« Local Government for New Providence – Part 2 | Main | A Season of Demagogues »

November 24, 2009

Comments

minor

all the 9/11 crazies I knew or heard of where left wing but I guess some where on the right.
Like many things in life its a matter of perception which side has more crazies.
PS I am a crazy on some issues according to some people. :)

Stan Thorpe

I've learned that when someone is called crazy, thats means they should be listened to with an open mind -- not dismissed.

The "left wing" and the "right wing" are a two dimensional false paradigm designed to limit public debate.

If you believe right and left are opposites (which they arent) you're going to assume that someone who doesnt like Obama is a fan of Bush and visa versa. Both are puppets. They are two wings of the same bird. Therefore "change" is impossible within the current system.

Rick Lowe

@Erasmus
I asked about Climategate and the actions of those scientists at East Anglia is it?
Care to offer thoughts on their objectivity and results?

Erasmus Folly

Nope. Climate-gate is a blip in an ocean of verified data. It conforms to your ideology, so you latch on to it like a vampire leech. Enjoy, but it doesn't change the reality that we are changing the climate. Don't pee in the wind is true, even if sometimes you don't get wet.

Fran Chicovsky

Folly is your last name.

Are you aware that the climate was hotter during the medieval warm period? Or that its been cooling for the last 10 years?

The climate seems to change with or without SUV's.

Fixing the climate data around the policy for the purpose of a new tax is what we have at East Anglia.

Rick Lowe

@Erasmus:
Here's the phrase by one of the scientists that stuck out to me:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Surely this "hiding the decline" is not science?

I agree that the climate is changing but is there a need to fudge IPCC numbers if the evidence is so clear cut as you suggest?

Erasmus Folly

@Chicovsky

Perhaps you should google Erasmus and Folly together before putting your foot in your mouth like that. The folly is that greed is the only possible motive for denying global warming, so what's your agenda??!

Fran Chicovsky

My agenda?

How about the agenda behind fudging the numbers, discrediting fellow scientists, hiding data, ignoring historical evidence, and the rest?

If that what your name means, it only reveals how incredibly close minded you are.

Sorry if I offended.

Erasmus Folly

Close minded? Erasmus?

There is an ocean of data supporting the position that man made global warming is real. This is a drop in that ocean - one drop. The world's scientists are rarely as united on a point as they are today on global warming. So, yes, again what is your agenda in thinking that you know better than the world's best climatologists? One bad apple, if removed, doesn't spoil the lot.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14966227

Erasmus Folly

And this one:

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14960149

Fran Chicovsky

I use my own discernment to come to my conclusions.

I know that its been hotter in earth's history (the warm period you ignore) . Climatology isnt needed for that (and if it was there are no shortage of scientists that agree with me).

I know there's an agenda behind the scientists that were caught lying about the data. Do you know what that agenda is?

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill..."[*] Club of Rome

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."[*] Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment


Fran Chicovsky

A quick idiot’s guide to why Climategate does matter.

1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.

2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.

3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.

4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?

larry smith

From a Dec 3 editorial in the journal Nature:

"A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

"Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence."

Fran Chicovsky

lol. "nothing to see here, move along".

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Oh well. I guess we're free to believe what we want. Even if its wrong.

Best of luck.

Erasmus Folly

It is only one set of data out of countless sets. Debating this with people like you is fruitless, because you neither respect science nor do you really care or want to be objective. You all do the same thing, latch on like vampires to the tiniest tendrils of 'fact', even if those 'facts' are drowned out by an ocean of overwhelmingly conclusive data to the contrary. You people are wastes of everyone's time. Whatever your agenda, preach it elsewhere please. This country is too close to sea level to listen to foolish opinions from people with silly agendas. Be a part of the solution or get out of the way.

The sheer arrogance it requires to believe that one knows better than more than 90% of the earth's climate scientists is dumbfounding and it is everything that is wrong with humanity. The arrogance of opinion makers to ignore science conveniently. You might as well deny Darwin and Galileo while you are at it.

Enjoy living in silly land with silly thoughts. i just hope that something comes out of Copenhagen because otherwise, the world is in for some serious weather and me getting to say, I told you so, just want make up for it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

Welcome

  • Bahama Pundit is a group weblog that publishes the work of top Bahamian commentators. We welcome your feedback. You may link to this site but no material may be reproduced without permission.

Email this blog

Global Village

  • Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?

Site Meter

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2005

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner