I think this guy may be on to something. When you consider anyone reading this now likely will be dead by century's end you can say billions will die of something. So why not just blame the all-encompassing global warming?
Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson (Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about half a billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Note that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050 (UN Population Division).
Is there a prize for anyone who stays awake for the entire screed? A lifetime supply of Sominex? This dude puts me to sleep in two minutes. How on earth in the balance can someone handle 24 hours of this colossal bore?
Former President Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.
"24 Hours of Reality" will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.
The campaign also asks people to hand over control of their social networking accounts on Facebook and Twitter to it for 24 hours to deliver Gore's message.
Hand over control of Twitter and Facebook accounts? Gee, what could go wrong with that risky scheme?
"There will be 200 new slides arguing the connection between more extreme weather and climate change," Trewin Restorick, chief executive of the event's UK partner Global Action Plan, told Reuters on Monday.
"There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from."
Hmm, a full-on assault? Sounds pretty violent. Won't this scare the children or something?
The Goracle claims for 24 hours, we will all live in reality. Unlike the rest of the year when Gore lives in his massive oceanfront mansion laying down a carbon footprint that dwarfs mere mortals.
Here's an idiotic video clip through their link.
In Gore's typical cowardly fashion, you can't comment on it. That sure is a means of stifling those evil deniers! So much for an honest debate.
As if ignoring so-called skeptics all these years hasn't done the trick. Now the climate change warm-mongers and propagandists are making official government policy to try and ignore those interested in exposing the climate frauds.
Opponents of global warming should be given less coverage by the BBC than the climate change lobby, the corporation will rule.
The BBC is set to publish a report tomorrow on its science output announcing changes to rules on impartiality.
Following the overhaul, programme makers and broadcasters will be compelled to give less prominence to those who oppose the scientific community's majority view.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the report draws heavily on an independent review of BBC coverage by Steve Jones, a professor of genetics at University College London.
Professor Jones is understood to have cleared the BBC of any suggestion of bias in its programming.
Oh, so a genetics professor is now a media expert?
But the main conclusion made is that in cases where there is a widely held scientific view, such as on GM crops or the MMR injection, the BBC shouldn't give airtime to critics of the scientific consensus.
That's right. Just shut out the opinion of others and you can all believe your own bullshit.
OK, so now they tell us there hasn't been any "global warming" since 1998. But it's due to pollution from Asia. So now once we clean up all that pollution--blammo!--then the promise the crazy climate change will kick in.
Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.
The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.
World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.
The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.
Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.
"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.
Natural cooling effects included a declining solar cycle after 2002, meaning the sun's output fell.
The study said that the halt in warming had fueled doubts about anthropogenic climate change, where scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions are heating the Earth.
"It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008," said the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.
Ironically, efforts at cleaning up pollution are also blamed for alleged warming since 1970.
"The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution," it said.
So we can blame environmentalists for global warming now?
The hysterical warmies are going to be freaking out. How dare he not let us indoctrinate seven-year-olds with our junk science!
Climate change propaganda could be cut from the classroom, as a government adviser demands pseudo-science is removed from the national curriculum.
Tim Oates, who is leading an overhaul of school syllabuses for five- to 16-year-olds, has signalled the end of ‘climate wash’ in schools.
He is calling for a return of ‘science in science’ and for children to be taught facts, not fads.
And he accused Labour of replacing traditional physics, chemistry and biology with ‘topical issues’ such as global warming.
At present, seven-year-olds are taught that the world is overheating, and told this will cause floods and kill polar bears.
Mr Oates is due to report on his review of the national curriculum later this year, and any changes will be introduced in schools in September 2013.
His recommendation mirrors the thinking of Education Secretary Michael Gove, who wants pupils to be taught a rigorous core academic curriculum.
Mr Oates, director of research at Cambridge Assessment, one of the biggest exam boards in Europe, said: ‘We have believed that we need to keep up-to-date with topical issues, but oxidation and gravity don’t date.
‘We are not taking it back 100 years. We’re taking it back to the core stuff.
‘The curriculum has become narrowly instrumentalist.’
