Quotes of the day
posted at 10:45 pm on December 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Yet the case for human-driven warming, many scientists say, is far clearer now than a decade ago, when the skeptics included many people who now are convinced that climate change is a real and serious threat.
“Even some who remain skeptical about the extent or pace of global warming say that the premise underlying the Copenhagen talks is solid: that warming is to some extent driven by greenhouse gases spewing into the atmosphere from human activities like the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
“Roger A. Pielke Sr., for example, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado who has been highly critical of the United Nations climate panel and who once branded many of the scientists now embroiled in the e-mail controversy part of a climate ‘oligarchy,’ said that so many independent measures existed to show unusual warming taking place that there was no real dispute about it. Moreover, he said, ‘The role of added carbon dioxide as a major contributor in climate change has been firmly established.’”
***
“We all got into this mess together. And now, with treaty talks underway internationally and Congress stalled at home, we need to act accordingly. Don’t spend an hour changing your light bulbs. Don’t take a day to caulk your windows. Instead, pick up a phone, open a laptop, or travel to a U.S. Senate office near you and turn the tables: ‘What are the 10 green statutes you’re working on to save the planet, Senator?’…
“Forty-five years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson faced tremendous opposition on civil rights from a Congress dominated by Southern leaders, yet he spent the political capital necessary to answer a great moral calling. Whenever key bills on housing, voting and employment stalled, he gave individual members of congress the famous ‘Johnson treatment.’ He charmed. He pleaded. He threatened. He led, in other words. In person, and from the front.
“Does anyone doubt that our charismatic current president has the capacity to turn up the heat?”
***
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
When they purposely ignore data that runs contrary to their beliefs it’s a hoax. Believe whatever you want but a hoax is a hoax. If they had a leg to stand on they would not need to resort to fraud and ignoring any research that contradicts their narrow minded opinion.
jdkchem on December 8, 2009 at 12:40 AM
Also, I believe that during their night cycle, plants actually admit some CO2.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2009 at 12:42 AM
OK….
… who farted?
Seven Percent Solution on December 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Sorry…
Who farted?
Seven Percent Solution on December 8, 2009 at 12:45 AM
If you buy the AGW argument, you think that people are causing harm to the planet. To reduce the harm, you need to reduce the number of people. a “one-child policy” is not enough, you need a “negative-child policy.”
Wind and solar is expensive and like trying to run your house on a few 12 volt batteries (except on cloudy days with no wind). Now we could build many thousands of nuke generators, but I don’t think the greenies like that idea.
shorebird on December 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Of course cap ‘n’ Trade is socialism. It is a massive redistribution of wealth.
Australians have been seething over a similar scheme for the last few weeks and it shows no signs of abating.
Crux Australis on December 8, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Speakup on December 8, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Not sure what you are trying to say here. If you mean it is not for the faint of heart then that is true. But with the correctly sized system the only thing you have to really give up is air conditioning. I know, I live off grid in North Eastern Arizona. I have had to use my back-up generator about 20 hours during the past year. The solar panels were inputting energy today even though we had full cloud cover from a major winter storm moving in. Fortunately the wind was blowing quite nicely and my wind generator picked up the slack. Is this lifestyle for everyone? No. But it is feasible if you live a bit more simply.
chemman on December 8, 2009 at 1:27 AM
I wonder what total CO2 emissions are worlwide from all sources.
Holger on December 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM
You are incorrect. CO2 is one known cause. CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.
ReaganRoxx on December 8, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Climate change has a much longer and varied history than what we’ve experienced and temperatures are more widely ranging during glaciation than during periods in between glacial maximums.
Speakup on December 8, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Wow, what did he mean to revolution? Of Congress…or us?
PattyJ on December 8, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Speakup on December 8, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Sorry, I just spewed on myself. Must…stop…breathing
AltTuning on December 8, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Primarily us, in my estimation, although a portion of Congress as well, those that still care about the people. An un-elected body regulating and controlling the very breath we exhale? If they follow through and begin to regulate peoples big screen televisions into the junk yards because they consume too much power, a revolution will likely result. T.V. is the opiate of the masses. Take them away and there will be consequences. If gas prices are forced too high, something similar will result.
Even if consumer energy prices are relatively untouched, increasing it on the production end will trickle down to the consumer, (reducing jobs/quality of life), and there again we’ll have a problem. There are any number of circumstances through which this power-grab could lead to revolution of one sort or another, not necessarily violent, and it’s anybodies guess what may result.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2009 at 2:18 AM
“Un-elected body” being the EPA.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2009 at 2:19 AM
For most of his career, LBJ was one of those Southern leaders, blocking every civil rights bill the Republicans sent his way.
But LBJ changed, as can most of these anthropomorphic client people, if they just read the e-mails and put two and two together about how badly they’ve been deceived.
Something changed LBJ’s conscience, it appears. Perhaps it was merely votes, and perhaps it was something more lofty.
Given that the crew indicted by the e-mails were major contributors of the temperature data being cited, and given that their original data has conveniently been deleted, I think everything dependent on their data is suspect and should be re-examined. Whichever of the scientists outed this crew is a hero, and I hope his/her name becomes public one day.
unclesmrgol on December 8, 2009 at 2:21 AM
Charisma is indignant. He’s a passive aggressive primadona. Only fools are charmed by this charlatan.
Schadenfreude on December 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Kill all the non-farm animals. Problem solved.
OldEnglish on December 8, 2009 at 3:11 AM
Wind and solar is expensive and like trying to run your house on a few 12 volt batteries (except on cloudy days with no wind). Now we could build many thousands of nuke generators, but I don’t think the greenies like that idea.
shorebird on December 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM
———————————————
“Not sure what you are trying to say here. If you mean it is not for the faint of heart then that is true. But with the correctly sized system the only thing you have to really give up is air conditioning. I know, I live off grid in North Eastern Arizona. I have had to use my back-up generator about 20 hours during the past year. The solar panels were inputting energy today even though we had full cloud cover from a major winter storm moving in. Fortunately the wind was blowing quite nicely and my wind generator picked up the slack. Is this lifestyle for everyone? No. But it is feasible if you live a bit more simply.”
chemman on December 8, 2009 at 1:27 AM
———————————————-
Not all of us live in the desert. I also think it would be allot easier to deal with the heat than with the cold. If I want to be warm in the winter, I have to burn something.
shorebird on December 8, 2009 at 3:22 AM
There’s T-shirts that say –
Save the Planet! Kill yourself!
Annie on December 8, 2009 at 3:26 AM
Why are you prepared to believe the ‘it’ when you cannot even define what ‘it’ is?
anuts on December 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM
I read this stuff and all I can think of is Grandpa Simpson in The Simpson Movie: “Fear EPA, fear EPA!”
Who knew that life would take it’s queues from The Simpsons?
Theophile on December 8, 2009 at 4:47 AM
Something rarely discussed is that Mother Earth does not care what temperature she is. It is purely a human concern. What is the ideal temperature of earth from mankind’s perspective? The warmists assume that we’re heading from a good place, temperature-wise, to a bad place. That should be the discussion.
AcidReflux on December 8, 2009 at 5:29 AM
Thes shows will have to go
theTarCzar on December 8, 2009 at 5:53 AM
We know very little of how the current “magnitude” compares to the earth’s history. Out of a set of temperature records from over 7,000 stations around the world compiled by the NOAA National Climate Data Center, only a 1,000 of those extend back to past century, and there is much debate on the instrument accuracy and siting of many of the stations.
The use of proxy data — tree rings, ice cores, etc. has also proved problematic, as Mann’s infamous hockey stick, which obliterated the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age in an attempt to graphically illustrate the “magnitude” has further confused the issue, as has Briffa’s study on tree rings which was shown to be less than truthful in its use of “smoothing” and substitution of temp data for tree ring data when the tree data didn’t produce the desired results.
Finally, the science of just how increased CO2 contributes to warming is far from settled, but there is a vast amount of money invested, and future profits/taxes to be generated, in insisting that it is settled.
Nichevo on December 8, 2009 at 5:54 AM
Oops — Correction: “only a 1,000 of those extend back to the 19th century“
Nichevo on December 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Remember shooters out there, your guns emit CO2 when you shoot it. This is gun regulation as well as every thing else.
