A Brutal, Communistic World Government

…I asked him whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long.

He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort.

Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized.

Actually the “New World Order” is nothing new. How do you win the battle against the Evil Empire? Reagan knew.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to A Brutal, Communistic World Government

  1. This is from a year ago, but well worth the read now, as it was then. And it doesn’t look like things have gotten any warmer…

    Global Weather Update

  2. Aaron says:

    Is it any coincidence that the failure of global temperatures to continue rising happens to precede the enviro-morons raising the volume of their shrieking about “man-made” global warming? Or that every left-wing columnist has crawled out of the wood-work specifically to write about how the recent climate-gate scandal “proves nothing and is meaningless”?

    But hey, there’s anough socialist shills around here that one of them will come out and repeat their beloved, “No credible scientist denies man-made global warming!” line ad nauseum. Too bad for them, the rest of us already know what that really means.

  3. Amen, Aaron!

    The truth is that “no credible scientist” attempts to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, in an attempt to make the altered data support their pre-conceived notions of man-made global warming.

    When the data doesn’t support your hypothesis, you change your hypothesis, NOT THE DATA!

  4. ladysforest says:

    Merry Christmas Redpill!

  5. ladysforest says:

    I cannot believe that any normal thinking person continues to buy into this fake data. I cannot believe my own ears when I hear these Liars brush us off by loftily claiming that they know what is best for us regardless of all the proof that the ‘data’ is cooked.
    I feel invisible, but I refuse to be made inconsequential.
    Problem is that they rolled all of this crazy stuff at us in one huge lump…health care, cap and trade, bailouts, take overs, climate change as a Trojan horse to rip our sovereignty away and sell us into the world order government.
    I know there is much more, but in trying to keep up the average person becomes overwhelmed…by intention.
    I have much more on my mind on this topic…but I’m so furious that it is nearly impossible to communicate coherently.

  6. Thank you, ladysforest, and Merry Christmas to you, too!

  7. Jonah says:

    When the data doesn’t support your hypothesis, you change your hypothesis, NOT THE DATA!

    Perhaps I’m confused here, but is there any evidence at all from “Climategate” that any of the scientists in question actually changed the data? I thought the point was that they were doing some tricky things with graphs and error bars and trend lines, but that the data itself was never actually disturbed. What am I missing?

  8. Jonah,

    Yes, there is evidence that they changed the data itself to (in their own words) “hide the decline”. Just one example… take a look at their computer code where they added numbers to the temperature values, and commented it as “fudge factor”:

    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

    These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower.

  9. Jonah says:

    Does that fudge factor actually get used anywhere? See 4:30-5:20 of this video. It seems like it doesn’t, so this isn’t particularly damning.

    Here’s the thing. You and others who don’t believe in AGW are suggesting that these hacked emails call into question everything we know about global warming, so when looking at graphs like this one we shouldn’t actually believe what we’re seeing, because the data is cooked. What I’m saying is that if you want me to believe the data has been corrupted, you’ll have to give me more than a commented-out portion of a program that was obviously just being used to test the code.

    I’m sure you’ve read more about this so-called scandal than I have, so forgive me if I’m missing something obvious.

  10. Jonah,

    I recommend that you review the material I linked to previously at both Hot Air and American Thinker.

    The premise of the AGW theory is that CO2 drives global warming, and man-made contributions to CO2 are a “crisis”.

    The truth is that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases. Increasing CO2 does not drive increasing temperatures… it’s the other way around… increasing temperatures drive increasing levels of CO2.

    So, what drives temperature increases? The sun. When the sun is more active (more sunspots), temperatures increase, and CO2 follows.

    When the sun is less active (less sunspots), temperatures decrease, and CO2 follows.

    We are at a sunspot minimum, and temperatures have been decreasing, not increasing. The “climategate” emails acknowledge that temperatures declined in 2008, that the climate “scientists” (I use that term loosely) had no idea why temperatures hadn’t increased like their models predicted, and they used “tricks” to “hide the decline”.

