26 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Gore To Close For Obama In Florida”

  2. But surely we all know now that, just as the Liberal’s Green Shift has disappeared, so-called ‘Global Warming’ has disappeared from the fundamentalist rhetoric of the apocalypse-watchers.
    It’s now called simply ‘Climate Change’. However, the cause remains the same: The Evil Mankind.
    Now, whether it’s unseasonably cold, wet, dry, hot or even normal – the causality remains, not Natural Forces, but Human Forces. And in particular, the Human Force of Evil.
    So there.

  3. They will need to come up with a new slogan soon.
    How about “Climate Something” or “Climate Whatever”
    The Ministry of Truth needs to kick in soon with a new slogan “More Warming for Cooler Temperatures”
    My advice -> go long on underwear futures,or is that go for long underwear futures of ??
    Whatever . . .

  4. If we have moved from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change,” what exactly are we wanting the climate to change into? Once we decide what we want it to be, would a carbon tax bring it to fruition?

  6. Here in S’toon we might have +10C on Halloween. Hooray for AGW, when I was a lad it was so cold one Halloween my mask shattered on the ice when I dropped it.
    Now that gas has dropped below $1/liter we can all start our cars and trucks and let them run for extended periods of time. That should reverse this global cooling trend. I think.
    Forget what I said, I can’t remember if we want it to cool or to warm. Wait, it’s neither, we just wan CHANGE we can believe in, that’s the ticket: climate change.

  7. Don’t you find it interesting, ET, how lefties believe that mankind is a scourge on the planet. Hooray for Nature.
    Lefties abhor competition (because inevitably, there are losers), yet, Nature is nothing but pure, raw, unfettered competition.
    If you believe Nature is a perfect system, but cannot stand competition, you might be a liberal.

  9. Think of it this way Kate, when they pick the oranges it is prepackaged FROZEN orange juice!!
    I am also pretty sure I was praying for a mighty wind from the True North Strong and Free so that Al Gore’s AGW plan(e) would not land, way back in 2006. This seems to be working out mighty fine.
    You can blame it all on me.
    I believe in Canada it is McCAIN that is also a vendor of FROZEN orange juice. Maybe they should serve that in the White House for breakfast on Nov. 5th, 2008!
    After Halloween, comes All Saints Day.
    Oh when the saints go marching in I wanna be in that number, oh when the saints go marching in.
    louis armstrong – when the saints go marching in
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErUrPXt31vo&feature=related
    Cheers
    Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    Frankenstein Battalion
    2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
    Knecht Rupprecht Division
    Hans Corps
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  10. Shaken
    Correct.
    Leftards do not understand that the market is natural law. What they unwittingly advocate is man’s interference in this. These people are losers, that is why they are willfully ignorant to these truths. These losers understand that they are unfit to succeed( due only to laziness) in nature/market so out of envy they demonize those who are successful, and the very natural laws they claim to hold in esteem. This laziness makes it very easy to believe anything, regardless of how inconsistent some positions they advocate are with others they advocate. For example, these losers will cry “murder” during the annual seal hunt, all the while oblivious to the necessity of the hunt to preserve the environment. The very environment they claim to stand -up for, but I digress.

  11. Well, didn’t Obama say, as the Democratic Primaries ended, that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”?

  12. Two comments: the global warming model, which is the consensus of several hundred scientists using a lot of computer modeling, calls for more extreme weather both hot and cold, but with an overall heating trend. Some really cold October days are not going to rebuild much polar bear habitat, folks. Although come to think of it, I hope you rightards are right and I turn out wrong.
    Second, after what we’ve been through the past six weeks, you see NO REASON EVER to interfere with the “free” (so not) market???? Try this one just for starts: how about you or one of your loved ones is hit by a car and can’t afford all that it takes monetarily to save your life?? Should the free market ambulance just leave you to the side of the road for the vultures? Or how about give me a free market reason why I would run a factory and not dump the toxic waste down the nearest river? It’s exactly what everyone did until there was that horrible interference with the free market in pollution.

  13. It has now been publically admitted (Alan Greenspan) that Computer Models are fatally flawed, who would have guessed. The mathematician that won the Nobel Prize for economical modeling, brilliant chap he was, is hiding under his desk.
    The melt down of Wall Street is all the proof needed to scrap the theories of trend Lines that are dependent on the laws of probability.
    Science and probability can’t be interchanged. Science must be proved, probability
    is a flaw waiting to fail.
    ET: NOTE

  14. lew
    That’s right lew, I’d rather die on a waiting list with the money burning a hole in my pocket.
    WRT the market, it is the interference in the market that causes this type of instability. The information was/is available to everyone who was/is invested. It was no secret that political pressure forced banks to make bad loans, and it is no secret that people are greedy. If the market was left alone these greedy people would go out of business to make way for those who are providing a valued service. The market fixes itself. It is not the market that is at fault here, and I am sick and tired of everyone playing victim. I’m not completely against the bailout, but I wish that people who did lose money would accept some of the responsibility for their actions. That includes O’Reilly. Individuals put their savings at risk and lost, and if they follow through on their investment plans they will get their money back. I just wish I was American who has defaulted on my house payments, then I could capitalize on the rewards for my irresponsibility. I wonder how many “poor” people who can’t afford escalating rents will get bailed out. Probably none, there is no reward or help for those who are responsible and live within their means that may need a hand up.
    WRT global warming, lew you are way out of your league here. I suspect settled science may be more convincing if you had a flux capacitor and you could go back in time a few years; or, you went to an elementary school and indoctrinate more impressionable minds.

  16. lew, your examples have nothing to do with the free market. I suggest you do some reading on this topic.
    What is going on now in the world economic system is a restructuring of that system. The world economic structure has been dominated by the West’s innovative and productive industrial capacities. Other parts of the world primarily operated as raw resource suppliers or passive consumers.
    The structure is changing, with the Asian world (China and India) moving into the manufacturing and middle class consumer production and consumption market. It’s a ‘tectonic’ shift, a massive restructuring – and yes, involves ups and downs, but, a positive result in the end.
    I’d suggest reading the book that recently won the Best Finance Book of 2008 (Goldman Award). It’s by Mohamed El-Erian, ‘When Markets Collide’ and explains, clearly, some of what is going on now.
    As for climate change, to my knowledge,lew, the polar bears are doing just fine, increasing their number and there’s no need for you to despair. Please understand that the climate has been changing since this planet was formed.
    There are far more scientists who reject AGW than those who support it, and computer modeling is not an objective means of proof, but merely, a map of probabilities. These probabilities are reliant on the input data and, interestingly, even a small variation can dramatically alter the model.
    Also, your notion that AGW, or climate-change caused by man includes all extremes, I’d have to say that this idea has moved outside the realm of science. You see, a premiss that explains all variations is so general that it has become meaningless.
    shaken – yes, it is fascinating that the leftist view of humanity is that we are a scourge on the earth. When they move this view to the climate, they instantly decide that the climate is and must be static; that any changes are unnatural, and furthermore, that all that man does is evil. It’s a very Augustinian worldview, a world filled with self-hatred, obsession, recrimation and a desire for an apocalyptic end. Makes for great movies.

  17. There are far more scientists who reject AGW than those who support it,
    I don’t suppose you have a reference for that statement that you would care to share with us?
    Thanks,
    John

  18. John Cross
    lew up there above you a ways, don’t grasp that there ain’t no darn program written the can model climate, an if there wuz, there ain’t no darn ‘puter big enough to run it, not even thet thar biggun out in BC thet can run 60,000 operations simultaneously!!!
    so would you puleez ‘splain to the dear lad fer moi

  19. Lew,I have fond memories of Ann Arbor,Patti Smith in 1976,was the best. But….seeing that you are in a college town with a whole bunch of intellectual giants and the resources that make them so,do yourself a favour and look up the polar bear count for the last 50 years. If you really care about the planet’s cutest and most vicious carnivores,I would think that you will be idling mama’s SUV right now.Polar bears are thriving,their numbers are increasing. Is that because of GLOBAL WARMING?.So,what will you do with the facts? Maybe you should be a radical,as most students aspire,and enlighten the folks that admire your boldness by showing them you are wrong. You might alienate some,but the ones that actually think will like you more.They will be voting for McCain,and their parents are not likely to be living in gated communities and bragging about a trip to DETROIT,where the other people( that in no way resemble Obama) hang around and,they survived………Anyways,I got off on a tangent. Yesterday in Calgary,the temp hit 20 degrees,not even close to the record of 25.5 that was recorded in 1887,111 years ago. What the hell were the people at the turn of the 19th century doing? Why do I have to pay for their irrational consumption? Cheers.

  20. John, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch answered your question some time ago in this paper:
    http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
    Please note particularly tables 1 and 2 in which the climate science community comments on the accuracy of their models.
    It is a fact which should not be in dispute that the only concensus that the IPCC represents is that of the lead authors of the report. It certainly does not represent the concensus of the reviewers of the report, nor does it represent the concensus of the authors whose works are cited. Please don’t quote the Oreskes study to me. We all know how badly that study was botched in its methodology.

  21. cgh: Thanks for the link but I don’t think the study shows what you think it does. For example the question: How much does new scientific discovery in the last decade confirm the
    anthropogenic influence on climate?     there is quite a strong agreement. This alone refuted the assertion that “ far more scientists reject AGW than support it“.
    In regards to Oreskes, I have read the study. What is your criticism of it?
    Regards,
    John

  22. For John Cross — Google “Oregon Petition” Below is the statement to which 31,000 American scientists have affixed their signatures:
    “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

  23. John, I don’t think you read the paper. That one-line conclusion you quoted is belied by the evidence Bray and Storch present in the paper. The numbers in the two tables show that confidence in the model based science has declined, not increased, over the two time periods for many of the scientific aspects.
    As to Oreskes, I told you, don’t waste my time. This argument has been held far too many times in the past to drag up here.

  24. cgh: The statement that I quoted speaks for itself. The only work that I know that attempts to refute Oreskes was Pieser which as you can see he eventually retracted. Do you know of another one?
    JMD: The problem with the Oregon petition is that there is no standard as to what a scientist is. If you say you are a scientist then you will be accepted. At least with Brey he had a sound methodology for identifying relevant scientists.
    Regards,
    John

  25. John, you’re being very deceptive here. Peiser withdrew after it was discovered that Oreskes used a different search method for articles than she claimed to have used.
    Moreover, she only examined abstracts and the sort method was if it was not explicitly opposed to AGW then it was deemed in support. This is a propaganda exercise, not a scientific cataloguing. Now stop wasting my time with trivia about a propagandist. There is no scientific consensus on AGW.
    The statement you made, independent of the evidence in the paper, means nothing.

  26. cgh: I was not aware that Peiser withdrew his comments for that reason. I thought it was because none of the papers that he said contradicted the consensus position actually did (I know because I did review his papers). DO you have a reference to that assertion?
    In regards to wasting your time, I remind you that it was you that brought it up.
    Regards,
    JOhn

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation