Written on March 18th, 2010 by adminno shouts
If you thought “hey, maybe they will do it in someplace boring, which could use an economic lift, and wouldn’t show that the UN uses these conferences as taxpayer funded vacations,” well, no Thirsty Thursday for you!
Government negotiators are already writing off chances for a global treaty to fight climate change, nine months before the annual talks begin in Cancun, Mexico.
Yes, the big UN conference will be in the exotic vacation spot of Cancun. Oh, and did you catch that part about it already being written off?
Kunihiko Shimada, principal international negotiator at the Japanese Ministry of the Environment, said a deal this year is “almost impossible.” Jos Delbeke, who spearheads European Union climate policy at the European Commission, ruled out a “comprehensive legal agreement” in 2010.
Their remarks call into question whether efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions are progressing after failing in Copenhagen in December. President Barack Obama’s energy proposal is bogged down in the U.S. Congress. Without a U.S. commitment, China and India, two of the fastest-growing polluters, may be reluctant to limit greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
So, question: if it is already set up for failure, why have it? Oh, that’s right: exotic vacation spot of Cancun. The alarmist conference was originally meant to be held in Mexico City. Mexico City’s mayor also points out that Cancun is “nice and warm, but not very green.”
Elsewhere:
- The Hockey Schtick: Arctic has still not received the memo on AGW – Arctic temperatures stable since 1958
- Telegraph: Climategate: two more bricks fall out of the IPCC wall of deceit – rainforests and polar bears
- Yid With Lid: Latest Global Warming Fear, Massive Build-up of Microbe Flatulence
- Tom Nelson: Rasmussen: 72% of American voter don’t believe global warming is a “very serious problem”
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 16th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Here’s one from a few days ago I ran across, which already has garnered over 840 comments, most of them seemingly taking the writer, Peter Gleick, to task for his climahysterical article. Let’s see, shall we?
Here is the best argument against global warming:
. . . .
Oh, right. There isn’t one.
There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:
First, it is not an argument against global warming. It is against man caused (anthropogenic, man induced, whatever you want to term it) global warming, or, as you folks call it, climate change, since you, in such a self-described scientific manner, link everything into it. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, frogs dying, species being found, allergies, etc and so on. Second, it is not incumbent upon us “deniers” to prove our theory, based on 4 billion years of history. You have to prove yours.
Third, those “tiny” errors are not actually tiny. Many of them are primary points within the UN IPCC, used to “prove” their whole position.
Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.
I’ll leave that to the professionals at this moment, but, I did notice something, Pete. Do you mind if I call you Pete? Nowhere in you article do you provide a scientific argument that explains how the current warming period is caused “most likely,” to us, in the IPCC vernacular, by Mankind. Sucks to be you. Oh, hey, can you explain the “no statistical warming over the last 15 years,” or that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, as told by Phil Jones? How about all the “missing” data? Or that temperature upticks precede CO2? Or…..well, we all know the reality. Can we move Peter from stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief?
Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete.
Uh huh
Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.
There’s your “scientific” theory, Pete. If everything can be blamed on global warming, it is no longer science, it is tautology.
Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.
Al Gore is not a scientist, Pete. Nor is Barack Obama, nor are the Democrats (and Lindsay Graham) who are pushing this. Nor are a good chunk of those who wrote the IPCC. Hmmph. Strange, huh?
Anyhow, check out the comments. Great stuff.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 16th, 2010 by adminno shouts
I commented briefly last month about the rather florid claims by Kanazawa — including a claim of a positive correlation between atheism and IQ. I noted that his findings were probably an artifact of the Leftist influence on the educational system. I am therefore rather pleased to see that a writer on the Puffington Host has drawn similar conclusions. That an atheist conservative such as myself and a religious Leftist such as Josh Schrei should come to similar conclusions does rather reinforce those conclusions, I think. His argument is an extensive and careful one but I think that his strongest point is this:
Kanazawa’s test group were all Americans. In America, atheism and liberalism are both value systems embraced by the educated middle class and are part of the cultural fabric of liberal arts universities, Ivy League colleges, and the American intelligentsia. Therefore, saying that among a small group of Americans, liberals and atheists had higher IQ test scores is a bit like saying that people with more college education in this country tend to know more.
Putting it another way, smarter people are more likely to go to college and there they come under pressure to adopt Leftist ideas, which include a contempt for religion generally and Christianity in particular. As I said previously, the correlation is almost certainly a product of the sociology of the situation, not a product of genetics. There are a couple of other generally good comments here and here.
Sadly, a later article by Schrei on the same subject was much more naive and illogical. I suppose we can’t expect too much from a Leftist. He should have read this.
Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 15th, 2010 by adminno shouts
As icy waters pour over the gunwales of the sinking global warming hoax, rats begin to abandon ship. Here’s environmental scientist James Lovelock in 2007, well before the climate crisis was widely known to be a swindle:
Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.
In 2009, Lovelock admitted,
Most of the “green” stuff is verging on a gigantic scam.
But even then, the human race had only one chance to save “up to 90 per cent” of the population from perishing from global warming:
There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste — which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering — into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.
Sounds like an expensive project; good thing it won’t be necessary. In light of the climate’s failure to get any warmer, Lovelock now says that C02 is preventing a climate crisis:
It is worth thinking that what we are doing in creating all these carbon emissions, far from being something frightful, is stopping the onset of a new ice age. If we hadn’t appeared on the earth, it would be due to go through another ice age and we can look at our part as holding that up.
Or maybe not, because as even casual observers have noticed,
…all the theoretical stuff … tends to be very dodgy and I think they are seeing this with climate change.
Let’s hope these clowns make the most of all the grant money showered upon them at taxpayer expense. The credibility they sold for it will take a generation to regain.
On a tip from Oiao. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 13th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Like I, and so many others have stated, as we run into the warm season in the Northern Hemisphere, the Climahysterics start emerging from their burrows like so many hibernating skunks (the comparison might not be fair to the skunks), and we end up with
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 9 (IPS/TerraViva) – The negative fallout from climate change is having a devastatingly lopsided impact on women compared to men, from higher death rates during natural disasters to heavier household and care burdens.
In the 1991 cyclone disasters that killed 140,000 in Bangladesh, 90 percent of victims were reportedly women; in the 2004 Asian Tsunami, an estimated 70 to 80 percent of overall deaths were women.
And following the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in the United States, African-American women, who were the poorest population in some of the affected States in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, faced the greatest obstacles to survival, according to the New York-based Women’s Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO).
The 2007 Human Development Report, issued by the U.N. Development Programme, points out that women are particularly affected by climate change because they are the largest percentage – accounting for about 70 percent – of the poor population.
Because massive tropical systems never occurred before Man started messing up the climate. And we see the “climate change causes earthquakes idiocy” again. Uh huh. Another explanation would be that, and I’m sure I will be called a misogynist or something, too many women become pregnant at a young age, receive no education, and basically become Welfare Queens.
Climate change is apparently also responsible for women’s health problems, a loss of basic civil rights, reduced education, sexism, and…
In neighbouring Uganda, the food crises associated with climate change have been linked to higher rates of early marriage for girls, as they are exchanged for dowry or bride price.
These “famine marriages” – as they are called – not only lead to girls dropping out of school, but also make them vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections and related reproductive complications.
Double “uh huh.” Because there were never marriages like that before. Face meet palm. How is it possible to take climate alarmists seriously when they keep trotting out silliness like this?
Hat tip Tom Nelson
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
