September 29, 2009
Paul Krugman: "I'm not engaging in hyperbole" but "we're hurtling toward disaster"

Paul Krugman had an amusing piece in yesterday's NYT. The "money" line of what I can only assume was mistakenly put in the editorial section instead of the humor section was "And here's the thing: I'm not engaging in hyperbole." That right after he said "we're hurtling toward catastrophe."

The other knee-slapper was "The result of all this is that climate scientists have, en masse, become Cassandras -- gifted with the ability to prophesy future disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them."

I wonder if these are the same Cassandras who penned a 1975 Newsweek article warning of the coming ice age.

The funniest thing of all is that Paul Krugman is an economist, not a climate scientist. My economic advice: go out and buy shares in GE if this hysteria is to continue.

Posted by MarkGriswold at September 29, 2009 08:34 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Desperation in the face of uncomfortable facts will do that to the Believers. Their time is about up.

The "Hockey Stick" was completely obliterated the other day.


Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 09:05 AM
2. Krugman is a true believer. He doesn't let facts, logic, or evidence of any kind get in his way.

It's hysterical that someone actually let this guy get a PhD in Economics, let alone win a Nobel Prize. He's a clown. He's like Ann Coulter of the left, but nobody takes her seriously while we're supposedly suppose to take him seriously.

Posted by: Cliff on September 29, 2009 09:11 AM
3. It's amazing to me the the Times would even allow Krugman to write about this. It'd be like Revkin (their climate editor guy) writing about Cap Gains taxes and such. And even *he* acknowledges that the models were wrong and that warming stopped 10 years ago and now they're calling for cooling.

Like I said before, desperation. If they don't shove this cap-and-trade though this year, then I think the whole scam finally dies.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 09:34 AM
4. Has he, or anyone in the Algore "Climate Catastrophe" camp even LOOKED at the temperature data from the last 10 years? We are in a now 11 year long COOLING trend. Even with all the so called "greenhouse gasses" we're supposedly diluting the atmosphere with. One could make the argument that were it not for the interference of mankind, we'd already be in an ICE AGE. One could also argue that whatever we are doing is causing the cooling trend. Or not. Or maybe. Or maybe NOTHING is happening. The earth is a big place, it's been big for Billions of years. It's also been in a habitable place for Billions of years. It has it's ups and downs, even before mankind "invented" pollution.

Yes, I know we didn't invent pollution. I realize there were forest burns that dwarf the biggest fires of today, and there were volcanic eruptions that would wipe out continents, and there were space rocks that devastated the whole earth. But here we are, doing great. Sooooooo, LET'S ALL BECOME ECO-SOCIALISTS! YEAH, GREAT IDEA! We can wipe out any inclination or incentive any person has to excel, thereby destroying the capitalist engine that propels society and causes all that nasty pollution. Ah, I think I see where this is all going now.

Posted by: scott on September 29, 2009 09:35 AM
5. Krugman is a "token" economist. So much of the Left's worldview defies all of economics; indeed, the Soviet regime rejected the entire field as a "pseudoscience." Turns out they were wrong, but many still haven't given up the dream. I call him a "token" economist because he's one of the super rare true-Left economists; it's a contradiction but he's not there for consistency. His entire career has been a nana-booboo "we have a radical guy and you can't say he's just a typical leftist boob because he has a Ph.D. in Econ" taunt by the NYT. Neither the NYT nor Krugman has any real interest in sound economic theory; they're more interested in using his Ph.D. as a bludgeon, which has been causing them to go off the rez in the last few years.

And he legitimately is rare: economist Bryan Caplan of GMU found in a survey that the "median" academic economist was a free market Democrat, and it seems to me that the only reason a free marketeer would self-identify with a (D) is because of pressure from his academic echo chambers. Paul Krugman is a member of the discredited Keynesian strain of economics, albeit the "New Keynesian" school, which is a face-saving sanctuary for all the scoundrels whose Keynesian delusions proved wrong decades ago.

Another interesting thing about Krugman is that he lacks their caution and composure. I did ECON and found that most economists I met tended to be very fairminded, reasonable, contemplative, and very much open to criticism and new ideas. Krugman is nothing like this: he is strident, dogmatic, and has a take-no-prisoners zeal. The economists I know would never offer conjecture about fields in which they have no credentials (e.g,. climate change); the fact that Krugman is just enough of an overzealous blowhard to part ways in this regard is probably why he has been dining out at the NYT.

And there is irony here: as Gary pointed out, this comes after the tree ring data, the entire basis of Mann's hockey stick graph, were extracted by administrative order (they resisted) and demonstrated by Steve McIntyre to be so severely cherrypicked as to be not just totally wrong, but opposite the truth: they showed an upward trend when using ALL the data shows a downward trend. Just as McIntyre/skeptics et al. have noted: as the "evidence" for AGW proves to be unreliable or outright falsified, the hijinx its promoters will participate in to foist it on the public will become even more dramatic.

Posted by: gulliver on September 29, 2009 09:48 AM
6. Gary,
Cute :-). I agree, Krugman should write to his subject expertise.

Posted by: tc on September 29, 2009 09:49 AM
7. And as an "economist" not generally bounded by the requirements of robust inquiry.
.

Posted by: OregonGuy on September 29, 2009 09:51 AM
8. scott, first of all, using a 10 year time scale on something you acknowledge has a billion year time scale is ridiculous. Your conclusions cannot be taken serious. You're cherry-picking data. See this Politifact report:
The problem with the assertion in the Cato statement is that it is impossible to make meaningful conclusions about climate trends based on looking at a 10-year window, said Richard Heim, a meteorologist at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Climate Monitoring Branch.

People tend to think of global warming as a steady trend upward, Heim said, but that's not how it works. if you were to look at long-term trends, like a century, it looks more like steps. Temperatures wil rise for a few years, then level off or even go down a little bit, then go back up. That's why you've got to look at temperatures over many decades, he said.

And if you look at the trends over the last 100 years, Heim said, "the overall linear trend shows clear, unequivocal, unmistakable warming over that period."

Take a look for yourself at the NOAA graph of 100 years of global temperatures.
As usual with life, the issue is more complicated than a sound bite. Regardless of what you think of science, you must acknowledge there is a clear and obvious business or economic interest in denying the existence of climate change. I suspect that business interest played a larger role than science for some.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 29, 2009 09:57 AM
9. Krugman et. al. confuse their topics. We are hurtling towards disaster, but economically, not climatically.

Faux economist sycophants like Krugman do real science a disservice, and only serve to lessen the credibility of the Obama Administration which is already dropping like a lead zeppelin. As evidenced by polls that show the majority of Americans disapprove of this Administration's views on healthcare, the economy and most especially on "climate." Time and time again, polls show that Americans rank climate worries near the bottom of a long list of issues.

Most Americans, but apparently not Krugman, are smart enough to see that there is no coming climate alarm any more than there was in 1970. And even if there was such an alarm, it is coming at such an alarmingly slow rate such as not to constitute any crisis at all. And certainly not with respect to Iranian missiles, Pirates, Global Economic Malaise, Domestic Unemployment in double figures, AIDS, H1N1, Cancer, Heart Disease, and on and on and on.

I'm positive that one day the sea level will rise or that ice will again cover the Puget Sound. But these events are natural earth cycles and they are thousands of years off. Future humans will figure out ways to deal with these crises, and mostly by not listening to people like Krugman.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 29, 2009 10:03 AM
10. #8 "scott, first of all, using a 10 year time scale on something you acknowledge has a billion year time scale is ridiculous. "

It isn't ridiculous if all of their models claimed that those 10 years were going to warm up, and they didn't. Why didn't they? Why were the models wrong if "all scientists" agreed, and the "debate was over", blah blah blah. I thought you didn't like debating global warming.

Keep fighting the good fight, John! Maybe some day we'll all drown and you can say "I told you so!" in a gurgling voice.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 10:11 AM
11. Gary @1.

Yes. I doubt the Alarmist Sycophants that post here read any of the real science. Time and again I have posted links to WUWT and ICECAP where real science can be had by the truckload.

The Hockey Stick graph which was so critical to the early ramp up of the Hysteria in 2005 and 2006 and heavily featured on the Gore Slides, has indeed been completely obliterated. It was only through aggressive cherry picking of the data sets of tree ring cores that a quack like Mann was able to foist such a complete joke on a willing alarmist media and alarmist power brokers like Gore and Hansen.

But all of that has been exposed and destroyed with real math, real science, etc.

The alarmist sycophants will continue to defend Climate Alarmism here, but not for long.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 29, 2009 10:15 AM
12. #11, Jeff, and one would think that the alarmists would welcome this new information. One would think that they would be falling over themselves with relief that we're not all really gonna burn up or drown, since it was all a mistake.

But I'm not holding my breath. Their resistance to new information is bizarre to say the least.

Unless, of course the object was never to cool the earth, but to do something else... like... oh, I just can't imagine.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 10:20 AM
13. Centrifuge John,

I can't believe you cherry pick the last 100 years. If you look at the last 5000 years there has been no average temperature change; in fact, it appears we are climbing out of a shortened cooling age.

And regardless of what you think of the science, you must acknowledge there is a clear and obvious business, economic, and political control interest in proving the existence of climate change. I suspect that the political and financial interests plated a larger role than science for some.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 29, 2009 10:24 AM
14. Gary @8,

Yes, and what the increasing trend fears don't show is the enormous efforts of Anthony Watts and an army of volunteers that have proven that increasing graphs like that of the NOAA could never have been produced without the UHI effects and poor citing of the US climate network.

Again, such evidence is readily available and digestible and shows a clear pattern of cherry picking and obfuscation by those who want to see a rising temperature trend so badly. Looking at satellites there is no such rising trend, because satellites are not subject to the effects of urban growth and massive reduction in rest of the world climate stations in recent decades.

Nor are there any clear rising trends in true long term temperature proxies that examine real climate cycle time periods and not 30 or 100 year blips.

It is so obvious that all of the earth wide, solar, galactic and other enormously large inputs to our climate completely dwarf human inputs. And yet the sycophant alarmists are convinced the SUVs and Coal plants which occupy only a tiny tiny percentage of the earth's area are the primary movers of an entire 26000 mile round planet which is mostly covered in water, ice and vacant tundra and desert. Some people are easily lead.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 29, 2009 10:25 AM
15. So, John. You're a great man of science. What is your opinion of the new information regarding Mann's Hockey Stick?

If I was a believer, and I found out I'd been *had* by Mann, I'd be just a little pissed, more pissed than the skeptics.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 10:37 AM
16. I assumed that when I read the "we're hurtling toward disaster" part, he was going to talk about the fact that we're trillions in debt, congress can't stop themselves from spending more than we have, and now congress/Obama want new trillion-dollar spending programs that everyone knows won't save any money at all. You know, THAT actual looming financial disaster.

Posted by: Michele on September 29, 2009 10:41 AM
17. I wonder why it is that Krugman and other liberals are not at all alarmed that Obama flies somewhere nearly every day. The man has a carbon footprint the size of Alaska.

I am so sick of being lectured to by these people.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 10:54 AM
18. #17. Bill, it's because they don't believe it anymore than I do. They just use it as a political hammer.

Have you seen Tom Friedman's house? He's a big New York Times guy who claims to believe this nonsense. His house if bigger than John Edwards'.

Do you know who actually has a small, "green" house... George W. Bush.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 11:03 AM
19. Gary, you miss the point.

Giving up heat, eating less, using dim lighting, giving up our bigger comfortable houses, driving cars that run on our schedule instead of the unions, etc. Those are things for us peons and little people. You know - the stupid ones that pay taxes.

The high and mighty of the democratic elite and their cheerleaders in the press are clearly superior people and rules do not apply to them.

Posted by: johnny on September 29, 2009 11:40 AM
20. You're right, johnny. I keep making the mistake of thinking like a Citizen instead of a Subject.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 11:48 AM
21. John Jensen: It is always true that when you have fluctuating data over a long time scale, you can cherry pick beginning and ending points to make a data trend appear any way you want. However, to add to Shanghai Dan's comment at 13, the longer the period of measurement, the more confidence you can have in any trend (or cyclical nature) revealed by the data. Temperature measurements over the last 100 years are worthless, both because they cover too short a time period to be conclusive, and more importantly, because they are unreliable. Unlike tree ring data and ice core data, thermometers are subject to mechanical failure, they measure the influence of urban encroachment on the sensing site, and they only measure atmospheric temperature, and only at the earth's surface. Despite these known and obvious shortcomings, this data is ALL the anthropogenic global warming zealots have, for this data also forms the basis for the data going into their computer simulations, and therefore, the garbage coming out. I'll leave it you to make your way to the reliable scientific sites mentioned by other posters. You might learn something if there is any unbiased curiosity left in you.

Posted by: srogers on September 29, 2009 11:55 AM
22. Did anyone notice that climate calamity hollerers such as Krugman are now saying that the "real" effects of "climate change" will not occur until the last half of the century?

My, isn't that convenient.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 12:05 PM
23. #22 ha, kind of like bait & switching the language from "Global warming" to "climate change", when it was not selling well originally? It's a moving target with these people. They are frauds.

Posted by: Michele on September 29, 2009 12:27 PM
24. #22, Nice catch, Bill. Funny... I was assured in 2007 that the Arctic Ice Cap would be gone within 5 years. It's actually been growing since then, so I can't imagine what went wrong. I also asked Patty Murray why she needed so much money for polar ice-breaking ships if all the ice will be gone by the time the ships are ready.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 12:30 PM
25. Whyizit the left media always tries to put a stain on conservatives (say pain killers with Limbaugh, Halliburton with Cheney) but Krugman gets a pass on the Enron days?

Posted by: PC on September 29, 2009 12:41 PM
26. #25... just ask the same about Ted Kennedy, or Roman Polanski. Or Bill Clinton, or...


Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 12:45 PM
27. #10 Gary. I happen to agree with you. Using a 10 year time span is statistically invalid. Just as using the time span between the 1970's till now is statistically invalid. But that is what the Algore climate change alarmists do. My point is anyone trying to claim they know what the temperature is going to do in the future are pretty much just guessing. I was at the race track last week and the favored horses the "experts" picked didn't always win! Imagine that!
Enviro-alarmists parse data to find something that supports their POLITICAL aspirations, not any scientific hypothesis. We ignore the real threats to our future; terrorism, socialism, economic collapse -- and replace them with a false boogieman called first "global warming" and now "climate change". Changing? Which way; hot or cold? When you say "change" you can mean anything, you're never wrong!

This 11 year cooling "trend" I point out is just that. A trend. I'm not predicting we're entering a 1000 year cooling cycle and ice age. I think it's a trend just like any other trend, they come and go. I happen to believe it's mostly related to cycles of the sun and other natural cycles on the earth. I certainly don't think we should collapse our economy or chuck capitalism and go socialist over it.

Posted by: scott on September 29, 2009 01:52 PM
28. #8 John. Your argument about "steps" over centuries and all that is fine, except the climate alarmists are BLAMING our industrial society for climate change! All that happened prior to industrialization of the world was, by definition, natural. Global warming is supposedly 100% human caused. Well, I'm calling BS on that because because a 40 year time frame isn't enough to establish a long term change.

All the models claimed it would get warmer. It got cooler. So the climate alarmists go in and "fix" their models to somehow "account" for a little cooling trend, "but THEN it's gonna get REALLY HOT" and we're all going to die!!!!! They can't even predict if a hurricane season will be especially bad or not. Get real!

Posted by: scott on September 29, 2009 02:11 PM
29. Tonight the Great Pumpkin will rise out of the pumpkin patch. He flies through the air and brings toys to all the children of the world.

Posted by: Linus on September 29, 2009 02:45 PM
30. You're a month off Linus.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 02:53 PM
31. It is NEVER too early to watch for the Great Pumpkin. Besides, with Global Warming, he may not be able to make it in a month!

Posted by: Linus on September 29, 2009 03:13 PM
32. Gary, It isn't ridiculous if all of their models claimed that those 10 years were going to warm up, and they didn't. Why didn't they? Why were the models wrong if "all scientists" agreed, and the "debate was over", blah blah blah. I thought you didn't like debating global warming.

You cited no models that were wrong, and I don't accept your premise.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 29, 2009 03:24 PM
33. srogers, the cost of your skepticism being wrong is far greater than the cost of your skepticism bearing out.

Would it be the worst thing in the world to move from dirty sources of energy to clean and renewable sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar? Would it ruin our way of life if cities had better public transit options rather than dependence on automobiles? I do not think so.

Now, I think the science is irrefutable. You've seen people cherry pick data in this thread in an effort to refute it. Some claim all the models were wrong without pointing to which models were wrong -- and kind of ignoring the fact that learning from incorrect predictions is actually a feature not a bug of science. Science is not a perfect instrument, but it is a far better measure of the Earth's properties than the US Chamber of Commerce or cherry-picked data.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 29, 2009 03:39 PM
34. #33 "Now, I think the science is irrefutable."

Well that settles it then.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 03:53 PM
35. @33,

"Some claim all the models were wrong without pointing to which models were wrong "


YOU LIE!

Mann's model has been pointed out to be false.

Posted by: TheTruth on September 29, 2009 03:57 PM
36. #35. Absolutely correct, but it's pointless telling John this because he said, "Now, I think the science is irrefutable."

His mind is closed on the subject.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 04:04 PM
37. I didn't see the references to Mann's model earlier.

The scientific method is a built-in check on any model, and it was used to find problems with Mann's model. However, the model was about the proceeding millennium and not a prediction of future warming. That is a significant change in argument:

Gary originally wrote, It isn't ridiculous if all of their models claimed that those 10 years were going to warm up, and they didn't.

I am certain there are some models about those 10 years. He did not mention them, and has not mentioned them.

I am certain there are some models that were wrong. He said all of them were without any evidence of that.

Once again, more cherry picking. The focus here is on one model that has nothing to do with the original argument, that the scientific community itself -- not the US Chamber of Commerce -- has discredited.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 29, 2009 04:28 PM
38. Jensen says, "Would it be the worst thing in the world to move from dirty sources of energy to clean and renewable sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar?, Would it ruin our way of life if cities had better public transit options rather than dependence on automobiles? I do not think so."

Gosh a liberal who actually is brave enough to support nuclear power. Good for you, John.

However, if I have to wait in the rain and deal with bus transfers before I can even get to a light rail station I'd would have to say it perhaps wouldn't "ruin my way of life" but it certainly would make it more miserable.

There is something called progress. It's why we don't ride around in horse drawn carriages any more. It's why we don't ride public transit with filthy crazy people, and after dark the creepy thugs that swarm into downtown every evening. Busy people with jobs and families don't ride public transit. They don't have the time to spend an extra two hours commuting and they certainly don't want to deal with a bunch of filthy criminals. Anyone who thinks I am spewing nonsense ought to ride the bus in Seattle for a week.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 04:51 PM
39. "...sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar?,"

Oh, John... the same Democrats who block nuclear power also block wind and solar. Don't complain to me about not having wind and solar.

Wind power off Mass.? Nope. Kennedy's won't permit it. Solar power plant in the Mojave? Nope. Senator Feinstein killed it. New transmission lines to carry the new power? Nope. Sierra Club blocks it.

John, it is not our side that blocks power generation.

I know, I know... I'm a tool for the Chamber of Commerce!


Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 05:02 PM
40. You are spewing nonsense regarding buses. I ride the bus every day. I have a high-paying job and my commute is about 15 minutes long. I imagine a lot of people here would be jealous of a 15 minute commute. I save a lot of money, too.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 29, 2009 05:02 PM
41. Gary, not everything is about "sides." You're not going to make me a Republican because we agree on nuclear power. Adding nuclear power to the mix without curtailing coal or oil use isn't just irresponsible, it's wasteful.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 29, 2009 05:13 PM
42. #40

So? My commute is even better.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 05:14 PM
43. #41. Adding nuclear power by itself would curtail coal. But you guys saw a Jane Fonda movie 30 years ago and got your panties all in a twist and killed nuclear power.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 05:16 PM
44. I worked downtown for years Jensen and took an express bus. It worked out fine. You are missing the point here.

Sure, you live where you can take a 15-minute bus ride to work. Lots of people do not have that luxury. We don't all live downtown or on Capitol Hill. Public transit makes lots of sense in an urban setting. Do you have to transfer? Nah, I'm sure you don't. If you lived in the suburbs you wouldn't think riding a bus to work was so wonderful. I bet you don't ever ride the bus into downtown on a Friday night.

Do you honestly think a working mom has the time to wait for the bus, go to her yoga class, and still pick up her kids in time for their soccer game? You are living in a liberal dream world.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 05:19 PM
45. #44 Well, see Bill... if that mom wouldn't breed, then the earth wouldn't overheat.

Yes, they are actually saying that now. That ought to make Obama's Science Czar happy. He believed an Ice Age was coming in the 70's until it got warm. Now he believe we're all gonna burn up.

But the science is "irrefutable", don't you know.

And he can force sterilize that mom for us too. Failing that, he can force an abortion.


Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 05:41 PM
46. Tell us Jensen how you and your wife and children manage life relying on public transit. Let's have some honesty here. I know that is a rare commodity among liberals.

Tell us how you want us to take the bus or bicycle in the miserable Seattle winter while it doesn't bother you in the least that Obama and his entourage spew carbon nearly every day flying from city to city. He's going to Denmark this week to promote a carbon emission Olympic nightmare on Chicago. Lord knows where else he'll be flying to in the next week. Apparently he's never heard of teleconferencing.

This idiot McGinn, (D. Sierra Club), is running for Mayor of Seattle on the basis of tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and building a boulevard on the waterfront. He thinks if he tears down the viaduct we all will simply ride bicycles. What will really happen is a miserable, clogged waterfront where trucks and cars are stuck at stoplights, pumping out pollution. The result will be to drive away tourism and citizens who used to enjoy our waterfront. The guy is a nut.

I'm am so sick of being lectured to by these people.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 05:57 PM
47. Just because I thought it might be interesting I attended a "Northeast Seattle Trails" event at the Northgate Library tonight. I love walking, but I don't need liberals to show me where to do it.

Naturally the event was run by liberals who were more than happy to tell everyone that "bussing is a great way to save on gas. Walk more and contribute less to climate change."

These people make me want to throw up. Is Obama worried about "climate change" when he flies all over the planet nearly every single day?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 07:16 PM
48. Paul Krugman: "I'm not engaging in hyberpole" but "we're hurtling toward disaster"

translation: "The sky is falling!, the sky is falling!" cried Pauly-wally, "we must go tell the king!"

Posted by: Henny-Penny and Turkey-Lurkey on September 29, 2009 07:19 PM
49. If Krugman, Gore, Obama, and the rest of the elite left really believed we were "hurtling towards disaster" they'd be living in yurts. They wouldn't be flying carbon spewing aircraft or riding in massive limos.

It really is not that hard to figure these phonies out.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 07:25 PM
50. John wrote:

The scientific method is a built-in check on any model, and it was used to find problems with Mann's model.

Actually, it wasn't. Mann never published his original data set, and only grudgingly released some of his equations/programming to get his curve. What HAS been released has been shown to be riddled with errors.

Mann's hockey stick is about as anti-scientific-method as you can get.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 29, 2009 07:28 PM
51. Dan, reminds me of that one modeler who said he wouldn't release his data because the person asking for it might find something wrong with it. (duh!) Finally took a FOIA request to get the data, and guess what... he "lost" it.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 07:44 PM
52. I figure as long as I personally use as much, or less energy than Al Gore, then there is nothing more I need to do. I know he would never ask me to do anything he isn't willing to do himself.

Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2009 08:06 PM
53. Paul Krugman is the poster boy for why a Noble prize is worthless. But then I guess he just took over from Gore and Carter.

Posted by: Silkworm on September 29, 2009 08:21 PM
54. Isn't it interesting that when their blatant hypocrisy is pointed out leftists head for the hills?

I would love to see John Jensen and demo kid try to defend Obama's massive carbon footprint.