    Now they are playing games with what the meaning of the word “trick” is.

    But I have yet to hear them explain what they meant by the word “hide”.

    Science isn’t about “hiding” things. And these guys aren’t scientists.

  11. P.S. Note that Obama flew to Copenhagen and was greeted with a blizzard. Then he flew back to Washington, D.C. and was greeted with a blizzard.

    Today, the Drudge Report reported that Dallas had it’s first white Christmas in over 80 years, and nearly 2/3 of the continental U.S. had a white Christmas.

  12. And true scientific “peer review” is not about ensuring that only those who agree with you are allowed to review your work.

    True scientific “peer review” is not about actively working to get those who disagree with you fired or excluded from publication.

    Yet that’s exactly what that “scientific” community did.

    Those who can’t handle the truth,
    try to silence those who speak it.

  13. Jonah says:

    I recommend that you review the material I linked to previously at both Hot Air and American Thinker.

    Thanks, lots of material there. I pored through all of it, and I have to say it’s baffling how poorly Shephard and Moorisey seem to understand the content of the emails in question. But we’ll get to that in a bit.

    The truth is that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases.

    I think you’re conflating two things here. Yes, at the end of an ice age, CO2 increases precede temperature increases by about 800 years. You can read a bit about this here. Of course, this sort of lag hasn’t occurred for over 15,000 years (which, if I’m not mistaken, is longer than you believe the universe has existed, no?). The lag we’re talking about, which you can view over just the last century or two, is a about a ten-year lag due to the greenhouse effect (which you don’t dispute, do you?). CO2 levels start increasing faster around 1900, then temperatures start do the same around 1910; CO2 slows down a bit in the 1930s, and temperature follows in the ’40s, and so on. Understand?

    So, what drives temperature increases? The sun. When the sun is more active (more sunspots), temperatures increase, and CO2 follows.

    When the sun is less active (less sunspots), temperatures decrease, and CO2 follows.

    Of course, this is nonsense, since sunspot cycles repeat about every 11.5 years, and at that time scale, CO2 increases precede temperature increases. Sorry dude.

    The “climategate” emails acknowledge that temperatures declined in 2008, that the climate “scientists” (I use that term loosely) had no idea why temperatures hadn’t increased like their models predicted, and they used “tricks” to “hide the decline”.

    Thanks for the links, because now I know that you know that the emails say no such thing. Yes, there was a 2009 email in which a scientist expressed frustration with the quality of funding and equipment they had, but the phrases “trick” and “hide the decline” were from 1999. You don’t really think a 1999 email was talking about the slight temperature decreases in the last decade, do you?

    Now they are playing games with what the meaning of the word “trick” is.

    But I have yet to hear them explain what they meant by the word “hide”.

    Okay, let’s talk about that email. The graph in question used two kinds of data: one from actual instrumental recordings of temperatures over the last few centuries, and another from “reconstructions” of those temperatures using tree rings and ice cores. The former is simple (presumably you understand how thermometers work), but the latter is a bit complicated. But in short, the scientists in question look at things like thickness of tree rings to determine temperatures of previous seasons, and they do this by calibrating them with some data they know, and then extrapolating to previous years. Most importantly, they’re able to check the extrapolations with other data they also know but which wasn’t used in the calibrating set, and since it agrees, they know these reconstructions are accurate.

    Well, sort of. There’s a difficulty here called the “divergence problem”, which is that tree rings closest to the outside of the tree give inaccurate results (for reasons I don’t precisely know, but I’m sure you and I can both speculate). What this means is that while the reconstructions are accurate going very far back, you can’t use the reconstructions to look at recent temperatures, because you’ll get different data than what you see on thermometers, which are obviously much more reliable.

    So the “trick” is to use this reconstruction data for most of the set, but to cut it off—or hide it—once you get to about 1960 or so, which is the window described by the original founders of this method, way back before global warming was a popular phenomenon. Once you get to the years where the reconstruction is inaccurate, you only use the real data, so that you don’t get a false decline that didn’t actually happen. Tell me, Red, do you think there’s something wrong with using the most accurate data possible, and trying to minimize the impact of bad data when it does occur?

    Now, to be fair, there are some sneaky things about this, namely that the graphs in question didn’t really explain that the change in what data they were using circa 1960 or so. But while that’s bad form for a scientist, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the conclusions, which is that temperatures—real, measured temperatures taken with perfectly ordinary equipment—rose throughout the latter half of the twentieth century.

    I do hope you’re still not skeptical of the word “trick”. The way it’s used here is the same way it’s used throughout the sciences (as well as, say, skateboarding): it denotes a cool thing you can do that rookies might not yet know how to perform. It’s really puzzling how sinister you guys think that word is. And “hide” is probably a less elegant way of saying things (when he really just meant “don’t show the bad data, because it’s bad”), but as the numerous typos in the email illustrate, it’s not like they were spending a lot of time thinking about their wording in a private email.

    Anyway, hope that’s been helpful. Remember, I’m a mathematician, so if I said anything confusing here, please tell me and I’ll do my best to help you understand.

    P.S. Note that Obama flew to Copenhagen and was greeted with a blizzard. Then he flew back to Washington, D.C. and was greeted with a blizzard.

    Today, the Drudge Report reported that Dallas had it’s first white Christmas in over 80 years, and nearly 2/3 of the continental U.S. had a white Christmas.

    Presumably you meant this as a humorous anecdote and not a serious argument, but I’ll respond to it anyway just in case. Copenhagen’s and Dallas’s average temperatures this year were among the warmest in the last 100 years. However, we’re talking only a degree or two above their respective averages. Remind yourself that global warming trends are small like this, and while a change of a few degrees can have serious global impacts with respect to polar ice, it’s not going to stop snow overnight.

    Of course, the fact that Copenhagen and Dallas had warmer years than usual (while DC’s was slightly cooler) means nothing, because nobody has ever claimed that a single year (or even five years) is a good barometer for climate change. We’re talking about shifts that are centuries long, Red. Eleven-year sunspot cycles or weekend blizzards are not at the right scale.

    And true scientific “peer review” is not about ensuring that only those who agree with you are allowed to review your work.

    True scientific “peer review” is not about actively working to get those who disagree with you fired or excluded from publication.

    You’re right, this behavior was unprofessional, and definitely not acceptable from a serious scientist. But while these guys should be (and have been) rebuked for this behavior, it says nothing about their actual scientific work. I know there’s a lot to talk about here, but let’s try to prune our discussion to the matters most closely related to whether there is climate change, and what we should be doing about it.

    Finally, there are many things I haven’t addressed here, but one glaring omission in particular is the third Hot Air link you provided, about the shaky stuff that happens in homogenization of data. I’d like to read more about this before I respond, so I hope you don’t mind an IOU on that matter for now, especially since it doesn’t have anything to do with the leaked emails.

    Anyway, to reiterate, please, please respond to specific things I’ve said if they seem confusing. There’s a habit here of saying “yes, but” and bringing up a new point, which is easy because there are so many points to discuss. But if we never actually finish addressing any of them, the discussion won’t be very productive.

    Best,
    Jonah

  14. Jonah says:

    Oopsums.

    Yes, at the end of an ice age, CO2 increases precede temperature increases by about 800 years.

    Here “precede” should read “lag behind”; I was agreeing (sort of) with you there. (The later instances of precede are correct, though.)

  15. Jonah says:

    Also, there are various typos above, but my spelling of Morrissey is particularly bad. Sorry ’bout that.

  16. Jonah says:

    Hi Paul,

    Yes, I’ve read a few of those already, and I’ll look through the rest in a bit. This is the subject which I suggested we address later (since it doesn’t directly relate to the contents of the CRU emails), so I’d be grateful if you heed the final paragraph of my long post. Do you have any rebuttals to or questions about the points I made above?

    Best,
    Jonah

  17. Paul W. Davis says:

    Jonah,

    RE: The section pertaining to hiding the decline and the mixing of tree ring data and actual temperature data.