He said topics that engage children in science ‘changed dramatically’ from year to year.
He added: ‘The national curriculum shouldn’t ever try to keep up with those, otherwise it would keep changing.’
However, climate scientists have accused the anti-green lobby of influencing education.
But they haven't been influencing education with their made-up pseudo-science?
Don't believe in junk science? Well, not only must you suffer the slings and arrows from the know-nothings, but now they want you tattooed so you can suffer public ridicule.
Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''
On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …
How about we tattoo those whose predictions have been 100% wrong for the past few decades? If we did that then Al Gore and some of these chumps would be unrecognizable they'd be covered head to toe with permanent ink.
OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one's opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years' time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ''Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it's hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It's so much more costly to stop it now.''
This is who these people are. they can't win in the court of public opinion since they don't have facts on their side. Instead, they want to brand you and "see the painful, thrashing death" of their opponents.
This guy's a monster and should be laughed out of the journalism business.
More on the Climate Change Derangement Syndrome™ from Tim Blair.
Talk about a kangaroo court. You supposed these so-called Nobel laureates will find in favor of humanity or do you suppose they find humanity guilty and suggest a punishment that will involve a carbon tax or some such idiotic scheme?
Around 20 Nobel prize winners will preside over a mock courtroom in Stockholm on Tuesday, with the Planet Earth and humanity on opposing sides of the case, as part of a symposium to highlight global sustainability.
"It's a civil court case to see whether we've breached our relations" with the planet, "and to see how to restore that relationship," symposium chair Johan Rockström told reporters at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
The "trial" will be one of the sessions at the third biennial Nobel laureate symposium on global sustainability -- a three-day event that opened in the Swedish capital Tuesday.
In addition to the Nobel laureates, leading scientists and environmental research group heads were on site to draft a Stockholm Memorandum on the findings of the meeting, which will be presented Wednesday to the United High-level Panel on Global Sustainability.
Rockström explained that one of the sessions had been shaped as a trial since "we've come to the point where just another meeting with another dialogue would fail to have an impact (and to clearly) communicate ... the possibilities and challenges we are facing."
"History will in any case judge us," Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren told reporters, explaining the "trial" was actually about humanity judging itself with future generations in mind.
Mario Molina of Mexico, the winner of the 1995 Nobel Chemistry Prize who is a science and technology advisor to US President Barack Obama, told the news conference he hoped rationality, common sense and wisdom would strengthen the planet's case in the "symbolic" trial.
Who's up for a mock trial of these climate frauds who've perpetrated the one of the greatest scams of all time upon an unwitting public? We've reprogrammed our lives under the guise of "going green" and it's done nothing for "humanity" except to make some people very wealthy at taxpayer expense and for these eggheads to give each other awards.
By the way, why does Obama have a science and technology adviser from Mexico? He can't find someone extreme enough here?
Bolt: Everyone understands that that is the argument But we’re just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences - about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions, because it’s a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, what will the world’s temperatures fall by as a consequence?
Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.
Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.
Oopsy.
In case someone's thinking this Australina "Climate Commissioner" misspoke, consider:
Bolt: …I’m just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we’re doing. Just unbiased. Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?
Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
Bolt: That doesn’t seem a good deal…
Flannery: What’s that sorry?
Bolt: That doesn’t seem a good deal. If we spend trillions of dollars to cut world’s emissions that we won’t notice the difference, well our great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren won’t even notice the difference.
Flannery: It will just keep getting worse if we don’t. That’s the problem.
It's raining here in New Jersey today. Obviously, global warming is to blame. Later this year it'll warm up: Global warming, no doubt. Unions throwing an extended temper tantrum in Wisconsin? Global warming, silly.
And now, put down your coffee and brace yourselves. Your thirst for caffeine will now suffer from, you guessed it, global warming.
Profits of high-end coffee chains like Starbucks and Green Mountain have been eroded. Coffee futures of Arabica, the high-end bean that comes predominantly from Latin America, have risen more than 85 percent since last June, to $2.95 a pound, partly over concerns about supply, extreme weather and future quality, said George Kopp, an analyst at the International Futures Group in Chicago.
Yet as stockpiles of some of the best coffee beans shrink, global demand is soaring as the rising middle classes of emerging economies like Brazil, India and China develop the coffee habit.
“Coffee production is under threat from global warming, and the outlook for Arabica in particular is not good,” said Peter Baker, a coffee specialist with CABI, a research group in Britain that focuses on agriculture and the environment, noting that climate changes, including heavy rains and droughts, have harmed crops across many parts of Central and South America.
A top coffee scientist, he has rattled trade forums by warning, Cassandra-like, of the possibility of “peak coffee,” meaning that, like oil supplies, coffee supplies might be headed for an inexorable decline unless growers make more concerted efforts to expand production globally.
The Specialty Coffee Association of America warned this year, “It is not too far-fetched to begin questioning the very existence of specialty coffee.”
By the way, if you're not buying this global warming nonsense, it's because your brain is functioning irrationally.
What's the answer for environmentalists? Change the message and frame the issue in a way that doesn't trigger unconscious opposition among so many Americans. That can be a simple as using the right labels: a recent study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that Republicans are less skeptical of "climate change" than "global warming," possibly because climate change sounds less specific. Possibly too because so broad a term includes the severe snowfalls of the past winter that can be a paradoxical result of a generally warmer world. Greens should also pin their message on subjects that are less controversial, like public health or national security. Instead of issuing dire warnings about an apocalyptic future — which seems to make many Americans stop listening — better to talk about the present generation's responsibility to the future, to bequeath their children and grandchildren a safer and healthy planet.
Gee, the nonstop gloom and doom scenarios have people tuning out? Crazy how that is. Maybe if even a single dire prediction had ever come true people might listen to the scaremongers.
Libya's aflame, Mexico's under siege, Iran's building nuclear weapons and what's the U.N. secretary-general doing? Pitching movie ideas to Hollywood bigwigs.
We kid you not. As the real world seemed to be coming apart at the seams, Ban Ki-moon swept into Tinseltown during Oscar week to urge the entertainment industry to produce more movies, TV shows and music about — drumroll, please — global warming.
During a daylong forum, some 400 writers, directors, producers, agents and network executives were briefed on recent heat waves, floods, fires and droughts that have been blamed on man-made climate change.
"Animate these stories!" the Los Angeles Times quoted Ban as beseeching. "Set them to music! Give them life! Together we can have a blockbuster impact on the world." And judging from the Times' unblinking account, ideas started flowing immediately.
Despite the fact movies about mythical global warming bomb at the box office, surely Hollywood will continue to pour money down the rathole.
The climate effort, managed by the same office, has broader ambitions. "You have power and influence to send to millions and billions of people around world," Ban told his Los Angeles audience. "To make planet Earth environmentally sustainable is a political and moral imperative."
Also speaking on panels were Indian economist Rajendra Pachauri — chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group of some 2,500 scientists who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for assessing the effects of greenhouse gases — and Costa Rican diplomat Christiana Figueres, who led global treaty negotiations in Cancun as the head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
"There's a huge gap between what governments can do, given political constraints, and what they should do," Figueres told Hollywood executives. "That's where you come in. ... We need you to make it sexy and cool to bring about the energy revolution that has to happen."
King asked Pachauri if he had a "sexy story we could make into a film."
Please, don't ever mention Larry King and Patchy in the same sentence as the word sexy.
But Marshall Herskovitz, a veteran producer and director who has a climate-related project in the works, dismissed the comparison. "Everybody is interested in health," he said. "But audiences see climate change as a distant phenomenon that affects parts of the world we don't see."
Unfortunately, Herskovitz said, "the best messaging on climate change by far is by the deniers. Chevron has a brilliant TV campaign. They would lead you to believe that climate change is being solved by the oil business."
This annual gathering of environmental wackos going all the way to 2006 was so popular I never heard of it. Here all this time I figured "climate camp" would be where they send all of us climate deniers to be re-educated.
Sadly, however, it's outlived its usefulness. Now the merry band of idiots are moving on to broader issues, likely to include awareness of something. They'll figure it out eventually and will surely get back to us once the next great crisis is invented (via Tim Blair).