Even they must realize that Obama is a 24 karat phony. He lectures us "little people" while he flies all over the globe generating a "carbon footprint" most ordinary citizens don't create in a lifetime. If he actually was so concerned about the planet he would be showing us how teleconferencing could help everyone avoid blowing holes in the ozone with carbon spewing jet aircraft. But no. Obama loves flying nearly every day and acting like he is the planet's lecturer in chief.

Obama is flying someplace almost every day. It isn't just the airplanes, either, it's the helicopters, and the limos he has to use. What an obnoxious narcissist.

At some point most Americans will simply get sick to death of these snotty elite liberals telling everyone how to live while they ignore the very message they try to sell. Barack Obama is a perfect example.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 08:35 PM
55. you know the saying...".when you have the facts, pound the facts, when you have the law, pound the law...when you have neither, pound the table"

this is exactly what the "earth is burning up" crowd do...they've lost the facts, and they've jumped right to pounding the table....

most scientists believe that the earth DOES indeed heat up, and cool....and it does it in cycles, and that there is NO proof that mankind has changed that outcome...

so why would we further destroy America and the West by destroying OUR economies....its not like the coal plants they're building constantly in China isn't sending their smoke our way...

so why they take over the world's economy, we become peasants, and cold ones at that...

Posted by: lee on September 29, 2009 08:42 PM
56. Well lee because leftists have hated capitalism for the past 40 years. They are nuttier than fruitcakes. They believe Castro's Cuba is preferable to a country that has done more than any civilization in history to benefit the human condition.

You can't reason with leftists. They enjoy the benefits of capitalism. They walk around glued to their cell phones and I-Pods. They are tattood and multiply pierced thanks to capitalism. They suck down chai lattes and march off to their yoga classes thanks to capitalism.

They are constantly angry. Why? They are blessed beyond any human beings in the history of the world.

You just have to shake your head.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 29, 2009 09:01 PM
57. Dan, Actually, it wasn't. Mann never published his original data set, and only grudgingly released some of his equations/programming to get his curve. What HAS been released has been shown to be riddled with errors.

What's your point? Science is self-correcting, as in this very case. Faith/belief that climate change simply doesn't exist is by definition immutable. In other words, I would rather know that Mann's data is untrustworthy and find better data than to simply presume that no scientific research can ever change my opinion. The scientific consensus is that mad-made emissions motivating climate change. If that consensus changes in a few decades, then so will my opinions on the subject.

But using the data and research we have available to us today -- the vast majority of which is not discredited and is peer-reviewed -- we have to make the best decision in front of us. And that decision should be motivated by science and not the US Chamber of Commerce.

Bill, Tell us Jensen how you and your wife and children manage life relying on public transit.

This is getting way off-topic. If you want to talk about land use in suburbia I'm sure we'll get back to that subject some day. But basically I agree: it's unrealistic for many in the suburbs to take public transit today.

But your stereotypes about public transit in the city are absurd. A quarter of those who work in Downtown commute by public transit. That's a lot of unemployed, filthy thugs, isn't it?

Gary, And he can force sterilize that mom for us too. Failing that, he can force an abortion.

Wait, so I pointed out how you completely changed your argument and instead of even addressing your original claim you invent strawmen? Great having an adult conversation with you.

The least you could do is back up your claim that "all" climate models have been proved wrong over the last decade.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 29, 2009 09:52 PM
58. John,

The point is you were wrong; you held up Mann as an example of science, and in fact it is the exact opposite. And then we're basing Governmental policy on this non-science in the name of science!

Your straw-man - "climate change doesn't exist" - is completely false as well. NO ONE claims that. What people surmise is that climate change is NOT caused by man, but predominantly natural causes. And thus spending trillions of dollars to stop something that we're not causing anyway is a tremendous waste of resources.

Basically, the "science is settled/man is the cause" faction is basing their position on bad science, and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is non-scientific. But as we find out, Mann's whole premise is non-scientific for it is not open, not peer-reviewed, and not independently verifiable (nor even predictive of what's happening).

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 29, 2009 10:35 PM
59. John Jensen,

Please tell us precisely what predictions are in the most current "scientifically valid" models. What is the rush unless the supposed models are predicting immediate dire consequences? Oh and please reference a specific model when you reply..

Thanks.

Posted by: And Why? on September 29, 2009 10:39 PM
60. John,

The least you could do is back up your claim that "all" climate models have been proved wrong over the last decade.

One person got it right with a climate model, as he predicted the last 10 years of cooling, and he's from WWU at that! Of course, he also is considered an AGW skeptic, in that his models - accurate models at that - discount the supposed impact of CO2.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 29, 2009 10:45 PM
61. Dan, you held up Mann as an example of science, and in fact it is the exact opposite.

No, I did not. I said that one's work being proved wrong is part of the scientific process. Science is self-correcting and bad research is simply going to be proven wrong. This allows science to describe the world as best we know it, and allows this description to evolve. It is fluid.

Rigidity is presuming that climate change doesn't exist simply because you feel so.

in that his models - accurate models at that - discount the supposed impact of CO2.

You've presented no evidence that his models were accurate for the last ten years (HINT: cooling of 0.1 degree is different from cooling of 0.2 degrees). You've presented no evidence that all other models were inaccurate for that time either.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 12:35 AM
62. This is what happens when you have a bunch of creationist, science rejecting wackos trying to understand basic scientific principles. ie: "temperature is only rising by a degree or two" or "oooh..its a cold winter this year, global warming is hooey".

The SCIENCE is simple. Dramatically increasing levels of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere trap solar radiation. When the levels get high enough, it won't be a gradual change..it will be a dramatic, sudden shift.

Posted by: Proteus on September 30, 2009 05:46 AM
63. Proteus, was the 20th century the hottest in the last 1,300 years?

If you would like to compare notes about how one side of the other treats a single cold/warm winter as evidence of their viewpoint, please refer to how the press/legislators/celebrities and how they treat it when it's warmer than normal. The skeptical side did not start that particular franchise.

What level of CO2 will cause the "sudden, dramatic shift"?

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 06:28 AM
64. HyperBole with a B.

Posted by: S on September 30, 2009 06:53 AM
65. John,

In 37 you said:

The scientific method is a built-in check on any model, and it was used to find problems with Mann's model.

And that is false. The scientific method was NOT used, since Mann refused to provide the data and process he used, so it was impossible for others to independently verify his work. You know, the scientific process.

Mann and his hockey stick - Al Gore's favorite thing - are about as far from the scientific process as you can get. Yet it's the "science" that the pro-AGW group love to hang their hats on, the "science" that's settled.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 30, 2009 07:21 AM
66. John wrote:

You've presented no evidence that his models were accurate for the last ten years (HINT: cooling of 0.1 degree is different from cooling of 0.2 degrees). You've presented no evidence that all other models were inaccurate for that time either.

Dr. Easterbrook's model predicted a DECLINE in temperatures, and so far the actual DATA is matching his prediction. Name another model that predicted such a decline; it certainly wasn't any model the IPCC used!

So we have one model that predicted a decline (and got it half-way right in terms of magnitude of the decline), and all other models which predicted a rise (which got magnitude AND direction - both parts of the vector - wrong). Which model was more correct? I trust you can make that connection...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 30, 2009 07:25 AM
67. Dan, remember, John says the science is "irrefutable". Just keep that in mind when trying to debate him. Whether Mann's Hockey Stick is proven false or not, John will *always* believe the AGW side. His mind is closed to any other possibilities.

We just all have to take the bus.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 07:25 AM
68. John Jensen,
I've noticed that whenever I point out the irrefutable incorrectness of the "science" upon which global warming alarmists rely, they, like you, ALWAYS come back with, essentially, "crap, you're right, but IF I'm wrong, we're in trouble, but IF I'm right, everything will be OK. In other words, you claim victory in an argument you've lost, a prototypical Marxist tactic. The fact is, I'm right. The corollary is that all the economic damage created by legislators using Global Warming as a hammer to force the creation of radical environmentalist laws, which will have no effect on the cyclic, long term temperature of the globe, will cause plenty of suffering. Therefore, even your bogus conclusory argument is wrong.

Policy makers are not supposed to err on the side of conservatism; they are supposed to not err. In this case, to not err is simple - it is to use common sense and draw conclusions only from data that comes from reliable sources and embrace scientific theories based on experimentation and controlled studies.

Posted by: srogers on September 30, 2009 07:39 AM
69. Shanghai Dan is absolutely right. Mann refused to let anyone look at his source data because "you will try to disprove it".

Posted by: pbj on September 30, 2009 07:49 AM
70. Hi Gary and pbj,

But remember, Mann's hockey stick is an example of the scientific method at work! We should accept the conclusions based on it, since it was so scientific in the way the data and processing was open and repeatable...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 30, 2009 09:07 AM
71. John Jensen says, "But your stereotypes about public transit in the city are absurd. A quarter of those who work in Downtown commute by public transit. That's a lot of unemployed, filthy thugs, isn't it?"

You didn't read my comments carefully. I commuted for years to downtown Seattle by bus. The express from Lake City to the downtown bus tunnel was convenient and sensible. It was filled with people going to work.

Would I take my wife out to dinner downtown on the bus in the evening?

Neither would you if you have a lick of common sense. I am sure you never do.

When I worked later in the Central District I tried getting to work from Lake City on the bus. That involved one or two transfers depending on which route I tried. And yes it involved riding with filthy crazy people. My wife had the same experience when she had to transfer to a Queen Anne bus in the "free ride zone", in order to get to work on Elliot Avenue. The busses were roach infested and disgusting.

Somehow I doubt you've had all that much experience riding public transit. Oh, and as an aside, I watched young liberal guys bury their noses in books rather than get up and offer elderly people and pregnant women a seat. I saw this over and over. What a bunch of inconsiderate jerks.

You avoid telling us how a family with young children would manage their lives riding public transit.

Simple answer. It is not reasonable and you know it. Why do you think families flee places like Seattle where liberals do everything they can to force people out of their cars?

On topic is that Paul Krugman and Barack Obama want all us "little people" to live in public transit misery while they fly all over the globe spewing carbon.

Nuts here in Seattle like mayoral candidate McGinn think we should all bicycle to work. I guess they've forgotten that we live in a place where it is soggy, wet, and cold most of the year. They also forget that bicycling doesn't have the same appeal when you are 60 as it did when you were 30.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 09:37 AM
72. srogers, In this case, to not err is simple - it is to use common sense and draw conclusions only from data that comes from reliable sources and embrace scientific theories based on experimentation and controlled studies.

The scientific consensus -- rife with experimentation and studies -- disagrees with the GOP here. I had a good laugh with "controlled studies" involving climate. Good luck with that one.

I've noticed that whenever I point out the irrefutable incorrectness of the "science" upon which global warming alarmists rely, they, like you, ALWAYS come back with, essentially, "crap, you're right, but IF I'm wrong, we're in trouble, but IF I'm right, everything will be OK

The consensus disagrees with you and you simply have closed your mind to it. So yes, like any human being, I have multiple arguments for my policy positions.

Dan, Mann's hockey stick is an example of the scientific method at work! We should accept the conclusions based on it, since it was so scientific in the way the data and processing was open and repeatable...

Again, the Mann model had NOTHING to do with the arguments presented originally. You guys changed your arguments about the last 10 years and instead focused on the 1,000 year before that.

pbj, Shanghai Dan is absolutely right. Mann refused to let anyone look at his source data because "you will try to disprove it".

And when that happens -- when peer-review and data are denied -- then scientists move away from that research. They do not simply hold on to it because they have faith that climate change is real. Have you seen me screaming "HOCKEY STICK HOCKEY STICK HOCKEY STICK HOCKEY STICK"? No. It seems far more important to you guys than me. His discredited research has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion on the subject, and it is the singular example of major climate data being discredited.

The IPCC model was an average of about 20 or more models, not a single one of which has been challenged or discredited. Now, are you guys being scientists about it -- or are you moving away from this data because you have faith that climate change is a myth?

Bill, Somehow I doubt you've had all that much experience riding public transit.