    This is a no brainer and nonstarter, and totally stupid thing to do for anyone involved in presenting data. You NEVER start with one data source, and when it becomes convenient, switch to another data source on the same graph line. I did laser calibration work for years and had to explain to management numerous times that you cannot combine data sources on the same graph line to make it appear that a machine is more accurate than it is – end of story. It is deceitful, unethical and just plain wrong.

    You cannot tell me Professor Michael Mann really didn’t know any better. And, you cannot justify that his colleagues didn’t call him on it and tell him it was wrong to do so. This is more than “unprofessional.” This is a deliberate deception that calls into question everything else they say.

    Why?

    Because anyone who engages in a calculated, clearly wrong, clearly unethical manipulation of the data, and then gives excuses (tree ring data closer to the bark of the tree give inaccurate results) and then provide long, convoluted “explanation” as to why their excuse is not really understandable, is no better than a con artist with a high sounding title after his name. In short, he is a liar and never to be believed.

    The honest thing to do was let the data stand and say “This is what we have. This is what we believe. Here is the data.”

    However, it was obviously beyond their ken to do so.

    As touching your desire to stick with the “leaky emails” . . . Well, in light of clearly incorrect and unethical manipulation of the temperature data, any discussion of them is rendered moot and beside the point. It is kind of like catching your kid with his hand in the cookie jar, and he looks out the window and says “Look Dad, there goes a 1970 Superbird!” or, “Did you know the roof leaks?”

    Sorry, I don’t give a rip about the e-mails now. The manipulation of even one set of data is enough to cause me to be totally suspicious of them, and I not only see the uncalled for manipulation of one set, but multiple sets of data that were manipulated in a very unjustified way.

    I think the more productive discussion here would be the datasets and how that data was treated.

  18. westexan says:

    The world’s oldest living tree dating back to BC 7541 is 9550 years old. The spruce resides in the Darlana province of Sweden.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm

    Tree ring growth (width, thickness) is determined by any number of conditions and/or circumstances, IE drought, location in forest(s), temperature, and sunlight.

  19. Jonah says:

    Hi Paul,

    You NEVER start with one data source, and when it becomes convenient, switch to another data source on the same graph line.

    Okay, but when you’re showing an average from multiple data sources, and sometimes one source covers a time period that another one doesn’t, what do you do? I think most people (including just about every poster at WUWT that made a graph with data from multiple stations) would use the sources they have at any given time in the average, and just accept the fact that the average doesn’t comprise the same number of inputs the whole way through.

    The only difference here is that instead of one data source simply ending, it becomes inaccurate. But it’s a known inaccuracy (and not a controversial one, if I’m not mistaken). If you’re trying to make your graph reflect reality as much as possible, why not drop data sources that aren’t accurate? Especially when an accurate data source is present throughout the average anyway. Remember, Jones didn’t “switch” from one data source to another; he used an average of the two until the 60s, and then dropped the false proxy data when it started to give bad numbers.

    Look, I understand why this is sketchy, but when you say

    Because anyone who engages in a calculated, clearly wrong, clearly unethical manipulation of the data,

    I can’t help but wonder what you’re looking at. Bad scientific practice? Maybe. But wrong? It’s a more accurate way to display what’s happening to temperatures. “Unethical”? I really think you’re stretching here.

    It is kind of like catching your kid with his hand in the cookie jar, and he looks out the window and says “Look Dad, there goes a 1970 Superbird!” or, “Did you know the roof leaks?”

    I don’t really understand your analogy here; aren’t you the one who wants to change the subject? As I see it, a better analogy would be that you’re a teacher who found one of his students citing Wikipedia in a research paper, and now you want to flunk the whole class.

    But, fine, let’s talk about Eschenbach for a bit. I think you’ll see that in terms of lying with graphs, Jones’ hands are relatively clean here.

