expanding the concept of marriage partner to the point where a fully-grown, self-reliant dude now is legally (if not also symbolically) equated with the “little woman” in the kitchen tending to her young children.

    I’ve sometimes mused that if a company is expected or required to pay health and dental benefits to a non-employee — who is merely the spouse of one of that company’s employees — then the wife should come in and clean the office on the weekend. Even more so if she herself isn’t a stay-at-home mom who is responsible for the important task of raising and supervising the kids.

    So if the “wife” eventually can legally and symbolically refer to a guy too? Where young children in the household are no where to be found? What a joke, what a crock.

    I am proudly pro-choice. Not pro-abortion, pro-choice.

    Here’s a test to see just how liberal your sentiments, in fact, truly are: Do you believe underaged single girls should have an easier time obtaining an abortion than getting their ears pierced? That is the reality in supposedly enlightened, humane California.

    BTW, I treat the issue of abortion the same way I treat (or treated) the issue of integrating public schools throughout America, which still was a fashionable legal (if not political) concept over 20 years ago. IOW, in spite of judicial rulings and measures, attempts to make schools reflect an ideal racial mix of children never worked. Too many people — in this case, parents and students — were able to get around such legal tactics. They voted with their feet or, as is true of many public-school teachers, simply enrolled their own precious sons and daughters in a private school.

    The epitome of limousine liberalism.

    Middle of the road is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE to your kind, and I refuse to toe the line just to be accepted into a crowd.

    As I mentioned previously, “middle of the road” meant one thing in, say, 1955. It means something quite different in today’s supposedly enlightened, supposedly sophisticated 21st century.

    Or it will mean one thing in “redneck” Texas, another thing in “bleeding heart” Massachusetts.

    Or “middle of the road” implies one thing in uber-liberal Los Angeles (or Detroit or Atlanta, or certainly ultra-liberal San Francisco), another thing in Orange County.

    BTW, I’ll take the conservatism (supposed, historic or otherwise) of Orange County to this pathetic situation, a tribute to the capital of liberalism, or non-conservatism run amok:

    Sfweekly.com

    Despite its good intentions, San Francisco is not leading the country in gay marriage. Despite its good intentions, it is not stopping wars. Despite its spending more money per capita on homelessness than any comparable city, its homeless problem is worse than any comparable city’s. Despite its spending more money per capita, period, than almost any city in the nation, San Francisco has poorly managed, budget-busting capital projects, overlapping social programs no one is certain are working, and a transportation system where the only thing running ahead of schedule is the size of its deficit.

    It’s time to face facts: San Francisco is spectacularly mismanaged and arguably the worst-run big city in America. This year’s city budget is an astonishing $6.6 billion — more than twice the budget for the entire state of Idaho — for roughly 800,000 residents. Yet despite that stratospheric amount, San Francisco can’t point to progress on many of the social issues it spends liberally to tackle — and no one is made to answer when the city comes up short.

    The city’s ineptitude is no secret. “I have never heard anyone, even among liberals, say, ‘If only [our city] could be run like San Francisco,'” says urbanologist Joel Kotkin. “Even other liberal places wouldn’t put up with the degree of dysfunction they have in San Francisco. In Houston, the exact opposite of San Francisco, I assume you’d get shot.”

    Mark (411533)

  88. It shows a lot of maturity to enjoy discussing issues with someone who offers no alternative viewpoints.

    Why don’t you show us your “mature and alternative viewpoints,” eh? It’s easy, just look up all of your prior posts and give us a sampling.

    And no one who’s even looked at the posts on this blog over the past year would make that claim seriously – commenters such as Leviticus and Aphrael are always treated with respect, because they come here to argue differing opinions in a mature and respectful manner, almost without fail. Unlike you, Trollbot.

    Dmac (539341)

  89. Comment by Machinist — 1/31/2010 @ 1:41 pm

    What question is that? Should I spend every waking moment reading your classic insights so I don’t miss any ‘critical’ information or inquiries?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  90. I just love these hypocritical posters who so proudly state that they are not liberals, progressives, or demoncraps. Some even claim to be conservatives or republicans. They then spew the typical lefturd propaganda line.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  91. “What question is that? Should I spend every waking moment reading your classic insights so I don’t miss any ‘critical’ information or inquiries?”

    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010

    The question that a moderator of this site has asked you several times, DUMBASS

    This one DUMBASS:

    77.Intelliology,

    Have you been here before under another name? I asked you before and you never answered. A simple yes or no question that should be easy.

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 1/31/2010 @ 1:13 pm

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  92. “#

    Intelliology,

    Have you been here before under another name? I asked you before and you never answered. A simple yes or no question that should be easy.

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 1/31/2010 @ 1:13 pm

    Machinist (9780ec)

  93. Hey machinist, how much you wanna bet that it lies? LOL

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  94. No. I have not.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  95. See it lied. Good bye moron.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  96. The ones I referred to are good people, intelliodeficent. I could not give a sh*t as to whether they agree with me, or vice versa. Being a good person is something that your mature and thoughtful mind could never begin to understand. That is all.

    JD (8ce84a)

  97. I am still laughing at Russell’s attempt to claim the center of the political spectrum. Just because one is a not-R and a not-D does not mean you are centrist or independent. As he ultimately noted, he is way to the left of the Dems. At least he got around to being honest.

    JD (8ce84a)

  98. #95…it would depend on your definition of “name,” “before,” “here,” and “you.”

    I think we all the answer to Stashiu3’s question.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  99. Regardless of what I consider this blog to be, I thought it was odd that a person who told us that he was neither a conservative nor a liberal would regard this place as a “lions den”..

    I for one, as someone who is neither leftist not conservative find this place a nest of puddytats. There is far more acceptance of divergent views here than at left-wing sites, such as Daily Kos or Sadly, No!

    “Would you prefer I called you “AGW challenged”? Or perhaps “Skeptically Enhanced”?”

    I’ll take skeptically enhanced, and Climategate did the enhancing for me. Nothing convinced me about the weakness of the man-made global warming claims so much as reading what the believers said when they thought no one else was around. The unthinking credulity of some of these scientists, not to mention their paranoia of skeptics, borders on a cult.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  100. I see. And this is how you claim to treat people with respect JD? Discuss the post. I am not stopping you.

    It seems to me that any study regarding this topic will end in favor of whomever is supplying the money for the study. The fact is that those most engaged or ‘married’ to the capitalist system would like to see man-made global warming debunked.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  101. “Would you prefer I called you “AGW challenged”? Or perhaps “Skeptically Enhanced”?”

    I’ll take skeptically enhanced, and Climategate did the enhancing for me. Nothing convinced me about the weakness of the man-made global warming claims so much as reading what the believers said when they thought no one else was around. The unthinking credulity of some of these scientists, not to mention their paranoia of skeptics, borders on a cult.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 1/31/2010 @ 2:13 pm

    Personally Bradley, I prefer the term scientifically aware myself.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  102. I do not respect you.

    JD (8ce84a)

  103. The Sunday Times neatly summarized the IPCC’s entirely rigorous approach for quoting evidence of melting Himalayan glaciers:

    The IPCC says its statement on melting glaciers was based on a report it misquoted by WWF, a lobby group, which took its information from a report in New Scientist based on an interview with a glaciologist who claims he was misquoted.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  104. Scratch below the surface and someone like Russell, who claims to be non-liberal, or centrist, or non-conservative, actually turns out to be fairly liberal.

    He reminds me of all those people who say they’re not liberal but instead are “progressive.” Or sort of a variation of the New York Times stating that it’s objective and not biased to the left.

    BTW, as a counter example, if Sarah Palin said she was “centrist” or “independent” instead of conservative, or if Matt Drudge of the drudgereport.com was asked whether his web site was biased to the right, and he said “no,” I’d roll my eyes and snort at that too.

    Mark (411533)

  105. Would like to see it debunked? It has been, and continues to be debunked. If the science was sound, they would not have to lie about it.

    JD (8ce84a)

  106. .

    > There is no reason in my mind that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party can’t come together.”

    I believe this sentence would have had some opportunity to be factually correct had it stopped after the first prepositional clause.

    :o9
    .

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  107. If Intelliology isn’t truthnjustice, it should be.

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  108. I mean it really is as easy as day and night to put in its simplest aspect. When the sun rises in the morning, the weather tends to warm. When the sun sets at night, it tends to cool down. Now what is the common denominator in global warming or cooling. It is the sun, and the earth’s position (tilt and location) in relative to said sun, which is the hottest thing in this solar system.

    It is this same mysterious object which all of the planets rely on. Ain’t it funny that when the earth was experiencing warmer weather, all of the other planets were too? Now we are experiencing a downturn in temperatures and guess what? So are all of the other planets in our solar system.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  109. 107.Would like to see it debunked? It has been, and continues to be debunked. If the science was sound, they would not have to lie about it.