Because you're making things up. I don't drive my car and the bus is my primary mode of transportation. I live in the city so it's easier and cheaper for me than it would be to find and pay for street parking. Is this really important to dissect?

Would I take my wife out to dinner downtown on the bus in the evening? Neither would you if you have a lick of common sense. I am sure you never do.

I guess I don't have a lick of common sense, but if my dating life is any measure it must work for me. I live in a neighborhood that has plenty of dining and entertainment options though, so usually we just walk to places. I know -- walking?! I must be a snotty liberal! I probably even listen to music sometimes!

Oh, and as an aside, I watched young liberal guys bury their noses in books rather than get up and offer elderly people and pregnant women a seat.

How do you know they were liberal? Oh, prejudice and stereotypes. Sure they weren't reading Ayn Rand?

You avoid telling us how a family with young children would manage their lives riding public transit.

By riding the train and the bus? Bus Chick, with two young children and a husband, has a carless family. Is this an option for everyone? No, but I never said it was.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 10:38 AM
73. Simply false. There's no such thing as scientific consensus. There's only the science. The science shows that the current GCMs as used by the Alarmist community are not working and have not worked to predict the climate of the past 10 years, nor can they accurately predict past known climates. They are simply flawed models based on cherry picked data. And the empirical evidence and real science has dissected the alleged science that went in to the GCMs.

This has nothing to do with the GOP or consensus. The alarmists are simply wrong and that is being proven as their models, and studies are discredited and an ever greater pile of empirical evidence shows the opposite of what they are predicting.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 30, 2009 11:44 AM
74. Exactly right, Jeff. That's why they're so desperate to cram though their legislation now. The jig is about up.

They dramatically based their entire effort on the very scary "Hockey Stick". Now that the Hockey Stick is gone, only the diehards will stay with the program. Even the hurricanes aren't cooperating with them anymore. You hear more and more of them saying that it doesn't matter, we should just all get on buses anyway.

No.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 11:54 AM
75. To an extent I don't disagree Jensen. Public transit makes sense for urbanites that live in apartments and condos. It made sense for us when worked downtown. Would you take it at night? You as much as admit that you would not.

We have a 1991 Toyota that gets 37 miles a gallon. We can go out to dinner anywhere. We also have a pickup that we can load up with plywood, two by fours and lots of other things you can't take on the bus.

But you miss the point. Obama and the left constantly tell us about how the "planet is in peril". Yet Obama and his entourage constantly fly everywhere. Geez Jensen, Michelle Obama has already flown to Copenhagen in her own plane and the President will be following in his own later.

All to bring a massive carbon footprint to Chicago in the form of the Summer Olympics.

If you don't understand the hypocrisy of these elitists who want to tell us how to live and do the exact opposite you really are not paying attention.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 12:20 PM
76. Bill, Michelle even loaded up a huge fleet of vehicles a few weeks ago to travel two blocks so she could but a couple of vegetables.

But they are our betters, don't you know. What's funny is they (the elites) don't believe this nonsense any more than your or I do. But they have an army of dupes that obey them without question.

John, would you ever drive seven or eight SUV's to buy some tomatoes in downtown Seattle, when you already have them at home? Do you honestly think Michelle Obama believes in global warming.
Don't tell me to take the bus... tell her!

People need to snap out of it.


Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 12:30 PM
77. Gary, I sort of get why Michelle had to have all that security to go to the local farmer's market.

Likely she did not have a choice. But she could have sent someone else who could have actually walked to the market. Instead she chose to make a massive "carbon footprint" and doubtless pay twice as much for "organic" vegetables than she would have at a grocery store.

You've nailed it exactly Gary. And by the way, we grew so many tomatoes this summer we are having trouble eating all of them!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 12:42 PM
78. Bill, Would you take it at night? You as much as admit that you would not.

You misread me. I'm fine taking the bus at night, even with a girl in tow.

Bill & Gary, I really am not interested in the politics of personality. You guys place far more emphasis on Obama than our Constitution intended. Every single time I talk policy on this board it goes back to Obama and how evil or hypocritical he is. He won the election. Move on. Attack the policy, not the person.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 01:11 PM
79. Bill, I didn't do my tomatoes right. I didn't trim enough of the buds half-way through the summer so I got very little fruit :( Three or four pints worth.

Lucky I bought 25 pounds of tomatoes from the farmer's market for $30. Speaking of over-priced farmer's markets, $1.20 a pound is a lot cheaper than the $3 a pound my QFC sells tomatoes for. :)

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 01:27 PM
80. #78 "You guys place far more emphasis on Obama than our Constitution intended. "

That's because he wields far more power than the Constitution intended, otherwise I wouldn't even think about him.

You're telling me to ride a bus. You brought that up. He tells me we can't eat what we want and drive our SUV's, etc. I just want to be left alone but I have people bitching at me to live a different way... their way. When I push back, I'm told how *not* to debate.

No.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 01:38 PM
81. Jensen, when a politician claims the "planet is in peril" and then flies all over the globe nearly every single day you bet we have a right to attack him as a phony. This is the guy who pushed "cap and trade" which is a policy.

That he's already likely flown more carbon spewing miles than Bush did in his entire eight years ought to at least tell you something.

Elitist Democrats are dishonest. One merely has to observe their actions.

Rather than focusing on policies one might get a more realistic picture of Democrats by how they actually live. They have massive estates. They are richer than Republicans. Yeah, they are.

Did you leftists focus on policy when Sarah Palin was nominated for Vice President? No you attacked her personally.

Now you whine when we point out that Obama is an elitist carbon spewing hypocrite.

A bit of honest reflection probably would be in order.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 01:46 PM
82. Bill, one of the biggest hypocrites of all is Thomas Friedman. He wants gas to be so expensive that you and I will be forced out of our cars.

Have you seen his house?

It's here:

http://christopherfountain.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/friedman-estate3.jpg

So we have a insanely rich fellow telling you and me to give up what small freedoms we cherish while he consumes many times more energy than we ever will.

And I'm expected to believe that *he* believes this Global Warming BS? He does not. He's just a socialist trying to turn the country socialist.

I have not yet achieved enough wealth to afford to be a socialist.


Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 01:54 PM
83. Gary & Bill, what you two are engaging in is called an ad hominem argument. You have apparently ceded the policy debate and moved on to arguments "to the man."

Look, I take the bus everywhere. When I don't take the bus, I walk and bike. I can't even talk about this choice without being accused by Gary of "telling me to ride a bus." Of course, that's a complete fabrication.

But I don't emit much CO2, and I'm an elitist control freak. Obama emits too much CO2, and he's an elitist control freak. Friedman has too big of a house, and he's an elitist control freak. A vegan with a tiny studio apartment in Capitol Hill who bikes around town and emits near zero CO2? He's an elitist control freak, too.

It sounds like this discussion has almost nothing to do with personal actions or any desired policy outcomes -- we're just all finding ways to attack progressives in new and interesting ways. What a boring way to write about something without actually thinking.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 02:12 PM
84. #83 ""Would it be the worst thing in the world to move from dirty sources of energy to clean and renewable sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar?, Would it ruin our way of life if cities had better public transit options rather than dependence on automobiles? I do not think so." "

-

Leave my car alone. See, you start the preaching, and when we push back, and explain how only the little people are expected to get our of their cars, you tell us to stop doing that.

No.


Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 02:20 PM
85. Gary, I said "if cities had better public transit options."

Not, "GET OUT OF YOUR CAR!" I do not expect people get out of their car, I want them to have a choice.

Do you live in a city?

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 02:24 PM
86. It is what socialists always do Gary. They have always done it. They get their life enjoyment by telling people how to live. I maintain that socialists by their very nature are people that enjoy controlling how people live. It's why they find socialism attractive.

Obama and his socialist buddies are happier than clams at high tide when they can lord it over us. They try to scare us by telling us we should be worried about our "carbon footprint" and yet they fly all over the world constantly.

They live in huge mansions. They never walk the walk. They just talk, talk, talk.

Any "environmentalist" ought to honestly observe how Obama and his family actually lives.

They won't. Leftists never admit they have been duped or are simply wrong.

Posted by: bcruchon@earthlink.net on September 30, 2009 02:27 PM
87. Bill, don't you know that our betters are sacrificing for us. Michelle said this of her trip to Europe:

"As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days,"

Make me barf.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 02:37 PM
88. John Jensen says, "A vegan with a tiny studio apartment in Capitol Hill who bikes around town and emits near zero CO2? He's an elitist control freak, too"

No, he's an idiot. And he voted for Obama who has a massive carbon footprint. What does it take to wake you nitwits up?

You've got two liberal nutcases running for Mayor. One of the them wants to tear down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and create a smog producing "boulevard" along the waterfront. The other candidate supports a massively expensive tunnel which Seattle taxpayers will have to fund any cost overruns.

It would take a fraction of the money these nuts want to spend building a tunnel or a stupid traffic clogged "boulevard" along the waterfront to simply shore up the viaduct and make it unlikely to collapse in an earthquake.

Wouldn't it be nice if the adults were in charge?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 02:55 PM
89. Bill, shore up the viaduct and make it unlikely to collapse in an earthquake.

That is not possible. No one thinks it's possible. The "adults" you're talking about are delusional.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 02:58 PM
90.
"A vegan with a tiny studio apartment in Capitol Hill who bikes around town and emits near zero CO2? He's an elitist control freak, too"

Yes. Why else would they place a sticker on their car that says "VEGAN"? Excuse me, but who the hell cares if you're a vegan? What is the stupid point of the sticker, except to somehow prove that their better than most people due to their vegan-ness? They have esteem issues. Thinking that what they do will "Save the planet" helps them feel better.


Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 03:04 PM
91.
#89 "That is not possible. No one thinks it's possible."

This from the man who proclaimed:


"On the other hand, the referendum won't get enough signatures so it doesn't really matter."

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 03:26 PM
92. Gary, control your anger toward my fictional vegan.

The Viaduct has been studied by experts, not just people named John Jensen on the Internet. A retrofit is wholly and entirely not possible. Read up.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 03:28 PM
93. Gary isn't this just so revealing?

"As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days,"

How much of a "carbon footprint" are the Obama's spreading? Michelle is already in Copenhagen. Barack hasn't even flown there yet. But he will with a massive dose of carbon.

Please Jensen and the rest of you silly leftists. Stop with your stupid lectures about how we need to take the bus or ride bicycles in the miserable Seattle rain. The President you elected has already put out more carbon than I have in my entire life. He isn't ashamed about it in the least.

Liberals are the biggest whiners on the planet. You never heard Churchill, Eisenhower, or Reagan whimper about personal "sacrifice". The idea would never dawn on them.

You only hear this from liberals. They constantly blubber about "the struggle" and how horrific their lives are. Do we ever hear leftists talk about how blessed their lives actually are?

Perhaps leftists might be more appreciative if they were sentenced to a couple years in Tudor England or modern Saudi Arabia.

Would they spend a reflective moment or two contemplating how their heroes such as Che and Castro killed the people that dared to disagree with their politics? Nah, leftists are a bunch of spoiled crybabies with no sense of history.

Once people bathe themselves in leftist ideology they are nearly always unable to summon the courage to examine their beliefs.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 03:32 PM
94. Bill C, you are quite simply a political bigot.(Which means: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.) Your attitudes toward political disagreements are simply repugnant.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 03:38 PM
95. John, what is the big sacrifice Michelle and Oprah are making?

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 03:44 PM
96. Does your namecalling, (a "political bigot"),indicate that you are unable to respond rationally?

You are mad as heck that you can't defend your heroes and their hypocrisy.

What do you do? You do what leftists routinely do. You call names.

Having a political discussion is not something you leftists do well.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 03:46 PM
97. Bill, being a partisan conservative makes us "political bigots", I guess. Fine with me. I'm not going to be cowed into silence by being called a bigot (he's called me that before too) or a racist.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 03:50 PM
98. John,

Appears many of the "studies" the IPCC used were cooked. Oh, and Mann - of the bogus hockey stick - is an editor of the IPCC reports on the strength of his "work" producing that hockey stick.

Any respectable scientist - or even educated person - would say "halt the train" and demand a review of the data and how the conclusions came up. But since leftist control-freaks and politicians will benefit from the IPCC reports, it's all brushed under the rug...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 30, 2009 04:07 PM
99. It's the games they always play Gary. If they can't defend the fact that the Obamas need to take at least 2 huge airplanes to Copenhagen (and that surely is understating it), suddenly we are "political bigots".

The left always does this. They are so incredibly nasty. We are simply not allowed to question them. If we do we are "racists" or as Jensen accuses, "political bigots".

Leftists always advertise themselves as friendly tolerant "progressives".

What they actually are is a collection of people who simply enjoy bossing other people around.

Obama wants us to take public transit while he flits all over the world on ozone depleting jets nearly every day. His wife already took her entourage to Copenhagen and Barack will soon join her with his massive aircraft. How much carbon will these people produce? Will they keep lecturing us about our "carbon footprints", and how the "planet is in peril"?

Of course they will.

What we can't get John Jensen to do is respond to why it is perfectly fine for the President he voted for to spew carbon all over the planet and lecture us about how the "planet is in peril".

No that is too much for him. So as leftists always do he simply name calls.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 04:11 PM
100. Come on John Jensen. Explain why Michelle and Barack Obama need to take seperate carbon spewing airplanes to Copenhagen.

Explain why these people who lecture us constantly about a "planet in peril" find it necessary to fly two huge airplanes across the ocean in order to assure that the next Summer Olympics come to Chicago.

Jensen. I could drive my truck downtown for 10 years and not produce a fraction of the amount of carbon the Obamas are making in this single trip. And we really don't need to discuss the amount of carbon which will be produced if Chicago lands the Summer Olympics, do we?

So Jensen, let's quit playing the "we are holier than thou" game liberals love to play. You are simply full of it and need to take an honest look at your own life.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 04:30 PM
101. Reuters:

"Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind."

-

Well, I'm convinced.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 07:52 PM
102. What a surprise. Not a single comment from John Jensen justifying the massive carbon emissions his President emits nearly every day.

Liberals talk the talk, but they very rarely walk the walk.

Obama is the biggest carbon blowing President in history. Good lord, he and his wife are taking seperate carbon blasting jet airplanes complete with their helicopters and limos to Denmark.

I guess it really shouldn't be that much of a wonder that even John Jensen might be a bit ashamed that the folks who lecture us about how we live are simply leftist hypocrites. That's who they are and we can't say it enough.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 07:56 PM
103. Well, Bill it's a big sacrifice the Obama's and Oprah to make on our behalf. Imagine being forced to fly first class, and stay at 5-star hotels, and eat the best food. Imagine how much that costs them... oh, nothing? It costs *me*? Who's sacrificing exactly?

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 08:00 PM
104. That's why liberals such as John Jensen slink away from the discussion when their hypocrisy is illustrated.

They cannot defend it.

One does hope that perhaps the reality of how liberals such as Obama actually live their lives might give them a moment or two of reflection.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 08:11 PM
105. That's why liberals such as John Jensen slink away from the discussion when their hypocrisy is illustrated.

They cannot defend it.

One does hope that perhaps the reality of how liberals such as Obama actually live their lives might give them a moment or two of reflection.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 30, 2009 08:43 PM
106. I'm sorry Bill, I was playing soccer instead of reading your belligerent posts.

Gary, you are not a bigot. I never called you one -- stop pouting. I think you are a good man. Dan is too. As is pudge. And I disagree with you guys on nearly every single policy position.

I've read enough of Bill's posts to know that he is not a good man -- or at least what I've seen of him. He views the world -- from fellow bus riders, to fellow farmer's market consumers, to the President's wife, to scientists -- through the prism of political bigotry. I am tired of Bill's deranged rants about liberals. Any conservative here with a spine should be too. (Didn't pudge get into it with him?) His missives are a pathetic, untrue, and dispiriting view of this country's political dynamic. And they never contribute to the policy discussions at hand.

I am a progressive right here, in the flesh. I research my posts and provide substantive argument -- usually toward policy and away from personality. I have *thoughtful* positions even if you disagree with them. I am arguing with three or four people at once, usually. What laziness or disengagement is Bill referring to? Oh, right, I forgot -- I love Che and want to move to Cuba.

I understand policy, and he understands how to hate the other side. It's pathetic. We're not even arguing on the same plane.

On topic, the only way to substantially reduce emissions is through policy. The President does not have the ability to drive downtown in his truck. You are fetishizing his office and making the man Messianic, while also not substantially evaluating the differences between your position in life and his.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 30, 2009 08:59 PM
107. #106 "You are fetishizing his office and making the man Messianic, while also not substantially evaluating the differences between your position in life and his."

Right. We are beneath him. And we're not the ones who pray to him. We have to cut back our emissions. Not him. I understand. John, I wouldn't give a damn how much energy he consumed if he wasn't tell *me* to do with less at the same time. Remember back in January when the news was how warm he kept the West Wing?

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times."

Don't you see how infuriating that can be? Who is the "we" he is referring to? We can't eat as much as we want??? Who the hell is he to say that? None of his business how much I eat, is it?

"On topic, the only way to substantially reduce emissions..."

CO2 emissions. I don't care to reduce CO2 emissions because until it's proven to be harmful, I think the effort is wasted. And besides, if we're all gonna be dead in seven years like the mayor of Tokyo says, what's the point?

You did call me a bigot.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 05:51 AM
108. John Jensen,
You've taken the next step that commonly happens when zealots can't refute an argument, which is to say the proponent must be wrong because there is a "consensus" who does not agree with him (in this case, me). Of course I know you can't do this, but I'd like to hear you tell Galileo that he is wrong in reaching the conclusion, based on his observations and calculations, that the sun is the center of the solar system and the planets orbit the sun, because there is a consensus that the earth is the center of the solar system. Or tell a Jewish doctor in the 1400s that he is wrong to tell a man to fight a fever by soaking in cold water because there is consensus among Christian monks that the fever should be treated by bleeding so as to remove the evil humors. The consensus opinion is often wrong.

Please address the fact that the 100 years of temperature data flaunted by global warming alarmists is both flawed and unreliable for drawing conclusions about future global temperature, and the utter lack of any data showing that temperature fluctuations over time are caused by human activity. Stop with the nonsense, obfuscation, and avoidance of the issue.

Posted by: srogers on October 1, 2009 08:26 AM
109. srogers. Exactly. The Hockey Stick was the premise they used to claim that the 20th century was the warmest in 2000 years. It purposefully excluded the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Using this it was claimed that Man was responsible because of a correlation to increased human CO2 output.

Well, if the basic premise is wrong, the whole thing is wrong. The premise has been debunked. The IPCC doesn't even use it anymore, and yet they still *believe*.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 08:43 AM
110. I said the same thing back @76. Facts don't matter to some people. And this is not a right/ left issue which is why many Progressives and Democrats are now squarely against the Alarmists. And let's make a clear distinction here. We can have very substantive arguments about whether we believe in more or less help from government. This is a largely subjective area and we know where those on the right and left stand.

But there is no political argument about science and this is what has gotten people like Gore and the Alarmist Sychophant commenters here in trouble. The bottom line is that the Alarmist science does not hold water. There is no serious proof that humans are anywhere near a large enough input in to the climate, nor that we could do anything about it if we were.

There is zero justification for political action and even less for spending trillions. It's simply a ploy by some powerful people to impose a new form of wealth redistribution, while simultaneously lining their own pockets.

There's nothing noble about defending this anti science sham regardless of one's political affiliation.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 1, 2009 10:15 AM
111. Gary, Right. We are beneath him.

Right, because that's exactly what I said.

Gary, you're exactly the same was the President. Sorry for falsely claiming that your lives are slightly different. That's why you have the strongest military in the world under your control, lead the national discussion on policy, have many personal jetliners, have a security detail willing to get shot for you, are subject to routine death threats, and have your every action tracked by world media. My mistake.

srogers, Please address the fact that the 100 years of temperature data flaunted by global warming alarmists is both flawed and unreliable for drawing conclusions about future global temperature, and the utter lack of any data showing that temperature fluctuations over time are caused by human activity.

You've illustrated that one model had problems. One model. Guess what? Scientific consensus is formed from more than one model. (I look forward to your reply: MANN MANN MANN MANN HOCKEY STICK HOCKEY STICK HOCKEY STICK HOCKEY STICK MANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!)

A basic Google search:

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states: (...)

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

And another:
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).


The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

And another:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
The science community could very well be wrong, but there is a scientific consensus. I trust the scientific community over political partisans.

The consensus opinion is often wrong

Both of the silly examples you used are instances of religious consensus and not scientific consensus. Both are examples of science turning out correct against a status quo relying on a steadfast belief -- both are from centuries in the past. You are the one illustrating blind faith toward a position that seems unwilling to change in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 10:34 AM
112. Can I eat what I want then?

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 10:37 AM
113. Here's the argument that ends all arguments. Let individuals post all they want about how they think global warming is "made up" and try and pull some random scientist's quote about how he's not sure about global warming. Please follow this link to see the survey of scientists about whether or not they believe global warming is caused by humans. In short, 97% of actively publising climatologists believe that global warming is caused by humans. 88% of ALL climatologists believe that is is caused by humans.
But for a second think of this... Imagine that your spouse/child was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Let's say you went and asked experts in that field whether or not your spouse/child had a brain tumor and these were the results you got. 97% of active brain surgeons said yes you have a brain tumor and we have to act now to remove it. What would you do? Would you accuse all these brain surgeons you polled of just trying to make money off of scaring you into surgery? Would you go find some pediatrician somewhere who's not exactly sure if your spouse/child has a brain tumor and follow their diagnosis instead?
It's time to get rational. Stop trying to find reasons against a scientific consensus on this. If global warming were a brain tumor in someone you love, you'd act on it in a heartbeat with this kind of consensus among experts in the field. The time to act is NOW.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Posted by: Matt on October 1, 2009 10:41 AM
114. Matt, the mayor of Tokyo says it's too late. We're doomed.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 10:48 AM
115. Would you ask the mayor of Tokyo if your wife/child has a brain tumor?

Posted by: Matt on October 1, 2009 10:52 AM
116. Gary, you wrote that: It isn't ridiculous if all of their models claimed that those 10 years were going to warm up, and they didn't.

You have yet to provide any proof that "all" models were wrong. In fact, you've yet to provide any proof that any models during that time period were wrong. Instead, you focused on a different time period altogether.

All evidence points you making up this claim.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 10:59 AM
117. The mayor of Tokyo is above me. I'm just a little person. The politicians telling us to live with less, while they do not, are better than we. I don't question them.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 11:00 AM
118. What does John Jensen do instead of answering honest questions about the hypocrisy of Obama?

He resorts to the playbook: "I've read enough of Bill's posts to know that he is not a good man -- or at least what I've seen of him. He views the world -- from fellow bus riders, to fellow farmer's market consumers, to the President's wife, to scientists -- through the prism of political bigotry. I am tired of Bill's deranged rants about liberals. Any conservative here with a spine should be too"

Translation? The questions I ask of liberal trolls here make them very uncomfortable. So they resort to personal attacks rather than explianing uncomfortable facts such as why Obama and his wife have to fly in seperate airplanes to Copenhangen while lecturing us about how the "planet is in peril".

It is what leftists constantly do. It is why they attempted to destroy Sarah Palin. But leftists such as John Jensen are not "political bigots". Nah, they simply call those of us who oppose them "deranged".

One does not have to dig too deeply in order to expose these people.

As I said much earlier in this thread it is simply not possible to have a rational political discussion with leftists.

One can ask civilized questions about the behavior of Obama or any leftist you choose. What do you get in return? Accusations of "political bigotry" and "derangement". Does one get a substantive claritive answer? Evidently not.

It's pure Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals". When you are unable to face the pure logic and evidence your political opponents provide you simply demonize them.

Jensen says that I am "not a good man".

Interesting, isn't it? The same people that preached peace and love are now the people that call those who disagree with them "political bigots".

I try to make this point over and over. The modern left is simply filled with angry people. Observe how Jensen counters questions. He reverts to name calling. It is what leftists do over and over. It is how the left has dealt with dissent throughout its history. If you lived in Cuba, the Soviet Union, or China leftists simply killed those who wanted freedom.