    If you don’t mind, I’d rather not address all of the links you gave at once, since they’re all on different things and, in some cases, by different authors. I’ll start with Eschenbach’s bit on Darwin, since that’s the one that’s getting the most attention (cf. Hot Air). And I’ll start with this post on it, since it’s the most thorough version of the story. If there’s another link you’d rather talk about instead, please tell me and I’ll switch the discussion over there.

    Take a break here to read the post in question if you haven’t yet.

    Got it? Great. Here’s my beef, right before figure 7:

    To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).

    Huh, that’s interesting. Why would they usually be shown ending at the same point, and why would Eschenbach choose to start them at the same point instead? Why is there any choice at all, since the raw and adjusted data are all on the same temperature scale anyway? Isn’t there a correct way to show it and an incorrect way to show it?

    Fortunately, this is an easy question to answer, so I headed over to the original data sources at GHCN (linked by Eschenbach in the comments) to see how it really worked. (It’s a huge data set, so you’ll have to just look at sample rows from a few different years to get the idea, unless you have a good stats program to process it.) It turns out I didn’t really need to do this, because figure 3 at this post gives the same story.

    Guess what! It turns out the raw and adjusted data actually agree for the latter half of the twentieth century, and it’s the first half where they actually made the adjustments. In other words, the correct way to display the data is having them meet at the end, not at the beginning. Eschenbach refers to this as simply being more common, but it’s not really a matter of choice, is it? At least when you’ve got only one temperature scale on the graph (as Eschenbach does in figure 7), it’s dishonest to shift one curve without actually explaining that you’ve done so. In fact, one might even argue that it’s more dishonest than Jones’s trick, since you’re actually putting more inaccurate data on the graph.

    Now, in figure 8, Eschenbach does the same thing, but this time he has the courtesy to put two scales here: on the left a scale for the red line, and on the right a scale for the blue. He still doesn’t actually say he’s done this anywhere, but at least you can figure it out by staring at the chart long enough.

    But then it seems he doesn’t want you to figure it out, because one paragraph later he says,

    Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data!

    What? We do have five data sources from 1941 on, and that’s why we didn’t adjust them! There’s an adjustment added to the first half of the data, not the last half. So why would Eschenbach pretend the adjustment happened to the latter half?

    Perhaps because such an adjustment makes no sense? There’s no reason to adjust the data when you’ve got five sources confirming it, so by pretending GHCN did this, Eschenbach is able to make them look ridiculous. But what they actually adjusted is from the time when only one station was doing the measurements. Perhaps Eschenbach’s subterfuge was to prevent people from looking into why the earlier data might be adjusted, because in that case perhaps they’d actually find some answers.

    So, to recap. You’ve got Jones, who made a trendline in a graph that used two data sets, but ignored one of them (which was calibrated from the first anyway) when it started giving inaccuracies that were known and expected (and which, unless I’m mistaken, you don’t dispute). On the other hand, you’ve got Eschenbach, who repeatedly translated data in a graph, didn’t explain that he was doing this, poorly marked at least one of the graphs in which he made this modification, and then used those fabricated graphs to ask fallacious questions and draw conclusions which he knew were completely ridiculous. Jones dropped bad numbers to make a graph more accurate than it should have been; Eschenbach translated data without explanation to make a graph less accurate than it should have been. And you’re saying because of the former’s shortcut, we should throw out all belief in climate data because of something the latter says?

    I hope you understand my skepticism, Paul.

    Best,
    Jonah

  20. Jonah says:

    Paul and Red,

    I do hope this conversation isn’t over.

    -Jonah

  21. Paul W. Davis says:

    Jonah,

    No, not done. I just have a life and a job – not to mention a lot of other responsibilities. Perhaps New Year’s Day.

  22. Jonah says:

    Paul,

    Good to hear. Sorry to be a pest—sometimes I forget that other people’s jobs don’t run on the academic calendar.

  23. Jonah,

    My immediate family and I have been out of town and offline for several days with my extended family (parents, siblings, and their families), and I’m about to celebrate New Years Eve with my wife. I’ll touch base with you later.