    Comment by JD — 1/31/2010 @ 2:25 pm

    You’ll never rise above the level of snarky internet moron if you continue to phrase your opinions as indisputable fact.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  110. peedoffamerican,

    I think the two amount to the same thing. Science – skepticism = cult.

    To me, one of the most alarming things in the Climategate emails is the continual use of “skeptic” as a term of disparagement. These people had already decided AGW was a global threat, and were merely looking to anything to confirm their belief.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  111. The fact is that those most engaged or ‘married’ to the capitalist system would like to see man-made global warming debunked.
    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 2:18 pm

    This makes sense since it’s anti-capitalists who are pushing it as cover for their own agenda.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  112. OOps forgot to mention the maunder minimum that we are now in.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  113. The fact is that those most engaged or ‘married’ to the capitalist system would like to see man-made global warming debunked.

    By contrast, I’m reminded of a family member of mine (my brother) who tends to be a devotee of AGW propaganda in particular, environmentalism in general. Yet through all the years, he has never been willing to modify his behavior and do something as simple and practical (and Green-Earth friendly) as living nearer where he works, thereby cutting down on his use of gasoline—not to mention making our freeways less congested (and somewhat less inefficient). He’s also bought cars based far more on happy-go-lucky personal preferences than whether they were fuel efficient or not.

    He represents a pretty large percentage of Californians, a very blue state, a place full of, again, limousine liberals—and one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of that type of phoniness, of speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

    Mark (411533)

  114. “and were merely looking to anything to confirm their belief.”

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 1/31/2010 @ 2:31 pm

    Inventing is the better word IMHO.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  115. “…You’ll never rise above the level of snarky internet moron if you continue to phrase your opinions as indisputable fact….”

    I’m starting to think that these characters do not own a mirror, have no memory, or are posting while drunk. Or some combination of the above.

    Because this troll certainly doesn’t act snarky, or post his or her ideas as indisputable fact.

    LOL.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  116. Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 2:31 pm

    See #66.

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  117. Anyone remember the WWII aircraft that were recovered in Greenland? According to the unskeptical scientists (those that postulate it takes thousands of years buildup for glaciers), they were under at least 100,000 years of ice.

    Damn, I didn’t know that WWII occurred over 100,000 years ago.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  118. Is this person denying that the “science” has been debunked?

    JD (224d7d)

  119. One of the weakest parts of AGW theory is that historically, increases in carbon dioxide levels have lagged increases in temperatures by about 800 years. This suggests that cause and effect may be reversed.

    Of course, AGW believers have attempted to explain this away and prove CO2 is the main driving force behind rising temperatures, but all explanations simply assume rising CO2 must be the cause, because the AGW believers can’t think of anything else. If the AGW believers knew everything significant about climate change, that explanation might fly, but plainly they don’t.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  120. “The fact is that those most engaged or ‘married’ to the capitalist system would like to see man-made global warming debunked.”

    “You’ll never rise above the level of snarky internet moron if you continue to phrase your opinions as indisputable fact.”

    Intelliology, evidently you don’t think about what you write before you write it.

    And basically, that is the definition of internet moron.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  121. The only thing about climate change these idiots know is that when they adjust the thermostat, the temperature changes.

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  122. Let me see, CO2 lags behind the actual warming by approx. 800 years. Warmer weather means more plants. More plants means more food for animals that eat plants and exhale CO2. Thus more CO2 in atmosphere is the result of more life.

    Naw, it couldn’t be that simple could it?

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  123. Bradley, and the other weak part is that the very evidence of the uniqueness of recent warming – the foundation of the claim of it being man-caused – has been repeatedly shown to be basically fraudulent data manipulation and rigged statistical analysis.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  124. JD,
    It’s not necessary to debunk global warming theory when the AGW believers haven’t “bunked” it.

    AGW believers want skeptics to assume the burden of proof. But the burden is on those who propose the theory, to conclusively refute all objections. If those objections aren’t so refuted, the theory hasn’t been validated.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  125. The constant harping of the EnviroNazi’s is quite tiresome.
    They are really irked with the economic activity of man(‘s capitalistic system, being the good little Marxists that they are).
    If they wish to decrease the economic activity of man, it is quite simple: Reduce the numbers of man on the planet!
    Set a sterling example for the rest of man-kind, and OFF yourselves.
    You have reduced yourselves to the level of flies:
    All you do is Eat, $hit, and Bother People!

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  126. But notice AD. that they will not live as they want others to live. Example Al Gore (slasher film gore that is) and his private jets and many mansions that consume many times the resources that us peons do.

    I say why wait for them to off themselves. If they propose these reductions on others, but do not live that way themselves; make it a crime, attach the death penalty, and enforce it immediately upon their conviction. We know they won’t do it themselves because us barbarians just couldn’t survive without their help.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  127. You act like Al Gore’s home is evidence enough to cause disbelief in global warming.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  128. Sticking your head in the sand does not make the dishonesty go away.

    JD (224d7d)

  129. .

    > What I can’t understand is why South Carolina Republicans renominated this jackhole two years ago.

    Because it’s long past time when the GOP leadership was sacked and a new group put into place:
    (emphasis mine)

    =============================================
    HONOLULU – The Republican National Committee, pressed to find a way to more clearly distinguish itself from Democrats, on Friday adopted a rule that will prod GOP leaders to provide financial support to only those candidates who support the party’s platform.

    The resolution, enacted by voice vote with no opposition at the party’s winter meeting here, is an alternative to a more stringent proposal that would have required GOP candidates to support 10 policy positions if they wanted party help.

    That proposal, sponsored by Indiana RNC member James Bopp and backed by the RNC’s more conservative members, was strongly opposed by party Chairman Michael Steele and a group of state party chairs.
    =============================================

    The current GOP leadership is why we keep getting RINOs elected, and why, for example, the ObamaCare bill passed the House solely thanks to support from “supposedly conservative” GOP Congressmen.

    We need to turn these faux-conservative GOP nincompoops out, and put in a new set of actually conservative leaders. They are the reason why the entire fiscally conservative base of the GOP, and their historically conservative principles, are getting ignored.

    .

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  130. > You act like Al Gore’s home is evidence enough to cause disbelief in global warming.

    No, we act like Al Gore’s home is evidence enough to seriously doubt his own actual belief in global warming.

    Do as I say, not as I do” is usually a sign of inadequate conviction.

    And most of us agree Al Gore should be subject to conviction

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  131. 129.You act like Al Gore’s home is evidence enough to cause disbelief in global warming.

    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 3:07 pm

    It’s part of the evidence DUMBASS. If the ones preaching this mindless drivel choose not to live as they preach the rest of us should, it means they don’t believe it themselves.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  132. Mark – here in SoCal, I put Solar Panels to heat water for my house on the roof of my house in 1980 – because I didn’t have to pay for heating water for residential use anywherfe near as much after that, and it also cut down my A/C bills on hotter days throughout the year …

    When we moved to the current house in 1984, first thing I did was have Solar Panels for water heating put on the roof …

    I don’t deny global warming of global cooling … I am NOT a Believer in the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming for the same reason I have Solar Panels heating my water … it’s a rational, repeatable scientific phenomenon which happens to same me money …

    The Cult of AGW isn’t rational, or we would be building a lot more Nuclear Electricity infrastructure – and we would be phasing out oil-fired electricity generation … and we would be phasing out coal-fired electricity generation …

    Is your brother also against nuclear electricity generation ?

    Alasdair (205079)

  133. Do you lackofintelligence only eat foods that were grown organically by your hand power only? Do you only walk to your destinations, no bicycles please they require evil oil to produce. Do you only wear clothes that were handmade yourself without the use of evil petroleum. Do you only heat your house by brisk walking, not with the evil use of burning petroleum products, coal, or wood, they all emit CO2.

    I thought not you hypocritical jackass.

    DUMBASS

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  134. Comment by IgotBupkis — 1/31/2010 @ 3:17 pm

    I understand that it is an appealing proposition; Al Gore must not believe in it himself because he has a large home. If that logic were sound then AIDS would have been eradicated years ago (unsafe sex is to blame for most new cases of HIV, so don’t do it). Why would individuals choose to smoke when the consequences are clear? Sorry, but Al Gore’s choice of home and transportation offer absolutely no information on this topic.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  135. Bradley,

    A “nest of puddytats”? Thufferin Thuccotash!

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  136. Hmm.

    Al Gores behavior is analogous to unsafe sex.

    The cure to Al Gore style behavior is for the government to punish him for it.

    Therefore, the cure for unsafe sex is for the government to punish people for it. Right? That is what you’re saying, isn’t it?

    Subotai (b7abdf)

  137. The way the leading proponent of AGW and his unholy adherents live have no basis on this? Live as you would have others live, set an example and then you might have the right to preach.

    Go back to your bong made with plastics from evil oil. I will not respond further to a mindless DUMBASS!