Oh but I must simply be a "political bigot"

What we need to do is stand up and get in the face of anonymous leftist cowards such as John Jensen. He can't respond to issues we bring up in a civil manner. Instead he does what leftists do over and over, name call and attempt to marginalize those who don't happen to agree with them.

What a bunch of nice, reasonable people.

Leftists make me sick.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 11:09 AM
119. I don't care if you question the President or the Mayor of Toyko. The scientific consensus disagrees with your partisan faith. You refuse to respond to the science and instead regale us with your obsession with the President and his office.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 11:10 AM
120. It's amazing to me that posters here such as "Matt" constantly use hysteria to push their "climate change" agenda.

What Matt, Jensen, demo kid, want is control. It's why they are leftists. Like so many of the truly unpleasant people we encounter in our lives the left attracts the kind of people who get their jollies telling us how to live.

It certainly explains why very leftist Seattle forces people to wear bicycle helmets.

Are these really the people back in '60's who "just wanted to be free and stuff"?

Or are they just a bunch of grade school hall monitors that loved to push people around?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 11:27 AM
121. The nuanced philosophy of Bill Crunchon:

"filthy crazy people"

"creepy thugs"

"filthy criminals"

"This idiot McGinn"

"The guy is a nut."

"These people make me want to throw up."

"elite left"

"phonies"

"Obama is a 24 karat phony"

"snotty elite liberals"

"They are constantly angry."

"You can't reason with leftists."

"They are tattood and multiply pierced"

"They suck down chai lattes and march off to their yoga classes"

"They walk around glued to their cell phones and I-Pods"

"They are nuttier than fruitcakes."

"They believe Castro's Cuba is preferable to [America]" "Nuts here in Seattle"

"you whine"

"these nuts"

"two liberal nutcases"

"What does it take to wake you nitwits up?"

"Perhaps leftists might be more appreciative if they were sentenced to a couple years in Tudor England or modern Saudi Arabia."

"their heroes such as Che and Castro killed the people that dared to disagree with their politics"

"leftists are a bunch of spoiled crybabies with no sense of history."

"they are nearly always unable to summon the courage to examine their beliefs."

You are a hateful person, Bill Crunchon. You are a political bigot. Go away and let the adults talk.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 11:32 AM
122. Bill, don't forget that if you do choose to provide him with evidence of your claims it will always be from a "biased" source and therefore not valid.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 1, 2009 11:32 AM
123. Mark, which bigoted comment of Bill's do you agree with most:

"their heroes such as Che and Castro"

or

"Perhaps leftists might be more appreciative if they were sentenced to a couple years in Tudor England or modern Saudi Arabia."

And which of these quotes has anything to do with presenting evidence against climate change? Thanks.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 11:38 AM
124. So Jensen can you explain without name calling why considering "scientific consensus" Obama flies with his massive carbon footprint nearly every day?

As I earlier illustrated Michelle Obama already is in Denmark with her huge carbon entourage. Barack will follow soon with an even larger blast of CO2.

It is your responsibility as a leftist to justify this obscene example of phony behavior, John Jensen. No more of your name calling, and your personal insults. Deal with the issue at hand.

Explain this behavior from these people who tell us constantly that we need to change how we live our lives.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 11:40 AM
125. The issue at hand is whether climate change is real. Since it is real, we should have policies that address it. That is the topic of this thread. I have substantially proven my position, and cited three unbiased sources in post #111.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 11:47 AM
126. Jensen you have not defended the behavior of the President and his wife. They spew carbon at a rate unprecendented in the modern history of world leadership, and lecture us about how we need to live our lives.

That's the question you should be addressing, instead of resorting to the usual tactic liberals are so fond of, deflecting the conversation.

There is such a thing of technology. Obama could address the Olympic Committee via teleconferencing and you know it. Wouldn't that send a great example if he was really concerned about climate change?

Nah, he doesn't care in the least about his own "carbon footprint" but he loves to tell us we "need" to ride bicycles and take public transit.

Is this kind of nonsense impossible for you to figure out?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 12:00 PM
127. Jensen you have not defended the behavior of the President and his wife. They spew carbon at a rate unprecedented in the modern history of world leadership, and lecture us about how we need to live our lives.

That's the question you should be addressing, instead of resorting to the usual tactic liberals are so fond of, deflecting the conversation.

There is such a thing of technology. Obama could address the Olympic Committee via teleconferencing and you know it. Wouldn't that send a great example if he was really concerned about climate change?

Nah, he doesn't care in the least about his own "carbon footprint" but he loves to tell us we "need" to ride bicycles and take public transit.

Is this kind of nonsense impossible for you to figure out?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 12:01 PM
128. You are obsessed with the President and his wife. I have no defense for them. I am more interested in science and policy.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 12:04 PM
129. #125 "The issue at hand is whether climate change is real. "

Climate change?

Of course it is. Always has been, John. Only now people think think they can stop it.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 12:15 PM
130. Gary, about the the scientific consensus I posted in #111?

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 12:23 PM
131. #130 What about it?

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 12:26 PM
132. Thanks.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 12:29 PM
133. Of course you can't defend the massive carbon emissions of Obama and his wife.

It's an obvious embarrasment to you John Jensen. And more to the point this is the man you elected and as you say, you cannot defend them.

What you should do is honestly ask yourself, if you are a decent man, what kind of people these people are.

You mock me for saying Mayoral Candidate McGinn is an "idiot". Perhaps that language was too strong. However, what would you call someone who advocates tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and turning our waterfront into a congested boulevard?

You don't think the Viaduct can be retro-fitted?

Of course you don't because you live in the liberal universe that immediatly says "can't"

You people are against any oil drilling. Most of your fellow leftists are against nuclear power. You people are against mining. The Grand Coulee, Hoover, and other dams which our much smarter ancestors built to supply clean power and irrigation to so much of the west would have been blocked by leftists. I expect Jensen that you don't have a clue about any of this. You are likely a crybaby that doesn't have the slightest idea why you have a pampered life.

You people call yourselves "progressives" but you are against any progress.

You are mean, nasty, hateful people. I know. I am ashamed that I was one of you.

Perhaps John Jensen can tell us what sort of world he envisions. I'd be willing to say it isn't a world without cell phones, cars and trucks, and food from everywhere in the world capitalism as made possible.

Liberals make me sick.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 12:36 PM
134. The inanity of it all. It's simply the end of the road for CO2 and the alleged consensus of a warming world. The back and forth bickering straw-man arguments about vegans and tumors won't change the fact that key underlying science for the alleged consensus has been discredited.

It will take a bit for a head of steam to build up to the point where this can't be conveniently ignored by those with an Alarmist agenda. But the damage to the Alarmist credibility has been done.

This is too big of a story for even the mainstream journalists to ignore. Once of them will see the glory of the story, and the avalanche will begin.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 1, 2009 01:03 PM
135. Of course you can't defend the massive carbon emissions of Obama and his wife. It's an obvious embarrasment to you John Jensen. And more to the point this is the man you elected and as you say, you cannot defend them.

False. I recognize it as a pathetic distraction.

You don't think the Viaduct can be retro-fitted? Of course you don't because you live in the liberal universe that immediatly says "can't"

I cited a WSDOT paper which says that an independent contractor determined it would cost nearly as much as a rebuild or another option, and still not be safe against earthquakes. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

However, what would you call someone who advocates tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and turning our waterfront into a congested boulevard?

A person who has an opinion on transportation that differs with you. There are studies (from private contractors) regarding the option you talk about. It increased travel time by five minutes in the worst case, and improved travel times for others.

You are likely a crybaby that doesn't have the slightest idea why you have a pampered life.

And I need to move beyond the name calling? You're a political bigot, Bill.

What pampered life did I have, Bill? Was it the four years I spent in poverty as a child? The foster care system? Running my own small business online to help pay my way through college?

You are mean, nasty, hateful people. I know. I am ashamed that I was one of you.

You're a hateful bigot now. You probably were one when you identified as a liberal too. The common denominator is you. Stop projecting.

Liberals make me sick.

Because you're a political bigot (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices).

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 01:04 PM
136. Jeff, The inanity of it all. It's simply the end of the road for CO2 and the alleged consensus of a warming world. The back and forth bickering straw-man arguments about vegans and tumors won't change the fact that key underlying science for the alleged consensus has been discredited.

You are wrong, as I made the case in #111. Don't just make accusations. Cite your sources that discredit the scientific consensus which I have proved.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 01:06 PM
137. Watch for it, folks. Will Jensen respond with reasoned commentary? Or will he resort to personal attacks?

I don't wish to paint liberals with a broad brush. However, I grew up with liberals in the 1960's and '70's. I know how they behave nearly without exception. The are mean, judgemental, and relentlessly angry.

Observe the postings here from John Jensen and demo kid. Do they respond to the actual political argument? No, they play the Saul Alinsky game and attack someone that disagrees in the most personal way. It's why I genuinely dislike these people.

It's why they dislike me. I know who they are. And I know what they are.

I was a nasty little liberal back in the '60's. I couldn't stand anyone who disagreed with me. How is that for tolerance?

My grandparents were Republicans. When I think back now I realize they were wonderful, caring people who gave their time and money to charitable causes such as Children's Hospital,(It was called Childrens's Orthopedic back then and my grandmother was a member of their charitable guild). I was so caught up in radical liberalism at the time that I simply hadn't a clue. I thought my grandparents were evil capitalists.

I know now that I was wrong.

Perhaps some of my reflections will have some effect upon the John Jensens of the world.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 01:14 PM
138. Bill C, I don't wish to paint liberals with a broad brush.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 01:33 PM
139. Jeff B.

Leftists alarmists want global warming or "climate change" or whatever they will call it next week to exist in the minds of the public that gets their news from the New York Times, NBC, and PBS.

Leftists run the media. They run public education and indoctrinate children. Why else would my 9-year old neice belive that "Sarah Palin shoots wolves"?

It's what these truly horrid people have been doing for years and years.

It's indoctrination. It's brainwashing. It is what the left has done throughout history.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 01:43 PM
140. This is the best example of how liberals respond to intelligent discussion.

John Jensen says, "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Does this kind of behavior not illustrate what I say over and over about the left?

It's the way they behave over and over. They are not the people we want to be in charge of anything.

Go on any leftist blog...Horesesass, the Huffington Post,Move on .org, it really doesn't matter. They are filled with vile, obscene disgusting posts.

Any decent person cannot stand a minute of reading what these nasty leftists post all day long.

Yes there is a reason leftists hate me.

I expose what rotten people they are and it drives them nuts.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 02:15 PM
141. Bill Cruchon, acting as if you've engaged in intelligent discussion is a joke. You've spent your time split between making bigoted comments about liberals and attacking the President.

Go away, Bill.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 02:32 PM
142. Actually, I think Bill and I are defending ourselves with regards to the President. Like I've said, I don't give a damn what he does as long as he's not telling me to do without something that he is unwilling to do without. Like food.

Just pushing back against the man who works for me.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 02:52 PM
143. Carbon market crashing. That's what you get when you invest in... in nothing. Was $7 a ton (unreal) and now it's less than 10 cents a ton. Does that mean that buyers actually expect a ton of carbon to removed from the atmosphere for a dime?

And people think I'm un-scientific.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 03:17 PM
144. So in the face of all scientific evidence showing that climate change is real and could cause great harm, we should do nothing to fix it until world leaders decide that they no longer need motorcades, immense security, or air travel?

I'd very much prefer if Air Force One was electric and powered by solar panels, but that's not where technology is right now. If there were more efficient airplanes, as the market pressures from a cap-and-trade system would create, then even future Presidents would have a cleaner way of getting around.

The idea that conservation is the fix -- which is what you are saying -- is not true. We will not reduce CO2 emissions by charitable conservation from the President or anyone else. Instead, there should be a profit motive for conservation. That is exactly what a cap-and-trade system does. We've already realized that buying CFL light bulbs are cheaper and greener.

