That Obama making a global warming speech today in front of the White House would be as embarrassing as Palin's video pardoning the turkey?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/ The great global warming collapse As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Barone_(pundit) Michael Barone (born 1944 in Highland Park, Michigan) is an American political analyst, pundit and journalist. He is best known for being the principal author of The Almanac of American Politics, a reference work concerning US governors and federal politicians, and published biennially by National Journal. Barone is also a regular commentator on United States elections and political trends for the Fox News Channel. In April 2009, Barone joined the Washington Examiner, leaving his position of 18 years at US News and World Report[1]. He is based at the American Enterprise Institute as a resident fellow[2]. His commentary has been concerned with the topic of immigration. Perhaps partly as a result of being a descendant of Italian immigrants, Barone takes an optimistic view of contemporary immigration into the US. He says that Hispanic immigration has parallels to the Italian experience and that, given the right circumstances, that current and future Hispanic and other immigrants can become Americanized and assimilated, just as the Italians were. Barone graduated from Cranbrook School in 1962. He received a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1966 and a law degree from Yale Law School in 1969, where he was a member of the Yale Law Journal. He is a native of suburban Detroit, Michigan. Although his political viewpoint is center-right today, in the 1960s he worked as an intern for Jerome Cavanagh, the Democratic mayor of Detroit.[3] He was also a supporter of George McGovern in 1972. [4]
^^^ I bring him up because he's a moderate conservative who graduated from Harvard and Yale, he's the editor of The Almanac of American Politics (I highly recommend it), and I have followed his career for at least 2 decades. The man is brilliant and not a talking points mouthpiece. So this is his latest article, which touches upon a number of points I've raised in many of my posts. From the propaganda aspect of the global warming alarmism to the secular (downright) religious nature of it. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...ange-fanatics-corrupted-science-83396362.html How climate-change fanatics corrupted science By: Michael Barone Senior Political Analyst February 3, 2010 Quick, name the most distrusted occupations. Trial lawyers? Pretty scuzzy, as witness the disgraced John Edwards, kept from the vice presidency in 2004 by the electoral votes of Ohio. Used car dealers? Always near the bottom of the list, as witness the universal understanding of the word "clunker." But over the last three months a new profession has moved smartly up the list and threatens to overtake all. Climate scientist. First came the Climategate e-mails made public in November that showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views. The British government concluded last week that the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit violated the nation's freedom of information act, although the violations occurred too long ago for prosecution. The CRU has been a major source of data for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which for 20 years has issued alarms about supposed global warming. The e-mails conclusively establish the intellectual dishonesty of the climate scientists at the CRU and their co-conspirators. Recently there have been even more shocking revelations. The IPCC has claimed that warming will cause the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035. It turns out that that claim was based solely on a pamphlet published by the World Wildlife Federation, based on no science at all. The head of the IPCC was informed that a 1996 report said those glaciers could melt significantly by 2350, not 2035, but he let the claim stand. As Christopher Booker writes in the Telegraph of London, "A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC's report which cite similarly non-peer-reviews WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority." Similarly, the Times of London reports that a claim that warming could endanger "up to 40 percent" of the Amazon rain forest came from an anti-smoking activist and had no scientific basis whatever. "The global warming movement as we have known it is dead," writes Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations in The American Interest. "The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics." Some decades hence, I suspect, people will look back and wonder why so many government, corporate and media elites were taken in by propaganda that was based on such shoddy and dishonest evidence. And taken in to the point that they advocated devoting trillions of dollars to a cause that was based on flagrant dishonesty and dissembling. There was some basis for concern. If carbon dioxide emissions were the only factor affecting global climate, it is clear that increased emissions would tend to produce warmer temperatures over time. Those temperatures could create problems that rational societies would want to address. But carbon dioxide emissions are not the only factor affecting global climate. Solar activity and water evaporation and countless other things do too. Climate scientists do not fully understand those things, and how they interact. It is rational for society to want to learn more. Unfortunately, the cadre of climate scientists who have dominated public discussion and have controlled the IPCC have been demonstrated to be far, far less than trustworthy. Like the theorists who invented epicycles to explain away the failure of Ptolemaic theory to account for astronomical observations, they have distorted science in the interest of something that resembles religious dogma. The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth) and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told). People in the grip of such a religious frenzy evidently feel justified in lying, concealing good evidence and plucking bad evidence from whatever flimsy source may be at hand. The rest of us, and judging from polls that includes most of the American people, are free to follow a more rational path. In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama alluded to "the overwhelming evidence on climate change." But he felt obliged to add, "even if you doubt the evidence" -- an admission that the evidence is less than overwhelming. On a par with, it seems, the claims of trial lawyers and the assurances of used car salesmen. Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
Seattle had the warmest January in history this year, not that it really matters. Pointing to small data points like that (or the fact it's snowing hard in D.C. in February) are kind of meaningless in relation to the bigger picture of climate.
Science does not care about anecdotal evidence, or one scientist disagreeing with the consensus of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide as to whether something has been proven. Conservatives think that everything intelligent can be defeated through political means. But they have been defeated every time in the past when up against science. See--Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc. Actually, conservatives came up with one victory vs. science that I can think of. They defeated the sexual revolution which resulted from Freudianism by inciting jealous manhaters against Freudian thought. Gotta hand it to you on that one. No one writes about the subconscious mind anymore.
Science doesn't care about destroying data, manipulating data to fit a conclusion, achieving consensus, squashing skeptics, the UN, social engineering, conspiring to influence public opinion, the word "believe", etc. Oddly, you name the "one scientist disagreeing with the consensus" in Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc.
And here you go: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b3e826ad-802a-23ad-45b8-8fa00c661d62 EPW HEARINGS POSTPONED DUE TO WEATHER UPDATE: The following Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings have been postponed due to inclement weather this week: - The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, will hold a hearing entitled, "Collaborative Solutions to Wildlife and Habitat Management." - The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, "Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States." Once the hearings are rescheduled, information will be posted at www.epw.senate.gov
While we're on the anecdotal evidence kick, I ran into a buddy tonight at Qdoba (danged fine food there) who serves on Coast Guard ships around the North Pole. I asked him what he thought about the whole global warming thing and he said, "Let me put it this way, in October, we were about 600 miles north of Alaska in open water." As you'd expect, he said it should have been solid ice there. Like I said, purely anecdotal, but he sure didn't have any doubt.
You think that "Freudian thought" is science? Really? It's a bunch of gibberish. Interesting to discuss, but gibberish. Ed O.
If global warming is happening, why is it so cold today? No "scientist" is willing to personally answer that question. I have a perfectly reasonable skepticism (real science is built on healthy skepticism) and science won't address it. Tells you something about the "science." At this point, I think we need something to replace science. It was a good experiment but, like Communism (a spiritual kin), has failed. I suggest "reasoned mysticism."
Whatever stops the fucking El Nino is fine with me, if that's fixing global warming, then do it. Having 50% snowpack in Oregon by Feb blows!!!
We don't need to replace science, but science needs to get back its integrity. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
This article is quite awesome. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece World may not be warming, say scientists The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”. It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. “The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
Sounds like the whole global warming campaign (still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest). And the response sure seems like the sound of silence.
