Gore: Global-warming fight a lot like the civil rights movement

posted at 10:30 am on April 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Al Gore is getting rather desperate to get people to take him super serial on climate change.  The Hill reports that the former VP has now taken to equating it to the Civil Rights Movement, hoping to build some enthusiasm among youth for a great carbon crusade:

Against this backdrop, Gore said it’s vital to continue pushing for policies that would put a monetary cost on industrial emissions. “Putting a price on carbon” is the goal of cap-and-trade plans and other proposals to ensure emissions cuts, but such measures face gigantic hurdles in the current Congress.

Gore said the Civil Rights movement was fueled by youth questioning their parents about legal discrimination, and he drew a link to climate change.

“When they could not answer that moral question coming straight from the conscience of young people, that is when the laws began to change,” Gore said. “You need to ask, ‘tell me again why its al right to put 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every 24 hours, 20 percent of it will still be there in 20,000 years.’”

“You need to ask that question and other related questions. Don’t they see the evidence, don’t they hear what the scientists are saying, do they actually believe this lying from the large carbon polluters, that the scientists are making this up?” Gore added.

Ah, evidence.  I got a first hand look at some evidence here in Minneapolis this morning:

It’s not terribly unusual to have chilly weather here into April, but this looks like about a half-inch of icy snow.  It fell most of the night.  This doesn’t prove global cooling, of course; it’s just weather.  But it certainly seems that the last two winters here have both been especially long, even for Minnesota.

As for more evidence, Gavin Atkins notes that the UN seems to be missing 50 million missing people:

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.

Well, they used to provide a handy map.  That link has gone dead at UNEP, oddly enough.  Wonder why?

However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.

Don’t worry, however, because Anthony Watts found that the UN is as incompetent at memory holes as they are in meteorology.  Looks like every other prediction outcome for AGW hysterics: false.  That doesn’t keep them from moving the goalposts, however:

Climate change is forcing a lot of people–50 million by 2020, to be exact–to skip town, prompting the world’s scientists, farmers, filmmakers, and urban planners to frantically seek out ways to accommodate environmental refugees.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting this weekend, scientists warned about looming food shortages and other climate change-induced migration catastrophes. “When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate,” said UCLA Professor Cristina Tirado.

Their evidence? Rebellions in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt that they blame on food price increases caused by global warming.  It doesn’t appear to cross their mind that the rebellions might have something to do with the dictatorships that oppress the people to the point of rebellion, or that the dictatorships themselves are the problem in food prices, with their top-down control of their economies.  In fact, if Gore wants a civil-rights cause, perhaps he should be fighting those dictatorial systems in order to end top-down statist economics.

Except, of course, that’s exactly what Gore is espousing with his AGW hysteria — top-down control of energy production, and therefore entire economies.

I’ll mull that over while I sweep the April snow off of my deck, and wait impatiently to escape to Rome’s sunny clime in two weeks.

Update: Noel Sheppard has the video and transcript at NewsBusters.


Related Posts:

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

perhaps it ’s time Hotair got its final “hey you global warming morons really picked a dumb name” digs in, and then took the high road and called “global warming” what it actually is: “climate change”.
But I have low hopes.
Dave Rywall on April 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Hey Dave, how about we split the difference and call them “Climate Baggers” from now on?

spinach.chin on April 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

You can keep an eye on Sea Ice in the northern and southern hemispheres at
Cryosphere Today.

Beto Ochoa on April 16, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Gore has caused people to be hungry. The price of all grains has increased by a large amount in the last few years, partially in response to the ethanol craze. Wheat has been displaced on some farms by corn. The price of wheat is now twice what it was in local stores, near DC, three years ago.
Corn production would not normally replace wheat prduction, but most rice eaters would be happy to eat corn or wheat if rice became unavailable. Rice became unavailable for some in the far east because of lack of rain a few years ago. I encountered a woman in a local store buying a five pound bag of rice to ship by air mail to her relatives in asia. The stores she had gone to would only sell five pounds per customer because of a run on rice half way around the world from asia. She was shipping the grain of choice because all grains had gotten expensive. Not everyone has relatives who will send them five pounds of grain by air mail from the other side of the globe.

burt on April 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Who’s on first?

closetgop on April 16, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I wish you a pleasant and safe vacation Ed!