{^_^}
herself on December 8, 2009 at 6:03 AM
drill baby drill
unseen on December 8, 2009 at 6:09 AM
Stop global warming elect Palin 2012. She will bring an end to global warming one way or another.
unseen on December 8, 2009 at 6:10 AM
“Something” is taking place and human beings, in part, are causing it. Yes, yes, it’s always been that way but not on the magnitude of these changes.
It may be minor, it may be major, but “it” is there.
SteveMG on December 7, 2009 at 10:56 PM
bullsh8t!
unseen on December 8, 2009 at 6:11 AM
Anyone who claims LBJ did anything
is a fool who has lost all credibility.
jgapinoy on December 8, 2009 at 6:26 AM
How about they simply live their lives like someone would if they truly believed we were in such danger. If things were as bad as Gore says he and his sheep would not be flying around the world spewing pollution. Of course that is a lot of fun and the payoff is worth billions to the believers.
CWforFreedom on December 8, 2009 at 6:37 AM
Revolution is right, these people are going to bankrupt us one way or the other.
I called Senator Bayh {again} and told his office that I thought the Democrats had lost their minds. Between the Congress trying to takeover health care and the Obama administration trying to regulate us out of business, they are going to bankrupt the country. People will have to vote Republican in self defense, they will have no choice.
Terrye on December 8, 2009 at 6:53 AM
Republicans will do nothing to combat the socialist green movement, they are too fearful. We need a third party asap, even Orielly agrees.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/bill-oreilly/2009/12/07/oreilly-we-need-third-party
True_King on December 8, 2009 at 7:45 AM
No problem. There’s still enough of us who can multi-task.
Fletch54 on December 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM
a 3d party can’t get elected in a straight election, all things being pretty much status quo. You do realize that there is no Republican willing to go to the mat for what they believe?
all this posturing on abortion funding for health care? what do you bet that it is funded thru the back door somewhere. will the “presumed” anti-abortion legislators raise a hue & cry? no, they are all in on the deal.
they all need to go. each & every one.
kelley in virginia on December 8, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Whenever “scientists” have to constantly resort to the “it has been firmly established [etc.]” argument… you know they can’t actually prove anything.
Nobody says that the fact that dogs are warm-blooded “has been firmly established.”
They do not have the data to back of their assertions, so they just state that it’s “settled” science and mock any dissent.
mankai on December 8, 2009 at 8:05 AM
Another issue to be dealt with in the Healing of America act presented to congress by the newly sworn in president Palin.
darktood on December 8, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Nobody said it wasn’t possible. Especially if you’re using a back-up generator instead of batteries (I don’t think you’ll get many points for using a back-up generator).
But there’s no way what you are doing is economical – unless you built/installed yourself and are amortizing the costs over a minimum of 20 years.
I question whether or not most people would even “break-even” with respect to energy usage. Think about the energy used to mine the steal, construct the wind turbines, construct the solar silicon, assemble the panels, transport both to your home, and conduct maintenance/upgrades. Now, ask yourself the life expectancy (and efficiency loss over time) of these devices. 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
All the analysis I’ve run put the issue into serious doubt even if utility bills are going to triple because of EPA or Cap&Trade.
I’m all for energy solutions – but CO2 isn’t a pollutant and our energy solutions shouldn’t be constrained as if it is.
blink on December 8, 2009 at 8:23 AM
SteveMG, I’m going to tell you something very important. I’ve been studying the AGW issue intensely for many years.
What I’ve learned is that there is no it.
blink on December 8, 2009 at 8:26 AM
when air is outlawed, only outlaws will have air.
MikeA on December 8, 2009 at 8:30 AM
Green is the new red.
Watermelons: Green on the outside, red on the inside.
darwin-t on December 8, 2009 at 8:42 AM
The earth hosts carbon based life. Life is dangerous.
Falling hook line and sinker for fraud is the danger one can avoid by researching FACTS rather than swallowing dogma, particularly as the dogma is the permeating pollution that kills life forms on earth.
Bird flu: healthy flocks slaughtered from fear of the hype, and migrating flocks slaughtered wherever they made landfall.
