Oops: IPCC to withdraw claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035

posted at 1:30 pm on January 17, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The UN agency for “climate change” will withdraw a years-old claim that man-made climate change will destroy the Himalayan glaciers within 25 years — after its highly unscientific method of reaching this conclusion got exposed this week. Instead of conducting actual science themselves, with open and transparent methods, the IPCC apparently just read the claim in an interview and decided to adopt it. Now the original reporter in the interview claims that not only did the IPCC simply lift the claim without any investigation, they didn’t understand it correctly in the first place:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

The Times of London makes a mistake in this opening. The blunders weren’t “scientific” in nature — in other words, the errors did not stem from bad modeling, data, or assumptions in a scientific inquiry. The IPCC adopted the claim without doing any science on their own at all.  They never tested the hypothesis that they read in the New Scientist.  It matched their politics, not any kind of science they conducted or reviewed.

On top of that, it seems that the IPCC has some reading-comprehension problems:

The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

“Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”

Um, okay.  So the IPCC read the interview in which Hasnain speculated — with no scientific evidence whatsoever — that a portion of the Himalayan glaciers would melt at some indeterminate time, and concluded that the entirety of the massif would evaporate by 2035.  They never even bothered to wait for Hasnain’s report to see exactly what he claimed, and why.  Instead, they just inflated the unsubstantiated speculation with a zeppelin of greenhouse-gas hyperbole and stated categorically that the entire glacial structure in the Himalayas would be gone in a quarter-century.

This is what passes for science at the UN.  This is what passes for science at the IPCC.  It’s also what passed for science at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

And AGW hysterics like to call skeptics deniers, in what is clearly the most obvious case of projection on the global stage.

On the plus side, I believe I’ve found the basis for the next IPCC report and AGW hysteria.  I want to warn you before you click on this that the video is extremely sensitive: it cost a fortune to produce and only a few people have been foolish enough to watch it all the way through.  View at your own risk!

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Hide the decline.

I give IPCC a “solid” B+

wildcat84 on January 17, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Guess the IPCC has lots of changes to make. They discovered that they were NOT God.

mobydutch on January 17, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Plus, a peek inside the AGW think tank … so to speak.

“think tank” is short for “Groupthink tank”.

zmdavid on January 17, 2010 at 1:35 PM

how

inconvenient

blatantblue on January 17, 2010 at 1:35 PM

It’s all just a scam for grant money.

tetriskid on January 17, 2010 at 1:35 PM

This will be reported in every LSM outlet around the world…/

d1carter on January 17, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I watched Water World. To my shame, I compounded the error by watching the Postman.

rob verdi on January 17, 2010 at 1:37 PM

is it getting hot in here or is it just me?

moonbatkiller on January 17, 2010 at 1:38 PM

How on earth did I miss that movie?

txag92 on January 17, 2010 at 1:38 PM

The science is settled.

txag92 on January 17, 2010 at 1:38 PM

What the hell?

Colorado Anne on January 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM

but..but..but….Al Gore got a Pulitzer.

SHARPTOOTH on January 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM

I’m a VERY strong supporter of the climate change movement!

The climate changed last Friday, again on Saturday…Twice on Sunday and yet again on Monday. What’s not to believe???

GoldenEagle4444 on January 17, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Waterworld = one of the worst films made. Ever.

Intrepid on January 17, 2010 at 1:42 PM

This will be reported in every LSM outlet around the world…/
d1carter on January 17, 2010 at 1:37 PM

The science Silence is settled.

Juno77 on January 17, 2010 at 1:42 PM

I still think Orff’s estate should have sued over the misuse of Carmina Burana.

Vashta.Nerada on January 17, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Well crap.

My carbon credits are getting more and more worthless everyday.

Good thing I still have my beanie-babies.

BacaDog on January 17, 2010 at 1:43 PM

I’m one of about 8 people in the country that actually like the movie Waterworld.