Kini on April 16, 2011 at 6:12 PM

perhaps it ’s time Hotair got its final “hey you global warming morons really picked a dumb name” digs in, and then took the high road and called “global warming” what it actually is: “climate change”.
But I have low hopes.
Dave Rywall on April 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM

You must first tell me what you assert that it’s actually doing then.

hawkdriver on April 16, 2011 at 6:34 PM

“climate change”.
Dave Rywall on April 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM

-
The city of New York was under an ice-sheet 365 days a year a mear 18.000 years ago Davy…
-

The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]
-
Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come:
-
Canada was nearly completely covered by ice, as well as the northern part of the USA, both blanketed by the huge Laurentide ice sheet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period
-
Yeah I added the bold…

Don’t like wiki for this kind of info? It’s in the text books at the local college too…
-
So… CLIMATE has alway been changing… Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes warming, sometimes cooling… But ALWAYS CHANGING… Gore lives for the undereducated human hating masses. They give him power he does not deserve.
-
Feel free to continue being a follower… Dave.
-
Oh, and Dave… Did you park your car, stop traveling, reduce your lights to one… small curlly Gore bulb? If not you are not doing enough.
-

RalphyBoy on April 16, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Shouldn’t that read “super cereal“?

Hucklebuck on April 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Whereas Teabaggers realized they were morons for calling themselves that and the mainstream media has respectfully honoured their wish to be called Tea Partiers, perhaps it’s time Hotair got its final “hey you global warming morons really picked a dumb name” digs in, and then took the high road and called “global warming” what it actually is: “climate change”.

But I have low hopes.

Dave Rywall on April 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM

You obviously live in a bubble where your world view is distorted. Unprecedented Global Warming is what is was originally called by the climate scientists and the leftist media. The fact that it was unprecedented is what made the current warming trend alarming (otherwise, it’s happened before and nothing to worry about). Climate scientists believed that climate was relatively static with only minor changes for the past 2000 years. Remember, they’re still trying to deny the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period in order to create a static non-changing and relatively stable trend for the past 2000 years except for the recent warming in the 20th century.

All of that by the climate scientists ended up being bogus.

It is SKEPTICS who pushed for the acceptance of the notion that climate changes. Climate change implies it happens all the time and is NOT unprecedented and is not alarming.

Geologists have known for a long time that the MWP was global and was real. Climate scientist are STILL pushing for unprecedented global warming.

So pretty please, with sugar on top, will you send your accusations to the climate scientists where they really belong because you’re arguing from the wrong side of the debate and you don’t even realize how ridiculous you sound.

MrX on April 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

So Al Gore is saying the Civil Rights Movement was a fraud. Real classy there Al. Now go put your sheets back on.

Heckle on April 17, 2011 at 12:48 AM

perhaps it’s time Hotair got its final “hey you global warming morons really picked a dumb name” digs in, and then took the high road and called “global warming” what it actually is: “climate change”.

But I have low hopes.

Dave Rywall on April 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM

It was only renamed global climate change when the original name, global warming started getting embarrassing for lack of evidence. Sorry, but you don’t get to reset your rhetoric by changing the name slightly.

Perhaps it’s time the AGW crowd gave up on the whole “global warming” thing….

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 17, 2011 at 4:24 AM

Hey, Ed. I was eagerly awaiting your final global warming post before the relentless summer heat kicks in. And, you didn’t disappoint me either. Your love-to-hate affair with the climate science non-expert Al Gore is still in full bloom. Hey, go for it. He’s fair game.

But, I found this quote in your little article interesting:

But it certainly seems that the last two winters here have both been especially long, even for Minnesota.

It just shows that denialists like yourself are just about always in to how things “seem” to you. It’s a convenient (though completely unconvincing) resort to feelings, rather than logic or facts. When July and August produce 90-plus days week after week, I can’t wait to see how things “seem” to you then. I will be awaiting evidence of your perspective come the long days of summer.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 8:07 AM

It was only renamed global climate change when the original name, global warming

I see this matra all the time, and I always wonder what is being referred to by the first word of the sentence, “it”. There Goes, please tell me what “it” is.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 8:10 AM

Climate scientist are STILL pushing for unprecedented global warming.