  24. I’m also interested to see comments not only about AGW, but about the brutality that was shown to dissenters in Copenhagen, and how that relates to a Communistic World Government. That’s the main topic of this post. AGW is just a tool in the arsenal of those who wish to weaken the USA and U.K.

    Show me a Communist government that cares about AGW. Are they restricting their oil drilling, as we are restricting ours? No! Quite to the contrary, China and Russia are moving full steam ahead with their drilling, and seeking new places to drill… including off the coasts of Cuba and Florida.

    I believe Russia wants Alaska back, for several reasons, not the least of which is it’s abundant oil supplies in ANWR. Revenues from oil have played a major role in the resurgence of Russia.

    I think we should care more about the threats to our freedoms than we should care about the “political science” of AGW.

  25. Jonah says:

    I think you know exactly how I feel about your fears about a “Communistic World Government”, so to keep myself from being a scoffer I’ve chosen to ignore that topic. On the other hand, I have no idea how you feel about any of the points I raised in reply to your earlier comment on AGW, and I’m still anxious to hear your response.

    Show me a Communist government that cares about AGW. Are they restricting their oil drilling, as we are restricting ours? No!

    Are you suggesting that we should try to emulate Russia or China? I mean, yeah, China also probably gets a slight economic advantage by making financial fraud a capital offense, but I don’t hear calls for instituting similar ideas here.

    Bombshell from Bristol:
    Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? – study says “no”

    My initial reaction here is, um, so what? But rather than elaborate, I’d like to hear what you think this study says about the AGW debate, if anything.

  26. Jonah,

    You don’t really think a 1999 email was talking about the slight temperature decreases in the last decade, do you?

    I hadn’t noted the date of the email. You are correct that it is from 1999, and therefore is talking about time periods before 1999. But I still take issue with the things you admit are “sneaky” and “bad form for a scientist”. This is too serious an issue (serious on the potential impact to both our environment and our economy) for anyone involved to be anything less than open, transparent, accountable, honest, and completely above board.

    Now, to be fair, there are some sneaky things about this, namely that the graphs in question didn’t really explain that the change in what data they were using circa 1960 or so. But while that’s bad form for a scientist, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the conclusions, which is that temperatures—real, measured temperatures taken with perfectly ordinary equipment—rose throughout the latter half of the twentieth century.

    As I understand from surfacestations.org, 90 percent of the stations used to record temperature data have an error of greater than or equal to 1 degree C. 69 percent have an error of greater than or equal to 2 degrees C. And 8 percent have an error of greater than 5 degrees C! That “perfectly ordinary equipment” is not very accurate, because human beings, for convenience, place them close to their work places (near air conditioning units and asphalt parking lots, etc.) instead of further away in more accurate, but more inconvenient, locations.

  27. Jonah Says:
    December 30, 2009 at 10:03 am edit

    Paul and Red,

    I do hope this conversation isn’t over.

    -Jonah

    But… Al Gore told us that the debate is over!

  28. In all seriousness, things in my personal life are very, very busy now that the holidays are over. I won’t have a lot of time for blogging, and I’m not sure that carrying on an AGW discussion would be the best use of my time.

    I know where I stand on this issue. There is far too much evidence of collusion (with grant-based financial incentive for such behavior), and gestapo-like stifling of dissenters. Any “scientist” who actively works to get dissenters banned from publications and fired from their jobs, is not a true “scientist” at all, and they should NEVER be taken seriously again.

    There are quite a few in the AGW movement who should not be taken seriously.

    Obama’s administration should follow their own advice and investigate these “fishy” scientists.

    I remember being told in “science” class that we were facing another ice age, and that we were running out of oil. Both were lies. We are aware of more proven oil reserves now than we were then. Who’s too say that we won’t be aware of even more proven oil reserves 30 years from now? If oil is a “fossil fuel” and not a “renewable energy source”, then why are oil fields that were dry and abandoned now filling back up? Where is that oil coming from? There are scientists who believe that it is formed in the earth’s core, and brought to the surface by centrifigal force.