BadgerHawk on January 17, 2010 at 1:43 PM

science is hard…

cmsinaz on January 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I have a feeling there will be many more “predictions” regarding AGW “reconsidered” and “retracted” in the coming years.

Joe Caps on January 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Too bad for the imbecils who made Al Gore a billionaire. If we wouldn’t have any morals/ethics we could also be billionaires.

Have you noticed how quiet Al has been since the e-mails, and especially since he was yelled at in Copenhagen?

He’s laughing his big ars off, all the way to the bank. May he ‘explode’ from his own hot air.

Schadenfreude on January 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM

And keep up with AGW news here and here.

fred5678 on January 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Gawd, this is supposed to the world’s best scientists using the most peer-reviewed and monitored science we can accumulate.

We really need some sort of “Team A vs. Team B” analysis of this before we go further.

SteveMG on January 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Charles Johnson’s head just exploded and will now claim that the IPCC is associated with white supremacist groups, thus making this claim totally racist.

Knucklehead on January 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM

I praise all the constant exposure of these governmental, UN, and university “intellectual” criminals and fraudsters, but I’m afraid the reality “deniers” will never allow their indoctrinated minds to be brought back from the dark side. Half the population of the earth could freeze to death and they would still be babbling on about how the earth’s temperature is getting hotter and how we humans are to blame 100%…

Fuzzlenutter on January 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM

You would think that it would be GOOD news, worthy of wold-wide dissemination, that we are not, in fact, all about to die from runaway global warming. Huh.

Mord on January 17, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Ed, get with the lingo. It’s no longer AGW, it’s now ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change).

/S/S/S

Buford Gooch on January 17, 2010 at 1:51 PM

*daydream* The IPCC was shut down, their budget diverted to Haiti, and their members indicted for fraud.

Buy Danish on January 17, 2010 at 1:52 PM

I’m kinda thinking that the IPCC speaks with a Marxist dialect.

BigAlSouth on January 17, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Knucklehead on January 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM

His head exploded a long time ago. A few months ago lorien would post a recent quote of his right next to a google cache quote from a few years earlier that said the exact opposite. Some of them were almost word for word reversals.

Good stuff.

BadgerHawk on January 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Too bad for the imbecils who made Al Gore a billionaire. If we wouldn’t have any morals/ethics we could also be billionaires.

Have you noticed how quiet Al has been since the e-mails, and especially since he was yelled at in Copenhagen?

He’s laughing his big ars off, all the way to the bank. May he ‘explode’ from his own hot air.

Schadenfreude on January 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM

If our government weren’t corrupt, Gore and the rest of the “carbon offset” sellers would be locked up with Bernie Madoff for committing massive fraud.

“Carbon offsets” do not exist, and do not offset anything.

wildcat84 on January 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

BadgerHawk on January 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

As CJ’s Viceroy to HotAir, I am issuing an official Charles Johnson Demerit.

blatantblue on January 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Inconvenient Decline

Holger on January 17, 2010 at 1:59 PM

blatantblue on January 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Remember, CJ didn’t change. The entire right wing blogosphere changed.

Ok, I’m done with CJ now. I know Ed and AP don’t like us going off topic to talk about him.

BadgerHawk on January 17, 2010 at 1:59 PM

I am a climate doo gooder. I have been sailing for near 40 years. The problem is the cities. They are carbon producing machines. Vast wastelands of pollution. Move back to the farm.

seven on January 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

the IPCC by it’s own emission doesn’t do science. It will repeat any claim fed to it that supports AGW.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

fake, but accurate

r keller on January 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

As CJ’s Viceroy to HotAir, I am issuing an official Charles Johnson Demerit.

blatantblue on January 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM

As a happily banned lgf’er I am grateful for HotAir.

VegasRick on January 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

IPCC reports’ “science” is peer-reviewed up the wazoo! Were we not handed that line by the railway engineer who heads the IPCC?

ya2daup on January 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Call Senator Inhofe………

nondhimmie on January 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM

My first reaction was to wonder how such profound bungling was possible, but then I remembered it was, after all, the United Nations, wasn’t it. What more would we expect from the UN.

petefrt on January 17, 2010 at 2:07 PM

seven on January 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

This is a good point. I’ll put my lifestyle up against anyone’s, and I’ll bet that 8 or 9 times out of 10 I come out ‘greener’.

But I do it to save money and live more modestly, not to reverse non-existent man made global warming. It annoys me to no end that the left has completely destroyed the term environmentalist, basically making it synonymous with socialism.

BadgerHawk on January 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM

UN “science”: UNverified… UNethical… UNtrue… UNsupported… UN (insert your preferred description here)

ya2daup on January 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Go watch KUSIs special on this…. Climate Change, the other side of the story…

Turns out that they USED to use 6000 Temp stations worldwide, but for some reason they cut that back to 1500… right about the time things REALLY started to warm up…

But when you look at the stations retained (most others are still sending dats, NASA is just not using it)… they threw out the COLD stations…

So, for California, they now use ONE at the San Fran Airport (near the Ocean), and Three in Southern California… leaving out all the Mountains, and Northern California, and the Central Valley.

Smoking gun of fraud.

Romeo13 on January 17, 2010 at 2:14 PM

To be fair, it would have taken years of research to anylize that claim. And we don’t have years! Why just yesterday I watched the ocean level rise over 2 feet! I mean I saw it with my own eyes! It was terrible! before I left, nearly the entire beach was gone. I’m tellin’ ya, it was a nightmare!

JusDreamin on January 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM

JusDreamin on January 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Been trying to figure this out for awhile… but seeing as how LAND itself is moving… rising and falling with Continental drift… and seeing as how there is a difference in Sea Level between the Atlantic and Pacific…

How do the measure Sea Level and be accurate to within parts of an inch, a year?

Romeo13 on January 17, 2010 at 2:20 PM

But our idiot/jerk/racist/radical/lying/cheating president and his equally rotten gang will attempt to force the economy-destroying Crap and Tax bill on us. Maybe Tuesday will be the start of a decline they cannot hide.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Why just yesterday I watched the ocean level rise over 2 feet!
JusDreamin on January 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM

I know, I saw it too. Only it was worse, maybe over 4 feet farther north where I was, because of runoff from all the melting icebergs.

petefrt on January 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM

It’s all just a scam for grant money.

tetriskid on January 17, 2010 at 1:35 PM

It’s easy to tag this on the scientists because their culpability is explicit and unavoidable, and while they certainly deserve to be discredited and charged with fraud on a grand scale, the monetary component that they represent in the overall fraud is tiny. They are an enabler, just as the news media is an enabler, to the big crooks.

The big crooks are, of course, the world politicians who identified global warming as a vehicle upon which they could foist control of the atmosphere upon their respective populations as a means of directly controlling those populations. The air we breath is one of the few things that all humans must have and which is, in effect, a single supply pool. Water would work nearly as well, but the politicians didn’t choose the vehicle. They simply identified it as adequate when it became news, and then used their considerable power, influence and money to artfully craft a perception that allowed them to progress toward the goal.

I do not believe that it was some grand conspiracy. I believe that it was so obvious that it quickly went viral within the higher political echelons and that now-common fiction was formalized in the form of the IPCC as a credible reference point that all world leaders could use as a easy source of justification for their actions. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

The frustrating thing was that this method was obvious from the very start. All it took was for the wall of appeal to authority to slowly erode, brick by brick, for the rest of the world to begin to acknowledge the obvious. For those of us baptized in skepticism courtesy of the US Constitution’s first amendment and an ability to not fall for the same snake oil sales pitch twice, it has been difficult to wait for our fellow humans to snap out of the Jim Jones-like desire to listen to their ipods and let their elected leaders do the heavy lifting, but even the sheepiest of the sheep don’t really have a death wish. When faced with the price of their membership in the cult of Gaia, they get grumpy and indignant and reluctantly cross over to the side of rational sanity.