You mean, scientists want “unprecedented global warming”? Not clear what your argument is here.

I don’t think any scientist worth his salt – be he/she a climatologist or paleontologist, ever belived that climate is or was static. It’s obvious that it never was, and never will be.

The issue is whether mankind is helping nature along with that change or not. The best available evidence now indicates that there is better than a 90% chance that indeed man is helping nature in the process of climate change. Nature produces enough uncertainty as it is; why should we give that uncertainty a boost?

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Another climate change thread, another visit from our own triple threat; Rywall, Bayam, Oakland.

A challenge; where can I find a proper test that shows:
1. That temperatures have gone up, over the last 100 years.
2. That the increase can be shown to be the result of something other than shenanigans (such as moving the sensors, filtering data that doesn’t fit the model, etc)
3. That the increase is caused by mans’ actions.
4. That reducing fossil fuel use will reverse the increase.

Sources should have openly available data, that can be reviewed by interested parties.

massrighty on April 17, 2011 at 8:41 AM

“Whereas Teabaggers realized they were morons for calling themselves that and the mainstream media has respectfully honoured their wish to be called Tea Partiers..”

No, Dave, it was actually “morons” like Keith Olberman who tried to ridicule common folks who were fed up with government mis- and over- spending (and who self-identified as the “Tea Party”) by employing that not-so-subtle but suitably coarse (what else would you expect out of Olby?) term to describe them.

Of course, government-debt deniers, like climate AGW deniers, are basically of the same cut of cloth. They both delight in their flights of fancy into conspiracy theories to underpin their “cause”.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Sources should have openly available data, that can be reviewed by interested parties.

I’ve already provided that, numerous times, remember?

If all that didn’t impress you, nothing will, and I’d be wasting my time.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 8:48 AM

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Not.True.At.All.
You have provided no links to credible, verifiable sources that meet my reasonable tests.

Any scientific theory worthy of the name could stand up to my challenge.

Your assertions do not, because the science you claim as settled cannot be properly reviewed; data is missing/lost, based on models rather than verifiable facts, or those who try to review the data are denied access.

massrighty on April 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Off to church; I’ll be back later…

massrighty on April 17, 2011 at 8:53 AM

9 inches of the white stuff Thurs nite. ~1/2 inch Sat nite.
Snow aside, this shift in rhetoric is desperation.
CO2 atmospheric concentrations FOLLOW rising temperatures.
Also, there is a significant time lag betw temps changes in the atmosphere & temp changes in the oceans.
Water’s high specific heat allows the heat in the ocean to dissipate slowly.
Cold water holds more co2 than warm. So when waters warm up, they lose more gases, i.e. CO2. Cold waters brought to the surface will absorb more CO2 etc.
I really doubt any of the AGW people has seriously taken into consideration the ocean’s role in all of this.
I know they have taken into consideration the fact that carbonate rocks on this planet as a whole are being ERODED.
Sometimes science is very simple.
Sometimes you can tell a scientific lie by making something simple.
These people are not interested in anything but control.
And this latest trick is nothing but the desperation of a con man trying to keep his con alive.

Badger40 on April 17, 2011 at 9:59 AM

I know they have NOT taken into consideration the fact that carbonate rocks on this planet as a whole are being ERODED.

Badger40 on April 17, 2011 at 9:59 AM

And of course they aren’t asking many geologists abt past climate.
Bcs their lies would be instantly exposed.

Badger40 on April 17, 2011 at 10:00 AM

“You need to ask that question and other related questions. Don’t they see the evidence, don’t they hear what the scientists are saying, do they actually believe this lying from the large carbon polluters, that the scientists are making this up?” Gore added.

Such delicious irony. The pot calling the kettle black.
He has no shame.
Bcs the sheeple who listen to him are so stupid.