    The Deep Hot Biosphere : The Myth of Fossil Fuels

    Black Gold Stranglehold

    And here’s an interesting commentary that touches on some things we discussed earlier:

    For years, global warming alarmists have pointed to every drought and heat wave as proof that global warming was a real environmental threat. They had few qualms about blurring the line between weather and climate to make a PR point. Perhaps, then, it was karma that brought a blizzard and freezing temperatures to the U.N. climate change Conference of Parties confab in Copenhagen (or COP-15 for short) last week.

    You may have read about the 1,200 limos and 140 private planes commissioned to transport COP-15 dignitaries in style. Critics love to point to the hypocrisy of world leaders — such as Prince Charles and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown — touching down in separate private planes to a conference ostensibly dedicated to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

    But it’s the Flying High Lords of Greendom’s air of unreality that concerns me. If world leaders truly believed that global warming will lead to famine, rising sea levels and melting of the North Pole ice — along with countless deaths — surely they would want to set an example by flying commercial.

    Instead of pretending that critics don’t exist, debate them. Stop pretending that consumers can fight global warming simply by using politically correct light bulbs, and recycling. Environmentalists have argued that developed nations will have to cut emissions by 80 percent — and that requires bigger changes than sorting your trash.

    Polls show Americans are cooling on global warming. It could be that voters don’t buy into the all-bad scenarios predicted by Gore and company.

  29. Thursday, December 17, 2009

    Public skepticism about the officially promoted cause of global warming has reached an all-time high among Americans.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of likely voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends.

    Just 34% say climate change is due primarily to human activity, even as President Obama and other world leaders gather at a UN summit to limit the human activity they blame for global warming. Six percent (6%) say there is some other reason for global warming, and 10% are not sure.

  30. Jonah,

    I think that’s about all I have to say about AGW for a while. I know you’d like to continue a dialogue with me about AGW, but I’m really not sure how productive that would be. You don’t have the ability to turn “sneaky” scientists (some of whom have been asked by their own peers to resign for their misdeeds!) into honest, respected scientists. There is no room for dishonesty and fascist stifling of dissenters when our entire economy and our entire way of life hangs in the balance.

    As Al Gore likes to say, this is a moral issue, and we owe it to our children to be completely honest. But some people have a huge financial incentive to modify anything they need to modify in order to show “evidence” of their pre-conceived notion.

    I know I’ve rambled a bit tonight, but don’t expect me to be very responsive for a while. I’m not an accountant, but tax season is still a very busy season for me.

    If you really want to have a conversation with people who don’t buy the AGW story, I recommend you do so at Watts up with that?, which had nearly 5 million views last month. That blows my blog away, and that’s a much better venue for an AGW discussion.

  31. Jonah says:

    There is far too much evidence of collusion (with grant-based financial incentive for such behavior), and gestapo-like stifling of dissenters.

    I thought the whole content of our discussion so far was you bringing up what you thought was evidence, and me explaining how it isn’t. And I’m not so sure that there was stifling of dissenters, so much as scientists threatening not to publish in journals that also publish certain climate skeptics; that’s sort of immature, but not really immoral or illegal, and certainly not the sort of thing for which I’d bandy about the phrase “gestapo-like”.

    So all you’ve really got is that parenthetical comment, that the scientists have a financial incentive to lie, but no evidence that they actually do. You made a similar claim almost a year ago, when you dismissed a link I gave you because it was a from a book, so the author was clearly just trying to sell copies. Overall it seems like you don’t think we can ever trust professionals, because if they’re being paid to do something, then they can probably make more money by doing it dishonestly. I’ve seen this sort of argument before, Red, but I gotta say, it’s not usual from a capitalist like yourself.

    Enough about that, though. Here’s the bottom line:

    I know where I stand on this issue.

    Yes, and I don’t really expect to change your mind. But you know how this blog works, Red: in a few months, you’ll make another post about global warming, probably linking to some new article, but mostly rehashing the same points you always make. What I’d like is that, when this happens, you refrain from repeating the things you’ve said here which I’ve explained were false. That way, if this discussion happens again, we’re not just starting over, but rather picking up from where we leave off.