After five years of camps, composting toilets, vegan curry and run-ins with the police, Climate Camp is calling it a day.
There will be no camp for the climate activists this year and the loose-knit organisation will be disbanded in 2011. The decision follows a five-day meeting to reach a consensus.
Really? Five days to get it together to realize your sad, motley, rag-tag bunch just might have to get on with your lives now that this climate scam has rendered you all pointless?
In a statement, activists for the climate movement said the camp was being disbanded to leave room to "launch new radical experiments to tackle the intertwined ecological, social and economic crises we face."
All of which are sure to be fabricated and will largely entail removing money from your wallets to pay for their schemes.
Most camp graduates believe this was the right moment to call it a day. "There was a feeling that Climate Camp was committed to a certain kind of action, the annual camp, which is really a huge commitment in terms of energy and resources," said Kevin Smith, a key figure in the climate movement, who was at the Dorset meeting. "People from Climate Camp are now involved and helping to organise so many of the different movements around, I think people felt they wanted to be freed up to get on with new things."
He, like many others, is excited by the wave of political energy and engagement that he sees in the UK. "This isn't about people giving up on climate change. But most people feel that they want to focus more broadly now."
A wave of political energy so all-consuming they can no longer find enough people to camp out near power stations. Something tells me they're running out of useful idiots to underwrite their particular brand of idiocy.
I was just thinking of this moron today as I cleared ten fresh inches of global warming off my vehicle and driveway. Sure enough, he's here to remind us of his latest fierce moral urgency.
He may have been preaching to the choir, but former Vice President Al Gore stirred an Aspen audience Friday with a passionate speech about the effects of global warming, at one point pounding his fist on the podium and declaring it “a moral issue.”
Gore, 62, delivered a 50-minute keynote address for a symposium on “Forests at Risk: Climate Change and the Future of the American West.” The event, hosted by the local nonprofit For the Forest, was held in the Doerr-Hosier Center at The Aspen Institute.
Gore told the standing-room-only audience that his remarks on global warming, and the presentations throughout the half-day symposium, should not be taken as merely “interesting” or “an intellectual exercise.”
How ironic a man who hasn't had an original thought in three decades speaks of intellectual exercise. When was the last time this bloated bag of wind had any exercise at all?
“It is a call to action,” he said, “if you love these forests, if you think for a moment about the obligation we have to those who come after (us).
“This is a forest issue. It's a political issue. It's an economic issue. It's a national security issue. It's a jobs issue. But at bottom, it is a moral issue,” he said to widespread applause. “And we have to be willing to stand up and do the right thing."
Gore then dazzled the captive audience with another tedious slideshow of made-up statistics.
According to Gore, 90 million tons of pollution that contribute to global warming are sent into the Earth's atmosphere every day. The time has come for not just Americans but the world at large to make a conscious decision to tackle the problem, he said.
Gore acknowledged that there are skeptics and cynics but said an overwhelming consensus of the world's top scientific organizations now recognizes the causes and effects of global warming. It should no longer be a partisan issue, he said.
So a constituent of John Kerry demands an apology from the tax-dodging oaf and what does he do? Doubles down on stupid and call everyone who doesn't buy his junk science theories neanderthals.
U.S. Sen. John Kerry encountered a loud and often angry crowd during a town hall meeting at the Northampton Center for the Arts on Saturday, as area residents grilled him about his support for the war in Afghanistan, federal spending and the federal government’s response to the recession.
Anti-war protesters interrupted the Democrat on numerous occasions, yelling and calling on him to explain his support for funding the war in Afghanistan.
And in what might have might been the most bizarre exchange of the two-hour gathering, Kerry apologized to one woman who claimed he had called her a Neanderthal for not believing in global warming.
Kerry said he was referring generally to those who do not believe in the science of global warming and not the one woman in particular.
Thanks for clearing that up. So nice that we have such esteemed people in our senate.
"The biggest fight we have on the environment right now in Washington is not going forward, it is preventing these Neanderthals, troglodytes, whatever you call them, from going backward - preventing them from attacking the EPA, preventing the EPA from doing anything about clean air for the next few years," Kerry said.