Badger40 on April 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Gore: Global-warming fight a lot like the civil rights movement\\

“I hear those gentle voices calling
Ol’ Black Coal”

MaiDee on April 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM

I shall emphasize what evidence already has showed to the AGW crow:

CO2 atmospheric concentrations FOLLOW rising temperatures.

Badger40 on April 17, 2011 at 9:59 AM

It used to be at one time that climate ‘science’ was regarded as nothing more than voodoo.
And it surely has come a long way.
But these AGW folks kid themselves.
Climate is so chaotic with so many variables to consider that even weather predictions are usually only ~35% or so accurate.
And many of these AGW climate modelers are not statistics people. If they really wanted to know the truth, they would have had professional statisticians review their assumptions, calculations etc that their models run on.
And the most glaring problem here is that their model predictions have not come to pass.
This is nothing but a sham. They have created a hysteria to keep their discipline funded at a abnormally high rate than what is warranted.
The shill ‘scientists’ are nothing but hacks.
I have seen this backbiting in other disciplines with shoddy methods like in Linguistics studies & Anthropology.
Since they cannot prove their hypotheses (& AGW is NOT a scientific theory!), they reduce themselves to playing games in the media.
Bcs people are ignorant & they play on their fears.

Badger40 on April 17, 2011 at 10:24 AM

UN “scientists” agree on AGW.

Other significant consensus agreements:

Elvis is alive.

Aliens have arrived in Flying Saucers.

fred5678 on April 17, 2011 at 12:23 PM

perhaps it ’s time Hotair got its final “hey you global warming morons really picked a dumb name” digs in, and then took the high road and called “global warming” what it actually is: “climate change”.
But I have low hopes intelligence.
Dave Rywall on April 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Fixed

NoFanofLibs on April 17, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Not.True.At.All.
You have provided no links to credible, verifiable sources that meet my reasonable tests.

Just as I said. I’m wasting my time,

You don’t define “credible”, “verifiable”, “reasonable” in the same way I would, or scientists in general would. Therefore, all the links, quotes, facts, and references that I have provided (and there have been many), and would provide, mean nothing to you.

Now, I’ll put the burden on you to provide scientific and credible and verifiable evidence that mankind in no manner contributes to environmental changes or anomalies that are observed to have been occurring.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Now, I’ll put the burden on you to provide scientific and credible and verifiable evidence that mankind in no manner contributes to environmental changes or anomalies that are observed to have been occurring.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Hahahahaha. “Scientists” have screamed about “global warming” before … in the 1920 – 40′s. Arctic ice receded, average temperatures were hotter. Then, “global cooling” came and they worried about a new ice age. Arctic ice returned and the chicken littles preached their doom and gloom. Now that we have come out of “global cooling” by warming some, the chicken littles are back fretting about “global warming” again … even though there is ZERO evidence that man had anything to do with it.

darwin on April 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

CO2 atmospheric concentrations FOLLOW rising temperatures.
Also, there is a significant time lag betw temps changes in the atmosphere & temp changes in the oceans.
Water’s high specific heat allows the heat in the ocean to dissipate slowly.
Cold water holds more co2 than warm. So when waters warm up, they lose more gases, i.e. CO2. Cold waters brought to the surface will absorb more CO2 etc.

Would that it were so simple. Some of what you say is true, but there are a myriad of factors and feedbacks that come into play.

Al Gore had no appreciation for the complexity of the issue when he made his propaganda film “Inconvenient Truth”. The actual cause and effect relationship between carbon dioxide levels and global average temperatures is more complex than either you or Gore conceive it to be.

In any case, there is no credible evidence that I have ever read that indicates that carbon dioxide increases are not a primary cause of increased global temperatures. What happened in ancient history can’t really be paralleled with what is happening how, and the rates of temperature change now are far greater than the slow changes that are known to have occurred hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

even though there is ZERO evidence that man had anything to do with it.

darwin on April 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Well, “zero evidence” that you would ever admit to. Idealists don’t tend to let evidence sway them to any great degree.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Idealists Idealogues don’t tend to let evidence sway them to any great degree.

fixed

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Here’s my favorite warmist link from 2007!

