Climate scepticism 'on the rise'

[Big Fitz]

I CAN'T BELIEVE HE POSTS THIS KIND OF SHIT. LOL
If I were he, I'd fight to forever remain anonymous.

that's because you're a coward, Dante/Devnell whomever you really are.

The fact you can't comprehend my point really is depressing, but not surprising.

So nice call out. It illustrates your (lack of) character so well.

The fact that you are clueless as well as immune to he normal human constraints of shame and embarrassment is a side issue.

Your delusion that you are anything more than a wingnut on an internet message board, and the hallucinations you suffer that have you being some sort of a tribune of the people, is hilarious as well as sad.

Climate change science is not dependant upon the IPCC and the fate of anyone even yourself, is not dependant on your delusions

and we all should thank gawd for that fact.

ROFLMAO

Oh man!

You've devolved into kitteh responses to your rampant stupidity. When you are able to address facts and issues, you will be deserving of an intelligible response.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What are you posting about .
What is the point you are trying to make?
Just to sling insults?

Disputing Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB (RWL @ USMB) is now tantamount to no argument?

geesh.

as to the insults...go back and read the time line. I only up the ante. I do not always get to be first in setting the tone.

thank you for being true to character...a douche.

Please link to were I insulted you ?
It is not right wing lunacy to not believe in man made global warming.A fraud that has fallen apart in no uncertain terms.

 

[Annie]

I CAN'T BELIEVE HE POSTS THIS KIND OF SHIT. LOL
If I were he, I'd fight to forever remain anonymous.

that's because you're a coward, Dante/Devnell whomever you really are.

The fact you can't comprehend my point really is depressing, but not surprising.

So nice call out. It illustrates your (lack of) character so well.

The fact that you are clueless as well as immune to he normal human constraints of shame and embarrassment is a side issue.

Your delusion that you are anything more than a wingnut on an internet message board, and the hallucinations you suffer that have you being some sort of a tribune of the people, is hilarious as well as sad.

Climate change science is not dependant upon the IPCC and the fate of anyone even yourself, is not dependant on your delusions

and we all should thank gawd for that fact.

So it isn't the IPCC's publications and statements that have led to Kyoto protocols, Copenhagen summits? What is it then? The 'peer reviewed' articles, that have since been shown to have not only been biased in admission-with IPCC 'approved scientists' sitting on the boards that accepted applications for publication, but much fabricated as well?

The fact that the head of the IPCC also was receiving millions of dollars from one of his businesses that profited over the fear mongering based on IPCC publications, later to be retracted because of a whistle blower? Same being the case of many of the 'foremost scientists' at East Anglia, receiving billions in grants, while controlling any skepticism from others? Proof that they destroyed information requested by FOI, pertaining to a decline that others were finding?

You claim to want science to pave the way, yet you are siding with a lost cause, one that slashed and burned scientific method. One that is now shown to be without clothes.

IF AGW is real, then science should be able to demonstrate, publish, and be replicated by others. No reason to manufacture or destroy data. Transparency has always been the key.

 

[Big Fitz]

IF AGW is real, then science should be able to demonstrate, publish, and be replicated by others. No reason to manufacture or destroy data. Transparency has always been the key.

But it can't. So they won't. It's easier to try and intimidate people to their way of thinking... or at least to keep them from resisting.

 

[Annie]

Disputing Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB (RWL @ USMB) is now tantamount to no argument?

geesh.

as to the insults...go back and read the time line. I only up the ante. I do not always get to be first in setting the tone.

thank you for being true to character...a douche.

Please link to were I insulted you ?
It is not right wing lunacy to not believe in man made global warming.A fraud that has fallen apart in no uncertain terms.

You didn't, I went back to look. You weren't the saying and linking to 'wingnuts' or calling anyone a douche. I guess we should just look at the fact when one hasn't a clue to what is really the topic of discussion, just a glimmer of the 'right side of any argument to take', one often appears foolish, then is left with nothing but insults.

 

[Annie]

IF AGW is real, then science should be able to demonstrate, publish, and be replicated by others. No reason to manufacture or destroy data. Transparency has always been the key.

But it can't. So they won't. It's easier to try and intimidate people to their way of thinking... or at least to keep them from resisting.

Now in all honesty, perhaps they will have better luck if some countries start to demand real scientific methods and proof, before shelling out billions if not more, from the fruit of labor of their citizens.

While I'm a believer in cycles that have been evident over millions of years, if indeed there's reputable science to prove the claims that man is accelerating the cycles-globally not regionally or locally, I'm open to reading about and watching for a course of action if true.

Cap and trade, based on falsified science, hell no!

 

[Big Fitz]

IF AGW is real, then science should be able to demonstrate, publish, and be replicated by others. No reason to manufacture or destroy data. Transparency has always been the key.