"I think we have to build up the same kind of grassroots energy and movement that we had in 1970 when we passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the Safe Water Drinking Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act," he continued. "... There is a price to pay for not moving forward to protect the planet."
We? Uh, Lurch, you were busy trashing your own government back in 1970, so how is it we?
Of course the story is replete with the the word if, since there's zero evidence to support this nonsense and as recent as 2008 there were record numbers of polar bears. But hey, let's play along.
THE polar bear population is falling because of melting sea ice, a study published today has claimed.
The survival of the species across much of the Arctic will be in question if climate change continues at its current rate, said researchers from the University of Alberta.
They predicted that up to 73 percent of pregnant females in the Hudson Bay region will not reproduce if sea ice breakup comes a month early.
"If climate change continues unabated, the viability of the species across much of the Arctic will be in question," said biologist Peter Molner, the paper's lead author.
During ice-free periods, pregnant female bears are less able to hunt for food to build up energy reserves, as they hibernate before giving birth. If they cannot build up proper reserves, the embryo is reabsorbed.
If if if if.
Not will, not is, not conclusive evidence shows.
If.
As in, if these people weren't beholden to research grant money, they would be forced to get real jobs.
The Hudson Bay polar bears are the most southerly population and the first to be affected by global warming, said researchers, but if temperatures continue to rise across the Arctic, most of the polar bear population will be at risk.
OK, they're slipping. Is it climate change or global warming?
I guess they've given up on all the idiotic forecasts for 10 or 20 years down the road since they've been proven wrong every time. Now they set a new standard: Making predictions for how things will look 989 years in the future. Hey, at least they can't be debunked now by us evil deniers.
Even if humans stop producing excess carbon dioxide in 2100, the lingering effects of global warming could span the next millennia. The results? By the year 3000, global warming would be more than a hot topic - the West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse, and global sea levels would rise by about 13 feet (4 meters), according to a new study.
Hasn't Algore been spewing this same nonsense? Notice how they always couch as it could happen. So when they're wrong (and they always are) they can just saw they were warning us, just in case.
Using a computer model, researchers looked at two scenarios - an end to humans' industrial carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 and by 2100 - stretched out to the year 3000.
Even if humans were to stop emitting excess carbon dioxide - or if they figured out a way to completely capture it - the effects of global warming would continue to accumulate. That's because previously emitted carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere and the oceans, unlike land, warm only gradually, according to one of the study researchers, Shawn Marshall, an associate professor of geography at the University of Calgary.
So once 3000 rolls around and humans face only another few billion years on the planet, then they can't really start to worry or something.
Here all this time I thought it was Sarah Palin and the incendiary rhetoric of rightwing talk radio that brought them to their knees.
Some House Democrats blamed their defeat in November’s mid-term elections partly on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to force a vote on a climate change bill.
A new study suggests that climate change has claimed bigger political victims in the past. Much bigger.
The study published in the journal Science suggests climate change contributed to the rise and fall of the Roman empire.
“Climate change seems a factor in the rise and fall of the Roman empire, according to a study of ancient tree growth that urges greater awareness of the risks of global warming in the 21st century,” Reuters reports.
The study's lead author said climate shifts affected farming, and amplified other political, social and economic crises.
Reuters seems to downplay the role of barbarians, or as they're more commonly known, liberals.
"Distinct drying in the 3rd century paralleled a period of serious crisis in the western Roman empire marked by barbarian invasion, political turmoil and economic dislocation in several provinces of Gaul," it said.
Temperatures and rainfall only returned to levels of the Roman period in the early 800s, around the time when new kingdoms consolidated in Europe.
The Black Death bubonic plague of the mid-14th century, for instance, was during an unstable, wet period. "From other studies we know that a more humid environment is more supportive fo the dispersal of plague," Buentgen said.
Isn't Black Death a pejorative? Shouldn't it be renamed Death of Color?
How sad. The global warming hoaxers are reduced to smearing people and omitting critical information. Seems we've been down this road before.