“…..The frightening models we didn’t even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true,” Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect – the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts.

According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

“And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change….”

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683

This guy’s major flaw was that in the prophesy racket you should never make a prediction that can be disproved in your life-time.

Fred 2 on April 17, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Now, I’ll put the burden on you to provide scientific and credible and verifiable evidence that mankind in no manner contributes to environmental changes or anomalies that are observed to have been occurring.
oakland on April 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

You want me to prove that mankind does not contribute to environmental changes or anomalies that are observed to have been occurring without your having successfully proven their verifiable existence, or offering any reasonable proofs that they are man-caused?

No, I won’t try to disprove your unproven junk science. It’s already fully discredited.

We’re stalemated not by my intransigence, as you seem to imply, but by your sides failure to live up the precepts of basic science.

massrighty on April 17, 2011 at 4:21 PM

ZealotsIdealists don’t tend to let have any evidence [to] sway them to any great degree others to their point of view.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Fixed, so that it applies to you.

massrighty on April 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Right, 30 years ago when I was a kid, these people told me if we didn’t “do something now” we’d have an uninhabitable planet in a decade.

20 years ago, when I was in HS/College I was told the planet was at a tipping point and if we didn’t all change inside of 10 years the world would shift drastically and irreparably.

Wasn’t it around 2000 when snow was claimed to soon become a thing of the past if we didn’t change our ways in the next decade? Oh, and by 2010 we’d have 500 million environmental refugees around the world (according to the really smart scientists at the UN)… anyone looked for those refugees yet?

Now… 30 years after I first heard this, and more than 20 years after the first “deadline” by which the world would end… we should trust the scientists because they’re really smart? Do scientists who do really impressive physics and math have a problem counting past 10?

Oddly, I asked my dad about this once; and he showed me an article from the 50′s that had very similar wording to that used now… including the decade before disaster. Which was supposed to happen around 1960… guess I was born too late to see the world become uninhabitable. Funny how that works.

“You cannot negotiate with the laws of physics,” Gore said of global warming. “You can’t amend the laws of physics, you have got to respond to reality as we find it, and it takes courage and it takes leadership.”

So why haven’t we had the disaster that has been claimed and these really smart physicists and scientists said would be here in by 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010? Clearly they’re wrong on the science… or maybe someone IS negotiating with physics.

OH MY GOD; THAT’S IT
. I’ve got to go find that person. Naah, he’d have a flying car if he existed.

So clearly we must trust the Boy who Cried Wolf, and has cried wolf for the past 60 years with no wolf in sight… I mean he can’t be wrong again, can he?

And Charlie Brown really will get to kick the football.

If you want me to take your science seriously, you need to take your science seriously. IF you’re using the same formula, data, and assumptions that have been wrong for over 50 years; don’t expect me to think you’re going to get meaningful results this time.

Unless you’re willing to talk about why you were wrong for the past 50+ years; what has changed, what really happened… and come up with a formula that can be used even when applied to the data of the 1950′s to predict now (and accept if it misses it’s predictions that it clearly still has major flaws) don’t expect me to be running around looking for the wolf.

gekkobear on April 17, 2011 at 8:41 PM

That’s what I get for doing my numbers from memory and not verifying… the UN predicted 50 million refugees by 2010, not 500 million.

Figured I’d correct myself instead of waiting for someone else to do it… see how that works? Now, can anyone find a correction from a climate scientists from 1960-2010 claiming the doomsday prediction was wrong (and why, and what the numbers actually should have been) instead of a new prediction that ignores the previous ones?

I’d love to see one of those, they ought to have several shouldn’t they?

gekkobear on April 17, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Gore: Global-warming fight a lot like the civil rights a movement.

FIFY

Dopenstrange on April 17, 2011 at 10:49 PM

..the reason this festering tub of goo believes it’s like the civil rights movement is because he can’t get his ass into a seat at a lunch counter any more.

The War Planner on April 17, 2011 at 11:50 PM

We’re stalemated not by my intransigence, as you seem to imply, but by your sides failure to live up the precepts of basic science.

massrighty on April 17, 2011 at 4:21 PM

To wit….(?)

oakland on April 18, 2011 at 6:43 AM

According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

So, if it doesn’t happen by the time this individual suggested, then it’s an non-issue because it will never happen? Is that your point?