But it can't. So they won't. It's easier to try and intimidate people to their way of thinking... or at least to keep them from resisting.

Now in all honesty, perhaps they will have better luck if some countries start to demand real scientific methods and proof, before shelling out billions if not more, from the fruit of labor of their citizens.

While I'm a believer in cycles that have been evident over millions of years, if indeed there's reputable science to prove the claims that man is accelerating the cycles-globally not regionally or locally, I'm open to reading about and watching for a course of action if true.

Cap and trade, based on falsified science, hell no!

Absolutely right. Prove with peer reviewed science that mankind is directly responsible for an environmental ill, and I'm for doing something about it.

Acid Rain, quite easy to prove. Love Canal, PCBs, Phosphates, CFCs... all very easy to prove.

CO2... not so much.

 

[Annie]

But it can't. So they won't. It's easier to try and intimidate people to their way of thinking... or at least to keep them from resisting.

Now in all honesty, perhaps they will have better luck if some countries start to demand real scientific methods and proof, before shelling out billions if not more, from the fruit of labor of their citizens.

While I'm a believer in cycles that have been evident over millions of years, if indeed there's reputable science to prove the claims that man is accelerating the cycles-globally not regionally or locally, I'm open to reading about and watching for a course of action if true.

Cap and trade, based on falsified science, hell no!

Absolutely right. Prove with peer reviewed science that mankind is directly responsible for an environmental ill, and I'm for doing something about it.

Acid Rain, quite easy to prove. Love Canal, PCBs, Phosphates, CFCs... all very easy to prove.

CO2... not so much.

Those examples, perfect! Like healthcare, 'the left' is wrong about 'the right' not caring about the environment or people. It's the steps taken to remedy the wrongs that are really proven to be wrongs.

Too often the governments act 'on the best of intentions', but without really thinking things through. Unintended consequences have caused a world of hurt for too many.

 

[Big Fitz]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Avatar4321]

Absolutely right. Prove with peer reviewed science that mankind is directly responsible for an environmental ill, and I'm for doing something about it.

Acid Rain, quite easy to prove. Love Canal, PCBs, Phosphates, CFCs... all very easy to prove.

CO2... not so much.

The danger in the topic of CO2 is that we breath it out. In order to stop CO2 emissions, these people need mankind to start dying off at a rapid pace. It's the logical extension to their idealogy. Im much more worried about a lunatic like Dante getting power and executing anyoen who disagrees with him to "save the planet" then I am about the world getting warmer. In fact, I wouldnt mind the heat going up. I rather hate snow.

 

[Avatar4321]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's the problem. People are too worried about feeling good or looking compassionate that they refuse to ask what the outcome of their actions are.

 

[Meister]

What are you posting about .
What is the point you are trying to make?
Just to sling insults?

Disputing Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB (RWL @ USMB) is now tantamount to no argument?

geesh.

as to the insults...go back and read the time line. I only up the ante. I do not always get to be first in setting the tone.

thank you for being true to character...a douche.

So your saying you have nothing?
That's Okay, it's a starting point.

 

[Annie]

The credibility of IPCC just keeps melting down:

The Great IPCC Meltdown Continues - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest

Posted on February 7th, 2010
The Great IPCC Meltdown Continues

It’s not just the threat of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035.

Now another headline grabbing IPCC scare story is melting away. A report in Sunday’s London Times highlights new humiliations for the IPCC.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

There is however one teensy-weensy little problem. As Professor Chris Field, the lead author of the IPCC’s climate impact team has now told reporters that he can find “no evidence” to support the claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report.

There’s more. When the glacier story broke, IPCC apologists returned over and over again to a saving grace. The bogus glacier report appeared in the body of the IPCC document, but not in the much more carefully vetted Synthesis Report, in which the IPCC’s senior leadership made its specific recommendations to world leaders. So it didn’t matter that much, the apologists told us, and we can still trust the rigorously checked and reviewed Synthesis Report.

But that’s where the African rain crisis prediction is found — in the supposedly sacrosanct Synthesis Report.

So: the Synthesis Report contains a major scare prediction — 50% shortfall in North African food production just ten years from now — and there is no serious, peer-reviewed evidence that the prediction is true.

But there’s more. Much, much more. Readers of the Times and the Telegraph are watching the IPCC’s credibility disappear before their eyes. The former head of IPCC has publicly said the IPCC risks losing all credibility if it can’t clean up its act. The head of the largest British funder of environmental research has joined the head of Greenpeace UK in criticizing the IPCC. (At Greenpeace, they want Pachauri to resign.) The Dutch government has demanded that the IPCC correct its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level. Actually, it’s only about a quarter. A prediction about the impact of sea level increases on people living in the Nile Delta was taken from an unpublished student dissertation. The report contained inaccurate data about generating energy from waves and about the cost of nuclear power (this information was apparently taken without being checked directly from a website supported by the nuclear power industry). The deeply environmentalist Guardian carries a story documenting the decline in both public and Conservative Party confidence in need to address global warming.

