I warned you about it earlier. Crank science sites across the internet feature news of another cheap hit on Rachel Carson and science in movie form.
“Not Evil, Just Wrong” is slated for release on October 18. This is the film that tried to intrude on the Rachel Carson film earlier this year, but managed to to get booked only at an elementary school in Seattle, Washington — Rachel Carson Elementary, a green school where the kids showed more sense than the film makers by voting to name the school after the famous scientist-author.
The film is both evil and wrong.
Errors just in the trailer:
- Claims that Al Gore said sea levels will rise catastrophically, “in the very near future.” Not in his movie, not in his writings or speeches. Not true. That’s a simple misstatement of what Gore said, and Gore had the science right.
- ” . . . [I]t wouldn’t be a bad thing for this Earth to warm up. In fact, ice is the enemy of life.” “Bad” in this case is a value judgment — global warming isn’t bad if you’re a weed, a zebra mussel, one of the malaria parasites, a pine bark beetle, any other tropical disease, or a sadist. But significant warming as climatologists, physicists and others project, would be disastrous to agriculture, major cities in many parts of the world, sea coasts, and most people who don’t live in the Taklamakan or Sahara, and much of the life in the ocean. Annual weather cycles within long-established ranges, is required for life much as we know it. “No ice” is also an enemy of life.
- “They want to raise our taxes.” No, that’s pure, uncomposted bovine excrement.
- “They want to close our factories.” That’s more effluent from the anus of male bovines.
- The trailer notes the usual claim made by Gore opponents that industry cannot exist if it is clean, that industry requires that we poison the planet. Were that true, we’d have a need to halt industry now, lest we become like the yeast in the beer vat, or the champagne bottle, manufacturing alcohol until the alcohol kills the yeast. Our experience with Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Air Acts and the Clean Water Act is that cleaning the environment produces economic growth, not the other way around. A city choked in pollution dies. Los Angeles didn’t suffer when the air got cleaner. Pittsburgh’s clean air became a way to attract new industries to the city, before the steel industry there collapsed. Cleaning Lake Erie didn’t hurt industry. The claim made by the film is fatuous, alarmist, and morally corrupt.
When the human health, human welfare, and environmental effects which could be expressed in dollar terms were added up for the entire 20-year period, the total benefits of Clean Air Act programs were estimated to range from about $6 trillion to about $50 trillion, with a mean estimate of about $22 trillion. These estimated benefits represent the estimated value Americans place on avoiding the dire air quality conditions and dramatic increases in illness and premature death which would have prevailed without the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act and its associated state and local programs. By comparison, the actual costs of achieving the pollution reductions observed over the 20 year period were $523 billion, a small fraction of the estimated monetary benefits.
- “Some of the environmental activists have not come to accept that the human is also part of the environment.” Fatuous claim. Environmentalists note that humans uniquely possess the ability to change climate on a global scale, intentionally, for the good or bad; environmentalists choose to advocate for actions that reduce diseases like malaria, cholera and asthma. We don’t have to sacrifice a million people a year to malaria, in order to be industrial and productive. We don’t have to kill 700,000 kids with malaria every year just to keep cars.
- “They want to go back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague.” No, that would be the film makers. Environmentalists advocate reducing filth and ignorance both. Ignorance and lack of ability to read, coupled with religious fanaticism, caused the strife known as “the Dark Ages.” It’s not environmentalists who advocate an end to cheap public schools.
- The trailer shows a kid playing in the surf on a beach. Of course, without the Clean Water Act and other attempts to keep the oceans clean, such play would be impossible. That we can play again on American beaches is a tribute to the environmental movement, and reason enough to grant credence to claims of smart people like Al Gore and the scientists whose work he promotes.