The reassuring thing about systems like monarchy and socialism and fascism is that they are all fundamentally flawed in that they are based on an attempt to rearrange human behavior to enrich a subset of elites. In the end, any seriously imbalanced system is doomed to crash, bringing change. Democracy is the only form of government that we understand that is close enough to balanced to endure, but it is not immune the corrupting influences of individuals and organizations that seek to transform it into one of the totalitarian forms, again for their own benefit.

The unhappy reality is that it can take a very long time for the balancing forces to force a correction, and in the process an awful lot of people can be killed, enslaved or otherwise doomed to a miserable existence.

Immolate on January 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Ed, get with the lingo. It’s no longer AGW, it’s now ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change).
/S/S/S
Buford Gooch on January 17, 2010 at 1:51 PM

That’s funny. Down in Dixie, we call it the Four Seasons.

kingsjester on January 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM

This is a good point. I’ll put my lifestyle up against anyone’s, and I’ll bet that 8 or 9 times out of 10 I come out ‘greener’.

BadgerHawk on January 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM

I’ll put mine up to, and I’m sure you’ll be greener, but then I really don’t give a flying f### what anyone thinks about that….if algore ever starts behaving like there’s a crisis, I may start taking him seriously….until that time, even my large carbon footprint looks miniscule next to his.

runawayyyy on January 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Am I not hearing the trailer correctly? ‘…Centuries later only two people are left … a man…a women… AND a child…’ Next they show what appears to be a large violent gang.

Of all the human images shown how do we determine which are the TWO PEOPLE?

RealityCheck4 on January 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Can anyone give me good reason that these people should not be in jail?

jukin on January 17, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Am I not hearing the trailer correctly? ‘…Centuries later only two people are left … a man…a women… AND a child…’ Next they show what appears to be a large violent gang.

Of all the human images shown how do we determine which are the TWO PEOPLE?

RealityCheck4 on January 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM

I was learnt’ by a pro-choice movement that a child is not person so it can be removed from the equation.

Electrongod on January 17, 2010 at 2:45 PM

There was a study that claimed the rate of shrinkage would have the Himalayan glaciers all gone around 2350, but that 315 years different than the IPCC report.

J_Crater on January 17, 2010 at 2:48 PM

This is great now shut up and pay your carbon tax and power by coal tax. And the most important flatulent tax.

tjexcite on January 17, 2010 at 2:48 PM

That’s funny. Down in Dixie, we call it the Four Seasons.

kingsjester on January 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM

You mean THESE Four Seasons? These guys know as much about science as the IPCC does.

fred5678 on January 17, 2010 at 2:49 PM

fred5678 on January 17, 2010 at 2:49 PM

I didn’t say Jersey. I said Dixie. Although the Broadway play is making the rounds down here and Frankie Valli did have a small role on the Sopranos.

kingsjester on January 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Why shouldn’t this surprise anyone?

bflat879 on January 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM

round 2350, but that 315 years different than the IPCC report.

J_Crater on January 17, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Both BS

CWforFreedom on January 17, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Someday glaciers will cover New York City a mile deep. There is nothing we can do to stop it. Even if we could, we shouldn’t, considering where the UN is headquartered.

Knott Buyinit on January 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM

“Carbon offsets” do not exist, and do not offset anything.

wildcat84 on January 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM

They exist — but only as worthless, meaningless pieces of paper. Exactly what our dollars are soon going to be too if Barry Obama and his idiot band of accomplices are not stopped from spending us into ruin with their moronic Cap and Trade bill and assorted other Big Government “solutions” to non-existent problems.

AZCoyote on January 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM

They exist — but only as worthless, meaningless pieces of paper.