The same laws that would apply to us would apply to the President. Even after cap-and-trade, people will have airplanes and they will fly places. It is not the role of the government to make moral conclusions about our actions -- we cannot say it is morally wrong to drive a lot or fly places -- but it is the role of the government to protect our environment and our planet. So let's make those car trips and plane trips more efficient, more sustainable, and less dependent on foreign oil.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 03:31 PM
145. What the last 2000 years looks like with all of the tree ring data parsed:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/yamal-hantemirov-shiyatov-0_2000_full.png

Flat. No hockey stick. No unprecedented warming.
So what are we all getting our panties twisted up about? I can almost understand why most scientists would jump on the AGW bandwagon if they had confidence in the Hockey Stick. But with *no* warming... what are they gonna do now?

What do you think about this, Matt? What if your wife's MRI showed *no* tumor, and yet some crazy uncle, insisted she must have one? You gonna tear her brain apart anyway?

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 03:34 PM
146. #144 "So in the face of all scientific evidence showing that climate change is real..."

I don't need scientific evidence to know that climate change is real, John.

"world leaders decide that they no longer need motorcades"

For the Olympics? Why not pick up the phone? They invented transatlantic telephony a long time ago.

I mean... if it's such a crisis. Otherwise, I don't care.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 03:40 PM
147. Gary, you said yourself that there has always been climate change. Yet now you present a piece of evidence that contradicts your own past statements. One piece of evidence, of course, and you've concluded that the overwhelming consensus I described in post #111 is meaningless.

Here's other data you ignore. Just like you ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus. You are not man a science, but a man of blind faith.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 03:42 PM
148. Gary, For the Olympics? Why not pick up the phone?

Leaders from each of the countries are attending. Since the Olympics brings a lot of money to the host country, it's in our interest not to give away the competitive advantage to other countries who have their leaders appearing in person.

But I'm glad you care about the environment when it gives you a chance to attack Obama.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 03:47 PM
149.
John, I'm mostly not presenting any of this for you. For you, the science is "irrefutable", so I won't attempt to refute it for your sake. Matt might be interested though.

I said the climate has always changed. I didn't say there was any unprecedented global warming in the last century, because there isn't.

April 2006:

"One of the country's leading climate scientists says there is "a good chance" for a "super El Niño" next winter, a powerful warming in the Pacific Ocean linked to wet winters in the Southwest.
In a draft paper circulated to colleagues, NASA climate researcher James Hansen blames global warming for increasing the chance of extreme El Niños."

There was not a "super el nino".


Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 03:51 PM
150. #148 Money? I thought we were in a CO2 crisis! I will repeat myself. I don't care where he goes. But the hypocrisy is stunning. So, he thinks the Olympics are more important than global warming?

He does not believe in global warming any more than I do. He doesn't, John. None of the policy makers do. They just haven't figured out a way to tax the Sun.

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 04:01 PM
151. Let me put it another way, John.

I don't think Obama's travel harms the planet.

You do think Obama's travel harms the planet.

So why aren't you calling the White House instead of arguing with me? I'm just sitting here spewing no artificial CO2.


Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 04:09 PM
152. Here is a reasonable, thoughtful response from a liberal:

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Immature crybabies? I think it is fairly easy to judge them. Just look how they end up acting.

Do we want them to be in charge?

I think not.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 04:10 PM
153. Obama just took of for Copenhagen. His wife is already there.

Then there are the helicopters, limos, and the carbon spewing masses they bring with them.

I am sick to death of liberals lecturing me about the way I live my life.

I am sick of liberals such as John Jensen simply ignoring the massive carbon footprint of the President he voted for and telling me I have to take public transit. Obama has generated a larger "carbon footprint" in his few months in office than I have in my entire life.

Jensen can't rationally discuss this obvious hypocrisy so instead he calls names. It's what the left always does.

Do the John Jensens of the world ever have a moment of honest reflection?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 04:27 PM
154. If my wife's MRI showed no tumor then I would not have a poll that shows 97% of practicing brain surgeons agreeing that she has a brain tumor and we need to operate now.

Like I said, you deniers can pull out random out-of-context data and so-and-so scientist who studies insect mating habits but I assure you that actively researching climatologists have seen all the data (hint, it's what they do all day) and 97% have come to the conclusion that global warming is real and we need to act now.

James Hansen is part of the 3% that don't believe it. That's fine it's a free country. This is also normal in science to not have 100% agreement on something. I can find you a few "experts" that will tell you the Holocaust didn't happen either. If you really need to know, James Hansen also has past ties to the oil industry as well. That's still besides the point.

I would just feel sorry for your spouse or child if you believed the 3% of experts in the field of brain tumors that weren't sure if he/she had one or not while 97% said you need to act now.

Don't label me some nut, that's really uncalled for. I'm just presenting the facts and relating them in a way that may be more easy for people to understand. You listen to the experts when you go out looking for a new car, etc... but somehow you throw their advice out the window when it comes to global warming? How convenient.

Posted by: Matt on October 1, 2009 04:29 PM
155. John,

Go read every single post at WUWT. It will take you a while, but you might learn something different from what you think is consensus. There are a multitude of real scientists, research papers, different sources in government, academia and private citizens all who present evidence of other factors that cause climate that are completely beyond human control. Further, there are a multitude of other very plausible scenarios for why certain climate events occur that refute what you call consensus and those are all listed as well.

Lastly, there are plenty of other papers, research and empirical studies, links, etc. which disprove the consensus of those in the UN's IPCC.

It's all there if you want to read it, and at WUWT, you won't find the systematic omissions, cherry picked data, and comment suppression that plagues the Alarmist sites where the fundamental mission is to advance a narrative rather than to simply present science. If the consensus is so good, then why do Alarmist sites delete comments that challenge their views? But that's not a problem either as there are now sites that are aggregating the deleted comments so that inquiring minds like yours can compare what was deleted or redacted. It's very telling of a narrative when you see what was omitted.

I doubt you will have the guts to go and read all of that, but I've read almost everything on the site, and I have posted that and references contained therein hundreds of times here at SP as my sources. Further, like many Progressives you will find in the comments at WUWT, I've compared the WUWT science with the at the Alarmists sites. To those who place science above politics, it's no contest as to which side is more credible.

The onus is on you. Go find out, you just might find out that party gospel gets you nowhere.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 1, 2009 04:29 PM
156. #154 "James Hansen is part of the 3% that don't believe it. "

WHAT????

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 04:44 PM
157. Jeff B,

No. I am not going to read every post at WUWT. I cited three sources in a concise fashion -- and if you can't do that then why should I waste my time? Each of sources I cited illustrated the overwhelming scientific consensus. The debate, for me, is over. The exact magnitude of the problem is still unclear, but there is no doubt the scientific consensus is that human activities are affecting the climate and will continue to do so unless we take action.

Bill C, Do the John Jensens of the world ever have a moment of honest reflection?

You are a political bigot. Go away.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 04:55 PM
158. I don't care if Obama and his wife fly all over the world every single day. I don't lecture others about how they live their lives. The Obamas and John Jensen do it constantly. Then they demonstrate what complete hypocrites they are.

What I do care about is the way Obama lectures us over and over about how the "planet is in peril" and proceeds to act as if he couldn't care in the least.

Come on! Did he need to send his wife to Copenhagen and then seperately fly his huge entourage there tonight? No massive carbon footprint there.

Can John Jensen defend this? The guy who tells us we "need" to bicycle, take the bus, and walk to work when your hero Obama is in the air in carbon spewing airplanes nearly every day?

I just get sick to death of these complete phonies. That's what you are Jensen. A phony leftist that doesn't have a bloody clue.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 04:56 PM
159. What does John Jensen do when he cannot respond?

He posts, "You are a political bigot. Go away"

Does this say nearly everything about the intolerant left?

When leftists cannot respond to honest discussion they always respond in this manner.

I'm surprised Jensen didn't call me a racist. It's really pathetic, isn't it?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 05:07 PM
160. Bill C, The Obamas and John Jensen do it constantly

When have I lectured anyone in this thread? I don't care how people live their lives.

The guy who tells us we "need" to bicycle, take the bus, and walk to work

No one has said that. You're making crap up.

I just get sick to death of these complete phonies. That's what you are Jensen.

And you're a pathetic bigot. Go away, Bill. Spread your hate somewhere else.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 05:08 PM
161. Bill C, Does this say nearly everything about the intolerant left?

Let's go over your tolerance again:

"filthy crazy people"

"creepy thugs"

"filthy criminals"

"This idiot McGinn"

"The guy is a nut."

"These people make me want to throw up."

"elite left"

"phonies"

"Obama is a 24 karat phony"

"snotty elite liberals"

"They are constantly angry."

"You can't reason with leftists."

"They are tattood and multiply pierced"

"They suck down chai lattes and march off to their yoga classes"

"They walk around glued to their cell phones and I-Pods"

"They are nuttier than fruitcakes."

"They believe Castro's Cuba is preferable to [America]" "Nuts here in Seattle"

"you whine"

"these nuts"

"two liberal nutcases"

"What does it take to wake you nitwits up?"

"Perhaps leftists might be more appreciative if they were sentenced to a couple years in Tudor England or modern Saudi Arabia."

"their heroes such as Che and Castro killed the people that dared to disagree with their politics"

"leftists are a bunch of spoiled crybabies with no sense of history."

"they are nearly always unable to summon the courage to examine their beliefs."

And let's add some new entries!

"Liberals make me sick."

"You are mean, nasty, hateful people"

"You are likely a crybaby that doesn't have the slightest idea why you have a pampered life."

"you don't have a clue about any of this"

"It's why I genuinely dislike these people."

"The are mean, judgemental, and relentlessly angry."

"truly horrid people"

"It's indoctrination. It's brainwashing. It is what the left has done throughout history."

"I expose what rotten people they are and it drives them nuts."

"Immature crybabies"

"I just get sick to death of these complete phonies. That's what you are Jensen. A phony leftist that doesn't have a bloody clue."

You're a political bigot, Bill. Go spread your hate somewhere else. Go away.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 05:16 PM
162. That's the whole problem John. You are content with three concise sources. That's the same reason why you believe in consensus. Consensus comes from a single place or a few places. The reality is that the totality of the science against AGW comes from a lot of places. You don't want to read all that, so you will go on with your false notion that a few concise locations justifies a consensus. Science is never a consensus. It only takes one good new piece of science and evidence to bring the consensus crashing down.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 1, 2009 05:48 PM
163. "You're a political bigot, Bill. Go spread your hate somewhere else. Go away"

Classic liberalism.

What do liberals do when they cannot refute an honest argument? They call you a "bigot" and tell you to "go away".

Anyone who reads this thread can observe the intolerance of John Jensen.

He's a paid Democratic Party worker, I can nearly guarantee it.

Can one possibly verify it? No. He uses a silly, untraceable e-mail address.

John Jensen is paid by the Democrat Party to post here.

He's paid to call conservatives names such as a "pathetic bigot".

This is how the Democrats operate. Jensen will never tell us who he really is or where he lives. I don't have any problem doing either.

Jensen is a total phony who works for the Democrats.

I have seen this pattern over and over. It isn't that hard to figure out.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 05:55 PM
164. Matt,

Which scientist got the last 7 year cooling trend correct? And why did the IPCC get it wrong?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 1, 2009 06:19 PM
165. And poof! Jensen disappears. Honestly, I could care less what a fake poster such as Jensen calls me.

"pathetic bigot", "go away".
The comments Jensen makes merely confirms what I say over and over about the left.

They are generally unpleasant intollerant, people. My goodness, any reasonable person must have observed how the left and their obediant media ripped Sarah Palin apart last fall. Good heavens, the leftist media flew into Alaska in a feeding frenzy. They hate this accomplished woman who dares to oppose killing unborn children. That's what it's about about and why they hate her.

Imagine hating a nice women who doesn't want us to kill innocent unborn children.

Does that tell you something about the left?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 06:21 PM
166. I should have said nice woman. In any case John Jensen will likely defend the left's obsession with killing unborn children.

Has anyone ever gone up to a pregnant woman and said "gosh, that is a nice fetus"?

Of course they don't. Even leftists recognize that it is a baby. A human life. What in the world is wrong with these poeple?