- “I cannot believe that Al Gore has great regard for people, real people.” So, this is a film promoting the views of crabby, misanthropic anal orifices who don’t know Al Gore at all? Shame on them. And, why should anyone want to see such a film? If I want to see senseless acts of stupidity, I can rent a film by Quentin Tarantino and get some art with the stupidity. [Update, November 23, 2009: This may be one of the most egregiously false charges of the film. Gore, you recall, is the guy who put his political career and presidential ambitions on hold indefinitely when his son was seriously injured in an auto-pedestrian accident; Gore was willing to sacrifice all his political capital in order to get his son healed. My first dealings directly with Gore came on the Organ Transplant bill. Gore didn’t need a transplant, didn’t have need for one in his family, and had absolutely nothing to gain from advocacy for the life-saving procedure. It was opposed by the chairman of his committee, by a majority of members of his own party in both Houses of Congress, by many in the medical establishment, by many in the pharmaceutical industry, and by President Reagan, who didn’t drop his threat to veto the bill until he signed it, as I recall. Gore is a man of deep, human-centered principles. Saying “I can’t believe Al Gore has great regard for real people” only demonstrates the vast ignorance and perhaps crippling animus of the speaker.]
That’s a whopper about every 15 seconds in the trailer — the film itself may make heads spin if it comes close to that pace of error.
Where have we seen this before? Producers of the film claim as “contributors” some of the people they try to lampoon — people like Ed Begley, Jr., and NASA’s James E. Hansen, people who don’t agree in any way with the hysterical claims of the film, and people who, I wager, would be surprised to be listed as “contributors.”
It’s easy to suppose these producers used the same ambush-the-scientist technique used earlier by the producers of the anti-science, anti-Darwin film “Expelled!“
Here, see the hysteria, error and alarmism for yourself:
Ann McElhinney is one of the film’s producers. Her past work includes other films against protecting environment and films for mining companies. She appears to be affiliated with junk science purveyors at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an astro-turf organization in Washington, D.C., for whom she flacked earlier this year (video from Desmogblog):
Remember, too, that this film is already known to have gross inaccuracies about Rachel Carson and DDT, stuff that high school kids could get right easily.
Anyone have details on McElhinney and her colleague, Phelim McAlee?
More:
- A few sane, scientific-minded people have noted the film, too.
- Ecorazzi had some sharp words
- Update, October 12, 2009: One of movie’s producers acting badly, as Al Gore provides evidence of the movie’s errors
Related posts, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
- The killer CO2 cloud climate change “skeptics” don’t want you to know about
- Monckton will lie about anything
- Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)! The continuing saga of a practicer of fictional science
- Post-film premiere update, here
Please spread the word:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
I might read link to the article at the bottom of the page about warming on Mars. I have a close friend who is an astronomer and he pointed out that there are several planets that they know to be warming. To my knowledge that don’t have over 1000 limos or over 100 private jets putting out CO2 on these planets unlike the UN Climate change conference. Could it be down to the Sun.
LikeLike
Hexmate. Check this site out (if you haven’t already).
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf
Has some science and studies on it that ed’s been asking for. We could discuss this one for days.
In my country it seams like nearly ever day we have images of the ice melting. Heaps of news articles about the western part of Antarctica warming (which is only 5% of the total ice mass) yet they neglect to tell us about the other 95% that has had no change or cooling over the last 50 years. Also the ice amount is at record high levels according to data. (please check out the link. Real interesting stuff.)
Also we here a lot about the temperatures being the hottest in recorded history. Yet a Scientist I was talking to a few days ago was telling me how Greenland is called that because it used to be green and the vikings farmed it. As you know it is all snow and ice today due to it being a lot colder now.
LikeLike
I said: “ABC News: 2009 fifth warmest ever
Science Magazine: Last decade warmest in 160 years
Decline? In the stock of denialists? Yeah, it’s down. Wasn’t worth much to begin with.”
Hexmate:
As the science shows, neither the planet, the atmosphere, the oceans, the daily weather nor the average climate, listen to polls. Understanding of climate change is down because of clanging cymbals and braying jackasses who don’t understand the science, who make astounding statements accusing the clouds of conspiring with Al Gore, and who appear never to have read Mark Twain, but are still burro enough to claim Twain didn’t write what Twain wrote.
Generally, in December in the U.S., polls show most Americans would prefer sunny and warm weather, with heavy powder at the ski resorts. Neither the weather nor the climate ever listens.
That’s called science. When better data come in, we correct the charts. One of the key benefits and virtues of science is the constant correction to better data.
The latest revision was yesterday — turns out this current decade is the hottest on record.
You fail to note that 1998 slips from “hottest ever” by a mere fraction of a degree Fahrenheit.
Hansen frequently makes corrections for newer, more accurate data. So far, on this thread alone you’ve not corrected any error.
Hansen demonstrates ethics.
Sure he was. And you won the Irish Sweepstakes, just before you crowned Queen of Romania, right?
Where is the error in the report yesterday from the World Meteorological Organization? Show us.
LikeLike
The report came out as scheduled. I note the timing — once again the scientists delivered as they had promised.
Got any counter evidence?
No, of course you don’t.
How about the Chinese weather agency? They’d have a political reason to contradict the report. What do they say?
Venezuela? Russia? Iraq? Iran?
Shakespeare described the denialist position: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
LikeLike
More bad news Ed. In addition, there has been no explanation as to why the GISS has repeatedly had to correct its data going back to the 1930s. Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org caught GISS head and Al Gore crony James Hansen red-handed manipulating data last year to claim that October 2008 (a perfectly average month, climate-wise) was the hottest on record, forcing him to revise it. In 2007, Hansen claimed that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record and had to “revise” his data not once, but twice. Last January, Hansen was busted just flat-out making up numbers.
LikeLike
Ed said: “ABC News: 2009 fifth warmest ever
Science Magazine: Last decade warmest in 160 years
Decline? In the stock of denialists? Yeah, it’s down. Wasn’t worth much to begin with.”
And what about those pesky polls that show Americans being less worried about global warming than in the past? Well, it’s mostly Republicans who are less worried about global warming, according to Eilperin. This isn’t what the Pew Poll shows, but facts would never deter a true believer of the Climate Change mythos. If the facts do not support the talking points, change the facts. We must save the planet!
LikeLike
Ed said: “Did you see the news from the World Meteorological Organization today? 2009 is the fifth warmest on record, and the past decade is the warmest.”
Sure Ed another report from an agency without any credibility. Notice the timing of this fabricated report.
And what about Climategate? Thirteen years’ worth of emails exchanged between some of the world’s most influential climate scientists who apparently conspired to manipulate and destroy data, organized resistance to disclosure, made a mockery of the peer review process, and privately admitted to flaws in their public claims. Is there a “smoking gun” in any of that?
No, of course not. The comments are either misrepresented or taken out of context. A trick is not a trick, and “hiding the decline” does not actually refer to hiding anything. This is the way scientists communicate, and anyone who disagrees is just too stupid to understand it.
LikeLike
By definition, the report of the IPCC is a consensus report. There’s another, separate question: Does that report represent a consensus of scientists, or even of just those few thousands of scientists who directly contributed?
Try this test: Go to the websites for Nature and Science, the two most influential science journals that are juried. Count the research reports that point to warming, and compare that to the research reports that contradict warming.
Is there a single research article that contradicts warming, or a human role in causation? Point it out to us.
No, the alarmists tell us that the scientists are all crazy, though the alarmists don’t have a single chunk of research to point to. Get it straight: Scientists aren’t saying the sky is falling. They are saying our climate is changing, and we are changing it.
For alarmism, you can’t beat the denialists, who claim conspiracies, evil mad scientists, and all sorts of stuff out of James Bond and Pinky & The Brain fiction. Monckton claims that Obama will concede U.S. sovereignty at Copenhagen — apparently Monckton knows nothing of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Congress, the U.N. Charter, nor much of anything else I can think of.
No, they don’t. They have said that the IPCC report is a report relying on the best science research from around the world, and that those scientists have reached a solid scientific consensus that the Earth is warming, and a strong consensus that human activities contribute and that humans can work to protect the Earth instead of running around like Chicken Little.
If you have someone claiming the IPCC is the “top 2,400 scientists in the world,” you have a denialist/alarmist who, as usual, can’t get the facts right. Don’t take my word for it. Go to the IPCC site and see.
There is a tiny handful of scientists who disagree with the findings of warming, or the findings of human causation. There is less than a handful who have any research to suggest any backup to their position. There are very few scientists in the relevant fields who disagree with the general report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and vastly fewer who have any research of any kind to suggest any problem with the IPCC report.
Take the current flap on e-mails. The denialists/alarmists claim there is skullduggery revealed in the e-mails.
Read them carefully. There is one chart in question. The scientists took some tree-ring readings that were shown experimentally to be incorrect, and replaced them with actual temperature readings.
The resulting chart underestimates warming that we have actually seen.
So what’s the claim, that these scientists plotted to hide the severity of global warming?
Don’t be fooled. Read the reports from the official agencies for yourself. Under U.S. law, were James Hansen to commit scientific fraud, he’d be liable to prosecution and jail. There is almost no one on the denialist/alarmist side who will step forward and be subject to the same rigor of review of their claims.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Did you see the news from the World Meteorological Organization today? 2009 is the fifth warmest on record, and the past decade is the warmest.”
Sure Ed another concoctted report from an agency without credibility. Notice the timing of the release of this fabricated report. And what about Climategate – Thirteen years’ worth of emails exchanged between some of the world’s most influential climate scientists who apparently conspired to manipulate and destroy data, organized resistance to disclosure, made a mockery of the peer review process, and privately admitted to flaws in their public claims. Does Eilperin see a “smoking gun” in any of that?
No, of course not. The comments are either misrepresented or taken out of context. A “trick” is not a trick, and “hiding the decline” does not actually refer to hiding anything. This is the way scientists communicate, and anyone who disagrees is just too stupid to understand it.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Yeah, I think they make toast of the denialists’ case. It’s almost so bad you could say that there is a direct correlation between stealing of e-mail and the rise of the temperature of the Earth.”
They’re busted Ed – it won’t be long before this whole farce comes down around them. Just the way your pants keep falling down Ed. Now pull ’em up before you get chapped.
LikeLike
Ed posted: A picture of a ship on dry land.
Can you say photoshop Ed? Sure you can!
LikeLike
Yeah, I think they make toast of the denialists’ case. It’s almost so bad you could say that there is a direct correlation between stealing of e-mail and the rise of the temperature of the Earth.
Did you see the news from the World Meteorological Organization today? 2009 is the fifth warmest on record, and the past decade is the warmest.
ABC News: 2009 fifth warmest ever
Science Magazine: Last decade warmest in 160 years
Decline? In the stock of denialists? Yeah, it’s down. Wasn’t worth much to begin with.
LikeLike
About increasing desertification, I noted the Aral Sea tragedy.
Aggravated by CO2. Won’t be solved, most likely, without controlling greenhouse gases to keep the planet cool enough to preserve or restore rain patterns to fill that part of the lake that can be filled.
Desertification, especially south of the Sahara, and in the Gobi, Mojave and Sonora, is severely aggravated by greenhouse gas-caused warming.
The decline in eagle populations in North America began when Europeans arrived to colonize the place. It became really critical after about 1910, and repeated efforts to prevent the decline with bans on hunting and taking feathers didn’t do anything. By the time the 1970s rolled around, DDT made it so that young eagles either didn’t survive to mate, or could not produce viable eggs to reproduce successfully. One can note that the decline in eagles was not initially caused by DDT. However, no recovery was possible without a reduction in DDT in the flesh of eagles, which required a ban on use of DDT in the U.S., on agricultural crops.
That DDT was not the initial cause was not a good enough reason not to ban DDT. DDT was the final barrier to recovery.
