Global Warming

2949 Responses




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.


2,949 responses to “Global Warming”

  1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

    Autumn

    http://www.windside.com

    21st Century technology… far more efficeint than those 17th Century models most people think of. Also quiet and 100% bird safe.

    Of course there is fusion nuclear power, but the “free market” won’t allow for it, because fusion power would render all the coal, oil, and natural gas obsolete. Powerful people own the mineral rights to the same, and they surely don’t want them to become worthless. Also, fusion power is limitless, and in the supply and demand based market, unlimited supply kills profits… unacceptable to the greed that rules Society.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4

    1. Tucci78

      Stefan, have you got any references to the viability of fusion technology as a commercially exploitable power source? I’m fairly well-plugged-in when it comes to information “pushes” on this and other new energy technologies, and I confess that nothing I’ve seen in the past couple of years indicates that we’re any closer to getting such power plants up and running than had been the case a decade ago.

      Early last year, there were news stories* about the PROMISE of nuclear fusion (and it’s theoretically a very sweet potentiality), but thus far I haven’t seen anything indicating that the research people have been able yet to get a sustained “exo-energetic” process going with any technology approach.

      Of course, the more advanced wind turbines to which you’d referred are not capable of providing a reliable power source for the satisfaction of large-scale industrial, business, and residential needs. Without government subsidization (the economic equivalent of ventilatory life support), even these Windside products and likely follow-on technologies don’t seem to show indications of economic viability as long as people are free to choose other options in the marketplace.

      Though I wouldn’t mind seeing lots of buildings and other structures topped with those pretty twirlies. If they can be made genuinely cost-effective – meaning NO government meddling in the process of getting them up and keeping them operating – the “Invisible Hand” of the free market ought to grab them avidly.

      Oh, yeah. Don’t confuse “the ‘free market’” with what our bipartisan Red/Blue “go along to get along” simulacrum of a legitimate government inflicts upon us.

      You haven’t seen a genuinely free market in all your little life.

      And neither have I, damnit.

      ===
      * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7034945.ece

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8

      1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

        What we have is a condition where the “free market” doesn’t desire fusion, not until the fossil fuels are extracted, sold, and burned… too much money thrown away when super cheap, unlimited power(fusion) is available.

        The corrupt government won’t invest in fusion power either, our government is bought. The government throws money away studying produce and crap (literally) but won’t invest like they once did in the Mercury and Apollo Programs.

        Fusion power is long over due.

        In 1938, our scientists produced the first sustained fission reaction. By 1945 they had perfected the first fission bomb, and by 1954 had produced their first fission reactor used in a submarine for the Navy. Coincidently, scientists exploded their first fusion bomb that year, 1954… but where is the fusion reactor that logically follows?

        Market forces do not want it; and in this nation, money decides what is studied, what is produced, what we have as choices in the free market.

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

        1. Tucci78

          “What we have is a condition where the ‘free market’” simply isn’t free from government meddling.

          Which is why we’re in the present “economic downturn” (properly to be called a depression), with Dubbya having done his Republican idiot Hoover schtick, and Barry Soebarkah now playing FDR on crystal meth to dig us far, far deeper into the hole.

          Under the conditions prevailing since the Federalist Party was formed, the expression “corrupt government” in these United States has been a tautology. When have our governments – especially the federal government – NOT been corrupt?

          The question “where is the fusion reactor that logically follows?” regarding the development of the thermonuclear fusion bomb is an apt one, but you have to bear in mind that the fission process is one which can and does go on naturally out here on the planets of the solar system. That’s one of the reasons why Lord Kelvin’s thermodynamics calculation of the age of our planet proved to be way to hellangone off. The only place within more than a light-year from here where the natural conditions for fusion are amenable to the reaction is that big ball of (mostly) hydrogen 93 million miles toward the bottom of our greatest local gravity well.

          To fuse even the more massive hydrogen isotopes (Fleishmann and Pons notwithstanding), we have to simulate conditions in the heart of the sun, creating a “microclimate” conducive to that reaction, and then the reaction has to be sustained continuously to provide energy output that we can transform ultimately into electrical power.

          Doing it for a tiny, hellacious fraction of a second in a B41 nuclear bomb is one thing. Getting it to happen in even an experimental fusion reactor is something altogether different.

          We’re not at the “Italian navigator has just landed in the new world” stage there yet.

          If it were genuinely economically efficient, “Market forces” are PRECISELY what would bring fusion power generation into commercial operation. The opposition to it (such as there is) is more reliably attributable to what George Bernard Shaw – another hater of the free market – correctly characterized as “Breakages, Limited” in the preface to his play *The Apple Cart* (1928).

          As things stand right now, I’d like to see government all over the world get out of the way of private industry working on more viable safe power generation technologies, including both Thorium-fueled nuclear fission and orbiting solar power satellite systems.

          Neither of these, you’ll note, increase humanity’s “carbon footprint,” so you warmistas ought to be hammering down doors to get ‘em uncorked and working.

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 8

          1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            According to Adam Smith, there can be no free market with corporations, labor unions, or trade associations (guilds), for they subvert natural liberty. Adam Smith was far more reserved about government intervention than the corporatists today who want to eliminate organized labor and government all together.

            Corporations are a throwback to the merchantilism period, where they substituted for government. The American colonies were all corporations… the Mass Bay Company, the New York Company, the Maryland Company, the Virginia Company, the Carolina Company, etc… most were subsidiaries of the West India Trading Company. We only rebelled against England when the King and Parliament refused to reign these corporation in, for they were stealing the fruits of our labors!

            So history does repeat, heh?

            I agree with Adam Smith. Organized capital is as equally harmful to society as organized labor.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3

          2. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            And no, market forces will not bring fusion along, for the wealth is far too concentrated, and those few hands are far too invested in those afore mentioned MINERAL RIGHTS… they want that money and fusion ends fossil fuel consumption, eliminates gauranteed profits from the extraction and burning of THEIR coal, oil, and natural gas.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

          3. Tucci78

            Without government meddling in the form of regulation, there simply can’t be corporations, limited liability legal fictions accorded privileged status as artificial entities.

            Much as there’s credit due for Adam Smith, I’m inclined to more thoroughly value the essays and pamphlets of Frédéric Bastiat, whose commonsense approach to economic sophistries and harmonies made the realities of purposeful human action (and the injuries caused by government degradation and derangement of these processes) even more immediately apprehensible than did his Scots predecessor.

            It was on this lesson of his that American economist Henry Hazlitt based his book *Economics in One Lesson* (1946):

            “In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause – it is seen. The others unfold in succession – they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference: the one takes account only of the visible effect; the other takes account of both the effects which are seen and those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil”

            (“That which is seen and that which is not seen” ["Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas"], 1850)

            »crosslinked«

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7

          4. Tucci78

            Writes Stefan: “…they want that money and fusion ends fossil fuel consumption, eliminates gauranteed profits from the extraction and burning of THEIR coal, oil, and natural gas.”

            Heck, why do you think that the “Good Old Boys” of the Oil Patch have been trying hard to kill fractional perforation and hydraulic fracturing (“frakking”) to profitably extract cheap methane and petroleum from deep, hard-rock shale reservoirs?

            Particularly when the Bakken gets opened up and the increased supply meets our existing and anticipated demand – this AGW fraud now having been disposed of – the prices for natural gas and petroleum distillates is going to drop through the basement.

            NEW “coal, oil, and natural gas” threaten their rice bowls, and they’re pulling every dirty trick they can to stomp it down.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

          5. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Bastiat is a good read, I agree with much of what I have read, particlarly the theory of legal plunder surrounding governments’ theft of property from one group and turning it over to another.

            Yet Adam Smith’s work is very important. Smith was the professor of moral philosophy in Glassgow, not an economist. His two great works, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and Wealth of Nations (1776) {I abbreviated both titles} are critical to understanding capitalism. The man literally devised capitalism to give the average person a fairer life economically, and this is all lost today due to organized capital, organized labor, and cartels.

            Getting rid of organized labor while keeping organized capital leads to fascism.

            Getting rid of organized capital while keeping organized labor leads to communism.

            Getting rid of both allows capitalism to thrive!

            Report this comment

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

          6. Tucci78

            Stefan writes: “…Adam Smith’s work is very important. Smith was the professor of moral philosophy in Glassgow, not an economist.”

            It has to be remembered that Bastiat was writing in the first half of the 19th Century, when Adam Smith’s work in economics (there WASN’T any such academic discipline as “economics” before Adam Smith published *The Wealth of Nations*) was under discussion as very much a current subject.

            Bastiat’s contemporaries included Cobden and Bright (look up the “Anti-Corn Law League” in Britain), and none of these free-market thinkers and opinion leaders were simply recapitulating what Adam Smith had written a couple of generations before.

            It’s horribly inaccurate to say that Adam Smith “…literally devised capitalism to give the average person a fairer life economically” when, in fact, what he did was simply to consciously acknowledge and explicitly EXPLAIN how the voluntary exchange of goods and services – the market economy free from violent coercion to “pick winners” who are politically connected – facilitates the reconciliation between human beings’ material needs and the necessarily finite resources available to bring those goods and services into existence.

            Capitalism as a term in usage, remember, was devised by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels later in the 19th Century as a pejorative by which to describe what everybody else in the Western world was simply calling “the free market.”

            If you want to bad-mouth “the free market,” condemning it for BEING free from government thuggery is precisely what the advocates of government thuggery don’t want to do. Thus we get the term “capitalism,” which did not come into existence until long after Adam Smith was dead.

            Oh, yeah. The “organized capital” of which you speak, Stefan, is actually a tremendous engine for human progress. What you’re really objecting to is POLITICAL POWER intervening violently in peaceable human activities to give unearned and invidious advantage to conspirators who are seeking to thieve away from other people the valuta rightfully theirs.

            The criminal corruption of civil government. That’s not “organized capital.” That’s just government performing its “armed banditti” function, as per Thomas Paine.

            Keep government out of the marketplace – restrict it to the protection instead of the violation of individual human rights and NOTHING ELSE – and “organized capital” can’t do any real damage at all.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6

          7. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Please don’t speak for me, for each time you do, amazingly, somehow, you get it wrong. It isn’t what I believe or think, you can’t read anyone’s mind, so why do that Tucci?

            There is no way in Hell, we can simply get the government out of the way, and miraculously have this free market. Not with all the criminally created wealth concentrations still allowed to exist. The wealthiest people in the world NEVER WORKED FOR OR EARNED that wealth. It was stolen from taxpayers through government corruption as Bastiat lays out in his theory of legal plunder.

            Allowing these enemies of humanity to exist is problamatic in and of itself, but allowing them to keep all that they have stolen, coupled with reducing or eliminating the Peoples’ government; then these thieves are in complete control of everything… rather than the 90% to 95% control they have already.

            Sorry, without addressing the harms and those who are sitting on all that stolen wealth, makes our situation WORSE, not better.

            Also. I stand by my remarks about Smith’s aims behind creating capitalism. The proof is in his FIRST book, which all the FREE MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS always ignore or deny!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8

  2. Autumn

    A question I want to ask, and have never seen addressed anywhere, is the following:

    Why must we all assume we only have two options when it comes to new sources of energy? We’re all being told (and buying into) the premise that we can only get energy from destroying the planet with fossil fuels, nuclear power, and hydroelectric dams – or we must raise the cost of world food prices with biodiesel made from corn or soy.

    What about solar panels? What about wind turbines? What about geothermal energy? What about blue-green algae? We have other options.

    Why can’t we place wind turbines in the areas of the country where they will be most effective, solar panels in the southwest, geothermal wells in new england, etc? There’s no one way out, no silver bullet. I know that. But it’s a start.

    Someone give me an answer as to why these options aren’t an answer? Why can’t we clear the way for private and public investors alike to put their money in these technologies? We could solve the energy crisis and create millions of jobs with the same dollars.

    People really ought to watch the special “Earth 2100″ that was showing on History Channel last night.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

    1. Tucci78

      Well, I suppose the answer to why wind turbines and solar panels and blue-green algae can’t ever make a significant contribution to fulfilling the needs of a high-population industrial civilization is (in three words): “insufficient energy density.”

      It’s simply impossible to gain from those modalities the high levels of electrical energy consistently needed to keep a modern (or anticipatable future) division-of-labor technological economy functioning. Those screeching and impossible-to-keep-running bird-manglers in particular are even less of a practicability than are the solar photovoltaic panel arrays, which cannot even recoup the costs in materials, deployment, and operation required to get them out and keep them operating.

      Interestingly enough, in those few places where large solar power arrays MIGHT be even marginally valuable – like California’s Mojave Desert, in a state where the need for electrical generation capacity is desperate – Senator Dianne Feinstein (“Liberal” fascist faction, Boot-On-Your-Neck Party) has adamantly blocked construction.

      She doesn’t want those sunpower harvesting arrays to “spoil the environment.”

      Geothermal energy , like tidal energy systems and orbital solar power satellites, are not yet mature technologies, despite the fact that solar powersats (SPS) – by far the most promising of the three – have been within America’s technological ability to build and operate for more than a generation.

      What has to be understood is that the political opposition to ALL forms of power generation is profound on both sides of our permanent ingrown institutional incumbent kleptocracy. The industries operating around petrochemical combustion fuels – coal and crude oil and natural gas – are “legacy” concerns in the U.S. political economy, with great numbers of elected and appointed government thugs bought and paid for, both “Blue” faction and “Red” faction.

      Remember the cancerously tenacious late U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, who had to die in office before the nation could finally rid itself of him? “Old King Coal” himself? Even though this “Liberal” fascist former Ku Klux Klansman has been taken to his eternal reward, his career was only a single instance of the power that the petrochemicals sector holds in the national and state governments, even on the National Socialist (formerly “Democratic”) side, and that power has been exerted consistently and viciously to suppress viable alternatives to the combustion of fossil fuels and other hydrocarbons.

      I myself have long preferred nuclear fission as the least expensive, least hazardous, and least polluting high-density generating option within our ready grasp, particularly if the Thorium fuel cycle is exploited. This had been a promising option deliberately foreclosed on both sides of the Iron Curtain from the earliest years after World War II because it can’t possibly be perverted to produce weapons-grade fissile materials. Indeed, reactors fueled by mixed Thorium-Plutonium elements offer a fine way to dispose of Plutonium salvaged from nuclear warheads.

      The neat thing about the Thorium fuel cycle is also that the ash residue of the coal fuel cycle (a truly horrible, enormous environmental hazard) contains exploitable amounts of Thorium radioisotopes, and the last time I checked into it, there was research ongoing to determine the extents to which these mountains of waste could be refined profitably to gather up that potentially valuable fissile material.

      Ever read Petr Beckmann’s *The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear* (1976)? Even though the numbers are out-of-date, the science is definitely not, and used copies are readily available for purchase online. You might want to look into that before condemning nuclear fission out of hand.

      As for “biofuels”… Hoo, boy. Go to the preceding page on this comments thread and look over what I’ve written on that subject recently. If the harrowing effect on world fuel prices weren’t enough to condemn them out of hand, the genuine energy yield from such “green” idiocies is absolutely horrible. More energy is expended in the agricultural and distribution processes in those government-subsidized bogosities than the end-consumers of the subsidized products actually gain from them.

      Just another slice of “Red” faction corporate welfare for Archer Daniels Midland and the other politically-plugged-in agribusiness conglomerates.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9

      1. Tucci78

        That’s “…the harrowing effect on world FOOD prices…” in the next-to-last paragraph above.

        No editing feature on this Web site, more’s the pity.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8

      2. Steve

        Tucci78
        “As for “biofuels”… Hoo, boy. Go to the preceding page on this comments thread and look over what I’ve written on that subject recently. If the harrowing effect on world fuel prices weren’t enough to condemn them out of hand, the genuine energy yield from such “green” idiocies is absolutely horrible. More energy is expended in the agricultural and distribution processes in those government-subsidized bogosities than the end-consumers of the subsidized products actually gain from them.

        Just another slice of “Red” faction corporate welfare for Archer Daniels Midland and the other politically-plugged-in agribusiness conglomerates. ”

        I’ve been casually reading over your arguments and agree with most of what you say but cannot agree on this one point. In regards to corn grown ethanol I am 100% behind you on this one as it does require usage of far more energy than is put out and is a huge strain on food prices. However, camelina sativa shows great promise for diesel bio fuel. it is high yielding and can grow in pretty much any climate and shows real promise for providing renewable bio diesel on a economic grand scale. Yeah algae based bio diesel isn’t proving feasible on a large scale but camelina is showing great promise.

        http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/08/18/special-biofuels-digest-report-on-camelina-an-advanced-biodiesel-wonder-crop/

        Not to mention, unlike ethanol, it can be mixed in with regular diesel with no adverse effects to gaskets and fuel lines. There are many options for bio diesel such as coal, vegetable oil, used motor oil, camelina, algae, and among others that make it well worth looking into. This is not the same as ethanol powered gas engines which I agree 100% are a waste of time and effort. Europe is already doing a fairly good job of implementing these technologies into their own markets and we’d have more fuel efficient diesels here in America running of bio diesel if we’d just drop our ridiculous sulfur emission standards.

        I’ve also noticed that you are quite negative on natural gas. By most modern estimates there is 100+ yrs of potential recoverable natural gas in the US alone thanks to recent development in fracking. Yeah sure we need to build nuclear power plants but going to full electric cars now which we are not capable of doing due to our failing power infrastructure and rarity of rare earth metals which these designs require makes it an impossibility in its current state. Not to mention the lack of proper batter technology and safe disposal of old used batteries. I think a combination of natural gas and bio diesel is the way to go to supplement traditional gasoline fired cars. We can do this easily by drastically expanding off shore and on shore drilling and we have the technology to readily make it possible.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

        1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

          Well, there once was a very successful bio-fuel program in Germany. The Nazis made methanol out of hemp, and this bio-fuel made the entire blitzkreig possible, for all their 5 ton FORD trucks ran on methanol made from hemp! Without these trucks carrying the diesel fuel, ammunition, and spare parts, the panzers would not have been able to keep charging.

          Ethanol from corn is the least efficient model, which shows the power of the petroleum industry over our government and the alleged free market… ha.

          Report this comment

          Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

          1. Steve

            I was going to bring up the Nazi example but don’t confuse corpratisim which is facisim for independent Austrian capitalism. Corpratism has its roots in the Communist manifesto and you will see that clearly if you research the ten pillars. The ten pillars listed in that document is where the root of all central planning ideology comes from whether it be from strong public interest or strong private interest. The end result is the same as is their operation. Henry Ford may have been at one point a strong Nazi supporter but when push came to shove they happily built air plane engines and military vehicles for the US Army for the war effort when it came time.

            I really sympathize with the hatred of the Wiemar Republic since they created the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler but don’t support the end result of that fascist regime. I can easily see how people fell for it though even though all Hitler did was provide more of the same, collectivism, with a new spin where as the Wiemar Republic was socialistic. The Reichsbank should have been closed and the Warburgs put in jail and left it at that. Killing all the innocent Jewish people over one powerful Jewish banking dynasty is not the answer, that’s genocide. Just get the ones who caused the problem! Which brings me to another point of why Nazism was so popular in the Us as well! While Max Warburg ran the Reichsbank behind closed doors his brother Paul Warburg founded the Federal Reserve System and sat on the governing board for many years! No wonder why there is such rapid antisemitism in this world!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          2. Tucci78

            Stefan writes: “Ethanol from corn is the least efficient model, which shows the power of the petroleum industry over our government and the alleged free market…”

            Er, not quite. What it shows is the political clout of the big agribusiness conglomerates and their “special relationship” with the Rotarian socialists of the Republican Party.

            Didn’t you notice that effectively all the resistance to the recent U.S. Senate determination to end fuel ethanol (“gasohol”) subsidies came from the Red faction?

            I recall back in the ’70s hearing Bob Dole referred to as “the Senator for Archer Daniels Midland,” and nobody in the Midwest thought it was any kind of joke at all.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5

          3. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Yeah, but according to the record kept in the Library of Congress, we the taxpayer handed over $16 billion in reparations to the Ford Motor Company and General Motors in 1946 for the damage to their factories in Nazi Germany from allied bombers throughout the second world war.

