- This topic has 5 voices and 105 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am starting to feel like a prophet. Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away, which suggests that the hacked emails are not that big a deal. How to Forge a Consensus, Further analysis. This is scary stuff, bevause those that disagree with GW are demonized just like those that opposed Hitler and Stalin were demonized. In the minds of the GW crowd there is only one right answer. How long until they start calling people traitors for not toeing the party line?Meanwhile, apparently there are still politicians with principals, at least in Australia. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax I don't understand the logic that says economy destroying measures will help the environment even if the GW line is true.This will continue to stay interesting.
This is scary stuff, bevause those that disagree with GW are demonized just like those that opposed Hitler and Stalin were demonized. In the minds of the GW crowd there is only one right answer. How long until they start calling people traitors for not toeing the party line?
Comparison is not reason.If some scientists assert about GW, bring some contradictory evidences, scientific ones. The boy who cried wolf, miserably failed.
A further update. Apparently the CRU threw away the raw climate data in the 80's because they need the room the old storage media took up.Climate change data dumped This was before the current guy in charge took over.This guy is a skeptic but he makes some good points about how deep does the manipulation of data go. Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generationWhether the data are good or not, the way these people have connived to hide or withhold it at a minimum gives the appearance that they are manipulating the data. As I have said, if there data and models are so good what do they have to hide? Maybe the truth will put the nail in GW's coffin or maybe it will be proven right only full transparency and climatologists without an axe to grind can show. The next question is if there is a climatologist without an axe to grind one way or the other.This is getting more interesting all the time.
As my old prof said… “It's all about the feedbacks; when we interact with nature and get something we like we claim it to be harmless, when we don't like the result it becomes a catastrophy of global proportions.” Also we must consider, who's making the calls and who's paying their salary?
The process of sweeping this under the rug has begun. Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairmanThe narrative is that it is much ado about nothing, as I predicted earlier. Lets ignore it and it will go away.
By minimizing reaction they send the message that these crits are invalid and unimportant… not worth their time to rebutt.
I just wonder what GW supporters reaction would be if evidence of falsified or at best misleading data were to come out of the Skeptics camp. I am guessing it would be all over the news. My problem is not with GW (though I don't think it is correct) it is with the enforced orthodoxy surrounding the theory in the first place. The same problem I have with evolution, though I think there that the science is correct, it has at least stood the test of time. I don's like the apocalyptic tone of the GW types, it strikes me as alarmist as best.
Here is pretty good article that talks about the hypocrisy of the loudest “green” crusaders. It starts well but makes apologies for their lifestyle at the end. They have to live like that in order to be able to spread their message. Some animals are more equal than others.Taking the private jet to Copenhagen
.... They have to live like that in order to be able to spread their message. Some animals are more equal than others....
And they will have to keep them after we are all back living in hovels and eating gruel because someone has to make sure the system is kept organized. Same reason communist leaders didn't live like the proles. >:(
Here is pretty good article that talks about the hypocrisy of the loudest "green" crusaders. It starts well but makes apologies for their lifestyle at the end. They have to live like that in order to be able to spread their message. Some animals are more equal than others.Taking the private jet to Copenhagen
I had read that article yesterday and although I already knew about some of these episodes of "act as I say, not as I do", it really summed up the breadth of what is a very peculiar attitude. These celebrities live lifestyles unattainable by most and release much more carbon into the air than most. Although the article claimed there were some celebrities who genuinely lived "green" lifestyles (such as Woody Harrelson), I imagine that even those people still burn off more carbon (through travel and other purchases) that more than makes up for the wearing of hemp clothes or growing their own food.But what really gets me is that they will try to influence policy with their message to the masses. The end result is that you and I would be inconvenienced by added regulations and higher taxes, but as the "messengers" they would be exempt from the same sacrifices guilt and would get to continue their lifestyles. And Al Gore's rationale that he can buy carbon offsets isn't convincing since he's proving that he's not willing to make real sacrifices; rather, he just pays more of his vast sums of money to live the way he chooses. That really bothers me.I do believe that as citizens, celebrities have the right to speak their mind on issues. I just hope that the masses see through the facade and don't listen.
I see that this thing is starting to get coverage in the States, if only by conservative columnists. Do Smoking Guns Cause Global Warming, Too? & [url url=http://=http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20091202/cm_uc_crmmax/op_1912169]All the President's Climategate Deniers[/url]
Check this out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm or maybe this is propaganda again 8)
Check this out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm or maybe this is propaganda again 8)
Yup, nothing like a "reliable" graph based on Michael Mann's "research" methods. ::)