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  138. As if things aren’t strange enough, now the head of the IPCC has just published a book. It is soft porn fiction about a climate scientist who cannot keep his pants on.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/30/ipcc-now-in-bizzaroland-pachauri-releases-smutty-romance-novel/

    Maybe this starts to explain some of those travel expenses of the IPCC.

    snookered (6f83c5)

  139. Why would individuals choose to smoke when the consequences are clear?

    The lefts answer is “Because people are morons who need the stern yet benevolent guidance of people like us”.

    The rights answer is “Because they make a different cost/benefit assessment than non-smokers do”.

    Subotai (b7abdf)

  140. Is your brother also against nuclear electricity generation ?

    He’s one of those “independent” type of Americans who, like an Arnold Schwarzenegger (or Lindsay Graham), can be ideologically squishy, particularly on those occasions when common sense gets torn apart for happy-face emotions—because of nervousness due to economic turmoil, or a hard day at the office, or the influence of staunch Democrats/liberals encountered at various social gatherings. BTW, my brother went against his better judgment in 2008 and voted for Obama.

    Speaking of which, I will give small kudos to the current occupant of the White House for coming out recently in support of the idea of building more nuclear-power plants. But knowing him, talk is cheap, very cheap, unless, of course, it leans left and is partisan Democrat.

    Mark (411533)

  141. Actually the key issue to ignore Al Gore about AGW is that in his film, he made up stuff right and left, and misrepresented the data he purported to be presenting.

    Much like the IPCC.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  142. If the science is so sound, doucheiology, why all the bad science and overt dishonesty?

    JD (b9706a)

  143. Would someone kick Sen. Gramnesty in the cajones every hour on the hour until he resigns?

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  144. Comment by Subotai — 1/31/2010 @ 3:35 pm

    No. That is not what I am saying. Are you saying that if there was some imminent danger to the Earth (let us suggest a killer asteroid, just for the heck of it) that we should rely on private business to deal with it?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  145. Comment by JD — 1/31/2010 @ 3:42 pm

    Isn’t that (not so) circular logic?

    If the science is so sound, why is it so bad?

    Really? Did you really just post that? Really?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  146. Why do you avoid answering the question, Intelliology? Why is the IPCC WGII report so full of propaganda dressed up as peer-reviewed science and outright falsehoods?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  147. SPQR – it won’t answer, because it is a lying dishonest mendoucheous troll.

    JD (b9706a)

  148. global warming is gay.

    I thought we had established that.

    happyfeet (713679)

  149. Al Gore’s choice of home and transportation offer absolutely no information on this topic.

    Yes, they do. They reveal he, of all people, is the ultimate in big, fat, lazy phoniness.

    Pointing out that behavior is particularly relevant here in very blue, very *supposedly* environmentally friendly California, I get very irked when I see quite a few people still buying gas-guzzling SUVs and my then guessing what their political views probably are like.

    Such phonies can’t even accomodate the simple, easy, no-sweat task of buying and driving around in a more fuel-efficient vehicle. It’s not like such people are being asked (or expected) to tool around town in either a nice new SUV or some small, old, beat-up econo-box car.

    The acronym that fits most limousine liberals? POS.

    Mark (411533)

  150. Comment by SPQR — 1/31/2010 @ 3:48 pm

    Why don’t you phrase the questions in a neutral, non-accusatory tone and you may receive a proper answer. Haven’t you heard about vinegar and honey?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  151. Intelliology, why would you expect others to treat you better than you’ve earned by your own conduct?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  152. I might add to POS. Turn off your computer. It is made with and run on evil CO2 producing oil. Disconnect your internet connection, it is most likely powered using either evil oil or evil coal. And just STFU and leave the rest of us earth destroying adults alone.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  153. Following the links in the Roger Pielke post is interesting. Pielke notes that when the section on extreme weather damage was challenged by a reviewer, the IPCC author just made up a false claim about Pielke’s own views as a response.

    This is the quality of the science that Intelliology is so enamored with.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  154. Hypocritical DUMBASS

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  155. Not you SPQR the one above.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  156. Comment by IgotBupkis — 1/31/2010 @ 3:14 pm

    Change is happening right before our eyes…

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)


  157. …Why don’t you phrase the questions in a neutral, non-accusatory tone and you may receive a proper answer. Haven’t you heard about vinegar and honey?…”

    Haven’t you read your own posts? You see, today, you are trying to play nice. Good for you. But people remember your earlier posts. So toughen up. You have to work to demonstrate that you are discussing issues in good faith—based, again, on your own prior boorish and troll like behavior.

    Several times today, you have played the “don’t be rude” card, as if you have been nothing but sweetness and light. Puh-leeze.

    Again, you have a great deal to prove. My guess is that you won’t be able to help yourself, and will be flying your freak flag pretty darned soon.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  158. And here Pielke identifies how the IPCC authors just made up their own graph when they were challenged by how they were misusing a referenced work.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  159. …(somehow I clicked the “submit” button inadvertantly)
    In a column today in the OCRegister, Steven Greenhunt reports that the OC GOP Chairman has vowed that the GOP will not endorse any candidate that accepts contributions, or support, from any Public Employee Union – which is a reversal in position for him, and them.

    So, progress is being made, one small step at a time….The TEA Party supporters are being heard.

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  160. Comment by peedoffamerican — 1/31/2010 @ 4:00 pm

    You choose to be here. Did you assume that a political forum would not have dissenting views? Why bother to discuss a topic if there is only one way to look at it. 1984, anyone?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  161. Comment by Eric Blair — 1/31/2010 @ 4:10 pm

    Passive/Agressive…
    remind you of anyone in particular?

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  162. Algore is the modern version of a snake-oil salesman.

    JD (b9706a)

  163. 1984, anyone?

    Nope, just someone that called you out on your repeated and ongoing dishonesty.

    JD (b9706a)

  164. You are kidding yourselves if you consider this blog ‘moderate’.

    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 12:56 pm

    Those guys that you mentioned as ‘good’ posters seem to agree with you on almost every issue. It shows a lot of maturity to enjoy discussing issues with someone who offers no alternative viewpoints.

    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 1:32 pm

    What question is that? Should I spend every waking moment reading your classic insights so I don’t miss any ‘critical’ information or inquiries?

    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 1:47 pm

    You’ll never rise above the level of snarky internet moron if you continue to phrase your opinions as indisputable fact.

    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 2:31 pm

    Really? Did you really just post that? Really?

    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 3:46 pm

    Not exactly all sweetness and light today on this post either, and then wants to claim others are gasp, so rude.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  165. Thanks JD, the moron can’t even see his hypocracy when it is pointedly shown to him.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  166. Its amusing that Intelliology makes the swipe at capitalism above, but ignores the fact that Al Gore has made millions selling AGW indulgences.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  167. I thought you weren’t addressing me, poa? Honor your word and go away.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  168. Oops, hypocrazy.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  169. But that is different, SPQR. His intentions are pure.

    JD (b9706a)

  170. As pure as his Daddy’s when he voted against Civil Rights!

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  171. In addition to its bogus predictions of melting glaciers, the IPCC is also receiving criticism re its overall predictions of disasters, and its stated impacts on Amazon plant life. I doubt such bad science would have come to light or otherwise received any media attention had it not been for the CRU scandal.

    sierra (4be1ff)

  172. No. That is not what I am saying.

    You’re the one who made the analogy to smoking and unsafe sex.

    Are you saying that if there was some imminent danger to the Earth (let us suggest a killer asteroid, just for the heck of it) that we should rely on private business to deal with it?

    Nope. If the Earth is in imminent danger from an asteroid, we should do whatever it takes, however it takes to prevent it. The question then becomes, is driving an SUV most analogous to smoking tobacco or to an asteroid hurtling towards our planet.

    Subotai (b7abdf)

  173. And the whole house of cards is tumbling down.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  174. 166.1984, anyone?

    Nope, just someone that called you out on your repeated and ongoing dishonesty.

    Comment by JD — 1/31/2010 @ 4:18 pm

    I’ll bet you have not read it. If you have, then you didn’t really understand it. Get the Cliff’s notes. Basically everyone’s views had to be uniform, which is exactly the opinion you are espousing with your rants. So let’s try this again: 1984, anyone? (this is where you respond with a simple ‘yes)

    Intelliology (00d844)

  175. More damning info re AGW, and the “science” behind it (H/T Powerline)…

    “… It’s called Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? You should download and read it all…
    1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century….”

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  176. Nope. If the Earth is in imminent danger… we should do whatever it takes, however it takes to prevent it.

    Thanks! That is all I needed.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  177. I see that assiology is still causing global warming by hypocritically using a computer and internet that are made and powered with evil oil and other evil CO2 producing fuels.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  178. To save Earth from imminent destruction by a meteorite will require the complete confiscation and destruction of all SUV’s, and the dispatching of Bruce Willis to save the world.

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  179. That’s pretty amusing, Intelliology, given that you are taking the side of the AGW debate that has argued that “consensus” trumps skeptical substantive arguments and justify misrepresentation, propaganda and suppression of opposing viewpoints.