IPCC scientists had done a good job of producing a comprehensive report. It is a rather thankless task, on top of their normal jobs, often requiring them to work sixty, eighty, or more hours per week, with no pay for overtime or for working on the IPCC report. Yet they were portrayed as incompetent or, worse, dishonest. Scientists do indeed have deficiencies—especially in communicating with the public and defending themselves against viscous attacks by professional swift-boaters.
The public, at some point, will realize they were hoodwinked by the deniers. The danger is that deniers may succeed in delaying actions to deal with energy and climate. Delay will enrich fossil fuel executives, but it is a great threat to young people and the planet.
Bill: You must be referring to the urgency created by climate tipping points. Is there new information about tipping points? . ... several pages omitted here
Oh no, the dreaded tipping points!
According to the buffoon Hansen, ClimateGate was just a hoax by some character assassins. Sure, keep believing that.
Bill: What was the deal with “climategate”—the East Anglia e-mails and IPCC’s “Himalayan error”? Much of the public was left with impression that global warming may be a hoax!
Jim: There was a real hoax, for sure—perpetrated on the public by people who prefer business-as-usual, people who concocted a misinformation campaign. They want the public to think that the science is suspect. Doubt is all they need. Their tactics included swift-boating and character assassination, using e-mails stolen from scientists’ computers. They did an effective job. Now policy makers continue to sit on their hands, leaving fossil fuel subsidies in place, allowing fossil fuel companies to call the tune—and the devil with young people and nature.
Yes, the stolen e-mails exposed bad behavior by scientists, notably a reluctance of some scientists to give deniers the input data for global temperature analysis. That allowed global warming deniers to assert that global climate change was “cooked” data. But that assertion is nonsense. The NASA temperature analysis agrees well with the East Anglia results. And the NASA data are all publicly available, as is the computer program that carries out the analysis.
Look at it this way: If anybody could show that the global warming curve was wrong they would become famous, maybe win a Nobel Prize. All the measurement data are available. So why don’t the deniers produce a different result? They know that they cannot, so they resort to theft of e-mails, snipping private comments out of context, and character assassination.
Instead they give Nobel Prizes to idiots like Algore who promote this nonsense.
There is now strong evidence to suggest that the unusually cold winters of the last two years in the UK are the result of heating elsewhere.
Who says something so stupid? Why, a renowned "expert" who was exposed as a total fraud during ClimateGate, of course. But wait, ten years ago we were told snow was a thing of the past. Oops.
For all I know, Monbiot may be right. It just seems remarkably convenient that any climatic trend is the fault of greenhouse gases . Getting hotter? Global warming! Getting cooler? Global warming! Average overcast October day? Gaea is on her last legs!
Ye-e-s. There’s just one problem with this. Can anyone spot what it is? That’s right: the clue is in that phrase “published by NASA”. See, going to NASA GISS for reliable, unbiased temperature data is a bit like asking Charles Manson for tips on how best to set up a commune where everyone’s happy and no one gets ritually murdered or anything. James Hansen, the guy in charge of NASA’s dataset, is so committed to the religion of AGW he makes Al Gore sound like Viscount Monckton.
It just turned to winter today here in the United States. We in the northeast have been freezing since at least Thanksgiving. I can't wait for spring. Just hope it warms up a bit by then.
For their next trick, maybe they'll try sticking their heads elsewhere. I have a place in mind. Anyway, as the luxurious, two-week vacation disguised as "climate talks" heats up, things are really beginning to get serious. And what better way to symbolize the silliness than a bunch of goofballs sticking their heads in the sand?
Sierra Club activists bearing the flags of more than 20 countries bury their heads in Cancun, Mexico's, sandy beach Friday to symbolize their view of how United Nations climate talks are progressing.
The second week of negotiations kicked off Monday, with participants from 193 countries seeking to reach a deal that failed to materialize at last year's Copenhagen summit.
"We cannot leave Cancun empty-handed," Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's top climate official, told the AP.
Just like how a year ago they couldn't leave Copenhagen empty-handed. Yet did.
These things are just too complicated. Just imagine if they had to get real jobs and couldn't spend two weeks at the beach during December.