Mustang slaughter in Nevada, enforced by Reid. The cost of government efforts to round up and transport to relocation (replicating whatever situation from one region to others) to slaughter far exceeds the cost of feeding, as the Fed rationale is based upon fear of Mustang starvation. The most “humane” of Reid’s efforts is the vaccination of the herds to prevent procreation.
Attack livestock, life that predates man, for existing on modern earth.
As if there’s such a leap preventing scientism from enforcing eugenics. Look at “universal health care” granting global governance your DNA and power to inoculate everyone with whatever is deemed politically expedient for the empowerment of the authoritarians.
The Green Religion requires blood sacrifice, slaughtering GOOD life for the sake of eliminating it, a most heinous practice, a superstitious relic that lacks even the common sense possessed by prehistoric and primitive minds who survived by virtue of coexistence with life forms become livestock. Evolution does not require genocide, whereas Scientism does.
Gore and Obama flatline America.
maverick muse on December 8, 2009 at 8:50 AM
NRDC lib lawyers conned the Court to rule HORRIBLY. What a colossal mistake.
marklmail on December 8, 2009 at 8:51 AM
I feel another mad max movie coming in the near future…
cmsinaz on December 8, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Expert: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley v. college flunk-out Al Gore
Science researches all facts, all constantly subject to investigation and reevaluation according to the evidence, and research conforms to empirical standards that do no fluctuate within an experiment.
Whereas Scientism is based upon pre-ordained dogma enforced by the greed to own the globe projected by the reincarnated flat-earth society fabricating Newspeak.
Gore’s only expertise is in fraud. Make note that Democrats demanded to put that college FLUNK-OUT into the Oval Office, because his lack of education coupled with daddy’s power and fortune makes him so much better a puppet than an impudent woman who earned her own college degree attacked by Democrats as non-education. That same “non”education is what Obama ads promote women to become indebted to him in order to get.
Aside from Krauthammer’s accurate perception, that he WOULD publicly pronounce “revolution” is noteworthy. He is no rabble rouser, eschewing the like.
No one can remain “oblivious” to the global scam. It’s gone to the point where the next step enabling the fraud of scientism has no peaceable return to logic. There is no protection to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil while evil pervades your existence. You become the evil by permitting its progress, or you become the evil’s sacrifice. Either way, you lose yourself to the evil. Gore is evil, the enabler of the worst fraud since Mohammed coerced death as peace.
maverick muse on December 8, 2009 at 9:03 AM
THAT I’d pay money to see on the theater screen. /Time for Mel Gibson to show saggy Arnold how real men act.
maverick muse on December 8, 2009 at 9:08 AM
What bunk. I don’t know how much they paid Pielke to switch sides, but more scientists are headed to the “deniers” side.
Excellent starter question. What’s the correct global climate?
Here’s another one. We all know that climate changes all the time. Why is it only dangerous for climate to change when it’s caused by man? Do the polar bears know the difference?
And why are we hating seals so much? Less polar bears = more seals.
hawksruleva on December 8, 2009 at 9:22 AM
We know it’s a lie, they know it’s a lie, but still claim the science behind it is solid. Rush is right, they do live in a universe of lies.
Kissmygrits on December 8, 2009 at 9:56 AM
I love how news reports are talking about all the “climate experts” meeting in Copenhagen. How many of them are scientists? Not as many as you’d think. Even the head of the IPCC has no background in climate science.
hawksruleva on December 8, 2009 at 10:01 AM
To hell with the soda, what about the beer?
riverrat10k on December 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Could you at least educate yourself enough to not legitimize activist language by using it?
The Pacific Ocean is not acidic. Not now, nor is is projected to be. It is slightly base, at a pH of roughly 8.14. Dissolving of CO2 is causing it to become more neutral (i.e. closer to a pH of 7), but no one is projecting it even reaching 7 any time in the foreseeable future. It would have to drop below 7 before it could be properly considered acidic.
But, hey, it’s hard to get people worked up and worried if you say that the oceans are becoming more neutral or less basic.
VekTor on December 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Charles is right. Are people going to see zealotry and environmental doomsday activists as civil rights leaders or Stalinists. Are Americans going to give up their cars, iPhones, computers, jet skis, RVs, electric ovens, gas powered grills, and plasma HDTVs and say it’s for civil rights and feel good about saving the planet? Or are they going to revolt when Californian Legislatators try to come into every home and take your Hi-Def TV or charge you a huge excise tax to use it? None of those morons will have a job come 2010. And they’ll be a dying commodity by 2012.
Like everyone likes to talk about, it’s not the Democrats you have to worry about, it’s Independents believing this crap or going rogue and elected someone like Jesse Ventura because they find it amusing. If the Environmentalists lose the trust of the Independents or overreach and piss them off, they’ll be off the Greenhouse Climate Change Global Warming Reservation FAST!!
I think the Obama Administration just overreached. The EPA just gave Congress a lovely present and our Constitution a new problem to resolve. 2010 election… Then we’re home free!
Sultry Beauty on December 8, 2009 at 10:19 AM
In 1975 Scientist Warned of the Coming Ice Age :)
Dr Evil on December 8, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Using their own numbers, the warmmongers keep saying that there are 2,500 scientists who still believe in global warming. On the other hand 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that they don’t believe in global warming. So there may be a Consensus, just not the one you were told. If this were a toothpaste commercial there would be some kind of graphic saying “12 out of 13 scientists agree, global warming is a hoax!”
Dr Evil on December 8, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I like this website Minnesotans for Global Warming they have the latest Carbonhagen propaganda video.
Dr Evil on December 8, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Our Government has become openly hostile to American Citizens. There is going to be a backlash – revolution in 2010, and the Progressives won’t know what hit them.
Dr Evil on December 8, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Don’t start without me!
rcl on December 8, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Did I here…revolution? :)
royzer on December 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM
REVOLUTION! Charles always gets it right.
Americans are already fed up with Soetoro the Storyteller. It is going to get ugly.
Ricohoc on December 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM
When the global warming alarmists say that the science is settled they are referring to the fact that carbon dioxide has a well known and established capacity for absorbing a given amount of IR heat. And yes, humans are putting a measurable and increasingly consistent amount of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. When you measure how much heat is given off by the Sun, how much of that heat is absorbed by CO2, and then adjust for how much gets re-radiated back out to space we see that in about 100 years the mean temperature will have risen 1.5C degrees as a direct result of human made CO2. So that part of the science is in fact settled and is a well established science fact. However, what the alarmist have done is essentially take this blanket statement and then use that to indirect support their assertion that the global mean temperature will somehow rise anywhere from 6-10C degrees in the next 100 years. That part of the global warming claim has not been settled — in fact, far from it.
The alarmist contend that we run the danger of hitting some magical tipping point wherein a run away greenhouse effect will take hold and catastrophic warming will cook the planet. The problem is that we see in the temperature records no indication that the global climate reacts to external inputs with such a large degree of positive feedback. If the Earth’s climate were such that all it toke were just one little nudge by some external force to start runaway heating then we as a species would never be here to begin with. Such a temperamental climate system wouldn’t be very conducive to life. The climate of the Earth generally seems to mostly negate external forces over time which suggests that the climate is mostly dictated by negative feedback mechanisms. Which makes sense because in general the Earth is plunged more often into dark cold periods for longer periods of time when compared to the relatively brief interglacial warm periods. The climate for humans over the past 250 years has actually been somewhat on the cold side and any apparent steep increase in temperatures that we recently see is more likely the result of coming out from these colder than normal temperatures ranges. However, nothing that we see today falls outside of any temperatures ranges that humans haven’t already seen before in the past. In fact, it is the warm periods, like the medieval warm period, that reflect a greater degree of wealth, prosperity, and population. I believe being a bit warmer than we are now is in fact a good thing.
Heftyjo on December 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I was referring to the lie that the ‘settled science’ people keep telling about the atmospheric CO2 levels: THEY said that the CO2 levels caused the warming periods…. Unfortunately for the Goreites, the reality is that the higher atmospheric CO2 levels FOLLOWED the temperature increases.
I was not referring to the insignificant (at least insignificant compared to water vapor) absorption/emission of light waves of CO2.
LegendHasIt on December 10, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2