AZCoyote on January 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM

/puts on his global warming beenie, which is kept right next to the tinfoil hat…

Ah, but you see those Carbon offsets are printed on Paper, and Paper, until destroyed, sequesters CO2!

So, as long as those are traded, we are keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere!

Romeo13 on January 17, 2010 at 3:07 PM

More proof that Al Ogre belongs in a padded cell. Any politician that is pushing Cap & Trade needs to have his sanity questioned. Start with McCain.

volsense on January 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I’ve always liked Waterworld, it was Kevin Costner’s version of Swimming with Guppies.

It’s entertainment!

It’s when people at the IPCC cannot separate fiction from fact that I have a problem with.

Kini on January 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM

They are carbon producing machines.

seven on January 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Please explain how one produces carbon, or any other element for that matter. Excluding atomic or alchemical transmutation of course.

Oldnuke on January 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Ed,

Interestingly enough, the number 2035 does have a source. But you’ll laugh when you understand where. There is an article or report somewhere (can’t remember where, though I’ve seen parts of it in the past month or so) that puts a date on the melting of the glaciers. The only problem is, it’s not 2035. It’s 2350! Some bonehead somewhere transposed some numbers, when summarizing the report, and it was never caught. And since the IPCC never went to primary and original sources to verify the claims, the error has been repeated as the truth ever since.

I think I first read this on Watts Up With That. I’ll see if I can track it down and get you a link.

nukemhill on January 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Hey, the science was settled. SO if part of it is bad, why not all of it ?

J_Crater on January 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM

More proof that Al Ogre belongs in a padded cell.

volsense on January 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I want him in the Chateau d’If in a cell made from rock with lots of sharp edges.

Oldnuke on January 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM

It’s all just a scam for grant money.

tetriskid on January 17, 2010 at 1:35 PM

No doubt an entire new round of research and grant money will begin flowing out of our pockets, through the UN, and back out to these same so-called “think-tanks” to re-research their conclusions. “LOOK OUT, ANOTHER ICE-AGE IS COMING AND ITS CAUSED BY MAN” the left will shreik, in oh, about 5-10 years.

jbtripp on January 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi

JNU ?
Bwahahahahha
Thats a university with the political leanings of UC Bezerkley and a collective IQ of 13. That is a real snob-elitist institution, a hotbed of communism, having no academic integrity at all. Its where communist revolutionaries of the 60′s were send by the Indian government to settle as respectable citizens, under pressure and financial support of the former USSR.

macncheez on January 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM

The usual MO of the global warming crowd, or A$$es if that is the new acronym, is to make a claim and then later jigger the numbers to back it up. This time they just couldn’t get the numbers to work, so they blame it on some obscure Indian guy.

pedestrian on January 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Please explain how one produces carbon, or any other element for that matter. Excluding atomic or alchemical transmutation of course.

Oldnuke on January 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Why, you can’t ask people to THINK about what they say… that’s just crazy talk!

They’re trying to save the world, they don’t have time to think!

Merovign on January 17, 2010 at 3:41 PM

And AGW hysterics like to call skeptics deniers, in what is clearly the most obvious case of projection on the global stage.

“Hysterics” may call then deniers, but more thoughtful folks who accept the basic premise of AGW welcome skeptics – that is, those who have doubts but who haven’t completely made up their minds and are dismissive of any evidence that supports the premise.

oakland on January 17, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Here’s the Anthony Watts article. That article points to a Houston Chron article, which in turn points to Roger Pielke, Sr.‘s blog, which apparently is where the story broke.

Money quote:

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

So, it was apparently the IPCC authors themselves who misread the date. I’m actually suspicious that it was simply a misread, but that’s just me. I’m extremely cynical about the whole thing, and am willing, at this point, to think the worst of the people involved in this fiasco.

nukemhill on January 17, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Please explain how one produces carbon, or any other element for that matter. Excluding atomic or alchemical transmutation of course.

Oldnuke on January 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Yes they can produce carbon
they have a “fudge factory” on their side

macncheez on January 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM

This ‘withdrawl’ is an attempt to somehow claim innocence. They did damage all over the world and now are trying to hide their purposeful deceit.

I say to hammer them until they’re disbanded and their ‘scientists’ slither off in shame, never to be published again.

Liam on January 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Yes they can produce carbon
they have a “fudge factory” on their side

macncheez on January 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM

I’m not sure that’s carbon. Does carbon fall from the South end of a bovine and end up in stinky steaming piles?

Oldnuke on January 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Would someone remember to bring this up to Harry Reid when the Senate decides to tackle the Cap and Tax bill.

Mallard T. Drake on January 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Global warming

OmahaConservative on January 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Where, BTW, are all the trolls to ‘remind’ us how wrong we are? Or is the turning-away from them too much for them to handle?

Liam on January 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I know, I saw it too. Only it was worse, maybe over 4 feet farther north where I was, because of runoff from all the melting icebergs.

petefrt on January 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Well that proves it then Pete, it’s settled. I was worried that I might have imagined the whole thing. And now that you mention it, the ocean was STILL rising when I left, it could have been much more than 2 feet! Where will it end?

JusDreamin on January 17, 2010 at 4:03 PM

OT: Obama doing his shout-out schtick for Croakley

John the Libertarian on January 17, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Like Obowmao really matters…

Liam on January 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Where, BTW, are all the trolls to ‘remind’ us how wrong we are? Or is the turning-away from them too much for them to handle?

Liam on January 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Just waiting on the talking points, I’m sure this is just like “stolen email-gate”

JusDreamin on January 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

BadgerHawk on January 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Same here. I imagine that many who post here are greener than the greenies. We just do it for a different reason.

chemman on January 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

correction:

“Hysterics” may call then deniers, but more thoughtful folks who accept the basic premise of AGW welcome skeptics – that is, those who have doubts but who haven’t completely made up their minds and are NOT dismissive of any evidence that supports the premise.

oakland on January 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

JusDreamin on January 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Some got banned, but the rest are staying silent because their own Party has left them with little to defend.

I mean, Obowmao might well have his signature cause with health insurance, but Reid and Pelosi have been the ones carrying the ball, doing the fight and making the deals. Obowmao is just a figurehead, who can’t even make a good showing world-wide.

The Left is suffering severe damage by the very people the trolls trusted, and I like to think they know it. Hence, their silence. Still, I’m itching to see one of them post about how bad we all are here on HA.

Liam on January 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM

And for any trolls: Yes, I want to see your precious Obama and the rest of your Dem Party fail.

In toto (and, no, I don’t mean the dog from Wizard of Oz)

Liam on January 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM

nukemhill on January 17, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Good point. All the typing inversions of 2350 will not yield 2035 as a date. (2350 –> 3250; 2350 –> 2539; 2350 –> 2305.) The only way to get for 2350 to 2035 is to intentionally change the number.

chemman on January 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM

When do the global warmers change their tune to the earth is cooling and we must do what they say to save the planet from the coming ice age??? I’m seriously waiting for it.

4shoes on January 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM

4shoes on January 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Don’t hold your breath. they already said that global warming also causes cooling.

Yes, I know, that’s an oxymoron but hey! They’re libs! They can think on both sides and still say they’re right.

Now stop being reasonable. To a lib, that’s the same as being mean-spirited. So, you’re wrong, evil, and unfair. /sarc

Liam on January 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM

When do the global warmers change their tune to the earth is cooling and we must do what they say to save the planet from the coming ice age??? I’m seriously waiting for it.

If only it were true.

oakland on January 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Some additional reading on this topic from last November here.

crosspatch on January 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM

they already said that global warming also causes cooling

“they” did?

oakland on January 17, 2010 at 4:22 PM

So, I’m still going to have to muffle up to climb Everest?

OldEnglish on January 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2