More significantly, there’s an editorial in today’s Guardian that criticizes shortcomings at the IPCC and calls for a wholesale change in the way climate scientists do their work and communicate with the public.

In my February 1 post on The Death of Global Warming, I said that the movement had been killed by two things: bad science and bad politics. The Guardian hopes that the parrot isn’t dead yet, but it seems to agree with my basic diagnosis: “It is bad science and bad politics to counter scepticism with righteous indignation. In the long run, public confidence will be inspired more by frankness about what science cannot explain,” write the editors.

The editors pick up another theme that is familiar to readers of this blog:

In trying to avert dangerous climate change, governments are aiming for something extraordinary. They want to transform the global economy because of a hypothesis for which the evidence is mostly inaccessible to the layman.

It is the biggest pre-emption in history, and it relies on collective trust in science.

When the IPCC has its former chief, the Guardian newspaper and the Dutch government demanding change, something has got to give.

I just wish all these stories were a little easier to find in the US press. These stories have been and continue to be on the front pages of UK newspapers; American newspapers by and large aren’t, yet, taking them as seriously and the growing numbers of Americans who are following the scandals are mostly tracking them from internet reports like this one or directly in the British press. This too needs to change, and the sooner the better.

Oh and who is the writer of this blog?

Walter Russell Mead - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[Big Fitz]

You rie abou groba warmy!...It for rear!

Now, move arong...You my prisna!

Damn man! Stop being so funny!

 

[Big Fitz]

Absolutely right. Prove with peer reviewed science that mankind is directly responsible for an environmental ill, and I'm for doing something about it.

Acid Rain, quite easy to prove. Love Canal, PCBs, Phosphates, CFCs... all very easy to prove.

CO2... not so much.

The danger in the topic of CO2 is that we breath it out. In order to stop CO2 emissions, these people need mankind to start dying off at a rapid pace. It's the logical extension to their idealogy. Im much more worried about a lunatic like Dante getting power and executing anyoen who disagrees with him to "save the planet" then I am about the world getting warmer. In fact, I wouldnt mind the heat going up. I rather hate snow.

DOn't worry, there aren't enough people on the planet who would follow him even out of morbid curiosity to fill a phone booth.

 

[Avatar4321]

DOn't worry, there aren't enough people on the planet who would follow him even out of morbid curiosity to fill a phone booth.

I think that's what they said about Hitler.

 

[asaratis]

In the UK, Climategate has become the scandal of the decade. It's like woodward and burnstein are hot on nixon's tail.

But, I'm waiting patiently for charges to be filed against the leaders, collaborators and charlatans that have been pushing this abject fraud on the world.

Just remember, follow the money, and this sweater will continue to unravel in a hellish mess for warmist eco-nazis.

Start with Al Bonzo Gore. He should be charged with fraud and have his Nobel Prize rescinded.

Shame on me? HAH! That's funny.

5 stories in the last week or so that have shown the IPCC has lied about pretty much EVERY foundation they had saying that climate change was happening and it was man's fault.

And you have the audacity to say "Shame on me"??

What an unmitigated cretin you are.

I do not say warming is all man made. The science of climate change doe not say that either.

shame on you yes...because you bring a political ideology to the table. If the science says global warming is not mostly man made...it meams nothing to me.

I do not have a political agenda when it comes to science. Sad that you do.

The whole point of the climate change movement was it was "man made" and "government could levy taxes and control behavior" to fix the problem, "that man caused" You missed the whole argument.

He misses all logical arguments.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Don't worry, there aren't enough people on the planet who would follow him even out of morbid curiosity to fill a phone booth.

 

[Oddball]

Start with Al Bonzo Gore. He should be charged with fraud and have his Nobel Prize rescinded.

Algore only got the credit....The Nobel was awarded to him and the IPCC.

And yes, it should be rescinded and the money repaid.

 

[RodISHI]

BBC News - Climate scepticism 'on the rise', BBC poll shows

Looks like there has been a huge shift in belief about Global Warming since Climategate. At least in the UK where it was reported.

Sad. The science says unequivically that there is climate change. The rational and reasoned debate is over how and wht...not that it is not happening.

More stupid people...just what we need.

And once again, for the terminally slow.

Weather changes. It's still not man's fault. That has failed to be proven.

Sad that we have so many people unable to look at greed for what it truly is.