            SHAME

            Report this comment

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

          4. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Sure, agri-business is involved, Tucci, but they make money no matter what crop is used. It is the petroleum industry that has something to lose here from a VIABLE bio-fuel program. It simply doesn’t matter to agri-business, they will grow whatever government subsidies!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

          5. Tucci78

            Stefan writes: “Sure, agri-business is involved, Tucci, but they make money no matter what crop is used. It is the petroleum industry that has something to lose here from a VIABLE bio-fuel program. It simply doesn’t matter to agri-business, they will grow whatever government subsidies!”

            There’s an established (“sunk capital”) agribusiness impetus to use corn as the feedstock for fuel ethanol production. Corn – “maize” to the Europeans – is a crop particularly well-suited to widespread growth over most of these United States, and such genetic modification (genmod) strains as the big agricultural corporations hold under patent protections give them a proprietary “lock” on production in this area.

            They’re not going to give up the benefits of that “lock” without a helluva lot of dirty political infighting, and they’ve bought plenty of politicians to wage that warfare in Mordor-on-the-Potomac.

            Those agribusinesses haven’t got any sort of similar “lock” control over radical departures from the usual-and-customary crop species, like Camelina sativa and Cannabis sativa/indica. How does Monsanto make money peddling “Roundup-Ready” seed stocks resistant to their top-selling (and now off-patent) herbicide when Camelina sativa and Cannabis sativa ARE weeds which – particularly when properly planted – choke the life out of adventitious useless stuff that tries to invade their fields?

            Ever since this “global warming” fraud gained real political traction, the Good Old Boys of the petroleum companies in these United States began re-branding their operations as “energy companies,” and have gone over to supporting the AGW hokum, recognizing that they can make out like thieves in an untended jewelry store thereby.

            What’s that old Russian proverb? “Salt water or fresh, sh-t floats.”

            As long as biofuels are not diverting land and other resources from production of foodstuffs (plants like Camelina sativa and the Cannabis species can be grown profitably with minimal investments of energy and effort on ground not suited to the production of soybeans or grains or garden truck), I don’t mind biofuels at all.

            Just as long as the greenies aren’t “burning food” in pursuit of their bloody idiot impossible senseless goals.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

          6. Tucci78

            Stefan writes about how “…according to the record kept in the Library of Congress, we the taxpayer handed over $16 billion in reparations to the Ford Motor Company and General Motors in 1946 for the damage to their factories in Nazi Germany from allied bombers throughout the second world war.”

            Yep. And this was in spite of the fact that the NSDAP government of the Third Reich was paying both Ford and GM for the output of those factories as well as providing corvee labor, materials, and other resources throughout the war years.

            One of the more interesting facts of combat in France and the Benelux countries during 1944-45 was that American combat and support troops were constantly harassed by field and Service of Supply officers to avoid damage to TREES in the course of operations.

            A great many of the trees growing in those countries at that time (and presently) were not natural but rather plantings specifically cultivated for lumber and pulpwood, and the Allied Military Government (AMG) people were required in many cases to compensate the owners of these tree plantations for damages done – allegedly or actually – by American and allied troops.

            In the memoirs of American combat troops (I particularly mark those of Donald R. Burgett, a parachute infantryman with the 101st Airborne Division) there is discussion about this constraint imposed upon their comfort and survival in the field, and how they viewed it with hatred and contempt.

            Report this comment

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

        2. Tucci78

          The information on Camelina sativa is interesting, and I’ll keep an eye out for additional news on the plant’s potential as a crop.

          What the dickens gives you the impression that I’m “…quite negative on natural gas,” anyway? I’ve not said dot-one adverse to methane as a fuel or chemical feedstock.

          Anent “biofuels,” I continue to opine that Cannabis species – which have a long, long history as a profitably exploited crop in American agriculture – is a generally useful and interesting element in the march to economic recovery. I confess that I see no reason not to preferentially plant Cannabis rather than Camelina sativa to get useful fiber and cellulose as well as seed oil and animal feed.

          Remember, hemp cultivation had been pushing a billion-dollar industry in the 1930s, whenl FDR and his fellow fascisti unconstitutionally destroyed it.*

          I have never advocated “full electric cars” (imagine the environmental hazards and costs that must be confronted when those bloody batteries reach the ends of their service lives). Natural gas is certainly a viable motor vehicle fuel (farmers in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have been running their farm equipment on compressed methane drawn from wells on their own properties for decades), and I’m not so certain that gasoline can be counted out anytime in the next century or two.

          There’s rock oil in the Bakken and other deep reservoirs, ready to go to the refineries once we get it up and into the pipelines. *

          There as everywhere else, “Drill, baby, drill!”

          ===
          * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

          * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4

          1. Steve

            My apologies to you for misinterpreting your words out of context Tucci78. I miss-interpreted your writings on nuclear power as evidence that you were in favor of a full electric economy as well by your notions on the oil cartel which I agree with you in large part that the cartel has to be broken up. I agree with you 100% on what you wrote above, drill baby drill!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      3. Tucci78

        Steve apologizes for misinterpreting my “…writings on nuclear power as evidence that [I was] in favor of a full electric economy.” Not a problem. We need both motor fuels for internal combustion engines AND the vast electrical power needed to run industries and businesses as well as serving the domestic needs of the population.

        The combustion of petrochemicals to generate electricity is fine with me, bearing in mind, however, the fact that the coal fuel cycle is intrinsically dangerous to human life (mining it, transporting it, burning it, and dealing with the solid residues; coal ash is not only radioactive but it’s chemically carcinogenic as well). Everything has its risks – and doing nothing at all has even MORE risks.

        Again, I commend Dr. Beckmann’s *The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear*, in which he had done a thoroughly damning calculation of the comparative morbidity and mortality figures associated with the coal fuel cycle and the uranium fuel cycle. Uranium wins. Thorium does even better.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

  3. John Q. Public

    Tucci78;

    Why do you dislike analogies?

    Only prevaricators who rely on sowing confusion despise analogies. Of course they are not perfect, but many are suitable for helping some understand the issue. The greenhouse v. sponge “effect” was well done IMHO, yet I see your poblem, it revealed your failed logic behind your “cut and paste” sessions. Don’t you respect copywrite laws? At least cite oter peoples’ work, dude.

    I also note that you rely on putting false words into others’ mouths, so to speak. I have yet to see one person here claim the Earth is a closed system, yet you have found this nonsense within several peoples’ comments, coincidenally when you were bested in the argument. Are you even capable of intellectally honest argument?

    It’s all here for everyone to witness. Now you may mock and ridicule me too, since that is all you can do. I doubt you are convincing anyone that you have a good heart, ergo worth listening to your points of view!

    Consider that buddy.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18

    1. Tucci78

      What the devil gives you to blather that I “dislike analogies,” John? I dislike BAD analogies.

      To be useful as a tool of thought, analogies don’t have to be “perfect,” but when an analogy is inappropriate (implying, for example, that the carbon dioxide molecule soaks up and holds radiant [heat] energy like some kind of “SPONGE,” or that the Earth is a closed system, like a car with its windows rolled up and snug), it’s worse than useless. It leads to erroneous conceptualization, and that almost always screws up the thinking of honest people trying to understand the more complex aspects of the world around them.

      Analogies deliberately devised to peddle duplicities aren’t just bad; they’re malicious. Honest error is one thing. Fraud is not to be countenanced, and the AGW bogosity achieved “fraud” status sometime along about two decades ago.

      And you’ve got a “HUMBLE” opinion? Jeez, these warmistas…. Not only ignoramuses, but pretentious ignoramuses. For your information, John, there’s no violation of copyright in “fair use” quotations, particularly when a quote isn’t mangled to change the meaning, the attribution is explicit, and especially when the source is openly available online (savvy “copyleft,” John?) and a working URL is provided to guide the reader directly to the origin of that quote.

      How the heck d’you think we do this in the scientific literature, John? Every doggone time we put together a paper, we’re expected to explicitly source assertions with references. In manuscripts that have to go under the scrutiny of lawyers, we’re even expected to provide photocopies of those source materials, complete with “circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was.”

      Peer review is nowhere near as troublesome as getting something through a big corporation’s legal department. Not that you’ll ever need to worry about that, of course, John.

      The perpetual implication of the preposterous AGW contention – and therefore of the fumbling fools who are pushing this fraud in this forum – is that trhe energy of insolation (particularly in the infrared wavelengths) is necessarily “trapped” by way of the forcing effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) and other greenhouse gas elements in the atmosphere, and NOT conveyed back out into extraterrestrial space by mechanisms which demonstratively serve a “negative feedback” function, cooling the planet to prevent the catastrophic “steambath Earth” about which the AGW fraudsters have been gibbering and capering for more than three decades now.

      There’s also an amplificatory effect supposedly conferred upon the global climate system by POSITIVE feedback mechanisms which is handwaved into the AGW fraudsters’ climate models as assumptions without any support at all in the form of objective, verifiable evidence. It’s not the direct forcing effect of increased atmospheric CO2 content which is supposed (even by “the climate scene” incompetent flim-flam artists) to do the damage, but rather these positive feedback effects, which – for some doggone strange reason that the “climatology” caliphate never does seem to have ever explained to the satisfaction of the many thousands of properly skeptical scientific critics of their preposterous bogosity – is supposed to be triggered by the effects of aCO2 and then roughly triple the warming allegedly caused thereby, giving the “We’re All Gonna Die!” hysteria they’ve been peddling.

      This is a “closed system” argument – if we can dignify this stupidity with the word “argument” – and that’s precisely the position of los warmistas, the True Believers in this blithering bullpuckey.

      Mostly, those religious whackjobs – the very, very few honest dupes remaining after Climategate pantsed “the climate scene” – are just too dumb to recognize that they’ve put their foot in it this way. Not my fault, is it?

      Why the heck would an honest and informed disputant – like me – ever need to “mock and ridicule” a three-bricks-shy-of-a-load ignoramus like you, John?

      You’re doing just fine at the job, all by yourself.

      “It’s all here for everyone to witness.”

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18

      1. John Q. Public

        Tucci78 writes; What the devil gives you to blather that I “dislike analogies.”

        Well Dude, I was only responding to this direct quote of yours!

        “…analogies are very, very stupid,”

        No where in the entire post or any relevant post in that immediate discussion did you limit yourself to BAD analogies. In fact, the only reasoned explaination for your tirade is the fact that the analogy was a very good one, you can’t refut it with truth so you attack the messanger. Your actions are incongruent with your excuses after the fact.

        Additionally, I see many of your cut and paste sessions with no URL contained in the post. So there simply is no attributaion to the author to be found in them. I find your flippant attitude about this quite revealing too. An honest debator never behaves like you do, repeatedly.

        You are clearly not a good person, so don’t get too upset when people come to the realization and dismiss your hate filled screeds.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 17

        1. Tucci78

          Tsk. What I had written, John, was that: “Your ‘SPONGE effect’ and ‘rolling up the windows in your car!’ analogies are very, very stupid, the latter especially because it implies that the Earth is a closed system when it obviously (and demonstrably) is not.”

          Now, it can be reliably inferred that only a lying, cement-headed schmuck – that’s you, John – uses deliberately mangled quotations to peddle flat falsehoods. Your analogies (vide supra) are specifically characterized as BAD analogies, for reasons delineated in my posts both today and yesterday.

          And you’re a lying, cement-headed schmuck, John. Did I say that? Well, it certainly bears repeating.

          Your fantasmagorical bullpuckey about how I hadn’t dispensed of your blithering stupidity “with truth” is equally psychotic.

          But, then, you’re a lying, cement-headed schmuck, and we have to make allowances for your moral depravity and mental incapacities.

          When you, John, or any other of your warmista fellow religious fanatics come to public discourse in the guise of an “honest debator” (that’ll be the day!), you’ll get the response that an honest disputant deserves. Until then, you’ll get what YOU have earned, you lying, cement-headed schmuck.

          Oh, yeah. What “cut and paste sessions,” John? If I quote anyone – even you – I use those little punctuation cues (they’re called, curiously enough, “quotation marks”) to indicate that I’m using somebody else’s words.

          Then – except in instances where the average literate person is expected to know the source without direct citation, as with Kipling’s “she showed me the way to promotion an’ pay” phrase) – I’ve made a habit of explicit attribution, in many cases with working URL “hotlinks” so that even a lying, cement-headed schmuck – like you, John – can follow the attribution to its source for verification that I’m not drawing information out of context.

          As you’ve done with my remark, you lying, cement-headed schmuck.

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 17

          1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            You certainly don’t pay close attention to detail, for I stated those, not John, plus I only used the sponge analogy to describe your ignorant view of how co2 traps heat. Plus, once again… I never stated or implied that the Earth is a closed system. Once again, you manufacture the strawman (LIE) and commence destroying nothing more than your own fiction.

            Pathetic, indeed.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 16

          2. Tucci78

            Nah. John is certainly a lying, cement-headed schmuck, and you, Stefan, are too stupid to realize that what I was doing when I recapitulated that line above (“Your ‘SPONGE effect’ and ‘rolling up the windows in your car!’ analogies are very, very stupid, the latter especially because it implies that the Earth is a closed system when it obviously [and demonstrably] is not”) was the restoration of a quoted sentence that John – the lying, cement-headed schmuck – had purposefully mangled.

            Your analogies still suck, no matter how you’re waffling and weaseling now. Your intention was clearly to imply “heat trapping” effects and to purposefully evade consideration of the negative feedback mechanisms which operate to prevent planets with greenhouse gas atmospheric elements from retaining the heat energy of insolation ad infinitum to become nothing more than spherical masses of molten and then vaporized rock.

            As I’ve mentioned, this doesn’t even happen on the planet Venus, which has an atmosphere ninety (90) times denser than that of the Earth and as near 100% carbon dioxide as makes no difference.

            The laws of physics (which reliably reflect the facts of reality) trump your beloved anthropogenic global warming (AGW) bogosity, and always will.

            Pay closer attention to detail, Stefan. You’re screwing up. Again.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 16

          3. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Well Tucci, you do have ONE admirable trait… you are consistent, too bad that means consistently wrong, and a straight up LIAR.

            Now you just keep right on LYING about what I said, what I believe, and DELUDE yourself into believing whatever you need to get through your pathetic day!

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 15

          4. Tucci78

            Stefan, you poor putz, how can I lie about what you’ve posted here when all your posts are retained on this site for everybody to read?

            Jeez, you’d think if you had one brain cell sparking across a spirochete to tingle another, you’d cite precisely where and how I’m supposed – in your sick, pitiful fantasies – to have lied about anything you’d written. But, no.

            Gawd, you’re just sitting there with nothing more than a sackful of your own feces, trying to pass it off as ambergris. Do you really think you’re going to find anybody on a Ron Paul fan site (besides your fellow “Liberal” fascist enemies of human rights, who only frequent such virtual venues to filibuster) susceptible to your blithering nonsense?

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 11

          5. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Indeed, the posts are here for all to see… and behold, your once respected opinions are quickly becomming negative, while your opposition’s numbers are rising!

            Thank God the readers here are far smarter than a buffoon like you.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14

          6. Tucci78

            Stefan, the stupid putz, has learned about how this Web site permits him to punch the “thumbs-up” and “thumbs-down” buttons multiple times, and thus he spews:

            “Indeed, the posts are here for all to see… and behold, your once respected opinions are quickly becomming negative, while your opposition’s numbers are rising!”

            What genuine, unalloyed bullpuckey. And yet again from one of los warmistas, we’ve got the “consensus” ration of crap.

            Gotta quote Dr. Michael Crichton again, I guess:

            “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

            “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant.

            “What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

            (“Aliens Cause Global Warming,” a lecture at the California Institute of Technology [CalTech], 17 January 2003); see http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10

  4. Evidence?

    Scientific Societies

    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (October, 2009)

    American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

    “Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.” (February 2007)

    American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (November 2007)

    American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

    “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

    “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (December 2006)

    Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

    “The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.” (October 2006)

    American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

    “There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.” (July 2004)

    http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 24

    1. Evidence?

      Those are professional organizations, not government affiliated. Those are the associations denialists say are part of a goverment conspiracy but apparently the evidence they give is from paying a scientist to write not one, but 2 plagierized papers with faulty analytical methods.

      http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2011/06/further_wegman.html

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 20

      1. Tucci78

        Tsk. The members of those “professional associations” you’ve extolled, Evi, get their professional FUNDING almost entirely from various government agencies. To the extent that they fill out and sign grant applications submitted to such agencies, they’re entering into contractual relationships with civil government, and are therefore UNDENIABLY “government affiliated.”

        Heck, they can be (and some are) criminally prosecuted for knowingly uttering falsehoods in those grant applications. Haven’t you ever read (not even worked to complete) such an application? I’ve only reviewed a few of ‘em, submitted to one or another of the National Institutes of Health, but the reason they get close scrutiny prior to submission is that you ARE dealing with the government (those goons with guns), and there ARE some very nasty “rocks and shoals” upon which you can go aground.

        That’s one of the reasons why I’d like to see Dr. Paul become president of these United States. The U.S. Department of Justice would go through the unlimed outhouse of “the climate scene” with a flamethrower.

        You keep on fixating on Wegman, Evi. He seems to be such a solace to you, and you need some comfort in your bleak and agonized state of despair, don’tcha?

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 24

  5. Evidence?

    I showed that there is a consensus among 18+ scientific non-government affiliated associations and you went on to just blatantly claim the majority of their members were supporting a government funded conspiracy? That’s a personal attack on their organizations without any shred of proof that the majority of the members in each separate association weren’t looking at the scientific evidence honestly. So in short, you are personally attacking all the scientists who don’t support your point of view.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 22

    1. Tucci78

      Yep. A consensus fueled by FOUR BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR (that’s never gonna get old, is it?) in government funding for “research” to support the AGW fraud.

      Y’see, there doesn’t have to be much of a wide-scale coordinated “conspiracy” when people of criminal intent copycat each other – and, er, “assist” each other by supporting a fraud that’s already succeeded in disarming their victims’ resistance to the scam. Not that there isn’t conspiracy involved here; the C.R.U. correspondents’ e-mails and their schemes to pervert peer review demonstrate that well enough.

      The participants in the depredations pivoting around the AGW fraud need no more communicate in detail with each other than do the thousands of people each driving their individual vehicles on a superhighway at any given moment. Each knows where he wants to go, and how the flow of traffic can get him there.

      The difference is, of course, that the preponderant number of people driving on such a highway are not doing it in stolen vehicles.

      The “climatology” caliphate and their abettors….. Well, not so much at all.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 22

  6. Evidence?

    No wonder denalists I have come across refrain from citing their sources and they just keep on repeating discredited claims?

    “At the time of our last discussion, Edward Wegman… had been involved in three cases of plagiarism: a report for the U.S. Congress on climate models, a paper on social networks, a paper on color graphics.

    Each of the plagiarism stories was slightly different: the congressional report involved the distorted copying of research by a scientist (Raymond Bradley) whose conclusions Wegman disagreed with, the social networks paper included copied material in its background section, and the color graphics paper included various bits and pieces by others that had been used in old lecture notes.”

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2011/06/further_wegman.html

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 22

    1. Tucci78

      Wegman, Wegman, Wegman.

      You really do think of yourself as a matador, don’tcha, Evi? You want focus on the flapping cape so your victims don’t see the sharpened steel you’re trying to shove down our throats.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 21

  7. Cameron

    Tucci, you’re blind. You’ve been calling your opponents “flaming idiots,” “warmistas,” “fraudsters,” “pushers,’” and have been hitting below the belt the entire time without presenting anything that could be considered better proof than the scientific observations confirming AGW. You say the peer review process lacks integrity (as you call it the “pal” review process), while I would counter that Anthony Watts and the like have not done any better. This has become an un-winnable tit-for-tat. You’re presenting highly dubious “evidence” of AGW fraud and conspiracy, while I- among others- have presented rational counterarguments backed by scientific observations.

    Your efforts to mislead and confuse are not winning- and neither is your strategy of denigrating your opponents. People seem to be catching on to that.

    The truth of the matter is that many disagree with your conspiracy theories. The minute any one of us calls your stance into question, you go on a tirade about how intellectually superior you think you are and about how dumb and unworthy of living you think your opponents are. Again, that reveals much more about the accuser (you) than the accused. Feeling the need to bully people usually means you’ve got both a lack of substance and some noticeable mental problems.