    You really don’t think about what you write, do you?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  180. The hits keep coming….(H/T Instapundit)…

    UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim
    “A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise…”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  181. Intelliology’s ironymeter just assploded. Maybe you can point where I call for uniformity of opinion? Funny how you accuse me of that based on nothing, then proceed to call on everyone to sing from your hymnal.

    How f*cking hard is it for you to be honest?

    JD (a1ad9d)

  182. C’mon JD, it’s a troll! Be realistic.

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  183. Reminds me of those hypothetical 1000 chimpanzees that could theoretically reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. In this case it is just reproducing the entirety of the libturds mindless talking points.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  184. And not just a troll, but a drunk troll—one who urges people not to use snark and personal attacks, and within an hour….does precisely that.

    Now, this troll could simply be dumb as a box of rocks. I’m voting for drunk.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  185. Stashiu, just reassure me that this particular troll doesn’t reek of sock lint, please.

    We have had so many of those recently (which made me cranky the other evening; I admire your calm demeanor).

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  186. Comment by Eric Blair — 1/31/2010 @ 4:55 pm

    I didn’t realize that reminding someone about the plot of a book is a personal attack. But since I am trying to be polite (and this evening it appears that being polite and truthful means agreeing with all of you) I will agree. I apologize.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  187. > Knowing Einstein’s political instincts, I bet if he were alive today he’d be a big fan of pro-AGW propaganda. So a person can be both brilliant and foolish, if not idiotic.

    This deals with a common reasoning flaw, of confusing intellect with wisdom.

    What we often call “intelligence” (i.e., what you speak of when you say someone is “brilliant”) is actually those things which are measured by IQ — intellect — and are basically a notable and important subset of “Intelligence”.

    An equally important subset of Intelligence is what is often referred to as “Wisdom”, or “Common Sense” (and anything but “common”). It is identified, I’d suggest, by the ability to learn from mistakes — to derive valid rules for subsequent behavior from the results of current behavior. Ideally, it should allow for one to learn from the mistakes of others, not just one’s own:
    “Fools say that they learn by experience. I prefer to profit by other’s experience.”
    – Bismarck –

    Hence, one can be brilliant — have a high intellect — yet still be a fool — have a low propensity to see the errors of one’s ways.

    Now, I put it to you — if you seek a single, solitary quality which identifies a liberal, it is the inability to learn from mistakes. Liberals are inherently unable to do this as a group.

    If they weren’t fools, they wouldn’t be liberals.

    It is why and how they continually support marxism, socialism, and collectivism (all variants of the same foolish idea) in the name of “social justice”, despite the self-evident fact that the results of such actions are, virtually always, economic stagnation or worse, and extreme misery and loss of all freedoms in the vast majority of cases — and outright death and destruction in many cases.

    I’d argue that, if you actually had a test for measuring wisdom, and gave it to a mass of people, that there would be a close correlation between a low “WQ” score and liberal sentiments. Indeed, I’d lay odds that liberal sentiments were connected with a “WQ” in the lower third of the population sample — the more liberal the individual, the lower the WQ of that person.

    So the idea of Einstein being able to expound foolish ideas is fully within the bounds of his intellectual capabilities, and is hardly surprising.

    His expression (a popular libtard bumper sticker) that one “cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war” is a prime case in point. A rational person can figure out that, in fact, most wars come about solely because one side is too unprepared for it, making the willingness to go to war of the other side too high:
    Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.
    — Ronald Reagan —

    Reagan was nowhere near the towering intellect of Einstein, but he was, in fact, less of a fool.

    Being prepared for war is one of the strongest dissuaders of the other side’s desire to go to war. If both sides respect the other’s capacity to defend themselves, and/or to counter-attack, then they will both seek other means than overt force to get what they want. But if one perceives the other as unprepared, the cost of going to war for the prepared side becomes much less prohibitive…

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  188. “…I didn’t realize that reminding someone about the plot of a book is a personal attack. But since I am trying to be polite (and this evening it appears that being polite and truthful means agreeing with all of you) I will agree. I apologize…”

    Do you have any idea how childish you appear when you write that kind of thing? You are not “trying to be polit” when you then add an insult. What you are trying to do is make yourself look better than your behavior demonstrates.

    Go sleep it off or be nice. It’s not rocket science. Unless you are simply a troll. Your actions suggest that you are not serious, nor mature.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  189. So should I apologize for my apology? I don’t think anything short of jumping onto your platform and p*ssing on Einstein’s grave is going to be good enough for you, so maybe I’ll just save the apologies for now.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  190. Mark Steyn gives another look at IPCC’s R. Pachauri…as only Steyn can. Apparently, Pachauri may have been a bit…distracted.

    Warm Front [Mark Steyn]

    Rajendra Pachauri, the cricket-loving climate-profiteering Nobel Peace Prize-winner with a carbon footprint almost as big as Al Gore’s, heads up the IPCC, the global climate-change racket whose “settled science” is getting less settled by the minute. It seems an odd moment for Dr Pachauri to branch out into bodice-heaving fiction:

    In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

    The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.

    But talk of “denuding” is a clue of what is to come..

    “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”

    But don’t worry. Every sex scene in the book is peer-reviewed. Alas, like the IPCC report, not all of them live up to advance billing:

    Sadly for Sanjay, writes Dr Pachauri, “the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started”.

    Oh, dear. There are times when even a climate expert can’t “hide the decline”.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  191. The CRUTape letters just provided the spark to the fuse on the skepticism bomb that is detonating over AGW Central. This is a great look at its long-term impact:

    Moreover, the collapse has been quicker than any might have predicted. The humiliating exclusion of Britain and the EU at the end of the Copenhagen débâcle was partially to be expected, but it was brutal in its final execution. The swing of power to the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) had likewise been signified for some time, but, again, it came with precipitate ease, leaving even the American President, Barack Obama, with no doubts as to where the political agenda on climate change was now heading, namely to the developing world, but especially to the East, and to the Pacific Rim. The dirigiste tropes of ‘Old Europe’, with its love of meaningless targets and carbon capping, will no longer carry weight, while Obama himself has been straitjacketed by the voters of Massachusetts, by the rust-belt Democrats, by a truculent Congress, by an increasingly-sceptical and disillusioned American public, but, above all, by the financial crisis. Nothing will now be effected that for a single moment curbs economic development, from China to Connecticut, from Africa to Alaska.

    And, as ever, capitalism has read the runes, with carbon-trading posts quietly being shed, ‘Green’ jobs sidelined, and even big insurance companies starting to hedge their own bets against the future of the Global Warming Grand Narrative. These rats are leaving the sinking ship far faster than any politician, many of whom are going to be abandoned, left, still clinging to the masts, as the Good Ship ‘Global Warming’ founders on titanic icebergs in the raging oceans of doubt and delusion. . .

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  192. Is there a CDS market in AlGore’s Indulgences, and what is the current price trend?

    The wheels have come off this farce, and more and more individuals and institutions are screwing up their courage to comment on the Emperor’s wardrobe.

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  193. > Danger! Danger! Irony overload imminent! Evacuate the blog!

    LMAO. Nice.

    > It seems to me that any study regarding this topic will end in favor of whomever is supplying the money for the study. The fact is that those most engaged or ‘married’ to the capitalist system would like to see man-made global warming debunked.

    Then you don’t understand science and how it is done. No surprise, as a post-modernist you imagine all science to be faulty, ignoring the self-evident fact that the TVs televise, the Jets fly, the Internets network.

    The scientific method, when not perverted by politics and post-modernist folderol, works at separating wheat from chafe, fact from willful desire, and reality from ideology.

    Indeed, it’s done so with regards to AGW in spite of politics and post-modernist folderol, thanks to the fact that, in the end, people WILL believe their God-damned Lying Eyes instead of The Goracle.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  194. Actually I believe in science very much. And science disagrees with you.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  195. Now THAT’s an inconvenient truth!

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  196. Notintelligent – Why do you think that the AGW “science” is so cluttered with dishonesty?

    JD (b6cfbe)

  197. 199, is commmenting on 197!

    AD - RtR/OS! (951da8)

  198. Or are you referring to the ‘science’ used to ‘prove’ that the Earth is actually around 10,000 years old instead of billions?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  199. 200.Notintelligent – Why do you think that the AGW “science” is so cluttered with dishonesty?

    You don’t learn very quickly, do you JD? Remember honey/vinegar? Ask me an unbiased, non-loaded question and maybe I’ll answer it. Otherwise, I can ask you a similar style question. Why are you always incorrect every time you post anything at all? Riddle me that.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  200. So, you approve of the dishonesty?

    JD (b6cfbe)

  201. > Sorry, but Al Gore’s choice of home and transportation offer absolutely no information on this topic.

    As does your lack of rational logic.

    The behaviors you offer are all subject to denial on a personal level for the actors involved. “It won’t happen to me”.

    Are you suggesting that Al Gore doesn’t act as he should if he believed in AGW because he denies that it applies to him?