BTW, what do you know about the condition of Arctic Ice of late?

oakland on April 18, 2011 at 6:51 AM

Well, we got about 3 inches of this global warming overnite and still more to come over the next 8 hours. 4/18 and it is still flipping SNOWING!!!!!!!!!!

karenhasfreedom on April 18, 2011 at 7:34 AM

In any case, there is no credible evidence that I have ever read that indicates that carbon dioxide increases are not a primary cause of increased global temperatures. What happened in ancient history can’t really be paralleled with what is happening how, and the rates of temperature change now are far greater than the slow changes that are known to have occurred hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

And there is no credible evidence that I have ever read that indicates CO2 increases ARE a primary cause of increased global temperature.
What happened in ancient history HAS at times paralleled what is happening now and the rates of many temperature change episodes that happened in the past on this planet HAVE happened slowly, as well as very quickly.
I personally have no use for comparing today’s snowfalls & temperatures to GW, climate change, whatever they’re going to call it next week.
You have constantly over & over indicated that we are responsible for not only rising CO2 levels, but you have indicated that it is directly responsible for causing any changes that occur in weather/temp on this planet.
You know damned well that methane & water vapor affect climate on this planet more than ANY niggling little amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
We do not know if climate is truly cyclical or truly chaotic. I’m betting somewhere in btwn & that ENSO ‘cycles’ play a lot bigger role in all of this stuff than anyone in the media ever considers.
Climatologists are making a lot of noise bcs they simply do not want to see their current level of funding, which a way to much for the discipline, dry up.
They are riding the gravy train.
And you should read through all of the ‘climate-gate’ emails bcs these guys admit to cheating, but of course they’d never call it that.
Mankind has an effect on the planet. + or – is not a useful notion bcs it indicates bias. There is always a benefit to change on this planet.
The Gaia hypothesis is BS. AGW is nothing but an unproven hypothesis & is no theory.
The climate models are based on distortions, fudged data, false data & outright lies.
And yet there are always scientists who:
A. believe in the garbage they’re spoonfed
B. can’t think their way out of a paper bag
C. have ZERO analytical ability
D. are only in it for the $$ &/or fame/attention.
It is a lot of these guys who are in important positions within govt agencies as well as those who are on the boards of major scientific journals.
The internet is the key to all of this bcs now scientists really do have to prove their points.
And they cannot.

Badger40 on April 18, 2011 at 8:32 AM

The Gaia hypothesis is BS. AGW is nothing but an disunproven hypothesis & is no theory.

Badger40 on April 18, 2011 at 8:32 AM

I can even go so far as to say this in most cases put out by AGW supporters.

Badger40 on April 18, 2011 at 8:34 AM

This quote from the Goreacle is what got me:

Give me a break. They are trying to kill us, too

“They” being climate change skeptics, I suppose.

Which leads me to a point to ponder:

Using Gore’s line of thinking, does Gore’s energy hog of a house count as a weapon of mass destruction? I mean, if my doubting the veracity of AGW leads me to behave in a polluting manner, and Gore says that polluting manner is “killing us”, then it stands to reason that his $10k per month utility bill at his energy hog mansion in Nashville is “killing us”, right?

crushliberalism on April 18, 2011 at 9:08 AM

They keep exhuming the same dead horse to send our way again and again.
Unfortunately, zoophilia isn’t outlawed in all countries of the UN, but necrobeastiality should be.

J_Crater on April 18, 2011 at 12:15 PM

It was only renamed global climate change when the original name, global warming started getting embarrassing for lack of evidence. Sorry, but you don’t get to reset your rhetoric by changing the name slightly.

Perhaps it’s time the AGW crowd gave up on the whole “global warming” thing….

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 17, 2011 at 4:24 AM

I think that the fact that several “Global Warming” conferences got hit by “unprecedented” snow storms had something to do with the name change. It seems that even Mother Nature is laughing at the AGW crowd!!

When July and August produce 90-plus days week after week, I can’t wait to see how things “seem” to you then. I will be awaiting evidence of your perspective come the long days of summer.

oakland on April 17, 2011 at 8:07 AM

If it happens, warming similar to the Medieval Warming Period will once again lead to global prosperity due to the world-wide ease of producing an abundance of food, coupled with the lack of need to spend time and energy keeping warm.

“Natural Climate Change Deniers” like “oakland” lack any evidence that ‘warming is bad’!!! And they still lack any scientific credibility because NONE of their theories have any predictive validity!!! Where are the “50 million climate refugees” predicted by the AGW crowd decades ago hiding???

landlines on April 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I would say that Global Warming does have a parallel with the Civil Rights Movement.

People are gradually being stripped of their rights and they are trying to raise our taxes to the point that America is paying taxes to the rest of the world, just for kicks. In the end, we will be working without getting paid(like slavery) because the govt will seize everything we have and force us to live as they see fit.

True, things are not to that point yet, but it will eventually get worse and worse if the Global Warming nuts are given their way.

jeffn21 on April 18, 2011 at 2:35 PM

And there is no credible evidence that I have ever read that indicates CO2 increases ARE a primary cause of increased global temperature.

Without the 280 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would be a snowball. Carbon dioxide bonds are known to absorb strongly in the infrared. You might want to start reading some credible sources. Water vapor and methane absorb more strongly than carbon dioxide; so what?

I see you have no respect for scientsts. I’m sure that any scientists reading your post would have about the same respect for you in dismissing those highly trained and hard working folks.

oakland on April 18, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Blink, since you know

everything

about Arctic sea ice, please do share

everything

you know.

As for the “hockey stick”, that is what I used to use as a boy to make wrist shots, slap shots and drop shots. Don’t know what you mean by the “Mann Hockey Stick”, or its “discrediting”.

And, you will have to define “catastrophic”.

I think I’ve gone down this road before with you, without any progress.

oakland on April 18, 2011 at 9:58 PM

“Natural Climate Change Deniers” like “oakland” lack any evidence that ‘warming is bad’!!!

???? “Natural Climate Change Deniers” ????

oakland on April 18, 2011 at 9:59 PM

I’m sorry oakland, no, I’m not really sorry to say this, but you are full of misinformation & I do understand that there are lots of people out there who are, even people like you who actually truly believe they know what they are talking about.
All of the things I have ever seen you say regarding CO2 causing rising atmospheric temps is always wrong.
It’s wrong wrong wrong.
I know someone who’s been raising cows their whole life.
You would think this guy would be raising some top of the line stuff as much time as he puts into it.
But his cows & calves are still big ugly bony framed nasty old hides that bring bottom dollar at the markets.
I know another guy who’s ridden horses his whole life.
Traded them, trained them, etc.
And he can’t ride one to save his life.
All these horses he turns out in his round pen ride like total $hit.
They’re crap.
This is pretty much the same as you weighing in on AGW.
I don’t care how much you’ve done in this area, pondered, whatever.
There are a lot of people who really suck at doing things & thinking about things.
And sadly, you are one of those guys.
CO2 is not a driver of climate change.
There is no evidence that supports this.
We can all agree that mankind may have negative effects in some cases.
But this CO2 $hit is the biggest lie & hoax to come down the pike & you are feeding off of the stream of $hit like a pig in the pen.

Badger40 on April 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM

blink on April 19, 2011 at 1:59 AM

I was reading a paper abt some sea ice data taken on some island in the Arctic. I wish I could remember its name.
The data points were very few & very centered & I seem to remember this paper then used the minimal data to extrapolate sea ice predictions for the whole area.
Do you know of some islands up there they did studies on?
I want to find that paper again bcs it was such a mangled piece of crap & from what I gather, many other ‘scientists’ connected to AGW have cited this paper’s ‘findings’.

Badger40 on April 19, 2011 at 8:37 AM

blink on April 19, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Doesn’t sound familiar. I seem to think it might have had the word Isle in it. Ugh IDK. And i think it was nearer to the Arctic Circle.

Badger40 on April 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2