    With the amount of time you’ve been spending on your postings here at the RP forums, it is becoming evident that you aren’t the “country GP” you claim yourself to be. Rather, you seem to be a hate-filled robo-troll with way too much time on their hands. That, or you’re receiving a salary from one of the Koch Foundation political “charities” to sow misinformation.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 26

    1. Tucci78

      Jeez, Cameron, you really do hate being accurately diagnosed as the flaming idiot you’ve proven yourself to be, don’tcha?

      And you’re still fixated on Anthony Watts, too. Still no citation on your part of anything he’s written that you’ve claimed to be “cobbled together pseudoscience,” of course, but you proved yourself a flaming idiot when you made that assertion.

      Cameron, you’ve kept trying to “blank out” the Climategate confirmation of how “the climate scene” insiders have been cooking the global temperature databases, cherry-picking their paleoclimate proxies, perverting academic peer review in their own and allied disciplines, concerting extortion against the editors of scientific periodicals, and generally perpetrating the single most damaging and perfidious fraud in the history of the modern world, all violations of professional standards and ethics of which those of us literate in any of the sciences had strong reason to suspect for more than three decades.

      You can sit there in front of your Amiga and expect anybody who’s examined the content of that “FOIA2009.zip” archive to buy your load of crap to the effect that nothing BUT “conspiracy” can be accurately applied to what those C.R.U. correspondents were perpetrating?

      Gawd. What’s next? Some bullpuckey on your part about how Nixon was NOT a crook? Or that Bubba – America’s former Irrumator-in-chief – did not have sex with that woman?

      And you’ve got the stone-headedness to call ME a troll? Hoo-hah! Cameron, you’ve spent so much time lurking under the bridge you’ve forgotten what sunlight looks like.

      And now you’re trying the typical “Liberal” fascist’s tactics of personal attack. Well, heck. Nothing else is working for you and your fellow True Believers, is it?

      Happens I’m recovering from allowing a cardiothoracic surgeon to get at me with a bone saw and a set of rib spreaders. Three-vessel CABG, and I refuse to take anything stronger than acetaminophen (Tylenol) for the pain. Can’t work much just yet, and I don’t get much sleep – but I’m okay with typing.

      Much to your distress, Cameron. Ain’t that nice?

      So what do you do for a living, Cameron? That’s presuming that you do anything for a living at all, mind.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 22

    2. Stefan C. Kosikowski

      Good points indeed, Cameron. A paid troll for the fossil fuels industry would only spend time here. I see no comments from the pseudonym (Tucci) on any other thread. One last thing… we must add cowardice to Tucci resume, for to make all these personal attacks without putting your name to the post is the pinnacle of dispicable behavior… and this guy claims to be a doctor… a compasionless doctor who believes in emotionally hurting all those who disagree with him!

      Revealing to the extreme… lies, upon lies, buttressed by more lies.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 16

      1. Tucci78

        Oh, goodie! Now Stefan says I’m a “paid troll for the fossil fuels industry.” News to me. Stefan, you contemptible pile of filth, do you perchance have some magical psychotic insight into just how much I’m supposed to be getting paid, and who’s supposed to be paying me? If there’s somebody I’ve got to be invoicing, I’d like to get it under way.

        My usual and customary terms for services rendered include payment in full within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice.

        Hm. This abject putz wonders why I’ve not authored comments on any of the other threads on this particular Web site (wrong; I posted one on the “War on Drugs” page a day or two ago), but have preponderantly attended to the “Global Warming” thread. Sheesh.

        I’ve explained much of this already, but Stefan is a putz, and it doesn’t hurt to recapitulate. I’ve been following the preposterous bogosity of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture-turned-fraud since sometime between 1979 and 1981 (I didn’t “go digital” until about 1988, and none of the computers with which I currently work can read 5.25-inch DS/DD floppy diskettes formatted in CP/M, so immediate access to my personal records from that period isn’t conveniently available to me at the moment), when I was corresponding with retired engineering professor Petr Beckmann and he published what he’d been learning about this astonishing blunder in his newsletter, *Access to Energy*, and on his dial-in bulletin board system (BBS), “Fort Freedom.”

        See http://www.fortfreedom.org/ for an online archive preserving a “snapshot” of the Fort Freedom BBS as it existed in 1989.

        In the years preceding 1989, I had taken some considerable – amicable – issue with Dr. Beckmann over the viral etiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), which I was encountering at that time as local “doctor to the poor.” Most of my immunosuppressed patients were either the prior recipients of blood products or people with histories of intravenous drug use (IVDU). These latter not infrequently had co-infection with Hepatitis B and what came that year to be called Hepatitis C, and it was pretty obvious from the outset that we were looking at an infectious cause, almost certainly viral. Heck, the blood banks were using Hepatitis B serological markers as proxies to screen their intakes.

        No really effective antiretroviral agents in 1989 (highly active antiretroviral therapeutic [HAART] multi-drug regimens didn’t begin to come into widespread use until about 1993), and Dr. Beckmann’s reluctance to credit the evidence for HIV as the pathogen was something about which he and I were wrangling at that time.

        Ah, the “good old days” of the ’80s. As regards knowledge about communicable diseases – and the susceptibility of power-lusting “Liberal” fascist politicians like Algore to the preposterous bogosity of man-made global warming as an excuse to pillage the citizenry – they truly sucked.

        Now, is there a thread on this Web site pertinent to “Infectious Diseases”? Nope. What other issue of a scientific nature am I likely to be drawn? Well, there’s the “War on Drugs,” but that’s not really much of a controversy. It’s already an abject Nixonian bloody failure, as “Operation Gunwalker” is recently proving.

        Pertinent to that “War on Drugs,” are there any indications yet that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of the Heimatsicherheitsdienst Janet Napolitano (among other members of Barry Soebarkah’s criminal presidential administration) are going to be hauled off in handcuffs to the International Criminal Court in the Hague for unlawfully waging war against los Estados Unidos Mexicanos?

        No? Well, I guess I might as well spend time (aren’t e-mail alerts nice?) dropping by here in the “Global Warming” thread to bash los warmistas.

        After all, I’m supposed to be getting paid for it by “the fossil fuels industry.”

        Hey, Stefan, you abject doofus? Who is it I’ve got to invoice again? Unless you’ve got a specific name and address, don’t waste my time, okay?

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 11

        1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

          Hey nit-wit… how can anyone here waste YOUR time, except you?

          Sheez, you truly are the weakest link!

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12

          1. Tucci78

            Stefan, you pitiful pile of guano, I’m not wasting my time. I’m increasing your stress load and shortening your life, am I not?

            It’s just that if there’s payment to be gotten as a “troll for the fossil fuels industry” in carrying out the objective of debunking the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud, I certainly don’t want to let the opportunity pass.

            I’ve got grandkids, and there’s no end of nice stuff I can buy for them with that money.

            I’m thinking of it as a “two-fer.” Driving you even deeper into the gibbering psychosis you’re demonstrating, and collecting cash for it in the bargain.

            So you got that billing information for me, or are you (in the words of the Reverend Johnson) “just jerking off?”

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9

          2. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            The good doctor (LOL) says, “…you pitiful pile of guano, I’m not wasting my time. I’m increasing your stress load and shortening your life, am I not?”

            Wow, that’s pretty funny. Seems you are living up to your hypocrite oath!

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 11

          3. Tucci78

            Stefan? You haven’t yet given me the contact information by way of which I can invoice “the fossil fuels industry” for the work you say I’m doing as a “paid troll.”

            How can I be a “paid troll” if I’m not getting paid?

            Ah, I get it. In the *Blazing Saddles* words of the Reverend Johnson, Stefan is “just jerking off”.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

          4. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Tucci writes; “How can I be a “paid troll” if I’m not getting paid? ”

            You’re right sir!

            Here I thought you were intelligent, as anyone working as hard as you do here would surely demand payment for all this labor… when I should have realized there is another possibility… you are just dumb and working for no monetary compensation.

            My Bad.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

      2. Philip

        My thoughts exactly.

        Tucci does not sound like the kind of doctor I would want to visit: he does not listen, is disrespectful, and most importantly, has high opinions of his own intelligence, therefore belittles any opinions and (and more importantly) research that does not support his idealogy. Very dangerous traits in a doctor.

        I also do wonder why he is using a pseudonym rather than coming out with his real name.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12

        1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

          Look closer at many of his posts… the spelling of some of the words are the English version, not the American version!

          FavoUrite, not favorite… for example. There are more examples too. Maybe he is not even an American, or maybe he is not paying close attention to detail (again) during his cut and paste sessions?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10

          1. Tucci78

            Stefan, haven’t you noticed that when I’ve used British spelling (“Standard English,” I think they call it) in any of my posts, it’s only when I’m QUOTING somebody else?

            I’ve had to co-author papers with people from the Commonwealth countries, and there’s a perpetual struggle to keep them from putting their adventitious “u” into every other bloody word when the manuscript is being prepared for submission to *The New England Journal of Medicine* and NOT *The Lancet*.

            Pain in the tochus, damnit….

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

        2. Tucci78

          Philip baselessly complains: “Tucci does not sound like the kind of doctor I would want to visit: he does not listen, is disrespectful, and most importantly, has high opinions of his own intelligence, therefore belittles any opinions and (and more importantly) research that does not support his idealogy. Very dangerous traits in a doctor.”

          On the contrary, you pitiful jerk. The kind of medico you do NOT want managing your care is the sort of “go along to get along” weakling who lacks the grounding in both methodology and fund of knowledge to strengthen his decision-making capabilities.

          We call ‘em – not all that jokingly – “Double-Oh-Seven Docs.” You know; “licensed to kill.”

          Were you my patient, Philip, I’d be dealing with you as tenderly as your stupidity dictates. Your behavior in this forum demonstrates that you’re not the kind of person who deals at all well with reality, and so the canons of the profession tend reliably to guide the treating physician toward the “butter-’em-up” approach.

          But you’re not my patient, Philip. Instead, we’re encountering each other in an online forum where your advocacy constitutes a THREAT to my patients and to public health in general. I’m not only free to bash the living daylights out of you but the canons of the profession effectively require it of me.

          As for why I’m using an ekename, why are you not using YOUR last name and full “in real life” information?

          First and foremost, it’s irrelevant. “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”*

          All we have of each other, Philip, is what comes through these “Comment” boxes, and that’s just fine. Assertions must be acceptable on the basis of their intrinsic validity (and disputants can, when necessary, request support for those assertions with which they take issue).

          Either you make your point or you don’t, and your identity really doesn’t matter. Isn’t that nice?

          Second, it is “wisest, safest and best” to reduce the ability of malignant sons-of-indeterminate-parentage to do you material damage “in real life.”

          This is how I’ve instructed my grandchildren to behave when they’re online, keeping their exposure to predators at minimum. You expect me to behave any less consequently?

          When someone in a forum of dispute like this one demands of you your IRL information, ceteris paribus, he is an unscrupulous bastid planning to harm you. Do not oblige him.

          If you’re at all capable of learning anything, Philip, learn that. And don’t expose yourself to consideration as a similarly unscrupulous and malignant bastid by expecting anybody else to render themselves vulnerable to IRL attack.

          ===
          * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6

  8. Evidence?

    The denialists from the Congressional hearing had a chance to offer evidence that there is a conspiracy among government scientists and instead offered a plagierized paper that they had to retract and the expert on the statistical method they used said it was done wrong. That’s the best they can do?

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 24

    1. Tucci78

      Oh, good heavens. You think that ANYBODY with any bias toward honest scientific investigation reposes any trust in the Red wing of the big, permanently incumbent Boot-On-Your-Neck Party?

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21

  9. Evidence?

    Calling people names doesn’t help your argument Tucci78. It just makes you look overly biased and willing to overlook any evidence that doesn’t support your point of view. Also, you haven’t recently cited sources for your key arguments.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 21

    1. Tucci78

      Yeah, but calling YOU names, putzi, makes me feel all warm and fulfilled.

      It’s also proving to be diagnostically accurate.

      Sure I’m biased. I’m biased in favor of factual reality, where your allegedly “scientific” contentions in support of the AGW fraud find no supporting evidence whatsoever. I’m biased in favor of lucid reasoned argument – of which you’ve shown precisely zip in this forum – and I’m biased in favor of government under the rule of law, fulfilling its duty to protect the individual rights of real human beings within its jurisdiction, which policies based upon the AGW bogosity would violate to no material purpose whatsoever.

      I mean, apart from enriching fraudsters, thieves, and power-lusting violent aggressors intent upon running innocent victims’ lives.

      What’s your bias, Evi?

      What’s got you in here stinkin’ up the joint?

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 22

  10. Evidence?

    “For increases in solar radiation, we would expect to see warming of the stratosphere rather than the observed cooling trend.

    Similarly, greater global warming at night and during winter is more typical of increased greenhouse gases, rather than an increase in solar radiation.”

    http://theconversation.edu.au/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21

    1. Tucci78

      Nope. The stratosphere radiates absorbed solar heat (infrared frequencies) directly to space, maintaining what I’m tempted to call “homeostasis” without much modifying effect by way of the interaction between solar wind and cosmic rays.

      It’s in the troposphere that any greenhouse gas effect takes place, and it’s also in the troposphere that negative feedback mechanisms (cloud formation, heat transfer by convection and evaporation, etc.) result in the transfer of absorbed heat energy back out into space.

      The Earth is not a closed system. This is something that Hansen et al missed in 1976 when they made the founding mistake of the AGW bogosity.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 21

      1. Evidence?

        Cite your sources please.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 19

        1. Tucci78

          Oh, you want ME to cite sources supporting an assertion that the Earth is not a closed system?

          Not that I haven’t done so. See previous posts of mine on this thread.

          Jeez, I’ve gotta hold this ignoramus’ hand now? What next? He’s gonna want a citation supporting the definition of “convection”?

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21

  11. Al

    While I love some things about R Paul, his denial of Global Warming smacks of wacko-ism. Scientists in the government, out of the government, from all countries, etc. all agree that we humans are producing very foul climate effects and we need to work on it. I want to support him but can’t support somone who doesn’t recognize the obvious.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 20

    1. Tucci78

      “Scientists” defending their government grant funding – their “rice bowls” in the parlance of the military – are hardly dispassionate advocates of anything except sustained and increased political influence and taxpayer money to advance their academic careers.

      If you can’t perceive the plain facts of the matter – that the extraordinary contention of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) priesthood to the effect that trace man-made increases in a trace gas has been driving (or could ever drive) sufficient heat trapping to cause any adverse consequences requires extraordinary and consistent evidence to be accepted – then you’re pretty much completely hopeless.

      The proof – the hard, verifiable, objective evidence – required to support the AGW contention has never been produced, and there is absolutely no prospect that the alarmist “scientists” will ever manage to fulfill that obligation.

      A conjecture which does not correlate with objective fact – and the AGW contention does not – is not even describable as a “hypothesis” much less the sort of “sure thing” upon which enormously costly public policy measures are sought by the warmistas.

      Would you ask Dr. Paul to advocate the slaughter of every other redheaded person in America if some solemn convocation of self-proclaimed and insular “authorities” claimed it was vitally necessary to prevent a giant asteroid from crashing down on the planet?

      Well, don’t expect him to look at this preposterous and absolutely unproven AGW bilge – and the prospect of crashing the American economy into ruins – with any less skeptical regard.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 22

      1. Evidence?

        It’s YOU making a personal attack on them.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 20

        1. Tucci78

          What “personal attack,” putzi? The AGW bogosity “showed [them] the way to promotion an’ pay,” and their motives for the behavior they’ve demonstrated – fiercely defending their rice bowl – are perfectly reasonable subjects for discussion.

          FOUR BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR in government funding in these United States alone, $79 billion total in the twenty years between 1989 an 2009.

          That’s a lotta incentive for these “scientists” to hew to the AGW party line, no?

          You might be better served, kiddo, by asking what incentives drive the skeptical scientists – a lot of them retired physicists and engineers and climatologists and meteorologists – who make nothing at all from any source by speaking out against this ginormous fraud, doing it not only at their own expense but without the extremely costly resources (paid for out of those taxpayer-funded “research” grants and the budgets of government agencies) available to los warmistas of the AGW High Priesthood.

          Oh, yeah. Lest we lose focus, where’s the PROOF required to support the AGW conjecture, anyway? Doesn’t seem to be any causal relationship between steadily increasing levels of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) and global temperaturs since 1998, because those temperatures have either flattened out or decreased.

          Interestingly, those trends have been reported by satellite-based instrumental analysis systems and oceanographic temperature measurement methods employing gadgetry like the Argo array.

          Ah, if only the global legacy land and ocean surface temperature data (collection and “enhancement”) were still confined to those closely held fiefdoms dominated by the “climatology” caliphate that got exposed in the Climategate archive.

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 22

          1. Evidence?

            You are attacking all of the scientists who study climate science except the ones who support your point of view in one personal attack? That is a really cheap argument.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 20

          2. Evidence?

            And the cheapness of your arguments is shown by all your name calling of people who don’t support your point of view as if just because they make conclusions you don’t like, you are free to assume and demonize what you imagine as their political orientation.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 20

          3. Tucci78

            Tsk. The “name-calling” is nothing more than lagniappe. It’s just getting to you, putzi.

            I’m not “attacking all of the scientists who study climate science.” Just the crooks and liars. Dr. Judith Curry (as one example) is a warmista I respect and admire. My disagreements with her are without rancor, much as are my disagreements with Dr. Paul regarding the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

            But you, Evi, are in this forum for no purpose other than to push the greatest single fraud ever to degrade the seeming of science, and that’s a hateful objective.

            You’re surprised at being hated?

            Sheesh. Get used to it.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 22

          4. Cameron

            Wow. $4 billion a year? How about the $40 billion in taxpayer funds a year that goes to the oil and gas companies? How about the $8 billion a year that goes to coal? The $9 billion that goes to nuclear?

            Oh, but of course that is a fallacy! Faulting climate science for the $4 billion a year it receives from the government isn’t a fallacy because Tucci, the omniscient one, says it ‘aint.

            Tucci, your argument is D.O.A.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 20

          5. Tucci78

            What, Cameron? You don’t like the “$40 billion in taxpayer funds a year that goes to the oil and gas companies” and the “$8 billion a year that goes to coal” and the “$9 billion that goes to nuclear,” then?

            What the heck makes you think that I do? Or – by extension – that Dr. Paul does? This corporate welfare (Frank Chodorov called it “Rotarian socialism” back in 1953) has been a cornerstone of the mercantilist undeniable corruption of the Republican Party ever since they were calling themselves “Whigs,” and it’s not to be countenanced by honest Americans.

            Heck, why do you think that the Republican Party leadership has been trying to get rid of Dr. Ron Paul for the past several decades? He threatens many of THEIR most precious rice bowls, too.

            You want to dump those subsidies and set-asides and sweetheart deals and quotas and and protective tariffs and competition-stifling regulations, Cameron?

            Hey, welcome to the TEA Party. You’re halfway there.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 23

      2. Evidence?

        You didn’t prove anything. Over time all the denialist claims were rejected because the scientific evidence didn’t support alternative explanations like solar radiation. The warming continued even after solar radiation declined. That is a scientific fact.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 20

        1. Tucci78

          What do I have to prove? The burden of proof, Evi, is on the AGW fraudsters. As I’ve written, they’ve advanced a hellacious proposition – that anthropogenic increases in a teensy trace atmospheric gas can cause “catastrophic” global warming.

          Not that some global warming wouldn’t be a really, really good thing. “Hockey Stick” graph fraudulence notwithstanding, both the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm climate optima demonstrated that global warming far, FAR less than anything even the AGW conjecture “predicts” produces an improved condition for the human race, increasing agricultural yields, reducing contagious disease susceptibilities, and generally tending to improve material wealth and individual survival.

          Kinda why Mann et al. blotted the Medieval Warm period out of his 1998 paper.

          I only have to utter those assertions to the effect that the “climatology” caliphate have failed (and are continuing to fail) in their duty to support their preposterous bogosity.

          I’ve been doing that, and it’s really, really getting down your shirt, isn’t it?

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 24

          1. Tucci78

            Whoops!

            ““Hockey Stick” graph fraudulence notwithstanding, both the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm climate optima demonstrated that global warming far, far GREATER than anything even the AGW conjecture “predicts” produces an improved condition for the human race, increasing agricultural yields, reducing contagious disease susceptibilities, and generally tending to improve material wealth and individual survival.

            There. All fixed.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 24

          2. Evidence?

            Except Mann’s conclusions weren’t proven false and Wegman got caught plagierizing and had to retract a paper.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 20

          3. Evidence?

            And you didn’t cite any source for your claims, yet again.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 19

          4. Tucci78

            Anent Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph falsehoods (including a climate modeling system that reproduces that “hockey stick” graph if random Brownian numbers – “red noise” – is fed into the program), see “Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series”, Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003.

            Putzi, you’re so tightly fixated on Wegman that you’ve lost focus on the “M&M” who so terrified the C.R.U. e-mail correspondents who got caught in Climategate.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 23

  12. Evidence?

    These are non-government affiliated organizations and they aren’t the dishonest nonscientist denialists that you cited.

    Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

    “Scientific Societies

    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (October, 2009)

    American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

    “Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.” (February 2007)

    American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (November 2007)

    American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

    “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

    “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (December 2006)

    Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

    “The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.” (October 2006)

    American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

    “There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.” (July 2004)”

    http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 20

    1. Tucci78

      Yep, and their members are clutching at their rice bowls, most of ‘em filled by politicians and bureaucrats dipping into taxpayers’ pockets to do it.

      Remarkable what FOUR BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in government “research” grants – not to mention all that “carbon credit” trading crap and “green industry” subsidization can buy, isn’t it?

      What’s that bit from *All The President’s Men* now? Oh, yeah.

      “Follow the money.”

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 22

  13. Evidence?

    I did cite evidence and you mischaracterized my point.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 17

    1. Tucci78

      Oh, I “mischaracterized,” putzi?

      Expatiate, why don’tcha?

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 21

  14. Evidence?

    And he ignores the fact that Lawrence Solomon was dishonest from the get go and didn’t provide any counter evidence to show he was honest when presenting the scientist’s position. It’s just like how denialists cite discredited research in a Congressional hearing as if it is fact and then even act like after the paper is retracted it is still fact.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 19

    1. Evidence?

      The source I gave quoted Solomon himself that none of the scientists Solomon cited denied global warming or climate change. And yet he claims that they are denialists. That’s what you are ignoring.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 18

      1. Tucci78

        Nah. It’s simply not relevant. I quoted the section of Mr. Solomon’s article containing the information I sought, and….

        Well, putzi, you STILL haven’t addressed that information, or contended in any way that it was inaccurate.

        Jeez, you are the complete weasel, ain’tcha?

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 22

  15. Evidence?

    Even denialist scientists are dishonest.

    “Unfortunately, Deep Climate’s accusations were true. Wegman’s Report to Congress in 2006 was a sloppy piece of work produced to meet the political needs of the denialist Republican Congressman Joe Barton. Although widely rebutted, denialists held the Report up as evidence of both faulty statistical underpinnings for Dr. Mann’s so-called global temperature “hockey-stick” and of corruption in the scientific publication process. That Report['s" social network" accusations were] hastily reworked as Said, Wegman, et. al. (2008) in the un-related journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis which has now, to their undoubted reluctant embarrassment, retracted it.”

    http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/wegman-paper-retraction-by-journal/

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 19

    1. Tucci78

      So? Does a retraction by one person do ANYTHING to provide objective proof of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) contention?

      Nope.

      Lying to yourself and everybody else, Evi, you keep shying away from the fact that no matter how faulty any individual contrarian examination of the preposterous AGW bogosity might prove to be, the burden of proof is still entirely upon those advancing the bullpuckey contention about this unbelievable and more and more evidently impossible effect of aCO2 you’re trying so flop-sweatingly to peddle.

      You wanna quit now and scuttle back into your hole before somebody gets out the insecticide and doses you properly?

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 22

  16. Evidence?

    Again, you failed to provide any counter evidence for the evidence of dishonest reporting by non-scientists, as I have shown, who have misrepresented the scientific data and the scientists.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 19

    1. Tucci78

      Flop-sweatily, Evi demands that readers here “blank out” all the evidence (verified and presumptive) of concerted dishonesty on the part of the climatology caliphate and focus instead upon the errors and “dishonest reporting” of people who have no pecuniary interest in those FOUR BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR of government “research” grants to advance the AGW fraud, or in the even greater plunder to be gotten by promoting government-subsidized “green industry” and those wonderful government-required “carbon credits.”

      The remarkable thing about these “non-scientists” opposing the ordained and anointed members of the caliphate (and the banksters, politicians, bureaucrats, and business critters making their killings building bird-manglers and solar panels) is that most of ‘em aren’t getting paid much for doing it. Heck, most of ‘em are entirely unpaid. No resources, no rice bowls, just a determination to put an end to the single greatest fraud in the history of science, and the single greatest campaign of political plunder since the Mongol Conquest.

      Anybody expect this “Evi” putz to show any sort of demonstration explicitly detailing how any of the sources I’ve cited, in support of specific points of information, have “misrepresented the scientific data and the scientists”?

      No? Then you, reader, are a helluva lot smarter than this “Evi” putz.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21

  17. Evidence?

    I find it interesting that you use personal attacks on the scientists often before you even look at the scientific data that they published in peer reviewed journals.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 18

    1. Tucci78

      Oh, heck, I want a LOT more than “personal attacks” on these charlatans. I want criminal prosecutions, and space made for them in Alkatraz.

      Time that facility was put to use as more than just a tourist attraction.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 20

  18. Evidence?

    Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,000 years
    Sea levels are rising faster than at any point in the past 2,000 years because of the impact of global warming, scientists have found.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8586961/Sea-levels-rising-at-fastest-rate-in-2000-years.html

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 18

    1. Tucci78

      The name of the paper* discussed in the referenced news article is Kemp et alia, “Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia.” Fossil foraminifera and plant microfossils were employed as sea level proxies. In the paper’s conclusion we read:

      “According to our analysis, North Carolina sea level was stable from BC 100 to AD 950. Sea level rose at a rate of 0.6 mm/y from about AD 950 to 1400 as a consequence of Medieval warmth, although there is a difference in timing when compared to other proxy sea-level records. North Carolina and other records show sea level was stable from AD 1400 until the end of the 19th century due to cooler temperatures associated with the Little Ice Age. A second increase in the rate of sea-level rise occurred around AD 1880–1920; in North Carolina the mean rate of rise was 2.1 mm/y in response to 20th century warming.”

      Of course, the acceleration in sea level rise began to occur between 1865 and 1892, BEFORE the start of the 20th Century. During that 27-year interval, it increased from a rate of less than 0.1 mm/year to 2.1 mm/year. This means that the acceleration in sea level rise estimated by the methods used in this study had started LONG before atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed much above 300 ppm by volume, and anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) was very much a minor component of that content.

      There’s also the fact – read the paper – that the investigators (including “Hockey Stick” Michael Mann) did not consider recent data collected or proxy recreation of recent sea levels, emphatically NOT looking at the past decade.

      During that decade, of course, the Earth’s temperatures have been LOWER than “predicted” by the baseless AGW assumptions built into the alarmist charlatans’ global climate models.

      Cherry-picking as usual.

      Despite yet another dollop of “We’re All Gonna Die!” fraudster pseudoscience, reliable instrumental data – by way of Envisat satellite observations** in particular – demonstrate that there has been essentially no sea level rise for the last seven years.

      There was noise like this last August,*** this time about South Pacific sea levels, and it turned out to be similarly useless in supporting the “CO2-is-Evil!” man-made climate change bogosity. Since 2000, global positioning satellite information has resulted in increased accuracy in the siting of SEAFRAME gauges on the South Pacific islands where the “catastrophic” ocean rises were supposedly occurring, and this – in part at the very least, it seems – has resulted in evidence demonstrating little (if any) sea level change around any of the twelve islands under scrutiny.****

      AGW alarmist bogosity busted yet again.

      ===
      * http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/pnas_kemp-etal_2011_sea_level_rise.pdf

      ** http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/#more-32692

      *** http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/10-of-sea-level-rise-is-due-to-land-rising-too-got-that/

      **** http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdf

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 21

  19. Evidence?

    Sea Level is Rising Faster Than Ever Seen
    Jennifer Welsh, LiveScience Staff WriterDate: 20 June 2011 Time: 05:47 PM ET

    http://www.livescience.com/14688-sea-level-rising-faster.html

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 19

    1. Tucci78

      Nope. Vide immediately supra.

      You lose again, Evi.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 22

  20. Evidence?

    “SOLAR ACTIVITY AND GLOBAL WARMING
    The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel. Compared to these effects, the influence of variations in solar magnetic activity is unimportant, however interesting it may be to astrophysicists like me.
    For further details see the Press Release on the University of Cambridge website
    Nigel Weiss”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-ducks-correction-repeats-slander

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18

    1. Tucci78

      Oh? A reporter mistakes warmista Nigel Weiss for an honest skeptic, and the guy gets all shirty about it.

      Tsk. Pay a charlatan an undeserved compliment and see what it gets you….

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 20

  21. Evidence?

    ‘The problem, then and still, is that nobody in Solomon’s overheated text actually denies that humans are causing climate change.”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/lawrence-solomons-deniers-carefully-calculated-lie-still-lie

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18

    1. Tucci78

      Are Lawrence Solomon’s QUOTED assertions in his article (“Numbers racket” (7 November 2009)* factual or are they not?

      You’re evading the point, putzi.

      In his article, he quotes warmistas supporting the great preposterous AGW bogosity. Expecting them to express honest skepticism instead of expressing faith in the spurious validity of their meal ticket is rather too much like expecting officers of the Federal Reserve System to campaign for the restoration of specie (gold and silver coin) instead of the continued issue of fiat currency.

      ===
      * http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/07/lawrence-solomon-numbers-racket.aspx

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 20

  22. Evidence?

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 18

  23. Evidence?

    Almost all of these are professional associations, not government affiliated.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 20

    1. Tucci78

      See above. The members of those “professional organizations” are overwhelmingly dependent – both directly and indirectly – on government funding allocated by politicians with a POWERFUL desire to “keep up the skeer” among the constituencies their gulling, cullying, and diddling.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 20

  24. Evidence?

    Anthony Watts is hardly an expert on climate science. He didn’t even get a college degree.

    “Credentials held
    Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of “retired”.[8]
    Credentials not held
    Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as “AMS Certified”[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its “AMS Certified” designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]”

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Background_and_education

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 16

    1. Tucci78

      Ah, now we have “argumentum ad hominem” in its precise definition.

      Writes “Evidence?”:

      “Anthony Watts is hardly an expert on climate science. He didn’t even get a college degree.”

      You lose, putzi. Attacking the person to whom a statement is attributed is the evasion of the honest disputant’s responsibility to address the contention itself.

      You’re another one of those gormless lefties who never did debate in high school (much less college), ain’tcha? Never legitimately passed a course in either Logic or Rhetoric, either.

      While formal certification can serve as presumptive – perhaps the better word is “circumstantial” – support for reliability, it cannot be definitive proof of reliability, capability, or even trustworthiness. Reciprocally, LACK of certification says nothing whatsoever about such a person’s ability to observe, evaluate, interpret, and arrive at valid conclusions about the phenomenal universe.

      The admitted “Liberal” fascisti running SourceWatch are creatures of the similarly politically prejudiced milk-and-water socialist Center for Media and Democracy, and that organization is also funded by people and corporate entities intent upon selling the AGW fraud (see http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html). That says nothing about the quality of their assessments, but worlds about their motivations.

      Interestingly, though, the only remotely adverse thing they post online about Mr. Watts is that he doesn’t have a college degree.

      Well, heck. Neither did Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Andre Carnegie, H.L. Mencken, Nikola Tesla, or H. Allen Smith.

      Theodore Kaczynski, on the other hand, does.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 20

      1. Evidence?

        The experts study for several years to obtain PhD’s in an interdisciplinary field and submit their research in peer reviewed journals so that the educated people can look at the data before their studies are published to the general public. This is done so that their studies aren’t misinterpreted by people outside their field as Lawrence Solomon has done.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 19

        1. Tucci78

          Yeah, and the running joke I remember as an undergraduate was that “PhD” stands for “Piled higher & Deeper.”

          Heard it in medical school, too, come to think of it.

          There is in Evi’s worshipful exaltation of the PhD types nothing more or less than the stench of authoritarianism, of reliance on the output of the anointed for no other reason than the fact that they’ve run the gymkhana required to get themselves certified as “experts.”

          Forget whether or not these “experts” are actually doing anything valid or honest or even remotely congruent with factual reality. They’re the ones “educated people” look up to.

          Gawd. It’s time to repeat that quote from Nobel laureate (Physics) Richard Feynman again:

          “Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

          Consider that last phrase graven in letters of fire.

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 20

      2. Stefan C. Kosikowski

        Tucci states:

        “You lose, putzi. Attacking the person to whom a statement is attributed is the evasion of the honest disputant’s responsibility to address the contention itself. ”

        Pot, kettle, black… thanks for playing!

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 15

        1. Tucci78

          Nope. Stefan, you cement-headedly fail to support your assertions. To the extent that you and your co-religionist warmista fellow have advanced anything even risibly to be considered a “contention,” I’ve addressed it, debunked it, and otherwise given the honest reader here more than adequate indication that the preposterous bogosity of the AGW conjecture is a blunder that has long since become a flagrant fraud.

          Yet again, Stefan, you fail. Er, you haven’t yet gotten tired of screwing the pooch like this, have you? Were it not for incompetent boobs like you, the defenestration of this gaudy hoax would be less pleasurable by far.

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 16

          1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            More personal attacks… I guess it’s safe to claim victory, for there is nothing honest about you.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 13

          2. Tucci78

            Aw, you’ve given up, Stefan?

            Go ahead and “claim” anything you like. You’re dedicated to pushing the single greatest fraud in the history of civilization (the divine right of kings has now, in my opinion, been superseded), which means that you’re committed to lying without hesitation, shame, or qualm of conscience.

            What’s one more lie to you?

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 16

  25. Evidence?

    That’s not a very good way of arguing. Just because scientists were hired by governments doesn’t mean all their scientific data and the conclusions they drew were immediately wrong.

    The warming is occurring even though solar radiation is in decline. That is a product of heat trapping gasses.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 16

    1. Tucci78

      Ah, yes. Government employees are more reliable than those of us participating in the productive sector of the polity, and upon whom they depend for funding. Gotta explain how you get to that conclusion sometime, don’tcha?

      As for this “The warming is occurring even though solar radiation is in decline. That is a product of heat trapping gasses” unsupported assertion, you got a citation or two – something from ARGO or CERES or ERBE data – to back that up, putzi?

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 22

  26. Evidence?

    She doesn’t sound like a hoax.

    Rachel Pike: The science behind a climate headline
    Video
    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rachel_pike_the_science_behind_a_climate_headline.html

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 10

    1. Tucci78

      Yep, its a hoax. The moment she said of that pre-Climategate IPCC bilge dump (Fourth Assessment Report, 2007): “that report was written by 620 scientists from forty different countries.”

      LOUD RUDE BUZZER NOISE! Wrong. Most of those “scientists” weren’t scientists at all, but government employees and similar apparatchiki. In fact, most of whatever pulled-out-of-her-distalmost-sphincter number alleged scientists Ms. Pike is spouting about didn’t really participate in the “science” (if we can call it that) central to the AGW conjecture in the IPCC’s report.

      I quote Lawrence Solomon’s news article, “Numbers racket” (7 November 2009),* which was blurbed: “Politicians the world over claim that 4,000 scientists believe in global warming. Depends on who’s counting”:

      “How many of those 3,750-plus people from 130-plus countries can the IPCC claim as true backers of its conclusions? An Australian analyst named John McLean scrutinized the lists that the IPCC used to arrive at its figures and found them to be riddled with duplications, such as the 383 authors who also acted as reviewers for the same sections in which their work appeared, and the authors and reviewers who were listed twice or thrice. Remove the duplications and the total number of authors plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890.

      “The reviewers, as might be expected, made suggestions. In about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the suggestions – another indication that the verdict on the IPCC’s report was far from unanimous.

      “Most importantly, the great majority of the reviewers commented on chapters that dealt with historical or technical issues — matters that didn’t support the IPCC’s conclusions on man-made climate change. The exception was Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. An endorsement here would clearly be a bona fide endorsement of the IPCC’s conclusion.

      “Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55 individuals, four commented favourably on the entire chapter and three on a portion of the chapter. (To give you the flavour of these endorsements, reviewer David Sexton stated that ‘section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand’ and reviewer Fons Baede’s endorsement was ‘Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative.’)

      “The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to conclude: “There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim” made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist for every two countries.”
      ===

      So the core of the matter is that only 53 authors and 55 reviewers actually participated in the “science of climate warming” core of Assessment Report 4 (AR4), not “620 scientists,” meaning that Ms. Pike is DEAD RIGHT THERE (D.R.T.).

      Moreover, forty-eight (48) of the fifty-five (55, not “four hundred-plus”) reviewers had nothing but unfavorable comments on that critically central Chapter 9.

      Jeez, you wanna talk about “the consensus” here? If anything, even the real consensus among the IPCC’s hand-picked rubber stamp wielders gave Chapter 9 of AR4 a flunking grade.

      This is, of course, a completely worthless line of discussion (though I’ll admit that Rachel Pike is certainly easy on the eyes even if she’s as full of crap as a Christmas goose). To quote the late Dr. Michael Crichton:

      “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

      “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. ” **

      So much for Ms. Pike and her numbers game nonsense.

      Sure sounds like a hoax to any honest person looking into this snotty tissue of lies.

      ===
      * http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/07/lawrence-solomon-numbers-racket.aspx

      ** http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 20

  27. Evidence?

    “However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth’s temperature to rise.

    So, while there is no credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature, it’s the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 9

    1. Tucci78

      Ah, the exclusionary principle. Bad timing, kiddo.

      From Watts Up With That?, 8 June 2011, “Alarmist climate science and the principle of exclusion:” *

      “And so, alarmist climate scientists find themselves under siege by skeptics and increasingly distrusted by the public because they blindly accept the principle of exclusion, in the face of considerable empirical facts that don’t fit the AGW hypothesis. For example, for more than a decade, the earth has not warmed as the AGW hypothesis predicts. Nor are the oceans warming as the hypothesis predicts. Yet, when skeptics point out the problems, alarmists cannot admit they have made a mistake because then the whole alarmist edifice (and the juicy research grants that go with it) would collapse.

      “The AGW hypothesis may well prove to be correct. However, the simplest and most logical explanation for climate change, in the past, now, and in the future, is natural variation. If so, then the AGW hypothesis, based on the treacherous principle of exclusion, will go the way of Darwin’s two hypotheses on the Glen Roy tracks and the creation of coral atolls.

      “And so, while alarmist climate scientists are quite within their rights to propose the AGW hypothesis, they should also be cautious: AGW is an hypothesis. It has not reached the status of a scientific theory (it has not passed enough scientific tests for that), nor is it a scientific fact, as the public is told. Instead, alarmist climate scientists have thrown the proper scientific caution to the winds to make claims that aren’t supported by the evidence, and to smear those who point out the possible errors in their hypothesis.”

      ===

      Of course, it’s arguable that the AGW bogosity doesn’t even rise to the level of hypothesis. I share with Dr. Jeff Glassman** in his opinion that “Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge.”

      Just because a warmista propagandist (some “SkepticalScience”!) is desperate to handwave away “…credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature,” and wants all and sundry to ASSUME that “the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming,” we’re supposed to receive that crap as if there has ever been OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE presented supporting that factor as the critical-and-or-only cause for what little warming the Earth has been experiencing (at pretty much the same slow, steady multidecadal rate – “hockey stick” lying graphs notwithstanding) since about 1700?

      Heck, the human race didn’t even begin to burn petrochemical fuel stocks to any great extent until the latter half of the 19th Century, and though the proven increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) has been documented to continue increasing at an unremittingly linear rate – look up “Keeling Curve” – the most recent bout of global warming ENDED in 1998, and shows absolutely no sign of resuming.

      If the current diminution in solar activity continues, we’re likely to continue this cooling spell – and it’s likely to worsen further, chiefly by way of cosmic ray influence on cloud cover. I quote:

      “In 1959, the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. More specifically, a more active sun accelerates a stronger solar wind, which in turn implies that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations correspond to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. It now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization — Clouds.

      “[Figure 2] The cosmic ray link between solar activity and the terrestrial climate. The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic ray reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system (cosmic rays with energies below the “knee” at 10^15eV, are most likely accelerated by supernova remnants). Since cosmic rays dominate the tropospheric ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically (as shown below), also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their “whiteness” is more important than their “blanket” effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. Intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations will have a similar effect, one however, which is unrelated to solar activity variations.” ***

      And decreased solar activity will translated into increased tropospheric ionization, increasing low-altitude cloud cover to cause global COOLING.

      There are indirect as well as direct effects of solar activity. Of course, this is something the climatology caliphate has never factored into their very expensive (taxpayer funded) global climate models, and relying on John Cook for talking points to handwave away the effects of solar variation and cosmic rays**** does nothing to support the “aCO2 is the cause!” hysteria of the AGW fraudsters.

      Greater clarity on the subject comes by way of science educator Joanne Nova, giving voice on her Web site (1 February 2011) to a report titled”The oceans, clouds and cosmic rays drive the climate, not CO2,” ***** in the conclusion of which we read the following supported assertions:

      “(1) Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The ‘greenhouse effect’ has become less.

      “(2) Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate

      “(3) Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying

      “(4) No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate

      “(5) Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo”

      Yet another attempt to peddle the preposterous bogosity that is the AGW fraud goes down the tubes.

      The science is against you warmistas. Haven’t you gotten it hammered sufficiently through your thick heads yet?

      ===
      * http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/alarmist-climate-science-and-the-principle-of-exclusion/

      ** “Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: The Basis of Rational Argument,” online at http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/64_07_Conjecture_to_Law.pdf

      *** http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

      **** http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

      ***** http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-and-cosmic-rays-drive-the-climate-not-co2/

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20

  28. Evidence?

    “A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.”

    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 8

    1. Tucci78

      Vide supra. Yet another major AGW fraud fail.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20

  29. UEBERNERD

    Scientific consensus in the 70s was global cooling little ice age coming due to behaviour of the Sun.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 21

    1. Evidence?

      Where did you find out that was a scientific consensus in the 70′s?

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5

    2. Cameron

      Not true UBERNERD.

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4

      1. Tucci78

        And – as usual from Cameron, who holds the “flaming idiot” franchise on this stand – NO support whatsoever.

        Just a kneejerk “blank-out.” Whee!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16

        1. Cameron

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

          Mixed scientific support. Not a consensus, nor claimed to be. It’s a favorite argument by those claiming AGW is a fraud, but it has been debunked.

          Weak! (like you, Tucci)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

  30. Stefan C. Kosikowski

    More worrisome than temperatures are the 45,000+ synthetic chemicals (and the infinate combinations two or more of them can create) that mankind has polluted our eco-system with.

    Every species on the planet is in decline.

    Once rare cancers and diseases are now commonplace, even in young children. Worse, there is no recourse for people, for the law (thanks to the magic of incorporating) protects the polluters.

    I must also correct the gross mis-understanding surrounding atmospheric temperature rise. To simply cite surface temperatures is monumntally ignorant. The atosphere is liteally all the air and all the water… one must include ocean temperature rises when HONESTLY debating global climate change. Oceans are the Earth’s heat sinks, they are critical to understanding the truth of the issue, but alas… both sides of the argument appear oblivious.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 9

    1. Tucci78

      Well, your concern about “atmospheric temperature rise” (which simply hasn’t been happening since 1998, in direct and stark contravention to the anthropogenic global warming [AGW] conjecture) is wonderfully misplaced and easily allayed.

      Citing surface temperatures – in order to correlate with historical instrumental records (which started being tabulated in about 1850) and various proxy estimations – is the only way in which recent trends can be accorded any kind of context. Are global average temperatures going up, or down? Without getting some idea of what they’ve been in the past, how can anybody claim to say?

      Without lying, I mean.

      We hadn’t begun to get reliable satellite platforms for sustained observations of the atmosphere, the land surface areas, and the surface of the oceans until the 1960s, and the really useful systems didn’t begin to produce good data until about thirty years ago.

      Systems like the ERBE and CERES instruments have produced observational evidence that quite effectively diddles the daylights out of the great AGW bogosity, so the heavily invested “climatology” caliphate have been doing their very best to evade addressing those findings.

      Not even the whole atmosphere is involved in whatever warming has been going on since the Little Ice Age began gradually to abate (’round about 1700). High-altitude aerostat (balloon) weather instruments as well as the satellite systems have shown that the stratosphere dumps its received-from-the-sun heat energy pretty much completely, and does so by direct radiation into space, meaning that it’s only the lower portion – the troposphere – with which we have to concern ourselves.

      As for the oceans, ever heard of the Argo project? From their Web site, Argo is “…a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m[eters] of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.”

      Now, the LOWER ocean – below two kilometers’ depth – doesn’t figure to any significant extent at all in the heat content of the surface, so let’s give the Argo people credit for keeping focus on what really matters.

      And the Argo drifters have been showing a generally diminishing trend in ocean temperature readings. Remember that “travesty” bit from Trenberth in the Climategate e-mails? It was the failure of ocean temperature readings (among other factors) to show up the “hidden heat” energy that the AGW conjecture – and all those expensive computer simulation global climate models peddled by the IPCC and the rest of the climatology caliphate – said HAD to be happening because of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) greenhouse gas effect.

      The troposphere has mechanisms which serve to carry heat up and away from the Earth to get radiated away into space, including water evaporation (which is what cools the ocean surface areas) and convection currents and low cloud formations (which throw back insolation heat energy by reflection). Negative feedback mechanisms.

      Remember, the preposterous bogosity that is the AGW conjecture relies overwhelmingly on POSITIVE feedback mechanisms to increase heat trapping in the troposphere in order to give us the catastrophic “steambath Earth” they’ve been predicting, claiming that these positive feedbacks would roughly triple the amount of warming arguably caused by aCO2 increasing the total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

      They just kinda left the negative feedback mechanisms out of their global climate models (GCMs). Was that deliberate duplicity on their part, or were they just incompetent?

      I think there’s good argument for both incompetence AND corruption. They started out incompetent, and when they found that the chittering root weevils of the media paid attention to “We’re All Gonna Die!” alarmism, and the bloated, power-hungry politicians saw man-made climate catastrophe as a way to squeeze even more cash out of the little people…. Well, as the song goes: “My God, How the Money Rolls In!”

      Okay, so that puts the proverbial wooden stake through the mediastinum of the great, gaudy AGW fraud. More in posts further down the thread.

      Now how about those pathogenic “synthetic chemicals” you’re concerned about?

      Not that Mother Nature herself doesn’t produce thousands and thousands of carcinogenic, neurotoxic, hemotoxic, mutagenic, and generally noxious substances and dumps ‘em into the biosphere by way of processes vegetable, animal, and mineral all the time, mind you. She’s been trying to kill you, cripple you, render you sterile, and murder your children in the womb from the moment you were conceived. The human race has spent most of its history as a species teetering on the razor edge of extinction, and none of what got flung at us during those hundreds and thousands of years was “man-made.”

      All natural.

      Dr. Paul has already articulated his position on the subject of “…polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities – thus decreasing pollution. He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property.”

      Read the Wiki-bloody-pedia page on Dr. Paul’s expressed political positions. Seems pretty well-supported to me, but you judge for yourself.

      As things stand, both the federal and (to a lesser extent) the state governments don’t so much protect you against polluters as they decide – without much more than a “bedbug letter” acknowledgement of your own personal concerns – what polluters should be ALLOWED to dump into your environment, helping those polluters to a “hold harmless” status with the excuse that the polluters are conforming to government regulations.

      You suffer injury and other loss, and you haven’t got the proverbial nitrocellulose dog’s chance of chasing ‘em through the hell our governments have made of the courts.

      You like that? Dr. Paul surely doesn’t, and neither do I.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 20

      1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

        My concern is not whether the real and verifiable climate change is natural or man made. Clearly it is happening, or all the glaciers would not be melting. We also have a clear history of the co2 levels in our atmosphere for the past 300,000 years. It is found in the ice core samples drilled in Greenland, Antartica, and elsewhere. Our current levels of co2 in the atmosphere are greater than at any point during those past 300,000 years. This is the result of man’s insesant burning of fossil fuels.

        What is far more troubling are the consequences of the climate change, as billions of people will be displaced, their current homes no longer inhabitable. Where will they go? Weather paterns are changing too. Once again… waste your breath denying man’s culpability, but the problems are all too real and won’t abate through continurd denial.

        That stated… I would never trust the global warming nutcases who insist on these carbon credits and other scams to bilk us of more money (taxes). You truly missed the bigger picture by even going there!

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 10

        1. Tucci78

          If tropospheric CO2 levels are capable of increasing Earth’s global temperatures, then we have to be able to see – in the paleoclimate proxy evidence particularly – proof of such a causative correlation.

          And there’s none. Analysis of such evidence ranging back 400,000+ years (not just 300,000) by way of Vostok ice core data has demonstrated that there’s no such correlation. As a matter of fact, it was a guest post by engineer Frank Lasner on this subject to which warmista Cameron had referred – mistakenly – when he tried to peddle his still-unsupported bushwah that Anthony Watts had been producing on his Web site work that is “…largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.”

          Cameron’s problem is that this particular skeptical assertion is true. Australian science educator Joanne Nova (at http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/ice-core-evidence-no-endorsement-of-carbons-major-effect/) discussed Lasner’s analysis of the Vostok data to a greater extent than Mr. Lasner had been able to do (English is not Mr. Lasner’s first language), and further information on the subject was provided by Mr. Lasner later last summer (see http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/update-the-slope-of-temperatures-does-not-appear-related-to-co2-concentration-in-vostok-data-192.php).

          Over the course of the 20th Century, anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 have been linear and unremitting, but the climate changes – what little warming we’ve seen, interspersed with periods of significant global cooling – has not correlated with those CO2 levels to any extent that can be called reliable.

          No connection at all. The AGW conjecture (which has never yet been supported to the level of reliability at which it can be called a “theory”) fails, and continues to fail.

          Yes, climate change is happening. We’ve got historical records as well as physical evidence verifiable by way of instrumental analyses. Unless the objective is to strive for reliable predictability on long-term bases in order to undertake preparation for anticipated adverse events, to what purpose is this discussion being conducted?

          Clearly, the preposterous notion that purposeful human action – in the combustion of petrochemicals – will effect “global warming” by way of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is bogus. There’s no proof for it in either the paleoclimate evidence (where such warming cycles as have occurred had always PRECEDED any increases in atmospheric CO2 levels by a lag of about 800 years, quite completely invalidating the assumptions upon which the AGW global climate models have been predicated) or in instrumental data recorded since thermometric monitoring of surface temperatures began to be conducted in 1850.

          Once the matter of “culpability” – more properly CAUSALITY – is disposed of (and it’s been quite thoroughly disposed of), then we pass to the question: “How could purposeful human action deal with natural global warming as profound as those levels which prevailed in the Roman Warm and the Medieval Warm climate optima?”

          This, of course, first begs the question whether the restoration of global temperatures to the levels prevailing in either of those periods of great human health and prosperity would be a bad thing, necessarily causing “…billions of people [to] be displaced, their current homes no longer inhabitable.”

          Second question, of course, is whether there is any evidence that such a climate change is happening, or is likely to happen in the next century or so.

          So what answer do we have from the climatology caliphate responsible for pushing the AGW conjecture as if it were “settled science”?

          Why, none at all. Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

          The historical records of the Medieval Warm and the Roman Warm periods lead to the conclusion that a warming planet will provide even greater carrying capacity for the human race. The projected increases in population would find even greater agricultural resources – in terms of arable land suitable to high-calorie-yield crops – available for exploitation.

          Remember, during the Medieval Warm period, people in the British Isles were growing grapes in vineyards suited to commercial wine production – which they cannot do today, even more than a century and a half after the end of the Little Ice Age – and the Norsemen were colonizing the coasts of both Greenland and present-day North America.

          You want to know what global warming might do to the those “billions of people”? Forget the climatology fraudsters. Ask some agronomists.

          Were any of those billions’ “current homes no longer inhabitable” as the result of rising ocean levels (an unlikely occurrence, but let’s go with the fraud for the moment), by what evidence can anyone conjure that such displacement must be abrupt?

          Humans have been coping with all sorts of climate change throughout recorded history, and that historical record gives indication that it’s global COOLING that has been the real cause of impoverishment and mass death for humanity, not warming.

          But this is all bootless speculation. There’s no evidence that significant warming – above the slow, relatively steady rebound in global temperatures recorded since the end of the Little Ice Age – is ever going to happen. The AGW conjecture is without proof, and what evidence has been gathered and honestly examined demonstrates that it has never been viable as an explanation for real-world events.

          So what problems might there be, really?

          If “climatology” as a scientific discipline is going to serve any purpose in helping to answer that question, the whole field needs a basement-to-attic housecleaning, with emphasis on getting rid of the politically connected fraudsters responsible for converting the field into a “Ministry of Truth” support for the politicians and the “carbon credit” banksters and the United Nations apparatchiki.

          I think it’s reasonable to ask Dr. Paul how – when he becomes president – he’s going to have the U.S. Department of Justice handle the palpable fraud that’s been perpetrated by these “climate science” charlatans in their federal grant applications.

          Should be interesting, no?

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 20

          1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Carbondioxide in the atmosphere blocks infrared wavelenghts, which is primarily how our planet sheds excess heat. Increasing the co2 levels will directly correlate with rising temperatures.

            Venus is a planet with massive carbondioide concentrations in the atmosphere. This planet’s rotation period is identical to its revolution period around the sun, ergo the same portion of Venus is constantly and forever facing the sun. Yet the planet has a basially universal temperature at all latitdes and longitudes, due to the effect of the carbondioxide concentration.

            I believe, as does the vast majority of the scientific community, that co2 does have a direct correlation to temperature via trapping infrared wavelenghts (heat). The scienific community has nothing to gain monitarily… at least those not working for the fossil fuel companies that is. You can certainly believe it is all some conspiracy theory, but clearly Dr. Paul doesn’t from what HE has actually stated for the record.

            Good day, Sir.

            Report this comment

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 9

          2. Tucci78

            Stefan C. Kosikowski writes: “Carbondioxide in the atmosphere blocks infrared wavelenghts, which is primarily how our planet sheds excess heat. Increasing the co2 levels will directly correlate with rising temperatures.

            “Venus is a planet with massive carbondioide concentrations in the atmosphere. This planet’s rotation period is identical to its revolution period around the sun, ergo the same portion of Venus is constantly and forever facing the sun. Yet the planet has a basially universal temperature at all latitdes and longitudes, due to the effect of the carbondioxide concentration.”

            Ah, the Hansen error. Hansen, Wang, et. al., “Greenhouse Effects Due to Man-made Perturbations of Trace Gasses” in *Science*, 1976. Confusing the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus with the effects of trace increases in the atmosphere of a different planet.

            The atmosphere on Venus is NINETY (90) TIMES DENSER than is the atmosphere on Earth. In addition, it’s closer to the Sun. No wonder it’s hot. It wouldn’t matter what gas was in the atmosphere of Venus; it’s going to be hotter than on Earth.

            What you’re missing, Stefan, is the fact that the laws of physical chemistry are against this preposterous supposition.

            Even on Venus, where the atmosphere is nearly 100% carbon dioxide (and 90 times denser than on the Earth), there cannot be 100% absorption of all infrared light. Each CO2 molecule on Venus increases atmospheric warming by a small increment, and each additional CO2 molecule will have a miniscule increasing effect ad infinitum, but the effect becomes saturated even on Venus. Were that not the case, the atmospheric temperature forcing on the second planet from the sun would just keep on pushing the temperature higher and higher and higher.

            And it doesn’t, does it? High as they are, the temperatures on Venus have remained pretty consistent in spite of Hansen’s foolish blunder thirty-five years ago.

            When Venus turns into a ball of pure molten rock, THEN we can start talking about how – allegedly – “co2 does have a direct correlation to temperature via trapping infrared wavelengths (heat). ” Until then? Eh, not so much.

            The “climatology” caliphate’s computer simulations – those vaunted “climate models” – accept fatally simple assumptions about how carbon dioxide functions as a greenhouse gas in a real system far more complicated than their clumsy abstract concepts have been able to encompass.

            At any concentration, CO2 can only effect the absorption of radiant energy from the sun to a limited effect, and the absorption curve tails off logarithmically with each incremental increase in CO2 levels. This absorption effect has been just about completely saturated on the Earth, and even doubling the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere most probably wouldn’t have any significant effect on global temperatures.

            If the Earth’s atmosphere functioned in reality the way it’s supposed to do in the “climatology” charlatans’ computer models, might could be that we’d see the kinds of warming Hansen and his co-authors were yelping about in 1976.

            But reality is far more complex than are the computer models of incompetent third-rate fumblers trying to pass themselves off as scientists. Ocean currents aren’t modeled in those alarmist climate computer simulacra (remember the mention I’d made of the Argo buoy system?), the effects of condensation and atmospheric convection currents and rain are not modeled, and – most importantly of all – the negative feedback effects of clouds and humidity on the planet Earth aren’t modeled.

            And then there’s Stefan’s assertion that “The scienific community has nothing to gain monetarily….”

            Wrong again. Hoo, boy, are you wrong. Stefan, in recent years – in these Unites States alone (I haven’t got a reliable estimate on how things are going in the EU and other western nations, but its pretty much along the same lines), taxpayer-funded government grants for “research” into man-made global climate change and its supposed effects has been running at $4 billion per year.

            FOUR BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR in government grants to fund “scientists” working on the basis of the most thoroughly bogus presumption in the history of scientific inquiry.

            In the summer of 2009 (before Climategate broke), science educator Joanne Nova estimated that since 1989 a total of $79 billion had been allocated to such “research” by the U.S. government alone. *

            During that same twenty-year period, one of “the fossil fuel companies” – Exxon-Mobil – had put a total of $23 million behind skeptical contrarian scientific work on the subject.

            Let’s see…. That ratio works out to less than one thousandth of what the U.S. government alone put behind nothing but AGW rah-rah in the same two decades.

            No skeptical scientific inquiry for our politicians and bureaucrats, no siree!

            The plain fact of the matter is that most of the responsibly skeptical opposition to the great man-made climate change fraud has come from retired scientists (who don’t have to depend on government grant funding any more, and who can speak their minds as they see fit) and similar unpaid volunteers.

            If you want to speak about “nothing to gain monetarily,” Stefan, the people you’re talking about are NOT “[t]the scientific community” in the persons of the ever-so-entrenched climatology caliphate.

            They’ve been making out like bandits. Hansen’s blithering error starting with his study of the planet Venus has “showed [them] the way to promotion an’ pay.”

            It’s the people on the other side of this debate – statisticians like Stephen McIntyre and meteorologists like Timothy Ball and Anthony Watts and solar physicist Piers Corbyn and astrophysicst Sallie Baliunas – who are demonstrating real scientific integrity, and they’re doing it without that FOUR BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in taxpayer funding that’s being sloshed all over the catastrophic AGW rah-rah crowd.

            ===
            * http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 20

          3. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            What your missing, sir, is that the entire atmosphere of Venus is the same relative temperature regardless of distance from the equator, even though the same side of the planet constantly faces the sun. Mercury is even closer to the sun, has a similar rotation vs. revolution set up as Venus, yet the side constantly facing the sun is extremely hot while the opposite side is hundreds of degrees below zero. It’s the atmosphere, the co2 is trapping the infrared energy. Mercury has no atmoshere because it lacks sufficient mass to possess the gravity to retain one. Also, direct radiation from the sun can not physically cause this phenomenon of uniform temperatures.

            P.S.- If you truly believe all these scientists are frauds and theives, I am truly sorry for you. These good people could make hundreds of times more money if they were truly frauds and thieves… but then they would be working for one of those affore mentioned fossil fuel corporations.

            You know it’s sad but true!

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 10

          4. Tucci78

            What you’re missing, Stefan, is that conditions on the planet Venus do NOT prevail on the planet Earth. A relative uniformity of temperature distribution from pole to equator detectable from space on a planet closer to the sun and with an atmosphere NINETY (90) TIMES DENSER than that of the Earth speaks rather more to the distribution of heat energy by convection than anything else.

            I’m just a country GP, not a planetary astronomer or atmospheric physicist, and while I probably know more about that otherwise uninteresting gravity well a bit further in on the plane of the ecliptic than do most people, what has been happening on Venus to permit that planet to shed all that heat – and not turn into a ball of molten slag – instead of fulfilling your expectation that its carbon dioxide atmosphere must trap every bit of infrared radiant energy in defiance of the laws of physics has so little to do with what’s happening on the Earth as the result of miniscule anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 since the onset of the first industrial age that I’m wondering right now what the heck has you fixated upon it, and by concatenation on Hansen’s 1976 mega-blunder.

            In the very dense atmosphere of Venus, y’see, that carbon dioxide has got to be carrying heat – by convection and conduction, most likely – as well as trapping infrared radiation, and subsequently radiating that heat away into space so as to secure a homeostasis of sorts, maintaining surface and overall atmospheric temperatures at high but stable levels.

            What are you supposed to be, the incarnation of Carson Napier?

            As for the fraudulence of the climatology caliphate, you’re mistaken in your use of the word “believe.”

            I don’t “believe” in their concerted violation of both professional ethics and the criminal statutes any more than I “believe” that when a patient presents in the Emergency Department with a surgically unmarred belly and a complaint of epigastric or periumbilical abdominal pain accompanied by anorexia, nausea and vomiting, with right lower quadrant direct and rebound tenderness, there’s a diagnosis of acute appendicitis that has to be ruled out, and in addition to the usual lab studies, I’m going to want an abdominal CT scan as soon as possible.

            The indications of fraud among “these scientists” of yours – not all scientists by any means, but most certainly the C.R.U. e-mail correspondents indisputably exposed by the Climategate information archive – are so strong that it is nothing less than dereliction of one’s professional duty to permit them to evade thorough and conscientiously skeptical investigation. The stench of corruption on them is undeniable.

            Heck, you’d think that if they were honest men and women, they’d welcome such investigations. They’d want to clear their good names, wouldn’t they?

            Oh? They don’t? Hm….

            And when it comes to your obstinate, obdurate, obtuse vapor-lock about “those affore mentioned fossil fuel corporations,” Stefan, remember that the BIG money – over a thousand to one – has been for twenty years and more on the side of the fraud, not against it.

            Were that not enough, since AGW became the Received and Holy Word of the professional popularity contestants who run for elected office, the fossil fuel companies have become “energy” companies, and have largely bought into the “green” flim-flam.

            They’re making out like bandits there, too. Plenty of plunder to go around, after all.

            Or have you been concentrated on Venus so obsessively that you’ve lost sight of what’s been happening here on the Earth?

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 21

          5. Cameron

            “Over the course of the 20th Century, anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 have been linear and unremitting, but the climate changes – what little warming we’ve seen, interspersed with periods of significant global cooling – has not correlated with those CO2 levels to” ***”any extent that can be called reliable.”*** {subjective, much?}

            “No connection at all. The AGW conjecture” ***{care to enlighten us with the hard evidence?}*** “(which has never yet been supported to the level of reliability at which it can be called a “theory”) fails, and continues to fail.”

            Really? A theory? Not so, according to the wikipedia page on Global Warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

            Also, how the hell can you say that “co2 lag” is the smoking gun that proves AGW false when you say there is no correlation at all? You’re contradicting yourself.

            Arguing with you (Tucci78) is like playing whack-a-mole. Instead of moles, it’s the same claims repeated over and over again that have been rebutted time and again. You chose to dismiss these rebuttals, yet flame people who challenge yours. Again, you’ve failed so far at presenting a succinct argument that proves co2 has become a climate “driver” due to human activity vs. a “passenger” in the natural cycle. That’s what I want to hear. Succinctly too, without all of the useless analogies, conspiracy theories, personal attacks, etc. Of course we’re talking about a complex systems problem, so there are no simple answers- but you can do a lot better than you have been.

            I don’t expect it, however. Just more lame false accusations and insults that only bury your position further into question.

            Report this comment

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 10

          6. Tucci78

            Like the proverbial pooch persistently piddling on the rug and thinking that he’s claimed it as his territory thereby, we’ve got Cameron returning, and this time he’s citing “Wiki-bloody-pedia” as his support for his “Liberal” fascist flaming idiot perseverations about the anthropogenic global climate change bogosity.

            Gawd, smell the flop-sweat on him.

            In the words of journalist James Delingpole:

            “If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. ‘Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy’, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists.” *

            By extension, the article Cameron’s citing by rights should kick you over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth

            At least we know that Cameron isn’t William Connolley. Connolley is at least educated in the sciences, even if he’s a perfidious liar. He’s a SMART crook. Cameron? Er, let’s just say he’s “disadvantaged.”

            Proof of that, of course, is in another one of Cameron’s failures to put together a coherent simulation of an argument. The silly goof has to mutilate two paragraphs of a post of mine above and then pretend he’s done something substantive in the way of rebuttal. What I’d written was:

            “Over the course of the 20th Century, anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 have been linear and unremitting, but the climate changes – what little warming we’ve seen, interspersed with periods of significant global cooling – has not correlated with those CO2 levels to any extent that can be called reliable.

            “No connection at all. The AGW conjecture (which has never yet been supported to the level of reliability at which it can be called a “theory”) fails, and continues to fail.”

            Inasmuch as I’ve supported these contentions in earlier posts, Cameron’s just gotta try – like an idiot – to reduce them to unintelligibility. He can’t respond to ‘em, that’s for sure. He doesn’t.

            And he wants to fantasize that the 800-year lag between proven prehistoric episodes of global warming and upspikes in atmospheric CO2 levels – thus proving that atmospheric hypercapnea is a consequence, not a cause of past global warming – is the ONLY “smoking gun” disproving Cameron’s cherished AGW fraud. Sheesh. As if.

            See preceding posts, emphasis on “negative feedback mechanisms” as well as references to the failure of “the climate scene” to provide hard evidence backing up any of their claims about unalloyed positive feedback effects (that step (3) in their failure chain).

            None of these warmistas – Cameron or his co-religionists – has ever once in this forum come up with anything that could be imaginatively considered a “rebuttal” to the statements I’ve made here.

            Including my assessment of Cameron as a flaming idiot, mind you.

            I mean, he keeps on PROVING it. What the heck else can I do but maintain focus on the diagnosis?

            Cameron, what gives you to assert that you’re “arguing” anything? You’re a joke out of a Monty Python sketch. You haven’t made a real argument since I found you furunculating in this forum. Every time you’re squeezed, we get out of you nothing more than the contents of a sigmoid diverticulum.

            (You’re online, Cameron; look it up.)

            You want public proof that you’re a flaming idiot, Cameron? Okay. From your own post, addressed to me:

            “Again, you’ve failed so far at presenting a succinct argument that proves co2 has become a climate ‘driver’ due to human activity vs. a ‘passenger’ in the natural cycle.”

            What the heck? Cameron, that’s YOUR position in these exchanges, not mine. Your burden. I have contended – with support – that those advancing the AGW contention have failed to provide evidence proving the contention that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) is in any way a “driver” of global warming.

            Or, indeed, that such little global warming as has taken place – slowly and more or less steadily – since the Little Ice Age began to abate (circa 1700) has accelerated to any statistically significant extent in the decades since the First Industrial Age began and aCO2 content in the atmosphere began to increase as the result of petrochemicals combustion.

            I’ve said that the direct tropospheric heat trapping effect of aCO2 is insignificant, and that there is no proof of positive feedback operating in the troposphere (see link (3) below again) to lead to sufficient global warming as to prove adverse in any way whatsoever.

            Heck, it doesn’t even look as if we’re going to reach temperatures in the next century or so equivalent to those prevailing in the Roman Warm climate optimum – that word is OPTIMUM – much less what was reported during the even more prosperous Medieval Warm.

            Cameron, you’re hopeless as well as brainless. I’d take pity on you, but that’s awful hard for an ex-farm boy to do when confronted by dangerous vermin like you.

            ===
            * http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 20

          7. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            It appears your argument is that the carbondioxide somehow absorbs the infrared wavelenghts (heat) and retains it?

            That would be in error, Sir.

            Any molecule, carbondioxie or most any other in nature will absorb electromagnetic waves, which shall cause “n” valence electrons to jump (or excite) into a higher energy field, that is highly unstable, lasting a fraction of a second before those valence electrons fall back into their “normal” state, which immediately causes an emmission of infrared energy out of that molecule.

            What I have learned is…

            Carbondioide is a relatively large molecule compared to the primary elements of nitrogen and oxigen that comprise our atmosphere. The issue with co2 is reflection, not absorbion. It doesn’t require massive concentration in the atmosphere to absorb the heat, merely a layer thick enough to trap the Earth’s radiated heat (infrared wavelenghts).

            Clouds and their water vapor represent another relatively larger molecule compared to nitrogen and oxygen, causing a similar effect during the dark cycle (night) as temperature do not significantly fall in high humidity or cloudy nights vs. clear sky nights.

            Your argument sounds really sexy, but seems to miss the critical points. Also, something you seem to not understand…

            Anything that man puts into the environment, such as burning fossil fuels… the polluters are the ones that must prove they are doing no harm. They are the ones changing what is natural about the Earth. People who are skeptical do not have to prove the harm, Sir. That is simply perposterous, for we are not the ones FUCKING UP THE PLANET.

            Prove all the co2 and other greenhouse gasses like methane that these corporatios have altered our eco-system with are benign!

            Thank you.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          8. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Wow, my comment is being held for moderation. I did not realize this web-site restricted FREE SPEECH!!!

            OK… I’ll try again, sorry if it becomes a repeat if the first try gets approved.

            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

            It appears your argument is that the carbondioxide somehow absorbs the infrared wavelenghts (heat) and retains it?

            That would be in error, Sir, for that is the SPONGE effect, not a greenhouse effect.

            Any molecule, be it carbondioxie or most any other in nature, will absorb electromagnetic waves, which shall cause “n” valence electrons to jump (or excite) into a higher energy field, that is highly unstable, lasting a fraction of a second before those valence electrons fall back into their “normal” state, which immediately causes an emmission of infrared energy out of that molecule.

            What I have learned is…

            Carbondioide is a relatively large molecule compared to the primary elements of nitrogen and oxgen that comprise our atmosphere. The issue with co2 is reflection, not absorbion. It doesn’t require massive concentration in the atmosphere to absorb the heat, merely a layer thick enough to trap the Earth’s radiated heat (infrared wavelenghts). Again… think of the greenhouse. It is made primarily of glass, which allows relatively higher frequency (shorter wavelength) electromagnetic waves to pass through; but the lower frequency (longer wavelength) infrared wavelengths cannot pass through the glass. They reflect back inward retaining the heat. This same effect happens in your automobile with the windows closed up.

            Clouds and their water vapor represent another relatively larger molecule compared to nitrogen and oxygen, causing a similar effect during the dark cycle (night) as temperature do not significantly fall in high humidity or cloudy nights vs. clear sky nights.

            The greenhouse (so to speak) about the Earth that mankind is creating is incomplete. It is like a greenhouse under construction, without all the glass panels installed yet… or your automobile analogy with the windows partially open. As more and more greeenhouse gases are dumped into the atmosphere, the Earth’s greenhouse becomes more complete or more efficient… or it is like rolling up the windows in your car!

            Your arguments sounds really sexy, particularly to the non-thinking types, but seem to miss the critical points all together. Also, something you seem to not understand…

            Anything that man puts into the environment, such as burning fossil fuels… the polluters… they are the ones that must prove they are doing no harm. They are the ones changing what is natural about the Earth. People who are skeptical do not have to prove the harm, Sir. That is simply perposterous, for we are not the ones SCREWING UP THE PLANET.

            Prove all the co2 and other greenhouse gases like methane that these corporatios have altered our eco-system with are benign!

            Thank you.

            Report this comment

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6

          9. Tucci78

            Dunno why your post got held, Stefan. It’s not very sensible, but they let Cameron post, and he hasn’t made any sense yet.

            Boiling your latest post down, it reduces to:

            “Prove all the co2 and other greenhouse gases like methane that these corporatios have altered our eco-system with are benign!”

            Tch. Yet another warmista who’s never passed a college course in Logic – or done any competitive debate, even in high school.

            Stefan, you do NOT ask a disputant to prove a negative. It’s logically impossible.

            The burden of proof, instead is on the person advancing the proposition, and the proposition in question is “Resolved: that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) imposes upon the Earth sufficient heat-trapping effect to cause adverse global warming.”

            To which the proper response is “prove it,” together with such rejoinders as:

            “The aCO2 levels have gone up at increasing rates since the late 1990s, and yet since 1998 the very accurate satellite platform global temperature measuring systems (modern developments less subject to heat island and other errors than are surface station thermometers) have shown NO global warming, and indeed what appear to be cooling regimes. You got an explanation for that disconnect?”

            I haven’t read anything from you, Stefan, or any other warmista in this forum who’s been able to reconcile the AGW conjecture with that FAILURE of the planet to warm, especially since it’s become impossible for the C.R.U. correspondents pantsed in the Climategate exposure to sequester and “cook” the archival global temperature datasets as the only sources of information on this phenomenon.

            But that’s only one sticking point. I’ve discussed plenty of others, upon which you and your co-religionists have either broken your teeth or evaded like the weasels you so truly are.

            The rest of your stuff – about pollutants – is a point largely well-taken, but fails catastrophically as a whole. The “corporations” really don’t have any burden to prove that their effluents do NOT pose hazards to public health.

            That’s precisely akin to demanding that the manufacturers of foodstuffs labeled as containing peanuts do NOT cause peanut allergy reactions in individual persons who have no history of such allergies before consuming their next portion of the those manufacturers’ products.

            Once proof of harm is established by objective evidence obtained honestly and reliably by way of reproducible methods, THEN the producer is responsible for abating the public nuisance he had been releasing into the commons. Before that, how the heck could he be said to know that whatever-it-is had been capable of causing anybody harm?

            Classifying aCO2 a “pollutant” is insane. Heck, under that construe, Stefan, you personally are “polluting” the air this very minute, as you read this. Even the water vapor in your breath is a global warming component of the atmosphere. Quit exhaling, why don’tcha?

            Oh, yeah. Your “SPONGE effect” and “rolling up the windows in your car!” analogies are very, very stupid, the latter especially because it implies that the Earth is a closed system when it obviously (and demonstrably) is not. You’d be ashamed of them if you had the moral fiber (or the intelligence) to have such a sentiment.

            Tsk.

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20

          10. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Well, it appears you are nothing but a buffoon, Tucci.

            Those changing the environment must prove they are doing no harm, not the other way around. The Earth and our shared environment is not their personal property to despoil for profit. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our future generations. It appears you have no concept of justice!

            P.S.- You totally lost this argument with your constant personal attacks, which you clearly employ each time you are bested on the intellectual arena.

            Report this comment

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5

          11. Tucci78

            Stefan, I can’t in good faith call you a “flaming idiot” (that’s Cameron’s well-earned title in this forum) but “cement-headed schmuck” is working its way toward the front of the differential diagnosis. You’re on the World Wide Web right now, and you can’t look up the concept called “burden of proof”? Heck, even Wiki-bloody-pedia ought to serve your purposes.

            Presuming, of course, that your purposes include honesty, of which there’s zero indication, but what the heck. Let me see…. Yeah. Here y’go:

            (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

            (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

            Your drooling fixation (“Those changing the environment must prove they are doing no harm, not the other way around”) is nothing more than a massive load of crap, for reasons I’ve already gently and considerately and patiently explained, and you’ve blown chunks all over “the argument” repeatedly, proving that you’re not here to learn but to peddle what is either a religious whackjob article of faith with you (highest probability in the differential regarding your own peculiar pathology) or you have a pecuniary interest in extending the rapidly-dying political fraud that is the AGW bogosity.

            So are you out of your (let’s be charitable) mind, or are you just another liar? Well, unless you get the hellangone out of here, time will tell, won’t it?

            Report this comment

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16

    2. UEBERNERD

      Water vapor blocks the IR-heat radiation due to a oxygen-hydrogen stretch-vibration. Carbon dioxide/methene/etc. are at parts-per-millionlevel, water vapor 5 powers of ten higher and variable. All statistics are swamped by water vapor.
      Statistically melanoma cancer is increasing since the 70s. So are extensive sunbathing vacations and indoor sunbanks.
      Smoking supposedly causes impotence reveals a statistical study among Vietnam veterans. So does traumatic shell shock.
      Leaving out overwhelming variables is the name of the game in case of socalled global warming.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 18

  31. Dragonmoose

    First let me say I have sincere respect for you Mr. Paul. You seem to be one of the few politicians that hasn’t sold out to corporations or extreme ideology and I thank you.

    Global warming/climate change. It’s so much more than just temperature fluctuations. We all have to look at the whole picture which includes but is not limited to:

    Pollution (this alone is immense, esp. in upcoming third world countries. Pollution kills the creatures that absorb CO2 much of it being aquatic life)
    De-forestation
    Mountaintop removal
    Over population (America is beginning to wane…)
    Overfishing
    Diseases of plants and trees caused by globalization
    Fracking
    Loss of habitat
    etc.

    I live in the Appalachian mountains, what I put in the streams up here (and I don’t – just making a point) end up in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. It’s (we’re) all connected. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Please, when looking at this issue look beyond temperature and see the forest instead of just the trees.

    AND, I have been forwarding the link to my friends about your Industrial Hemp bill. Good job Mr. Paul.

    SSS

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    1. Tucci78

      On the “Wiki-bloody-pedia” Web page on Dr. Paul’s political positions, special reference is drawn to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Environment, where can be found the following:
      ===
      As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities – thus decreasing pollution. He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property:

      “The environment is better protected under private property rights …. We as property owners can’t violate our neighbors’ property. We can’t pollute their air or their water. We can’t dump our garbage on their property …. Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, ‘Well, let’s turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us …. We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.’ So I don’t particularly like that method.”

      He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions concerned. “The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards.”
      ===

      On that Wiki-bloody-pedia page there are active URL links to support for these assertions. Regarding “Climate Change,” the creators of that Web page write:
      ===
      In an October 2007 interview, Paul held that climate change is not a “major problem threatening civilization.” He declined to name any particular environmental heroes and affirmed no special environmental achievements other than his educating the people about free-market solutions rather than “government expenditures and special-interest politics.”
      ===

      On environment-related legislative issues, “Dr. No” is (as expected) a strict constitutionalist. From the cited Wiki-bloody-pedia page:
      ===
      While he had stated his membership in the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition in a June interview, he did not recall the group’s name in the later interview, describing it only as “a lot of environmentalists that work with me very closely.”

      In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.

      He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.

      Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.

      He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.

      He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.

      He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.

      He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies’ phaseout programs.
      ===

      I would add that hemp – Cannabis sativa strains – raised for fiber and seed do NOT produce the high amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the intoxicant sought by people using marijuana for psychoactive purposes. Best production of seed and fiber comes only with close-set planting, the kind that creates the natural thickets one sees when these plants grow wild as “ditch weed.” Marijuana growers know that only plants which are widely spaced (and therefore free to become broad and bushy) develop high contents of THC in harvested leaves.

      Hemp patches grown by subsistence farmers in America throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries were the principal sources of the fiber from which these settlers created their “homespun” clothing. Unlike cotton, hemp grows readily – as a weed – in regions well north of the Mason-Dixon line, and both the fiber and the seed derivatives were valued as the primary reasons for cultivating this crop.

      Cannabis also grows well on very poor soil – unlike cotton – and both cultivation and harvesting is less exhaustive of the soil and less labor-intensive.

      Contrary to the assertions of neoconservatives like Ann Coulter (who are terrified by Ron Paul in every aspect of his political positions), Dr. Paul’s stand on the re-commercialization of cannabis as a lawful farm crop is in accord with his defense of the U.S. Constitution and plain common sense.

      Just wanted to get that down solidly.

      Nothing I’ve written above is ex officio Dr. Paul, but the Wiki-bloody-pedia page cited is – as stipulated – supported by citations leading to Dr. Paul’s stated viewpoints on these matters.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 19

  32. Shelby36

    Dear Cameron and Tucci,

    Can’t you see that you’re in love with each other? Cameron, where would you be if it weren’t for your sweet paramour, Tucci? And Tucci, who would you caress with your lovely locutions, if not for the fair Cameron?

    I mean, really, all this vitriol is just a cover, right? Aren’t you guys actually cuddled up in a bubble bath, as we speak, responding to each other’s posts on your respective laptops, as you exchange winks and air-kisses from across a sea of lavender-scented foam?

    Your pal,
    Shelby

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8

    1. Tucci78

      Ooh, kinky. Also creepy. Something out of Penthouse Forum, or maybe one of those online amateur porn Web sites.

      Or would it be risathra (see Larry Niven’s *Ringworld* novels), in which a human being – me – seeks non-fecundative copulation with an alien critter – Cameron?

      Fortunately or unfortunately, I’m an old married guy, uxorious to the nth degree, with a flock of grandchildren, and Cameron is immured in his (her?) mom’s basement someplace, avoiding regular bathing and surviving on take-out from Mickey D’s.

      Besides, with somebody as duplicitous and disrespectful of human rights as Cameron, who could trust him (her?) not to bring every transmissible virus, bacterium, coccus, mycele, and prion known to modern medicine into whatever contact in which he (she?) engages?

      I wouldn’t want even to come into the physical presence of Cameron without high-level infectious diseases precautions. Double-gloved, too.

      So forget the “bubble bath.” I take showers, and Cameron shows every indication that he (she) hasn’t bathed in quite a while.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14

      1. Cameron

        You’re projecting your own loathed self image, Tucci. I don’t make posts throughout the workday, if you haven’t noticed. Shouldn’t you be busy tending patients if you are the GP you claim to be?

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6

        1. Tucci78

          *Chuckle!* Just because Cameron’s a flaming idiot who can’t string words in a row without painfully treading his own prepuce, he thinks that my posts in this forum take a lot of time. ‘

          Just what do YOU claim to be, Cameron? Some kind of part-time counterman at the local Mickey D’s?

          Nah. That’d require you to wash your hands and otherwise conform to rules of hygiene. There’s absolutely no demonstration in your posts here that you’ve got even an undergraduate education in any field remotely related to the sciences, and it’d be surprising if it could be shown that you’ve found productive work in any technical field of any kind.

          I have respect for plumbers and electricians and IT guys. You, Cameron?

          Nothing but contempt.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14

  33. Fluidly Unsure

    My main problems with the pro-ACC stance is three fold. The details about

    1- We need to learn to deal with natures decisions, not the other way around. We are already too anthro-centric. If it gets hot then most likely it is a law of physics that we have do deal with and not the result of the evil lord aka “man”.

    2- The idea that only climatologists can interpret climate studies smacks of saying that only the Pope/Imams/Gurus can interpret the sacred word.

    3- The evidence being used is questionable at best. While I can’t say if the final numbers are true or false, the interpretation is made even more questionable and I become even more skeptical.
    3a- measurements taken of prehistoric artifacts (fossils, etc) and manipulated to work in an unproven model. So the proof of the model is based on the model? And the holy scriptures say the holy scriptures are true too.
    3b- the result of computer simulations: Simcity is fun, but please don’t actually build something based on it.
    3c- using a strong fudge factor. This doesn’t damn the conclusions, just like Einsteins theories stood up despite the cosmological constant.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

    1. Tucci78

      Well, there’s a reasonable non-scientist’s approach to the subject.

      As theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once put it:

      “Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13

      1. Professor Plum

        Do doctors earn science degrees or liberal arts degrees?

        Why, they earn science degrees!

        So Tucci78, are you ignorant, or just not an expert?

        LOL

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

        1. Stefan C. Kosikowski

          Good one, Plum!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

        2. Tucci78

          This “Plum” fruitcake facetiously asks: “Do doctors earn science degrees or liberal arts degrees?”

          I got my undergraduate degree in Biology. One of the guys in the med school class following mine had his in Philosophy, and had to spend a couple of extra years in college to get the required science courses under his belt before he could apply to medical school. Almost all of my classmates (and colleagues) did their undergraduate training in the sciences, and quite a few had postgraduate experience and degrees in scientific disciplines before they entered medical school.

          We had a couple of guys whose qualifications in postgraduate work let them “test out” of gross anatomy and histology. They wound up working as lab instructors in those courses.

          Yet another classmate of mine was an “ABD” (“all but dissertation”) PhD in Biochemistry who was not allowed – by the Biochemistry Department – to similarly test out, and he spent all of the first year making the chief of the Biochem Department VERY uncomfortable both in the lecture hall and in the lab during Q&A.

          They really shoulda let him test out, the pompous dorks.

          I’m not an expert on atmospheric physics, or meteorology, or oceanography (did a buncha stuff in marine biology as an undergraduate, but mostly I was into embryology, chordate morphology and physiology, endocrinology and suchlike), but I figure the Biology Department did its job in getting me grounded in scientific methodology sufficient for me to know when someone in a different discipline ISN’T adhering to scientific method and is not presenting valid, complete, and honestly-compiled objective evidence in the support of extraordinary conjectures like the preposterous bogosity of the man-made climate change horsepuckey.

          As I’ve observed in this forum, you don’t have to be a hen to tell when an egg is rotten.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  34. Timotheus Pfeiffer

    What bothers me; is AGW the only environmental issue Ron Paul recognizes?

    What about preventing companies from using brooks and rivers as garbage dumps, from polluting the air with toxins and from destroying irreplaceable wildlife habitats.

    Such costs /must not/ be externalized and thus socialized. They have to be borne by whomever is causing them.

    I’m an ardent supporter of a ‘hands-off’ government. But anyone who has read anything about game theory or the Tragedy of the Commons knows that communal goods (like our environment) must be protected by short-term exploitation to ensure a long-term prosperity.

    What are Ron Paul’s views on these issues?

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

    1. Tucci78

      I can’t speak for Dr. Paul. I’d only met him once, at a convention more than twenty years ago, but I daresay he’s gotten himself on the record about this. You’re on the Web, and you can use a search engine to dig it up for yourself.

      Speaking on my own hook – not his – I can tell you that the whole issue of environmental pollution (the degradation of what in political philosophy has been termed “the commons”) by “…using brooks and rivers as garbage dumps, from polluting the air with toxins and from destroying irreplaceable wildlife habitats” is a matter of miscreants violating other people’s property rights.

      English common law – which is the basis for most of civil law in these United States – had for generations dickered over what economists call “negative externalities” imposed upon innocent bystanders. It’s a lot of what tort law is properly supposed to handle.

      But in England (establishing precedents which came to run in the American colonies and then in these United States), politically connected businesses got special “dispensation” from politicians and bureaucrats to dump their wastes into rivers, to discharge smoke and ash into the air and onto the ground where their neighbors lived, and even to occupy public lands – the common grazing grounds which communities maintained so families could pasture their milch cows – for commercial exploitation.

      This was supposed to be for “the public good.” Bullpuckey. It was graft in action, nothing else.

      What was happening then – and what has happened in America since – was nothing more or less than the violation of the private citizen’s property rights.

      17th Century philosophers like John Locke (yet another medical doctor who got involved in politics) spoke of property rights as “having a property in” something. You, Timotheus, have “a property in” the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, the domicile in which you live. Other people acting negligently or deliberately to degrade that which you have “a property in” are VIOLATING your property rights.

      It’s the duty of government officers to protect you against the violation of your rights.

      That’s what empowers (heck, REQUIRES) these thugs to protect the environment. It has nothing to do with government “ownership” of that environment. The government has no right to own anything except that which serves directly to fulfill its legitimate functions, and the only legitimate function of the government in these United States is the protection of individual human rights.

      Heck, it can’t even be said – in the strictest sense – that the government has any right to exist. The American people created it, and the American people can snuff it out of existence the moment we decide it doesn’t serve our interests any more.

      As for “irreplaceable wildlife habitats….” Well, there’s a solution to that, too. But I don’t think you’re gonna like it.

      What real people own – to their benefit, to their genuine interest – they tend to take care of. When the officers of government “own” those “irreplaceable wildlife habitats” you care about, just what real interest do those government EMPLOYEES and popularity contest winners (elected politicians) have in keeping them from getting ruined?

      Our national and state wildlife reserves have always been run badly. Nobody with any education in ecology (as opposed to the “green” Luddite religious whackjobs who posture as “environmentalists”) disputes the fact that neither the federal nor the state governments have done anything but a completely horrible job as stewards of the land.

      This could surprise anybody? Timotheus, every politician (with the spectacular exception of Ron Paul and a couple of people like him) runs around with a big “For Sale!” sign on his forehead. The bureaucrats are just the same; look into that “rotating door” bit about how businesses hire experienced former government employees all the time.

      That “rotating door” just WHIRLS in the pharmaceuticals industry. A few years in the FDA (especially the Office of New Drugs) can get you a nice chunk of change among the medicine manufacturing companies.

      The solution – and, again, you’re not gonna like this – is to put those “irreplaceable wildlife habitats” into the hands of private persons who are committed to their maintenance as habitats.

      I don’t like the “environmentalists.” Politically, I find them utterly hateful, not merely because they’re lying, cheating, vicious goons pushing the anthropogenic global warming fraud, but also because they fundamentally hate the human race, and support the violation of individual human rights every chance they get.

      This understood, I would still prefer to see the national parks system – and all the rest of America’s “irreplaceable wildlife habitats” – in the hands and under the control of the Sierra Club and suchlike than in the filthy grip of the U.S. government.

      So with regard to pollution, the idea is to get our government wastoids to do their bloody jobs in protecting YOUR property rights, abating rather than abetting the degradation of the commons.

      And when it comes to “irreplaceable wildlife habitats,” it’s simply a matter of getting them into PRIVATE PROPERTY status and out of government “ownership” completely.

      I don’t know about how Dr. Paul thinks about this, but I suspect you can find out – in detail – if you poke around. It probably won’t be much different.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8

  35. UEBERNERD

    Each time I read “AGW”, I associate the abbreviation with Al Gore Warming.
    Confusing.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9

    1. Cameron

      While I appreciate Al Gore’s intentions to spread public awareness about his understanding of the effects us humans have on the planet, I think he’s made a few mistakes with his delivery that have actually done more harm than good. Specifically the question of co2 lagging climate which was not adequately addressed.

      The argument I think reflects the best science at the moment is that atmospheric co2 concentrations lag behind due to a natural climate cycle (Milankovich cycle) where outside factors are the drivers (forcing mechanisms) and the resulting changes in co2 concentrations, water vapor, methane, etc are feedback mechanisms. From what I’ve studied so far, it seems that co2 has possibly become a forcing mechanism through a paradigm shift (aka the last 150 years of fossil fuel-based industrial activity) which has never been the case before. It seems that humans are the first lifeforms to extract and burn hydrocarbons for sustenance, and that there are potential consequences- akin to the 3rd law of physics that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

      Basically my entire argument is that evidence supports some unknown degree of AGW, but cannot entirely be considered 100% accurate- or to the contrary, flatly dismissed as “garbage” as some claim.

      It is certainly a valid discourse to have. There is no such thing as perfect science or perfect skepticism. The only thing I can definitively say based on the most up-to-date evidence is that we don’t know exactly what is happening now (or going to in the future) and who/what is the cause. We could be in for another paradigm shift with respect to our understanding of humanity’s effect on the natural climate- but we don’t know. Nobody really knows. We’ve got data, we’ve got people interpreting it, and we’ve got people who believe the right thing to do is to err on the side of caution (admittedly myself), while others prefer to believe something different.

      I apologize for the long-winded post, but I hope you are able to see some merit in my position regardless of whether or not you agree.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15

    2. Tucci78

      While I appreciate Algore’s bankster carbon-trading thievery and his authoritarian political abuse of public office (say what you like about Dubbya, but he prevented that bloated sack of filth from sliming into the Oval Office, didn’t he?), I think he’s too perfectly typical of the lying, cheating, scientifically illiterate “mainstream” of the man-made catastrophic climate change fraud ever to escape appropriate attention.

      Like Anthony Weiner for the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, used to be “Democratic,” but then they enacted Obamacare over the enraged opposition of their own core constituencies last year), Algore is the poster boy for the AGW fraud. He is everything los warmistas have ever been and ever will be, out there in public – evading debate, of course – stinking up the joint.

      As for “the best science at the moment” (as if Cameron, the flaming idiot, would know “science” of any kind), the key to the whole putative mechanism of anthropogenic global climate warming – according to the conjecture that flaming idiots and flagrant liars like Cameron keep trying desperately to peddle – goes like this:

      The argument for man-made global warming consists of three links, ALL of which must be true in order for this preposterous contention to be accepted :

      (1) We humans are raising the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with our emissions.

      (2) Increasing CO2 levels causes the temperature at the surface of the earth to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is the direct warming effect of the man-made (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide (aCO2).

      (3) The Earth responds to the direct warming in many ways, including feedback mechanisms. These feedback effects warm the planet further, approximately tripling the direct warming effect.

      Remember, ALL of these assertions must be true for man-made global warming to constitute a danger. If one of them fails, the whole proposition fails.

      And one of them fails.

      There’s plenty of evidence supporting (1) and (2), and I can’t think of anyone literate in the sciences who disputes those statements. Radioisotope analysis of aCO2 spots it readily and reliably, and the greenhouse effect of CO2 was confirmed in an experiment conducted with a real greenhouse back in the 19th Century.

      But assertion (3) is wrong. Oh, boy, is it wrong.

      In the AGW caliphate’s much-touted computer climate models, amplifying feedback is claimed to account for approximately two-thirds of the warming they say has happened or will happen.

      Not that it really has happened the way they’ve been selling this fraud. What little warming we’ve seen in the three hundred-plus years since the Little Ice Age began to peter out (about 1700) and finally ended (about 1850) has for the greatest part antedated the onset of significant man-made contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels. This is why AGW caliphate has striven so conscientiously to make the last thousand years’ worth of temperature records conform to their “hockey stick” graph by doctoring the data.

      Without that “big push” feedback in assertion (3), there can only be very mild warming due to human CO2 emissions, and there is no cause at all for any kind of AGW alarm.

      There is NO objectively verified evidence for the amplifying feedback assumed – remember that word: “assumed” – in the AGW alarmists’ computer climate models. None.

      But they built that assumption into their computer simulations of the Earth’s climate anyway.

      What do you call a “scientist” who can’t be bothered to get the objective evidence before he makes unsupported assumptions and then starts howling about climate catastrophe? How about one who keeps carping about how “you’re entitled to your own beliefs, but you’re not entitled to your own facts”?

      Well, the AGW fraudsters haven’t got any facts about what they claim to be forcing factors beyond carbon dioxide’s rather mild greenhouse gas effect.

      When responsible, conscientious, properly skeptical scientists have said – over and over again – that there is no evidence for man-made global warming, most often they’re referring to THIS lack of evidence, this failure to demonstrate that these amplifying feedbacks have happened or ever could happen.

      If there WERE evidence for the three-fold amplification effect that the feedbacks in assertion (3) are supposed to impart, you’d think that even a flaming idiot like Cameron would’ve heard about them, wouldn’t you?

      But, no. The only thing the AGW “climate scientists” do is blank out when we get to that little sticking point, and start making handwaves over their computers, showing us their really expensive climate models. Aren’t they cool? Don’t they make pretty colors? And that “hockey stick” graph! How terrifying is that, right?

      Look, folks. Those climate models are nothing more than computerized calculations. Evidence? Gawd. By the same token, then, my ten-year-old grandson’s hours and hours of zombie-like video game playing has earned him a NASCAR trophy.

      Computer climate models are NOT evidence.

      The credentialed charlatans who make up “the climate realm” – and the chittering root weevils of the media, not to forget the bloated banksters and the pustulent politicians – only talk about (1) and (2), but never, EVER, about (3).

      That’s cause they’ve got nothing to support (3), and without (3), they’ve got nothing at all. The big man-made climate change hoo-raw goes *pfft!*

      The effects of climate feedback mechanisms give us THE crucial question in climate science, and it’s this question that flaming idiots like Cameron squeal and scramble and sweat furiously to evade.

      Global warming? Sure. Global cooling, too. But how MUCH of either?

      If the answer to the global warming question is “Not much, so don’t worry about it,” then the whole garbage can full of “reduce your carbon footprint” bushwah goes out the window.

      For further reading, UEBERNERD, Joanne Nova has put together some pretty good introductory materials, and I can recommend them to you:

      (1) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

      (2) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

      …and for something on the corrosive influence of highly political government funding (condemned by Dr. Ron Paul for decades):

      (3) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

      (4) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf

      I do NOT apologize for the length of this post. Leaving a flaming, “Liberal” fascist idiot like Cameron loose to pervert the purpose of this forum would constitute the neglect of a public health hazard, and the canons of the medical profession don’t condone that kind of indifference.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10

      1. Cameron

        Yeah, I’m sure Dr. Paul would really be proud of one of his supporters calling someone with a dissenting point of view a “flaming idiot.” And a “liberal fascist?” You must have one chromosome too many.

        You still are completely close-minded to the idea that atmospheric co2 levels MAY have become a forcing mechanism due to human industrial activity: meaning that co2 lag cannot be held as proof. Although population and co2 levels aren’t necessarily correlated (although I’m willing to guess they might be), co2 levels HAVE risen from 280 to nearly 380 ppm alongside a human population that has risen from roughly 500 million to over 6.5 billion. Co2 as a greenhouse gas is a matter of physics. As even YOU have stated in your assertions, (1) man has caused an increase in co2, and (2) co2 levels cause the surface temp of the Earth to rise. Even I would have a problem with number 3 because WE DON’T KNOW how much of a rise in temperature anthropogenic co2 has caused!

        Jeesus H Christopher!! My problem with you’re assertions all along are the fact you are taking an absolutist stand that completely dismisses AGW as even a remote possibility! If you think AGW hinges on co2 “tripling” the warming effect because of feedback effects, you’re awfully mistaken. Even if doubling co2 levels (100% for instance) caused a global average temperature increase of an insignificant 1/2 degree Fahrenheit, AGW would exist.

        My other problem is with you calling it all a fraud because of the “climategate” emails. If you’ve ever held a job before, and I’m sure you have, you should know what shop talk is. If you can seriously say with 100% certainty that those emails constituted a serious fraud among the “climate cabal” or whatever you want to call it, you must be a damn psychic. Based on your assumptions about me, I’d say you’re likely light years off the mark there.

        I don’t care how old and married you are. It doesn’t make you right. You’re not perfect, so quit acting like you are. You’re fallible just like everyone else. I bet you’re incapable of admitting you MIGHT be wrong.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11

      2. Tucci78

        Cameron is all upset that accurate diagnosis of his warmist fraudulence marks him correctly as a “Liberal” fascist flaming idiot. Shucks, but ONLY “Liberal” fascist flaming idiots still push the man-made global climate change contention in the wake of the Climategate exposure of “the climate scene.” That confirmatory evidence made it impossible for any honest person to fall for the illusion that the “climatology” caliphate hasn’t been corrupt from the first days of this preposterous incompetently formulated bogosity.

        The motives of this Cameron specimen are clearly political – and that political impetus is authoritarian. If Dr. Paul does not explicitly call “Liberal” fascist flaming idiots precisely what they are (and Cameron is), it’s because Dr. Paul is a practicing politician, and has to function within the hypocrisies of that sordid profession. Me? I’m just a country GP. Cameron isn’t my patient, but rather a predatory enemy of the public peace, and therefore a threat to my patients. What reason could I possibly have to withhold full and conscientious attention to his flaming idiot “Liberal” fascist machinations against the individual human rights of innocent people?

        Like most other “Liberal” fascists, Cameron is trying to use a tiny morsel of truth to trick readers into believing his Big Lie. It’s a time-honored fascist tactic, right?

        Cameron maunders: about “…the idea that atmospheric co2 levels MAY have become a forcing mechanism due to human industrial activity…” while evading address of the critical link (3) in the dead-from-the-moment-of-conception AGW hypothesis by writing:

        “…WE DON’T KNOW how much of a rise in temperature anthropogenic co2 has caused!”