    I’ll even kind of give you that, if you grasp what it says about Gore’s elitist motives in the first place, and the clear subsequent inability to trust what he says as a result of that.

    I doubt if you’ll do that, however.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  202. Intelliology,

    Carbon dioxide is supposedly the main driver of climate, according to AGW believers. But the geological record shows warming starts about 800 years before CO2 levels start rising. So what is the scientific evidence demonstrating carbon dioxide is the cause of most warming, and not an effect?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  203. .

    >>> (re:) Comment by SPQR — 1/31/2010 @ 3:48 pm
    > Why don’t you phrase the questions in a neutral, non-accusatory tone and you may receive a proper answer. Haven’t you heard about vinegar and honey?
    Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 3:56 pm

    Um:
    # Why do you avoid answering the question, Intelliology? Why is the IPCC WGII report so full of propaganda dressed up as peer-reviewed science and outright falsehoods?
    Comment by SPQR — 1/31/2010 @ 3:48 pm

    What part of SPQR’s 3:48pm post that you chose to refer to, reproduced in total above, do you find to not be in a “neutral, non-accusatory tone”?

    It’s a legitimate question: “Why do you avoid answering the question”, followed by a restatement (reiterated for clarity) of the question.

    I’d call attention to the fact that this shows, by the way, that in this case, as in many others — you often “make shit up”.

    That, of course, IS an accusation.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    .

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  204. BTW, the CO2 lag is a great question to pose to AGW believers. I’ve read the standard AGW replies, and found them all considerably less than conclusive.

    One illegitimate tactic is to try to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptics, when it’s the warmists who have the burden of disproving the objections. It’s their theory — make them defend it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  205. Change is happening right before our eyes…
    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 1/31/2010 @ 4:08 pm

    Unfortunately, no — The Dems are getting ousted, but replacing them with RINOs is an inadequate improvement.

    Steele and his ilk need to be removed, too.

    I’m not advocating “conservative purity” or anything, but can’t we at least expect SOME kind of conservative support from someone who claims connection to the GOP?

    If your voting record puts you to the left of Al Gore, do you really belong in the GOP?

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  206. Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 1/31/2010 @ 5:54 pm

    Valid question. Have we experienced a very large warming period over the last 800 years that has preceded this extremely large spike in recent CO2 readings? And should we assume that our massive burning of fossil fuels over the past 150 years has nothing to do with the CO2 spike we are seeing?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  207. “Ask me an unbiased, non-loaded question and maybe I’ll answer it.”

    Almost sounds like Myron.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  208. “Have we experienced a very large warming period over the last 800 years that has preceded this extremely large spike in recent CO2 readings?”

    Intelliology – You are supposed to be telling us. What is the proof, just focusing on the past 150 year that we have experienced any significant warming? Can you point to any noncorrupted, unswagged, usable data which supports that case beyond reasonable statistical estimates of error. Serious question. Please point to the data.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  209. ^changes subjects instead of answering direct questions.

    Dmac (539341)

  210. – that was directed at…you know.

    Dmac (539341)

  211. Intelliology, I think you are drunk, stoned, a kid, or some combination. Your posts are quite different from how you present yourself.

    And I LOVE your comments about science. I would give a thousand bucks to have you discuss what you know about climatology in real time, without your access to Wikipedia.

    I’ll bet you are a real scientist, aren’t you? Nice one about the 10,000 year old Earth, and not responding to Bradley’s quite reasonable question.

    That’s because, despite what you wrote, it is NOT about science with you.

    It’s politics. Again.

    And did I mention dishonesty snarkiness. That’s how you roll. Which rhymes with troll.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  212. Intelliology – If you find any data, can you let us know what proportion of the data inputs are based on actual unadjusted temperature readings versus estimates where no reading were available?

    Thanks

    daleyrocks (718861)

  213. #But that is different, SPQR. His intentions are pure.
    Comment by JD — 1/31/2010 @ 4:24 pm

    Pure bovine feces, perhaps…

    [intelliology] You really don’t think about what you write, do you?
    Comment by SPQR — 1/31/2010 @ 4:38 pm

    Wait, didn’t you already establish this fact yourself?

    LOL. 😉

    > # Stashiu, just reassure me that this particular troll doesn’t reek of sock lint, please.
    We have had so many of those recently (which made me cranky the other evening; I admire your calm demeanor).
    Comment by Eric Blair — 1/31/2010 @ 4:56 pm

    Eric, if I may offer a viewpoint — never, ever engage a libtard expecting to actually “win” the discussion, if by “win” you mean actually expect them to change their expressed opinions. This is categorically doomed to failure for two reasons:
    a) The total lack of wisdom discussed above
    b) The Midnight Reset Button. All libtards have, installed somewhere inside their skulls, a little device which, at the end of the day, examines all new information gleaned and contrasts it with Officially Accepted Liberal Positions®. If there is found to be a conflict, then clearly the new data is In Error and must be Purged Immediately (to fail to do so might result in an act of Wisdom!). This is how you can actually have a discussion with a “reasonable” liberal, start with one of their cherished ideas, and show, step by logical step, attaining mutual agreement regarding the progression at each point, and show how the end result is totally at odds with something the libtard claims to desire, resulting in an “I’ll have to think about that” response at the end, yet, two days later, find them espousing the same idiotic position which you had just obliterated previously. The Button has been pressed, the OALP has reasserted its domination. And all is right with the libtard world.

    Hence, when one engages any libtard, there must be one of the following intents:

    1) You must be doing it for the intellectual exercise. There is a certain pleasure in working the mind out.

    2) You must be doing it to verify the ongoing correctness of your thought processes and the basis for your positions. In the face of new data, intellectual honesty requires the unceasing effort to assimilate new data into one’s worldview. Thus, there should be a continual re-evaluation of all that you believe in

    3) You must be doing it for the sheer sadistic pleasure of intellectually carpetbombing the clueless libtard. C’mon, you know it’s fun shooting libfish out of the clue barrel.

    4) You must be doing it for the benefit of on-lookers, who are not suffering from a shortage of wisdom such as the libtard, but of the basic experience to develop wisdom from. This is particularly true when dealing with the young and naive, like students.

    Multiple selections from the above are, of course, completely acceptable.

    ;-D

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  214. With Intelliology’s bid for misdirection pointed out by daleyrocks and Dmac, I’m still waiting for the conclusive scientific evidence that demonstrates CO2 is the main climate driving force.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  215. Comment by daleyrocks — 1/31/2010 @ 6:31 pm

    My answer to that is no, we have not experienced an extreme warming period over the past 800 years that would have, from your crap ‘source’ predicted this gigantic spike in atmospheric CO2. So that decoy explanation of yours is bogus.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  216. Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 1/31/2010 @ 6:38 pm

    So now you’re claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Uy, vey.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  217. Intelliology,
    With that dispensed with, let’s hear your scientific answer to the question I posed:

    Carbon dioxide is supposedly the main driver of climate, according to AGW believers. But the geological record shows warming starts about 800 years before CO2 levels start rising. So what is the scientific evidence demonstrating carbon dioxide is the cause of most warming, and not an effect?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  218. > Actually I believe in science very much. And science disagrees with you.

    LOL — Once more revealing an almost total lack of understanding of what Science is.

    Science is a method of evaluating a supposition for its truth value, its “relationship to reality as an accurate description”.

    It does not “settle” things, it does not “form consensus”, it does not “agree or disagree”.

    It assigns a “reliability value”, if you will, to a claim.

    And AGW as a claim has a “reliability value” rapidly approaching zero as a limit, kind of like 1 divided by the positive arm of the Gamma function…

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  219. Uy, vey.

    It’s Oy Vey, you ignorant goyim.

    Dmac (539341)

  220. And AGW as a claim has a “reliability value” rapidly approaching zero as a limit, kind of like 1 divided by the positive arm of the Gamma function…

    In your humble opinion…

    I realize that science does not settle arguments. Except for this one. And you’re wrong. 😉

    Intelliology (00d844)

  221. I’m still waiting for the conclusive scientific evidence that demonstrates CO2 is the main climate driving force.

    You’re going to be waiting for a long time, Bradley. This one refuses to answers direct questions and just moves on to another subject, in the wan hope that it’s bloviations will eventually be forgotten.

    Dmac (539341)

  222. One of the things I’ve learned since joining the dark side is that AGW skeptics are far more informed than believers give them credit for. That’s because the skeptics are very familiar with AGW theory, which is propagated by activist scientists through the media ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    But the believers live in their bubble, where skepticism is a vice. So they aren’t exposed to serious criticism of global warming theory, or just to caricatures that don’t probe the really weak spots of the theory. This leaves the believers ill-prepared for a real discussion. Anything that seriously questions global warming theory, or forces them to defend it with their own reasoning, takes them out of their comfort zone.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  223. I asked you all a direct question which you have refused to answer. I suspect you are not answering because you know the answer pokes a Titanic-dropper in your garbage 800 year warm up argument. Also, can I get a confirmation that you don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  224. ^right on cue – it responds to the dog whistle, every time.

    Dmac (539341)

  225. Intelliology,

    Carbon dioxide is supposedly the main driver of climate, according to AGW believers. But the geological record shows warming starts about 800 years before CO2 levels start rising. So what is the scientific evidence demonstrating carbon dioxide is the cause of most warming, and not an effect?

    If you can’t answer the question, just admit it.
    If you can answer the question, let’s hear it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  226. > And should we assume that our massive burning of fossil fuels over the past 150 years has nothing to do with the CO2 spike we are seeing?

    ?? CO2 spike? WTF is that? CO2 levels are well below previous values of the last 5000 years, indeed, they are close to historical minimums, and even a casual review of the available data shows that.

    Further, “the CO2 spike”, even IF it were somehow actual, isn’t of any significance of itself, but instead is only of concern if it is, in fact, the causative agent for some significant warming event for which there is increasingly zero evidence to support.

    ====

    In summary — only in the dictionary is one actually supposed to put “Decarte” before “De horse”. Failure to grasp this leads to “De foot” in “de mouth”. Wiggle them toes.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  227. IgotBupkis,
    That WUWT post you linked to is one of the most graphic example of how AGW created Mann-made warming by cherry-picking dates to create the “hockey stick”. This series of graphs should be displayed before Congress to point out how contrived this allegedly civilization-endangering spike really is.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  228. “we have not experienced an extreme warming period over the past 800 years that would have, from your crap ’source’ predicted this gigantic spike in atmospheric CO2.”

    Intelliology – I don’t know where this came from. I asked a reasonable quwstion regarding the past 150 years regarding evidence of warming and did not suggest any source. I asked you to point to data. Please reread comments 213 and 217. Your contention appears to be that there is warming. I am merely asking you to point to reliable evidence of it, not even to pin down its source.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  229. By pin down its source I meant establish its cause.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  230. Intelliology,
    If you answer my question, I’ll inform you of the distinction between CO2 as a greenhouse gas and Co2 as the main agent of warming.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  231. Intelliology shows his ignorance with: “Actually I believe in science very much. And science disagrees with you.

    Science is a process, it does not have a viewpoint. And it is in the corruption of that process that AGW ceased being science long ago.

    Intelliology, you don’t seem to understand the point about the historical lag in CO2 concentration to historic warming. The historic data suggest that the carbon cycle is more complex than AGW advocates maintain. And that causation is not as advertised by AGW advocates.

    The last decade has shown that AGW advocates’ models are failures. And the flatness of global temps coupled with recent anomalies in sunspot cycles shows that AGW advocates have falsely poo-poo’d the magnitude of solar variability in temperature variations.

    All of this is just going over your head of course.

    Bradley writes: “One of the things I’ve learned since joining the dark side is that AGW skeptics are far more informed than believers give them credit for. That’s because the skeptics are very familiar with AGW theory, which is propagated by activist scientists through the media ad infinitum ad nauseum.”

    Preach it, my good friend. But you omit that skeptics actually understand the nuts and bolts of the science better than non-skeptics.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  232. Idiotology, you still there? Perhaps you don’t realize that you’re attempting to debate scientific theories with a reporter who’s worked on the subject for decades at this point. But don’t let that stop you from beclowning yourself further.

    I’d ask you to read this recent report on the erroneous reporting of surface temperatures by the ideologues at the IPCC, but no doubt you’re already well – versed in their conclusions:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html

    Dmac (539341)

  233. > I asked you all a direct question which you have refused to answer.

    No, you dropped a loaded question with an inherently inaccurate presumption of an answer built into it, which wasn’t worth the time to expose for what it is.

    But what the hell. Not that you’ll learn anything, but, for reason #4, above:

    a) You assume a “giant spike” in CO2. There’s been an increase, but it’s very minor compared to historical ones. — invalidation #1.

    b) You’ve failed to connect it to any actual warming event — invalidation #2

    c) Much less establish causation, which is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish — invalidation #3

    Your question was in the “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” territory. Like many, you suppose binary logic (True/False) is inherent, when trinary logic (True/False/Null) is far more real-world applicable.

    Your question has null value as an answer, because it’s based on hidden assumptions of inherently faulty premises in the first place.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  234. Eh, he’s probably feverishly looking at all those awesome Wiki entries in a desperate attempt to actually answer a direct question. Or perhaps he’s watching the Boreacle’s doc again, this time with accompanying Cliff Notes.

    Come on, idiotology, we know you can do it!

    Dmac (539341)

  235. Yes, you are right Dmac. I am looking for all of this and more. The canned, Michael Steele approved, answer to the CO2 spike conundrum is too much to pass up. I am ‘feverishly’ looking for a wiki so I can hear what your puppet-masters tell you to post in sticky situations such as these.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  236. > In your humble opinion…

    Man you are just on a roll for the inaccuracies, tonight, aren’t you?

    I’ve never, ever been accused of being “humble” with any accuracy.

    > That WUWT post you linked to is one of the most graphic example of how AGW created Mann-made warming by cherry-picking dates to create the “hockey stick”. This series of graphs should be displayed before Congress to point out how contrived this allegedly civilization-endangering spike really is.

    F*** Congress. It should be exposed to every fence-sitter out there who thinks that there might be anything to the ludicrous assertions behind AGW in the first place. It makes clear, in no uncertain terms, what a complete crock of bovine excrement the whole basis for their arguments are.

    Public support for AGW in the populace would devolve to damnfools, idiots, and libtards, to repeat myself three times, just to show it’s true 😀

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  237. Intelliology, that’s more bullshit from you. AGW skeptics don’t have a puppet master. That’s a common claim by AGW advocates, but its always been a lie. A lie repeated endlessly because the AGW advocates can’t argue the science itself.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  238. SPQR,
    Preach it, my good friend. But you omit that skeptics actually understand the nuts and bolts of the science better than non-skeptics.

    Amendment accepted. The great majority of non-skeptics believe in AGW because they’re told that scientists believe it. That’s treating science as a priesthood, about the most un-scientific view imaginable.

    I think human nature allowed the exaggeration and fraud behind many AGW claims to go uncorrected for so long. Scientists get funded more easily for studying disasters than telling us things are okay. And there’s more crassly corrupt motives at play with others, such as the IPCC chairman, who is a non-scientists like Algore. Such people live luxurious lifestyles while telling others they may need to have their energy use controlled and not get ice cubes in restaurants.

    And the media’s role as uncritical propagator of the exaggerations and lies is notorious. If AP reporters had read the IPCC reports as closely as they did Sarah Palin’s book, much of the fraud would have been spotted years ago. But you can’t get that kind of skepticism from environmental reporters, because they see themselves as advocates involved in a grand crusade to save the planet. They have made up their minds in advance of writing a single story.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  239. An equally important subset of Intelligence is what is often referred to as “Wisdom”, or “Common Sense” (and anything but “common”). It is identified, I’d suggest, by the ability to learn from mistakes — to derive valid rules for subsequent behavior from the results of current behavior. Comment by IgotBupkis — 1/31/2010 @ 5:02 pm

    It’s much harder to have wisdom or common sense, or to respect such a trait, when one is wedded to the notion that compassion and kindness overrule the value of reason and facts—not to mention honesty and ethics. That’s why the judgment of the left is prone to failure and foolishness, and varying degrees of corruption, time and time again.

    Then, too, when many intellectuals (eg, at universities) or so-called smart-creative types are of the left and love to, if you will, mentally masturbate one another, and deem their liberalism instills in them, and others, greater sophistication and humaneness, the blind spot formed by their lack of common sense is bound to grow much wider. Soon it becomes a chasm.

    Another reason I have even less patience with the left nowadays is discovering a few years ago that surveys of human behavior indicate larger percentages of liberals actually are less generous than conservatives in donating to charitable causes. True to form, many of the tax returns of recent major figureheads of the Democrat Party, including Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Gore and Obama, show a surprising stinginess in philantrophic giving compared with the record for figureheads on the right, including Reagan, Bush I and II, and McCain.

    The most disturbing and even scary thing about a variety of liberals is their belief that opinions of leftist tilt, when acted upon, will lead to a more wonderful, more humane outcome. IOW, I’d be less bothered by the left if they were more honest about themselves and proclaimed “we’re actually spoiled, selfish, greedy brats — or certainly no more compassionate than anyone else — who want to gratify our egos, regardless of the results. And if innocent people get hurt and ruined in the process, so be it.”

    Mark (411533)

  240. Lemme see, hmmmmmmmmmm. CO2 increases approx. 800 years after warming trend. By Jove, the medieval warming period that occurred from 800AD to 1300AD, could account for the increasing CO2 levels today.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  241. peedoffamerican, well except that the kind of changes in temperature and CO2 concentrations that were seen over the millenia we are referencing are magnitudes higher. The small changes we’ve seen over the last centuries are very small in comparison to the Earth’s historic variations.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  242. Intelliology – I’m waiting on that statistically significant, unadjusted, unestimated, temperature data.

    Prof. U.R. Phukt disagrees with you.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  243. Obviously, we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at increased rates now than in pre-industrial times. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is plausible to assume it has some affect on the temperature. But plausibility is a long way from validating a theory — especially one that believers say requires us to literally remake our entire civilization. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Among other things, we need to know what other factors, human and natural, affect temperatures, CO2’s contribution to this mix, and how its effects interplay with the others. Since we are discovering new significant contributions to climate change, such as changes in ocean currents and water vapor, it’s simply untrue to say the science is settled.

    And a return to the Ice Age is possible at any time, because our interglacial period has run for a long time, historically speaking. So any complete climate change theory should be able to tell us when the next global cooling should start.

    Saying this, of course, makes me a “denialist.”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  244. Yes, I know that SPQR, but am pointing out to dweezles like assiology that there are many causes to increased CO2. Not just man made ones. Like this also, “124.Let me see, CO2 lags behind the actual warming by approx. 800 years. Warmer weather means more plants. More plants means more food for animals that eat plants and exhale CO2. Thus more CO2 in atmosphere is the result of more life.”

    All of the idiot libturds just stomp their feet and petulantly declare, “Why it’s just gotta be because of evil man and his evil industrialization, and his use of evil oil. Period”

    If they had their way, we would all be living in caves, without even firewood to heat or cook with, while they live in their extravagant mansions and fly around in private jets. Just like the leading prophets of AGW do now.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  245. > It’s much harder to have wisdom or common sense, or to respect such a trait

    Mark, you may be correct, but I maintain it’s the other way around — they have the qualities you describe because they lack wisdom, not the other way around.

    The difference is that your notion, “they can be cured”, just by exposing them to the flaws in their reasoning.

    As you can observe from the ID-10-t we’ve been sporting with tonight, as well as continued discussions with other similarly-minded Giants of Common Sense, you cannot do any such thing.

    The flaw is inherent in their mental capacities. You can no more teach them wisdom than you can teach Conformal Mapping to a Down’s baby.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  246. “Saying this, of course, makes me a “denialist.””

    Bradley – You are an obstructionist, a wrecker, an enemy of the global state. You will be sent to the gulags with the other heretics and deniers, after a suitable show trial.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  247. daleyrocks,
    I’ll be part of the best-informed Gulag in history. :-)

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  248. I am ashamed that Lindsey Graham is a senator for our state. Worthless. Rhino. He is supposed to represent his constituents and state. Instead he represents special interests and his personal political agenda.

    Alvin (70ea2d)

  249. The level of CO2 has varied from 250 ppm to 2,500 ppm with an average of 1,500 ppm.

    We are now at 380 ppm. This is close to the lowest level and is far less than is ideal for plants and animals.

    Higher levels of CO2 will have no effect on temperature as there is ample quantities of water available, a much stronger greenhouse gas. Even a drastic increase in CO2 will be offset by a reduction in water vapor as the system is self regulating as long as energy input from the sun is constant and the system remains supersaturated with water vapor. Any increase in temperature will result in more cloud which reduces sunlight hitting the surface and cools things. Our output of CO2 is irrelevant in this system.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  250. JD, thank you for the kind words. Coming from you, that means a lot.

    On any given day that you comment, your humor has never failed to yield at least a chuckle — if not an outright belly-laugh.

    You have a way with words JD; they never seem to have their way with you.

    JD rocks!

    (sorry I am late to the party, it has been a long day, but thank you for cheering me up by spanking Intelliology!)

    Pons Asiorum (1f16cc)

  251. @198 — Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 5:33 pm
    Actually I believe in science very much. And science disagrees with you.

    and

    @211 — Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 6:17 pm
    And should we assume that our massive burning of fossil fuels over the past 150 years has nothing to do with the CO2 spike we are seeing?

    Your first statement is laughable and your second statement is ridiculous in the context of Earth’s Global Climatic History (and I am ignoring that you did not cite your sources).

    A Global Climatic Trend based on data from the present to 150 years ago is ridiculous, given that the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years old (with uncertainty of 1%). Such a ratio is 0.000003% — much less than the uncertainty of the age of the Earth!

    That is like measuring the temperature for 5/100,000 of a second (or 50 micro seconds), and then using that data as the average temperature for the day. One can see that measuring the temperature for say 2.4 hours (or 10% of the day) would be a more accurate reflection of the average temperature for that day.

    With regard to Global Warming, rather than use a ratio of 0.000003%, perhaps a ratio on the order of 10% or higher would be more reasonable (and meaningful and accurate).

    With that in mind, please note this graph goes back 600 million years ago, and was constructed from research done by Dr. Berner and Dr. Scotese.

    From the graph, one can see the Average Global Temperature (AGT) has largely stayed within the range of 23 to 11 deg C for the last 600 million years. The atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (CO2) have fluctuated enormously, by an order of magnitude, but the AGT range has remained relatively stable (well within its range, which is a small fraction of its order of magnitude). More to the point, the amount of CO2 has no apparent causal relationship to the AGT.

    Indeed, there have been periods of high CO2 levels and low AGT’s for millions of years.

    Here is a brief excerpt from an article that explains further (from JunkScience.com, June 21, 2005):

    Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that’s a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current ‘guesstimations’ of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism [sic] over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol’s irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?

    Here is a brief exert from a letter signed by over 100 scientists, addressed to the UN Secretary-General, before the Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud was revealed to the world at large (December 13, 2007):

    In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see IPCC Working Group Schedule) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

    Pons Asiorum (1f16cc)

  252. Ditto Machinist!

    and thank you.

    Pons Asiorum (1f16cc)

  253. I’m sorry Pons. The CO2 spike is well established fact. The Union won the civil war. Should I cite that argument?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  254. The science is settled, you new earth godbothering racist deniers !!!!!!!

    JD (0e324f)

  255. I am ‘feverishly’ looking for a wiki so I can hear what your puppet-masters tell you to post in sticky situations such as these.

    As usual, another lame attempt at changing the subject instead of answering a question directly. What a punk – ass beyootch. You’re done here, infantology.

    Dmac (539341)

  256. Well established fact? Had you gone with manufactured or conjured up with pseudo-science, there would not be much objection. Established fact just shows how big of a sophist and liar you are.

    JD (59a6eb)

  257. > The CO2 spike is well established fact. …(snip)… Should I cite that argument?

    No, you should actually cite ANY actual argument. No one is arguing that there has been an increase. They argue:

    a) its significance (i.e., calling it “a spike” is nothing but an attempt to increase its significance by emotional wordplay — in the historical scheme of CO2 prevalence in the atmosphere, the increase is inconsequential, and the current level is well below norms)

    b) its relevance (i.e., you have not established causation)

    c) any actual thing to “cause” (i.e., there’s no evidence of warming outside of readily available natural parameters) Several obviously available cues — the atmospheric CO2 “signature”, Oceanic temperature records, Tree ring data, sea level records — ALL DENY ANY TEMPERATURE INCREASE worthy of any note.

    d) You also haven’t established any correllation between the CO2 increase and man, but, given a,b,c above, it’s not really necessary to so so, and I’m even inclined to give it to you, at least until you actually establish the first three claims you need as having any validity in an argument.

    Q.E.D.

    In other words — You continue to argue a point which has already been obliterated by earlier comments as though it still held any shred of validity to a rational person (granted: that’s not YOU).

    Ignoring this does not re-open the case you are attempting to make, call those facts into question, or establish a new base-line for argument.

    We’re sorry we can’t get these self-evident facts through your thick libtard skull.

    Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an air-hammer powerful enough to accomplish this feat even with a solid diamond bit. Funny, I always thought “adamantium” was a fictional substance…

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  258. The lack of increased temperature to go along with the “spike” illustrates my point about the system being saturated and self regulating. There was a very slight reduction seem in atmospheric water vapor that offset all the CO2 increase from 1945 in terms of greenhouse effect. No amount of CO2 will change this as long as the system is saturated with water. It self regulates and it’s capacity far exceeds the ability of CO2’s small greenhouse effect.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  259. Changes in solar output are the only changes that will effect climate short of a catastrophic event like a large asteroid or super volcano.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  260. Cooling trends are much more self magnifying then warming trends. The latter tend to self cancel.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  261. Intelliology writes: “Have we experienced a very large warming period over the last 800 years that has preceded this extremely large spike in recent CO2 readings? And should we assume that our massive burning of fossil fuels over the past 150 years has nothing to do with the CO2 spike we are seeing?”

    This is comical since evidently Intelliology wants to either pretend that he is ignorant of the Medieval Optimum of approx 1000 AD or actuall is.

    Further, Intelliology is also uninformed of just what amount of the atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels. Hint: not enough to explain the concentrations.

    Just more of an example of the fact that the AGW adherents are more ignorant of the substance of the debate than skeptics.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  262. intelliology is to intelligence as astrology is to astronomy

    I’m sorry
    Comment by Intelliology

    Indeed you are. You’re a sorry excuse for human fertilizer.

