Y2Kyoto: Springtime For Gore

72 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Springtime For Gore”

1. The obligatory Hitler learns of the downfall of global warming video , no swearing , funny stuff .

2. Al-AGW says, Don’t let Moi die. Moi wants to see/feel “the remarkable change under way in the climate,” x 1,400 “Climate scientists”.
   Look here and you’ll feel GUI, er guilty:
   >>> “The foundation’s projects at universities across the country, which are seen as key to understanding the remarkable change under way in the climate”.
   “A petition, signed by close to 1,400 graduate students and researchers, is demanding new funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which will die without a cash infusion.”
   Send $$$$$; hurry. We are dying.
   …-
   “Climate scientists fight for renewed research funding
   Petition; 1,400 demand Ottawa renew money in budget”
   http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Climate+scientists+fight+renewed+research+funding/2604686/story.html

3. “The Jurassic media continues to casually throw around the phrase “right wing / far right” when describing a certain group of socialists…”
   I’m thinking that the political spectrum must be a circle..go far enough right and BOOM…you’re left!

4. Mr. Sanders disparages the appeasers of Britain, ” ‘don’t worry! Hitler is not real! It’ll disappear! We don’t have to be prepared to take it on.'”
   I am curious about his take on Islam. I’d bet the farm,if I had one,that he is firmly in the ‘there just like us’ camp.

5. Or maybe even the ‘they’re just like us’ camp.

6. A’sGW: It’s Global Change, not Climate Warming.
   …-
   “Tories in no hurry to embrace Bernier’s remarks”
   “The prime minister’s office declined comment. But a spokesman for Environment Minister Jim Prentice was less than supportive of Bernier’s comments.
   “The MP expressed a personal opinion that doesn’t reflect the minister’s or the government position on climate change,” Frederic Baril wrote in an e-mail to QMI Agency. “This is the only comment we will make on this matter.”
   “Opposition critics say they want the government to repudiate Bernier’s remarks.”
   http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/02/24/13013236-qmi.html
   …-
   Pay no attention: It’s a computer model; a figment.
   “A very strong coastal storm will dump heaps of snow across the Northeast Thursday and Friday. The heaviest snowfall will come Thursday afternoon and Thursday night when the region from northeastern Pennsylvania through central New York gets as much as 1 to 2 feet. That combined with 30- to 40-mph winds will force some roads to close.”
   http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=0

7. Arghh. People like “JR” at ClimateProgress are almost insane-making at this point. The case for an impending climate Armageddon has been built on falsification and deletion of data, wholesale moving of measuring stations to warmer locations, suppression of dissenting views, recycling of worthless anecdotal “data” as scientific “fact”, etc., etc., and they just won’t admit it. We’re not talking about one or two or ten cases of malfeasance; the scientific evidence for their entire argument – outside of their computer modeling – has been shown to be corrupted and compromised top-to-bottom. For the remaining hardline holdouts in the warmist community to have the chutzpah to assert that those who don’t accept shoddy and corrupted data – i.e. that those who merely examine the available evidence and draw appropriate conclusions – are moral monsters who are worse than Holocaust deniers is repulsive on many levels, not just a scientific one.
   If someone who was in a coma for the last thirty years woke up a month ago, alert and refreshed, to look at the current debate, and without any knowledge of the viability of the evidence one way or another, two things would clearly stand out to him:
   1. The “deniers” like McIntyre, Watts and look at, discuss, and examine the actual scientific evidence, and base their conclusions on the evidence.
   2. The warmists dismiss, on moral grounds, anyone who examines the actual scientific evidence.
   This difference between the two camps can be seen even in comments from regular folks at popular blogs and under online newspaper articles: the “deniers” tend to refer to the scientific case – i.e. the actual evidence – while the AGW supporters tend to say no, no, you idiot, the evidence is already in, it was in ten years ago, the case is closed, and your wish to drag me into a discussion about the actual evidence just shows that you are a knuckle-dragging, moral monster.
   Btw, wrt the CBC News article –
   “As the New York Times notes, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson did not give an inch when it came to the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change”
   – that’s *CBS News* saying that there’s overwhelming scientific consensus. There’s a difference between saying “EPA administrator Lisa Jackson did not give an inch, stating that there is overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change” and saying “Lisa Jackson did not give in inch when it came to the overwhelming consensus on climate change.”

8. MSM are in a feeding frenzy. seems that Maxime Bernier, the soiled Tory wonder kid from Quebec has stepped on hallowed ground by (gasp!) saying that climate change has no scientific consensus and PM Harper is right with a go slow approach. It is such a scandal that Lizzy May and Gilles Duceppe are raising alarm bells and Jane Tabor is polishing up her Pulitzer Prize acceptance speech. These village idiots make the Salem witch hunt seem sane.

9. Agreed TC.
   Bernier didn’t do PMSH and the Conservatives any favours.
   This was very selfish on Bernier’s part. He’s clearly appealing to the populous mood at the expense of his party for personal gain. It doesn’t matter what Bernier, PMSH or you thinks about AGW because the ball rolls with or without us. This is why paying lip service and doing nothing was the best strategy!
   Everyone will now see for themselves the consequences of the perception that the Conservatives are non believers. I’m sure they’ve got the PMSH clip cued and ready to go of PMSH calling Kyoto a “socialist plot”. It will be interesting to see if this crack in the Conservatives solidarity can be mended or if it will expand laying waste to all that PMSH is trying to accomplish.

10. http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2505
    I have to repeat my question: “What is endangered?” My answer is: “It is our freedom and our prosperity. The climate is OK.” This is relevant for all countries but even more so for the less developed ones. They must have a chance to grow, to develop, to move ahead without any artificial constraints – the totally useless fight against the current CO2 levels being one of the most important and dangerous ones. We have to resist such ambitions in the name of freedom, prosperity and progress. Countries like Egypt should not become victims of the irresponsible doctrine of global warming.
    One short explanatory comment. I very often see that people confuse two different things – a necessary protection of the environment (necessary because there is no doubt that we have to take care of the rivers, lakes, seas, forests and air) and an irrational attempt to fight or to protect the climate. I am very much in favor of rational efforts when it comes to environmental protection, but I resolutely reject any attempts to change or – as I frequently hear – to combat climate.
    Václav Klaus, ARAB Global forum, Hotel Four Seasons, Cairo, February 8, 2010

11. This pronouncement of Bernier is proving the impatient members of the conservative camp were stupid…….
    ……however although Bernier may have gone off prematurely—-all is not lost.
    So far it is just the usual suspects in the lefitist media and the political troika that have taken notice.
    It is possible that this is the spark to the powderkeg……which will destroy the warmists and the lefties in a perfect storm.
    The difference/balance is in OUR hands….not the Lizzie Mays and the troika.

12. OZ
    “””The hypothesis, that CO2 drives warming, has been falsified.””””
    nope, not so, and it is foolishness like this that can blow up in your face
    all that an increasing CO2 count and a decreasing temp at the same time prove is lack of correlation. The fact is that there could be an over riding forcing that causes the temp to decline, but less so than if CO2 was not a positive forcing agent. It is the same as increasing temps and increasing CO2 only prove correlation, and not actual forcing. So lets not fall into the leftist meme of simplifying things just to over state our position!!

13. Garbage in , garbage out. Welcome to modern education. Its a rare thing this much ignorance is found in one place. I found the comments chilling in their homogeneity.
    That science is now a belief system, not procedure will slow any progress.
    Kate’s posted article is by a Luddite. For Luddites pretending to be for knowledge. While parroting censorship by mockery.
    Sad!

14. MAZ2 @ 3:14 mentions..
    [Quote]
    Maxime Bernier has taken a public stance against the conventional wisdom on global warming. The prominent Conservative MP has written a letter to La Presse newspaper saying there is no scientific consensus on the matter.
    [/Quote]
    Hey, I like the Maxime guy. He must be checking here at SDA..
    He says Solar activity and other influences have more effect on climate than we humans do.
    That was what I said in my comments..
    Excellent Maxime, and you are very welcome.

15. GYM at February 24, 2010 9:15 PM
    My position is that there is no global warming.
    Nothing I have seen or read contradicts that.
    The AGW hypothesis is that rising CO2 levels forces temperature rise on a global scale.
    Their hypothesis does not, and has not, taken other factors into consideration.
    Thus we get Phil Jones saying that the temperature has not risen and he and other “climate scientists” have NO explanation for it not rising.
    The hypothesis has therefore been falsified.
    You see, they put all of their eggs in one basket and declared a consensus on it.
    They are the ones who made it simple.
    They are the ones who said there was a direct correlation.
    All of their models demonstrate a direct correlation and their solution is single: Lower CO2 levels and that will lower the temperature.
    You, GYM, are the one misapprehending the situation that they are in, not me.
    I don’t have to prove anything.
    I get to sit back and poke holes in their position.
    I have no case to make except that AGW proponents have no case.
    I represent the status quo and they have failed to make a case to change the status quo.
    I don’t know how long you have been coming to SDA, GYM, but there was a most patient and eloquent AGW proponent named John Cross who used to come here and argue a direct correlation all of the time.
    Apart from being wrong about global warming John Cross was an intelligent man who made they AGW case, such as it was, very well.
    He hasn’t dared come here since late November 2009.

16. PS:
    Maxime, I like your selective taste in women as well.

17. Globull warming was great fun while it lasted and did contribute to less pollution with the promotion of wind farms and electric vehicles.
    Horns REV1 Windfarm.. [offshore ocean shallows]
    The 489 ton Vestas turbines deliver 2% of Denmark power needs or enough for 150,000 homes. So big and slow, they kill almost NO birds.
    [Quote]
    The 160MW Horns Rev (Horns Reef) offshore wind farm has 80 turbines off the west coast of Denmark’s Jutland peninsula. Horns Rev was the world’s largest offshore project when Elsam installed it in 2002, close to Blåvands Huk in the North Sea. It is now owned by Vattenfall (60%) and Dong Energy (40%).
    [/Quote]
    power-technology.com/projects/hornsreefwind/

18. TG, I agree with the “nice tits” evaluation.

19. “For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of #3 (engaging AGW skeptics in open debate)” Dr. Judith Curry
    Dear Dr. Curry,
    Three years? Really? What’s the matter? Is Dr. Tim Ball’s phone number unlisted?

20. Good comment, Jamie MacMaster.
    In fact Dr. Tim Ball would be happy to have a public debate with her right now as, no doubt, would Lord Monckton.
    The real reason she and her ilk haven’t had a public debate with these people if they had wanted to in the past 3 years, is that they would fail spectacularly and be ostracized by the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann.
    The AGW position has up until now been maintained on a pedestal of pure image and lies to bolster that image and a debate would destroy that image by exposing the lies.

21. Exactly PiperPaul,
    You are a skilled ‘between the lines’ reader.

22. We dont need to discuss CO2. Tim Ball proved the case. He summarized all his work in the conclusion below and it was published. They say he doesn’t publishe on atmosphere but here it is.
    Ball, T. Book Review, Agricultural Dimensions of Global Climate Change, book ed. by H.M. Kaiser and T.E. Drennen. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 42: 212-214 (1994).
    Tim Ball: “…For example, carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources increased the most from 1940 to 1980 while global temperature decreased. Atmospheric carbon dioxide readings plummeted at Mauna Loa in the last two years. ”