        What “WE,” Cameron? You might not know (I don’t think Joe Romm is pushing that information to his flaming idiot disciples like Cameron), but honest climate scientists – mostly atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, physical chemists, folks like that – have been able to arrive at reliable estimates of the radiative forcing effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) – the direct effect – for some decades now, and they’ve been able to derive proof and refinement of the accuracy of those estimates from observational evidence, chiefly provided by the increasing number and quality of instruments on orbiting satellite platforms.

        But Cameron is a flaming idiot, and knows nothing about these advances in theory and instrumentation. He’s defending a “Liberal” fascist excuse for pillaging his neighbors, starving Third-World peasants to death, and subordinating all Americans to transnational progressivism. Accurate and discriminate instrumental evidence disproving the preposterous bogosity of the AGW contention is something Cameron doesn’t want any of his prospective victims to learn about, and he hasn’t yet gotten his talking points about these inconvenient truths from his masters of “Liberal” fascist propaganda.

        Let’s get it clear, folks. I’m a country GP. I have only a few advantages over Cameron. One of them, of course, is that I value, respect, and defend individual human rights while Cameron is bent upon their violation. Apart from that, I’ve got an undergraduate degree in Biology, which means that I had to satisfactorily complete a number of courses in the other “hard” sciences too, chiefly chemistry but also physics. Then I went to medical school, with lots more in the way of the “hard” sciences as well as training in clinical medicine. In the course of practicing my profession, I got some experience in academic publications, so I’ve participated (from both sides) in the peer review process by which scientific literature gets published. I’m not a climatologist, but I know the principles of scientific method, and I’ve seen in many cases how fraud can be made to fake the seeming of scientific validity.

        That kind of thing happens a lot in medicine, you should know. The pharmaceuticals companies are very good at it, and there are plenty of earnest but corrupt clinical investigators, hungering for recognition (and government grant money), who build their notoriety on unspeakable lies. Look up “Andrew Wakefield” and “autism” for a recent example.

        Medical doctors have to be on our guard about this all the time, and so we’re trained to maintain good “bullpuckey detectors” when it comes to claims which seem – on their face – to be exceptional.

        From the very start – in the years between 1979 and 1981 – the current “man-made climate change” contention has been QUITE exceptional. Bloody preposterous, in fact.

        Now, I’ve already mentioned how the test of any scientific concept – contention, hypothesis, theory, or law – resides in its ability to predict things that happen in the real world. Correlation with reality tests every speculative explanation of causality, and the AGW fraudsters of “the climate scene” have been failing this test – repeatedly, spectacularly, fatally – ever since their con game began.

        Given the three absolutely NECESSARY elements of the man-made global warming contention, and the fact that the preponderance of the planetary warming these incompetent pseudoscientists of “the climate scene” have – without objective evidence or validation of their computer climate model programs – claimed can or will happen is supposed to come from positive feedback mechanisms triggered by the greenhouse gas effect of aCO2, the failure of the “Liberal” fascist warming-pushers like Cameron to demonstrate those feedback effects means that there is no proof that adverse man-made global warming has occurred, will occur, or can occur.

        What we read from Cameron in his “precautionary principle” coulda-woulda-mighta flaming idiocy is merely this:

        “Even if doubling co2 levels (100% for instance) caused a global average temperature increase of an insignificant 1/2 degree Fahrenheit, AGW would exist.”

        Yep. Not, of course, that this insignificant half-a-degree (Fahrenheit, not Centigrade) direct-effect global temperature increase over the next century and more would impose upon the biosphere any kind of adverse impact, mind you.

        Heck, that same very small, very steady increase in global temperature levels has been going on since the Little Ice Age began to end, circa 1700, and we still haven’t any prospect within the next couple of centuries of seeing global temperatures reaching the levels prevailing in either the Roman Warm or the Medieval Warm climate optimums, which were periods of great prosperity for the human race.

        So precisely how is man-made carbon dioxide really influencing the Earth’s climate?

        Well, Cameron – the flaming idiot – has not even the least approximation of an idea. Honest climate scientists have been speaking about this for the past generation, but “the climate scene” (by way of their perversion of peer review and their corrupt influence on research funding) have striven to choke out and suppress the work of honest climate scientists.

        And don’tcha just love Cameron’s “Liberal” fascist formulaic handwave over the Climategate e-mails (notice that he ignores the cooked database information and the incompetent “hockey stick” graphing climate model computer programming, which make up the bulk of the FOIA2009.zip archive we can still find on the Internet today) as “shop talk.”

        Ever wonder if Cameron had ever held a job – much less practiced a profession – in which the standards of conduct included proper regard for the character of all communications related thereunto? What the C.R.U. e-mail correspondences revealed – in addition to the confirmation of hideous corruption in “the climate scene” – is that these AGW fraudsters are simply too doggone STUPID to avoid incriminating themselves.

        Some “scientists” these idiots are. Even a country GP (like me) knows that unencrypted e-mail correspondence is the equivalent of scribbling a note on a scrap of paper, folding it once, and then tacking it to a corkboard in the corridor. Anybody who wants to take the trouble of unpinning it and unfolding it can read it, and it can be photocopied easily for large numbers of people to read.

        Physicians are taught (and have the lesson driven home every day of their professional careers) that you’ve got to be circumspect in anything you commit to any permanent medium, whether it be a patient’s chart, a letter written on a patient’s behalf to an employer, or the recording of your presentation at a CME activity. Once it goes down on your “permanent record,” it’s there forever.

        E-mail is treated in precisely the same way. As any doctor who’s participated in risk reduction classes designed to mitigate vulnerability to professional liability lawsuits learns that e-mail records never go away – and they’re eminently discoverable by members of the plaintiff’s bar.

        The C.R.U. correspondents of “the climate scene” never twigged to that – until all that information from the University of East Anglia (which Professor Jones criminally violated the United Kingdom’s freedom of information statutes to withhold from people critical of his scientific fraud) got posted on the ‘Net.

        Kinda why that digital archive got named “FOIA2009.zip,” y’know.

        Those e-mails didn’t so much constitute “a serious fraud” as they served to confirm that what might otherwise have been taken to be a serious but honest error on the part of the “climatology” caliphate WAS, in truth, a helluva “serious fraud,” concerted deliberately to deceive and therefore to build a scheme whereby billions of dollars (and other currency units) had been allocated by governments to fund “research” which was predicated upon knowing falsehoods uttered by the credentialed charlatans making up “the climate scene.”

        Being an old married man with children and grandchildren merely explains some of my motivation for opposing the anthropogenic global warming fraud, and contesting “Liberal” fascist flaming idiot like Cameron in this venue.

        What makes me right on this issue is merely that I know (and can explain) what makes Cameron wrong.

        Not difficult. Cameron is, after all, a flaming idiot.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11

      3. Fluidly Unsure

        @Tucci78; Enough of the “flaming” war. Not only is it getting boring and not helping us figure-out what is going on, it makes it look like the whole RP campaign is losing traction.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

        1. Tucci78

          Fluidly Unsure wants (hoo-boy!) “civility” in the address of the flaming idiots and “Liberal” fascist thugs who dwell in this forum to push the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud as if it were a legitimate scientific conjecture and basis for public policy.

          Not gonna happen. I’m delighted to address the substance of this issue. I’ve done so, have I not? After all, it’s the substantive failings of the AGW bogosity which make it bogus from a scientific perspective.

          The political motivations of those pushing the AGW fraud, however, are also subjects for reasoned critical evaluation, and these motivations are indisputably hateful. They are predatory, violative of individual human rights, and despicable.

          I despise them. You don’t?

          Well, Fluidly Unsure, let’s try to get some surety in that. What’s your opinion on the AGW fraud and the thieving thugs who’re trying to foist this on their neighbors as an excuse to pillage them?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8

          1. Cameron

            If you have a solid argument, it isn’t necessary to attack your opponents. Your argument should stand up on its own, as should mine. Ad hominem, right? Ahh, but you’ve deemed that subjective too. It’s not a fallacy when you attack other’s characters, but it is when others do. That is hypocrisy plain and simple.

            You may indeed have a good argument, but you’ve squandered the opportunity to have a friendly debate by resorting to vicious attacks against me and everyone else you deem “flaming idiots,” “theiving thugs,” “AGW fraudsters,” “liberal fascits,” etc. Then again, you’ve been doing that for years. Just run a Google search on “Tucci78″ and you’ll find countless comments on right-of-center fora where you’ve been making the same argument and related attacks on those who reason that AGW is even a possibility.

            “The political motivations of those pushing the AGW fraud, however, are also subjects for reasoned critical evaluation, and these motivations are indisputably hateful. They are predatory, violative of individual human rights, and despicable.

            I despise them. You don’t?”

            Indisputably hateful? Predatory? Despicable? That is purely your opinion, a precariously hasty generalization, and not at all relevant to the debate at hand. Linking those suppositions to your theory that AGW is a flat-out fraud fits the definition of an ad hominem fallacy. If you can prove those character traits you speak of to apply to every person that thinks AGW exists, you might have something- but good luck with that.

            Speaking for myself, I think you’re full of s***.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9

          2. Tucci78

            The indisputably hateful, predatory, and despicable flaming idiot, Cameron, flashes his “Liberal” fascist nates in this forum yet again, claiming that “If you have a solid argument, it isn’t necessary to attack your opponents.”

            What “attack,” Cameron? It’s just accurate diagnosis. What, you think that calling you precisely what you are, reliably inferring your motives – sordid and vicious and evil as they are – is some kind of “attack”?

            Well, shucks. The shoe certainly fits, doesn’t it?

            In public discourse such as this, the objective is NOT to win flaming idiots like you, Cameron, over to the cause of individual human rights. You’re already committed to the aggressive violation of your fellow Americans’ rights to life, to liberty, and to property.

            Especially property. You want to “spread the wealth around” – other people’s wealth, of course, not whatever you’ve gotten for your own nasty little self – don’tcha?

            This warmista “Liberal” fascist bullpuckey of yours about how my additional observations of your own personal moral putridity has in any way “squandered the opportunity to have a friendly debate” presumes mistakenly that anything like “debate” has ever been intended by flim-flam fraudsters like you. Were you in any way (in the least teensy trace) honest about engaging in a discussion centered upon the factual basis of the AGW contention, you would have demonstrated it by now.

            Heck, you would’ve found something written by meteorologist Anthony Watts to support your contention that his work on this subject is “…largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false,” meaning that you – Cameron – LIED when you wrote that you “…have read plenty of Watts’ material.”

            Falsus in unum, Cameron, falsus in bloody omnibus.

            With it well established that you’re a liar as well as a flaming idiot and a “Liberal” fascist (they do kinda go together, don’t they?), and with the understanding that no reader here can even trust you when you write about “Speaking for [your]self,” I wouldn’t even say that you’re full of feces.

            Fecal matter can be usefully composted to produce fertilizer, and there’s nothing of you or from you, Cameron, I’d rely upon not to poison the ground on which it’s spread.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8

          3. Cameron

            To make an accurate diagnosis, you need to know the person. You don’t know me, so you’re making horrendously dubious and hateful assumptions about me based on the fact I have, in the past, read plenty of Anthony Watts’ postings. I regularly received them through a RSS feed on my mobile. There was nothing I read of his that couldn’t be countered- which is normally the case in the realm of science. I’m sorry, but your hero Watts is just as fallible as the “climategate” scientists. Perhaps I went a bit far in calling it “cobbled together pseudoscience”- but no further than you calling AGW a fraud and those who consider the possibility of its existence “flaming idiots.” Watts himself made an erroneous claim that the climate monitoring stations were feeding scientists flawed readings, when the stations he himself deemed “best” in terms of accuracy showed no statistically significant difference from the sum total of observations of the entire system. See your hypocrisy? I’m guessing no.

            You chose to dismiss the evidence I linked to that disproves Anthony Watts’ “hockeystick killer” assumption- which is that because co2 historically has lagged global average temperatures, co2 cannot be a driver of climate- that it is purely feedback and not forcing. That is a legitimate rebuttal, no? Sorry I even asked because I already know your absolutist answer.

            Now have I gone on to push “C”AGW alarmism by proclaiming the government needs to step in to save us all? NO. I have NOT. You’ve chalked me up as an extreme-leftist fascist (an oxymoron by the way) and have since gone on to attack my character without any basis in reality- all under the cowardly shield of internet anonymity. Again, that says much more about yourself and those of your ilk than it does about me. Because I’ve stood up to your AGW fraud assumption (a great leap of faith), you’ve done nothing but lash out at me viciously and needlessly.

            I am not entirely a libertarian, a liberal, or a conservative. I consider myself an independent moderate with views that fall into each one of those categories- just like the vast majority of Americans.

            So no, you’re “diagnosis” is not accurate. It is incredibly biased, rude, inaccurate, hateful, and despicable. You’ve been lying about me with out even knowing me.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          4. Fluidly Unsure

            @Tuccii, for the sake of our argument, get off your high horse and treat your opponents with the respect you expect from them. Dirty fighting isn’t what we need now, save it in case we need it later. By alienating people who don’t agree with you 100% you’ve done more for the pro-ACC argument than Cameron every will.

            @Cameron, didn’t you call people idiots for not accepting the word of the Lord of the house of academia? Not as much hate as Tucci is showing, but enough to irritate people like I’ll bet you are irritated by Tucci.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5

          5. Cameron

            @ Fluidly- If I ever did reflexively call anyone an idiot for disagreeing with my point of view, I sincerely apologize for it. I can’t remember saying that, but if I did even infer that, I fully accept any due criticism for it. However, I do disagree with this talk of academia being a big joke, or worse- a conspiracy to make Al Gore rich, among other accusations of nefarious actions by environmentalists.

            The climategate emails have been investigated my multiple sources and have been determined to show no wrongdoing. The investigating parties are mentioned in a release by the Republican Leadership Network. There is also a post by MediaMatters (I know they are considered “liberal”) that does concisely address the major “smoking gun” arguments made by those who believe AGW is a fraud.

            http://www.republicanleadershipnetwork.com/post/10

            http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10

          6. Cameron

            *imply, not infer. Apologies.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

          7. Tucci78

            Fluidly Unsure thinks I’m on some kind of “high horse” in the way I’m addressing the political advocates of the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) fraud.

            Sheesh. We’ve gotten from Cameron (who’s now given up pushing the fraud itself and is now trying in desperation to peddle the cover-ups conducted to “investigate” the Climategate exposure of “the climate scene” fraudsters) nothing but arrogant dismissal of sound scientific skepticism, and I’m not supposed to stomp this weasel every chance I get?

            As I’ve said, hammering critters like Cameron is a public health necessity. Human poverty – especially when it comes to the degradation of quality-of-life essentials like adequate nutrition, safely potable water, the ability to afford housing, and the availability of medical care – is utterly deadly. The machinations of the ACC fraud (and that means Cameron’s efforts in this venue) are devised for no purpose other than to suppress those economic activities which most widely and effectively ameliorate human poverty.

            Everything Cameron’s been doing in this forum, and by extension everything los warmistas have been doing to use the man-made global warming conjecture – a preposterous bogosity from the outset, more than thirty years ago – to pillage their neighbors by way of “carbon offsets” and “carbon taxes” and “alternative fuels” and “renewable energy” (the last two requiring government subsidies extracted at gunpoint from those same neighbors) has the direct and indirect effect of increasing human poverty.

            I’m getting up on my “high horse” in making this explicit? Cameron – to name only one example of those propagandizing for this astonishing perversion of the seeming of science – is evil. He knows it, and hates the living daylights out of the fact that I’ve discerned it and I’m not letting a spurious “politeness” get in the way of declaiming it.

            Fortunately, while evil is commonly cunning, it ain’t very smart. Cameron is a flaming idiot as well as a flagrant liar and predatory enemy of human rights. His stupidity shows up (yet again) in his blithering about how:

            “The climategate emails have been investigated [by] multiple sources and have been determined to show no wrongdoing.”

            Such bullpuckey. Those frantic cover-ups perpetrated last year by Pennsylvania State University and the IPCC and the University of East Anglia (Sir Muir Russell et alia in the U.K.) were conducted entirely by advocates of the AGW contention, people deeply invested in the preservation of both the fraud itself and and the organizational ability of the taxpayer-funded institutions they represented to continue pushing the fraud.

            Were any of these “inquiries” intended genuinely to examine the full content of the Climategate information archive – of which the C.R.U. correspondents’ e-mails were only the smallest of the three major moieties – they would have been conducted by scientists who had by late 2009 already expressed their skepticism about both the conjecture itself and the methods of “the climate scene” Cameron wants us to worship uncritically and without regard for their perfidious conduct in the perversion of academic peer review and the other ways they maliciously effected the suppression of contrarian research and publication.

            Cameron’s “investigated [by] multiple sources” bushwah is nothing more or less than reliance on wholly partisan whitewashes. The reader has got to consider for himself just how much pure CONTEMPT this warmista is showing right now for everyone visiting this site in this latest effort to push another piece of the AGW Big Lie.

            Cameron seems to think that anybody who has any familiarity with the scientific method generally (and with the vicious snakepit of “academia” especially) is going to buy this latest line of his crap.

            Wotta flaming idiot….

            I haven’t in truth “alienated” anybody, Fluidly. I’ve briskly (and merrily) whacked at Cameron in this virtual exchange of ideas – well, my ideas and Cameron’s lies – to establish clearly and vividly the facts of the matter. Critically important among these facts is the pure, unalloyed, smarming evil of the AGW fraudsters like Cameron.

            You don’t like that, Fluidly? Jeez, don’t you believe in the reality of evil? If the history of the human race teaches nothing else, that particular lesson gets hammered home again and again and again. You don’t appreciate and understand the nature of evil yet?

            Well, stick around and keep reading Cameron. He doesn’t know doo-dah about the science of the matter, but he’s the poster boy for “evil” in the politics of the AGW fraud.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6

          8. Fluidly Unsure

            @Tucci; You and I both disagree with Cameron. However, you think Cameron is intentionally being evil, I think he is innocently wrong. He sounds sincere and well intended- nothing evil here. The issue deserves a respectful debate, not a flame war. I do understand evil but think we need to avoid conflicts if at all possible but be ready to kick our opponents in the face if necessary. I just don’t think your timing is right.

            @Cameron; I should have addressed the group that is mouthing a sentiment similar to yours. They have tried to insult the “deniers” intelligence (because we accept the word of lay people) and sincerity (because funding comes from the private sector). For some reason, in my mind you’ve become a figure-head of the pro-ACC arguments here.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

          9. Tucci78

            No, Fluidly, the inference that cannot be denied is that Cameron – the flaming idiot – is infesting this forum with malign intent.

            Like you, I was prepared to give him (her?) the benefit of the doubt, to allow for honest ignorance instead of plain old “Liberal” fascist evil, but again and again and again this advocate of fraud has refused (and continued to refuse) well-reasoned and sourced argument serving to debunk the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture, obviously retailing the fallacious talking points “cooked” for online warmistas by the fraudster propagandists spewing all over the ‘Net.

            “SkepticalScience” indeed. Batpuckey.

            Had we a signed, sworn attestation out of Cameron that he’s pushing the AGW fraud in this virtual venue for political reasons, and that those reasons are one hundred percent inimical to the political purposes which Dr. Ron Paul seeks to fulfill, it couldn’t be more obvious.

            The “man-made climate change” issue for Cameron and his sputniki has not been – and will never be – a matter of legitimate scientific inquiry, but rather an element in the ongoing campaign of the political left to violate the individual human rights of their neighbors.

            That’s the very definition of “evil” in my book. I’m not particularly religious, and I cannot claim any reliable insight into the Will of God, so I’m not going to use theological metrics to define “evil,” Fluidly. But if somebody is working to violate the rights of the individual human being to life, to liberty, and to property – and Cameron’s right there with that – then he’s evil.

            Might as well say so.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

          10. Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Liberal fascist is an oxymoron!

            Fascists don’t proscribe to the philosophy of liberty, which clearly defines what a liberal is… not the lies from the Elite and the ignoramouses who are their mouth-pieces.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

1 13 14 15 16 17 26

Leave a Reply