    The CO2 spike is well established fact. … Should I cite that argument?
    Comment by Intelliology

    Yes you should.

    John Hitchcock (55712f)

  263. >>>>>The CO2 spike is well established fact. … Should I cite that argument?
    >>>>>Comment by Intelliology

    > Yes you should.

    Well, it would be logically consistent on his part, true. Factually irrelevant, but this is logic, where GIGO rules, and, for postmodernism, consistency in argument trumps facts.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  264. Intelliology,

    Still waiting for your scientific answer to my question:

    Carbon dioxide is supposedly the main driver of climate, according to AGW believers. But the geological record shows warming starts about 800 years before CO2 levels start rising. So what is the scientific evidence demonstrating carbon dioxide is the cause of most warming, and not an effect?

    Bradley J. Fikes (da46ae)

  265. Should I cite that argument?

    You don’t have an argument, because you are an idiot.

    Stop wasting oxygen. Join VHEMT.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  266. Don’t worry, he’ll eventually come up from his mommy’s basement to educate us with more irrelevant statements with no substantiating evidence.

    Dmac (539341)

  267. Gotta say brain-dead definitely sounds like a sock. But he’s missing the walls-o-text.

    John Hitchcock (55712f)

  268. I was thinking I saw “hall monitor” somewhere from the dud that’s “just asking questions”.

    John Hitchcock (55712f)

  269. > I was thinking I saw “hall monitor” somewhere from the dud that’s “just asking questions”.

    Nah. “Hall Monitors” grow up to be cops. This one’s the sensitive Goth type that got pantsed in gym class and wedgied elsewhere.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  270. Comment by IgotBupkis — 2/1/2010 @ 10:11 am

    Oh, a WH aide!

    AD - RtR/OS! (810a60)

  271. @259 — Comment by Intelliology — 2/1/2010 @ 2:40 am
    I’m sorry Pons. The CO2 spike is well established fact. The Union won the civil war. Should I cite that argument?

    No reason to be sorry Intelliology — feel free to ignore the research, science, empirical evidence and the documented fraud of AGW; the first three of which were given to you as citations.

    Feel free to offer none of your own.

    Feel free to ignore the fact that I did not claim the spike does not exist, but that it is a ridiculous assertion as it relates to AGW and when viewed from 13% of the Global Climatic Record in favor of 0.000003% of that record. From the data cited, the CO2 levels have no correlation to the Average Global Temperature, whatsoever.

    In this thread, writer after writer has pointed this out, each explaining it in a different way, but feel free to ignore them as well.

    Don’t let the evidence get in your way, or research, or logic, or any of that; just keep ignoring all those pesky inconvenient facts. You have been doing a great job so far, still defending the faith.

    You are not a particularly smart person Intelliology, whether by birth or choice I cannot say, and quite frankly don’t care.

    If the former, then it is possible for you to learn, but to do so requires much listening, a little humility and always, intellectual honesty.

    If the latter, then you are lost.

    Pons Asinorum (1f16cc)

  272. If the sun were to turn off now, I doubt the heat output of the planet would be enough to keep anything warm.

    Not according to Al Gore, the lord high-priest of AGW. The interior of the Earth is “several millions of degrees” (this is on the order of the core temperatures of the sun).

    But of course Al gore is a genius when it comes to science (and his followers are too, for following such a genius without question and attacking anyone who dare question their orthodoxy).

    /sarc

    Pons Asinorum (1f16cc)

  273. @271 — EW1

    Heh!

    Pons Asinorum (1f16cc)

  274. That was a hysterical link, EW1. All of the AGW proponents should be lining up to volunteer for that.

    JD (b537f4)

  275. It gets even better. The UK Guardian, one of the staunchest AGW defenders around, has published a hard-hitting investigation of Climategate figure Phil Jones and flawed data from Chinese weather stations.

    The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.

    I have written more about this on my blog.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  276. The corruption of the foundational “facts” of AGW keep crumbling, Bradley. And yet not one tiny crack in the belief of AGW adherents.

    That’s sign of a cult, not science.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  277. Idiotology just fled here, and started making the same BS claims in another thread.

    JD (61d2c1)

  278. JD – I just figured he got spanked so bad he was gone for good.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  279. #284 daleyrocks:

    I just figured he got spanked so bad he was gone for good.

    Not bloody likely.

    For some reason I have a mental image of Tweedle-Dumber wandering about in a haze with fingers in ears shouting “La la la la la,” while visions of unicorns shitting Skittles® dance about over its head.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  280. SPQR,
    Well, it appears that some of the better-informed cultists have decided to cut their losses. That means admitting some mistakes and throwing scientists like Phil Jones to the wolves. No one can accuse The Guardian of being a “denialist” publication, quite the contrary.

    The gig is up.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  281. No, he/she/it is spitting out its lies in the Tampa Mayor thread.

    Brother Bradley – It is not good for them when they start eating their own.

    JD (61d2c1)

  282. I saw that, JD. Making up stuff and false ad hominem are the main tools of the AGW Inquisition.

    Bradley, they are going to try the “oh, its just one bad apple” routine. But it is bogus. The fraud is widespread and has been winked at by the entire AGW community except for a tiny handful of honest people like Pielke.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  283. #286 Brother Bradly J. Fikes, C.O.R.:

    That means admitting some mistakes and throwing scientists some science whores like Phil Jones to the wolves.

    I think you are right: trying to cut losses.

    It would take an ice age, and perhaps more, to convince the fundies.

    It’s gonna get too hot!! Just you wait and see!! Next year, probably!!

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  284. SPQR,
    I know what you mean, but Phil Jones is not just one bad apple – he’s a main branch of the tree. And just wait until Jones starts implicating others. It’s all coming apart now …

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  285. #288 SPQR:

    except for a tiny handful of honest people

    It does lead me to wonder just what the composition of the AGW crowd is, how many, for example, are honest in their belief that it is a problem, and believe they have verifiable data? How many are just rooting in the trough? And how many are just plain crazy?

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  286. Meanwhile, the reliably clueless LA Times is still giving mouth-to-mouth to the Copenhagen corpse.

    Reporting from Washington – The United States, China and dozens of other countries accounting for nearly 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions have signed onto a voluntary agreement to curb climate change.

    If the countries make good on their pledges, they will dramatically reduce the emissions scientists link to global warming, but not enough to hold temperatures to levels scientists say are needed to minimize risks of drought, flooding and other catastrophic effects.

    Still, the number of nations signing on, along with the amount they pledged in reductions, buoyed many environmentalists after the December climate summit meeting in Copenhagen…

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  287. How many individual pieces of dishonesty have to be exposed before the believers start questioning it altogether? And what does that say about the people that believe this even far more than those evil godbotherers?

    JD (61d2c1)

  288. JD,
    I think some of the more perceptive believers are beginning to waver. They may be afraid to say so out loud, for fear of ostracism. And there are some academics — I know of at least two — who are quiet doubters. Once the fear of being blackballed passes, we’ll see a lot of born-again AGW doubters.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  289. I thought that a good scientist was inherently doubtful.

    JD (61d2c1)

  290. BTW, this is one of the most fascinating times to be watching science, when an entrenched dogma is on the way out. You get to watch how fast or slow people are to discern what’s going on. From what I can see, politicians and reporters at major papers will be the very last to know.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  291. #296 Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R:

    this is one of the most fascinating times to be watching science,

    I would certainly enjoy it much more, if the stakes weren’t so high for the poorest among us.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  292. EW1(SG),
    I would certainly enjoy it much more, if the stakes weren’t so high for the poorest among us.

    Point taken. But this is the pivot in the novel when the good guys finally start winning. So cheer it on from that perspective. That phony IPCC chief/sex novelist/railroad engineer and his ilk are going to become pariahs, and the corrupted science will be cleansed.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  293. I’ll get out my bells and whistles! 😉

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  294. EW1(SG),
    I’ll be the first to admit that much of the science is over my head. I have no science degree, just what I’ve picked up as a nerd-turned-reporter. But my reporting training gives me a Spidey-sense about scandals. And after Climategate, my sense told me this was going to be the downfall of the alarmists. There was too much sloppy research, too much abuse of science, too much corruption, because the alarmists had purposely disabled the skeptical checks and balances. And once the fabric began to fray, there was no stopping it.

    Global warming alarmism was like the real estate bubble, it could only thrive by expanding. Once all the believers had been recruited, it couldn’t expand, it couldn’t stay still, it could only start to deflate. The believers are inside a shrinking bubble, and like their real estate peers, are going through the various Kübler-Ross stages.

    That is my forecast at how this will be described by science historians. Whatever remains of global warming theory — and I don’t preclude some moderate version surviving — the alarmist Algore version is dead.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  295. Oh, I have no doubt that some of it will continue to exist. And that this will become some zombie-like issue that will rear its ugly head, under a variety of names. Global cooling. Global warming. Global Climate Change Crisis.

    JD (61d2c1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.9975 secs.