It makes me ill that leftists celebrate killing unborn children. And it tells me so much about them. Are they nice, decent people? Or are they monsters? Decent people would advocate for unwanted children to be adopted. They would not want them killed as a matter of convenience.

Does this issue make it plain what the difference is between the right and the left?

It surely ought to.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 06:44 PM
167. Has John Jensen ventured even one comment where he justifies the Obamas flying to Denmark in separate aircraft spewing a carbon footprint most of us will never emit in our entire lives?

Oh heck no he won't. Jensen wants to lecture us about how we should ride bicycles to work in the miserable Seattle winter. He could care less that his political hero flies in a carbon emitting airplane nearly every day.

Jensen is a phony Democrat Party operative.

That's who he is. He does what all Democrats do. They name call. Look at his comments, I have no reason to make any of it up.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 07:12 PM
168. What do we see?

Simply nothing from John Jensen.

Ok, he might have an actual life and not be sitting in from of the computer all day.

I don't buy it. Jensen is obsssed with Democratic politics.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 07:24 PM
169. Is there a reason we don't hear from Jensen?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2009 07:31 PM
170. Shanghai Dan, the fact that you look at 7 year's worth of data to conclude that global warming isn't happening shows that you have no idea how climate change is researched. Here's the graph you're referring to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

OK, now circle the area where the cooling trend appeared. You can probably use Microsoft Paint or Adobe Photoshop if you want and please post it here to show everyone.

Again, you're never going to win an argument against 97% of the experts in this field. They spend their lives studying this stuff. Please take a statistics class or learn more about Climatology and why a 7-8 year trend means nothing. Better yet, just look at the graph I posted (from NASA) to see why a 7-8 year sample means nothing by itself.

Posted by: Matt on October 1, 2009 07:37 PM
171. #154 "James Hansen is part of the 3% that don't believe it. That's fine it's a free country. This is also normal in science to not have 100% agreement on something. I can find you a few "experts" that will tell you the Holocaust didn't happen either. If you really need to know, James Hansen also has past ties to the oil industry as well. That's still besides the point."

-

What the heck are you talking about?

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 07:53 PM
172. > WHAT????
Oops, I mixed up Hansen (one of the 97%) with another scientist (global warming skeptic) I had read about. Disregard my comment on him and it doesn't change any points I've made about the polling of scientist.

Posted by: matt on October 1, 2009 08:01 PM
173. Matt,

And where did I say that global warming isn't happening? NO WHERE. But you read what you want to read...

What I did point out was that ONE SCIENTIST at least got it right - that we'd have heating until the end of the millennium, then it would cool down. And so far, that's what is happening.

Why should we listen to the IPCC or their favorite scientists when they got it wrong? Why not listen to Dr. Easterbrook who got it right?

There's no denying that things are getting warmer in general, Matt; that's the straw man you love to build up so you can tear it down. Rather, if you were scientifically honest, and really interested in what's going on, you'd look at the FACT that Dr. Easterbrook's model is tracking quite nicely, and that the IPCC's model is getting further and further off.

Which means, which model should we use to "predict" what will happen in the future? Dr. Easterbrook's or the IPCCs? Consensus be damned; I'll take accuracy any day.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 1, 2009 08:01 PM
174. I'll say it again, you go ahead and believe the 3% of brain surgeons that think your spouse/child DOESN'T have a tumor. That's your call.

You're arguing that these 3% have got it right and there's going to be some big revelation that the other 97% are wrong. It's your choice to believe that but don't get on my case for siding with an overwhelming majority. Last time I went to Vegas with your odds I didn't come home with much money.

Again, an 8 year trend does NOT does not mean much in the world of climatology. One little blip in a large graph doesn't show much. The graph I posted from NASA shows that. If Easterbrook was really onto something don't you think the numbers of climatologists for & against wouldn't be so polarized?

Posted by: Matt on October 1, 2009 08:43 PM
175. Dan, I think the deal is that you and I aren't "joiners". We kinda think more independently. They just don't get that we're not impressed with "scientific consensus" or 97% of some number. That means absolutely nothing.

So, Matt, your Mann is wrong. Your Hansen is wrong. Your IPCC is wrong. Easterbrook is right, but it's 3 to 1, so you'll stick with the three who are wrong.

Gotcha. So Matt, was the 20th century the warmest of the last 20 centuries?

Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 09:06 PM
176. If Matt is so keen on larger percentages, then he should ask why Briffa would cherry pick a smaller subset of tree ring cores that gave him the results that form the other bottom card in the AGW house of cards.

He could have used all of the datasets, but there would have been no warming spike. If Mann and Briffa had not cherrypicked such a limited sets there never would have been a fake late 20th century spike. And there never would have been a famous slide for Gore to base his fear preso upon.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 1, 2009 11:03 PM
177. #176 Exactly, Jeff. Which is why I ask, what is everybody worried about now? They were worried because the last century had shown such an un-precedented spike in temps, but now it's been shown to have not happened.

So why are they still worried?

So, Matt. Why did they use such a small sample, and only those that would create the famous Hockey Stick? As with the carbon market, people act as herds sometimes. Now we'll see even more scientists joining the skeptics side.

That reminds me of a joke Dennis Miller told the other day.

"How do you get 150 Canadians out of a pool in under one minute? Say, 'Please get out of the pool'".

Get it? Ah, I crack myself up. As for those saying the climate has never changed so fast, therefore it must be Man's doing, ponder this:

'It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.'

President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.


Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 05:27 AM
178. Uh-oh! We don't have until 2016 like the Tokyo mayor says! We only 2 months left! Remember what Prince Charles said:

"We have 18 months left to halt global warming." (May, 2008)

Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 07:33 AM
179. Barack, and Michelle, and Oprah's great "sacrifice" was rewarded with failure. Chicago is out. I guess the whole world doesn't love us now after all, even after he trashed his country every time he opens his mouth. Hey, maybe they decided against it because they believe him when he says what an evil the place the United States is.

Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 07:46 AM
180. If you're going to cherry-pick certain quotes from scientists you're not "proving" anything. Climatology is about very long trends not soundbites or small 8-year blips on a graph. Science is never 100% agreement on something.

You guys are seriously arguing about an 8 year blip on this graph?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Have you actually looked at this graph? That's why I asked Shanghai Dan to circle the area that you're debating. I ask anyone else to do the same. You want everyone to throw all their eggs into the 3% basket of scientists who disbelieve a human cause to global warming. Your argument is based on a 8 year span on this graph.

None of us on this silly blog are experts. We can throw around numbers & quotes all day. We can use gotcha's here & there until the cows come home. Here's the deal. When I buy a car I go to the experts. When I have a medical condition I go to the experts. I don't live my life questioning the 97% of experts who spend their lives studying something. There's that 3% chance they're wrong. It would be great for all of us if they were. But why is it so hard to accept a 97% consensus on something?

Here's the deal. If you're right, why are you up against a consensus of 97% of actively publishing climatologists? Look at the poll results I posted earlier and see similarly high percentages of other groups of scientists. If you're so right, why doesn't your minimal data change their mind?

Posted by: Matt on October 2, 2009 08:17 AM
181. Matt, you don't get it... Dan and I don't care about polls.

Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 08:25 AM
182. Just why exactly should we listen to someone posting as "Matt" who lists an e-mail address as "bobsmith1324@yahoo.com"?

Perhaps "Matt" can justify why Michelle and Barack Obama needed to fly to Copenhagen seperately despite the "97% of actively publishing climatologists".

Do the Obamas actually care about "climate change"? They sure behave like committed environmentalists, don't they?

Of course they don't. They know it is a huge leftist scam designed to take away people's liberty. Mmm, mmm, mmm.

In just a few months the Obamas have created a larger carbon footprint than most Americans generate in a lifetime.

Do they set an example?

No, they fly seperately to Denmark blowing huge holes in the ozone.

Then leftists tell us we all need to ride bicycles to work in the miserable Seattle rain. They build light rail without any provisions for parking so they can force us to live the way they want us to.

That's why Seattle will elect McGinn, another out of shape, middle aged, plump doughboy who will lecture us how to live our lives while he rides around in a limo "for security".

I get mocked for exposing what a bunch of controlling hypocrites these people actually are.

Do I have to make any of this up? It's all out there for any reasonable person to see.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2009 09:06 AM
183. So Matt, go to WUWT and read the experts. For example, Dr. Svensmark is the preeminent expert on x-rays, cloud cover and their interaction with the Sun. We are at a century low solar minimum, and that has proven to have a large impact on x-rays, which in turn has had a large impact on global cloud cover. This has caused major empirical climate fluctuation that has nothing to do with humans.

There are plenty of experts you can go read. Have you done so?

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 2, 2009 09:18 AM
184. The President flew over there, and made this the top news in the country, without even having a deal in hand. Astonishing. Even Al Gore said he better not come back without it or he'll look like a fool.

But I'm sure he'll handle Iran, China, and Russia much better.

God help us.

Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 09:18 AM
185. I've been hearing on the news that "everyone" thought Chicago would get the Olympics. How could
"everyone" be wrong? Isn't that a consensus? Not only was "everyone" wrong, but it was not even close. Chicago got the least amount of votes.

I don't live by polls.

Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 10:09 AM
186. Gary, you're obsessed with Obama.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 2, 2009 04:56 PM
187.
#186. He is kind of in the news every single damn day. Does he ever stay in the White House and do stuff, or must he always be on TV... always be on the international stage? We can't get away from him, John.


Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 05:50 PM
188. Krugman is a fascist who believes that people who speak out against climate fraud and hysteria are treasonous. All hail to Paul the All Knowing.
What a pompous windbag. The Nobel equivalent of Glen Beck (without the tears so far).

Posted by: David44 on October 2, 2009 11:45 PM
189. Matt,

Have you seen what Dr. Easterbrook predicts for the future? Have you? If so, please answer: is the climate going to be hotter or colder in the second half of this century, according to Dr. Easterbrook.

The FACT that he got the last 30 years right - INCLUDING the current cooling trend - should indicate that maybe his model is right, and all the other models are wrong.

And the FACT that Dr. Easterbrook has be completely transparent and open with his source data and methodology means he's working within the scientific method, unlike most of the IPCC models used.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 3, 2009 07:16 AM
190. #189 Yes, but Dan... since 97% of the other models are wrong, then they must be be right. (it was hard to type that. I lost some IQ.)

Posted by: Gary on October 3, 2009 07:43 AM
191. Gary,

Yep, it's all about "consensus"... I wish my E/M classes were consensus, since 80% of us bombed our mid-terms! Maybe the professor and textbook were wrong, since the vast majority of the class said otherwise!

But then again, we had to show our work, so maybe that's why our consensus didn't count. We didn't hide our data or processes. Secrets breed consensus, perhaps?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 3, 2009 11:57 AM
192. Consensus is a weasel word. Usually used by Dilbert Boss managers and other politically correct types who are crafting mission statements or sweeping UN policy statements. If you look in to the actual science and statements of actual reviewers of the IPCC drafts, you find there's nothing even approaching the so called, consensus on AGW. They figure if they repeat it often enough, it will be true. But there are plenty of dissenting scientists who speak out directly against the UN IPCC statements which they were privy to for review and comment. It's only a few at the top who are in lockstep.

Too many aveage joes, meteorologists, scientists, academics and even politicians are fed up with such BS. The whole damn house of cards was based on a couple trees. And the assumption is that trees are thermometers, when they are really data loggers for a generic sampling of nutrients, water, sunlight, temperature, fire and any other item in their environment. Temperature is but one of many variables that affect tree growth.

This whole house of cards is coming tumbling down upon these Alarmist fools. And they are fools. If you are going to base a scam on faulty data, you'd want to do a much better job of hiding the whole thing.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 3, 2009 01:06 PM
193. By the way, John, we can't do nuclear because Obama's Science Czar (Holdren) says that nuclear power causes global warming. He also worried in the 1970's that it was going to get so cold, that Antarctica would "slump" from its weight, and cause a massive world-wide tidal wave.

But who am I to argue? He's a scientist after all and I'm not.

Posted by: Gary on October 5, 2009 05:54 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?