    So, with that in mind, here are three things I’d like you to try to avoid doing next time around. If you can manage that, I’ll be pretty satisfied.

    1. Claiming that CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes, rather than the other way around. As I explained above, that’s wrong.

    2. Suggesting that sunspot cycles fully explain all the temperature trends we’ve seen over the last few centuries. Perhaps they explain short-term fluctuations, but an 11.5-year cycle simply cannot be responsible for a 50-year trend.

    3. Making hyperbolic statements about what the emails said, and in particular the one from which the phrase “hide the decline” originates. ‘nough said.

    Okay, so maybe #3 is too hard—what is this blog, if not hyperbolic?—but I’d like you to try.

    Oh, and Paul, though Red’s clearly done here, I’m still happy to continue this conversation with you, if you’ve got anything to add.

    Best,
    Jonah

  32. In a nutshell,

    1) I don’t believe you’ve proven that CO2 increases precede temperature increases, nor that man’s actions are resulting in temperature increases.

    2) I may have only talked about the sunspot cycle, but the sun can fluctuate over longer periods, too. My main point here is that the driving force behind longer-term weather changes is the sun, not man.

    3) I already admitted that I was wrong to think that the “hide the decline” email was recent. You are correct that it is from many years ago. But that doesn’t change the fact that scientists should be open, transparent, and accountable, not surrepticiously trying to “hide” things they don’t like. Rather than “hide the decline”, they should have openly shown the decline, along with their reasons for thinking that the decline should be given less weight than other data.

  33. Sally Hill says:

    Personally, I think it is the height of arrogance to think that any species living on this great Earth can have the impact that Global Warming theorists want to contend.

    Mother Earth has existed far too long and has overcome many changes in atmosphere and global temperatures to be affected by this small slice of time in which humans have existed on it. I have a feeling we, as a species, will be gone long before the Earth is.

    Such egos!

  34. Jonah says:

    Sally, I think you’re being optimistic. The United States alone has about 5,500 nuclear warheads right now. Fortunately we haven’t seriously used any since World War II, but do you really think “Mother Earth” could survive 5,500 Hiroshimas at the same time?

    I mean, sure, the planet itself would probably still exist, as well as cockroaches and Cher, but the notion that humans couldn’t possibly have a devastating impact on the environment speaks to a lack of imagination on your part.

    Of course, we’re not really talking about that; we’re talking about accidental impacts that happen due to changes in greenhouse gases and the like. And I understand that you’re still skeptical we could have a big effect, but here’s the thing: Earth’s climate is a complex system. As a general principle, big changes to a complex system have bigger, unpredictable consequences. Increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 36% in 150 years is a big change. Perhaps you think that its effects will be harder to predict than some scientists claim, but is that unpredictability something you really want to risk? Is the chance to minimize that risk really not worth the effort, even if it’s economically difficult?

    Now, Red.

    1. I think you missed the point. I don’t demand that you accept that temperature lags behind CO2 (though if you’re interested, here‘s a pretty good statistical approach). I just request that you stop suggesting that there’s a lag the other way around without further evidence. As I and just about any source you can find says, the lag of CO2 behind temperature hasn’t happened for at least tens of thousands of years. So unless you’re ready to admit that the Earth is that old, or you have another source of information, I think you should let that idea go.

    2. Correct, you have only talked about the sunspot cycle. If you believe the sun can fluctuate over longer periods and that there’s some evidence that it causes global warming, please, cite away at your earliest convenience.

    3. My request was only that you try to limit the hyperbole and the conspiracy theories here, which it seems like you’re doing. So thanks.

  35. UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

    The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

    But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

    The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

  36. Mr Geithner was conspicuously sidelined during Thursday’s announcement by the presence of Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who lent his name to the push to rein in Wall Street banks.

    Paul Volker was a founding member of the Trilateral Commission and is a long time member of the Bilderberg Group.

  37. Classic Ronald Reagan vs. Present-Day Democrats

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s