Desertification in the Dust Bowl was caused by overfarming and bad land management practices. Simply ending those bad practices was not enough to produce a full recovery. Desertification around the edges of the Sahara often is caused by bad farming practices. But warming aggravates the problem, and no full recovery is possible without some restoration of old rainfall levels, which will most likely obtain with a control of greenhouse gases.
LikeLike
You wont find a consensus in the IPCC due to the scientist in it. We here quite ofter by alarmist groups that there is a consensus among scientists that Global Warming is due to human CO2. They try and tell us that the IPCC (International panel on climate change) are the top 2400 or so Scientists in the world and if they don’t disagree then you shouldn’t either.
Whenever you here this is is pure propaganda.
Very few of them are actually scientists and Many off them disagree.
Look at this quote.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”
-Dr. Takeda Kuunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research in Japan
And here is a quote from a IPCC scientist (remember that we have been told by the propaganda that these guys are in agreement over this.
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history.
When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
– UN IPCC Scientist DR. Kiminon Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
Doesn’t sound like there is a consensus at all.
LikeLike
Lets talk about the issue.
These emails look pretty damaging.
What do you think ed?
Hide the decline?
Al gore stands to become a billionaire through
these new carbon tax laws (cap in trade).
If he is so concerned about global warming why was the energy bill in one of his homes 10 times the average American household. And why does he fly around in his private jet promoting His video (Inconvenient truth) which has been shown to be fraud and banned from UK schools due to the blatant misuse of science and outright lies it contains.
His video is pure propaganda. But all the deceit isn’t inconvenient for him as he will make a fortune from it.
A few days ago hackers allegedly accessed the computer network at one of the world’s foremost climate change research centres, the Hadley Centre in the U.K. Copies of extensive email correspondence between many of the most prominent researchers promoting the climate crisis were posted on the web and the mainstream media have now jumped onto the story. I needn’t go into details here. Suffice it to say that along with the usual pettiness common to academia, the foul stench of scientific corruption has been released. This includes evidence of misleading selection and manipulation of data, the withholding and even destruction of data to prevent independent examination, as well as conspiracy to denigrate conflicting research and prevent its acceptance for publication.
In addition to the damming correspondence, a significant volume of scientific information was also released and is now being examined. Stand by for evidence of even greater malfeasance to emerge. If nothing else, what has already been revealed makes it clear that, regardless of whatever may be the real nature of AGW, the scientific proof for it is highly uncertain and conflicted. It is also clear that many of its leading proponents have been knowingly complicit in an ongoing scientific fraud the likes of which has never before been perpetrated. At his next public apology session the PM should feel a duty to add frightened children, coastal property owners, farmers, graziers, fishermen and climate sceptics to his list of those wronged.
Australia is better situated than any other nation to cope with energy constraints but can only do so by a full and rational utilisation of our resources. We cannot do so with a severely restricted productive sector having to support a parasitic majority of bureaucrats and drones whose only contribution to society is complaint about and interfere with those who support them. All this is not someday, maybe, if. It is staring us in the face. When are we going to wake up?
Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most senior and experienced marine biologists, with a professional career of studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems.
Looking forward to you comments about all the scientists I have quoted on this blog.
LikeLike
Nice picture of the boat on dry ground ed.
Looks like over irrigation caused the boat on dry ground that ed put up. Quite a sticking photo. I like it.
Ed said Which makes two points:
1. Desertification is a problem
2. Humans cause a lot of desertification
Those two points directly rebut claims that our climate is not endangered, especially claims that water is returning to parched areas as a claimed cooling occurs (there is no cooling yet); and that humans cannot make huge environmental disasters that affect the weather and, consequently, the climate.
But it wasn’t caused by rising CO2 Levels
LikeLike
Ed said: “Which makes two points:
1. Desertification is a problem
2. Humans cause a lot of desertification
Those two points directly rebut claims that our climate is not endangered, especially claims that water is returning to parched areas as a claimed cooling occurs (there is no cooling yet); and that humans cannot make huge environmental disasters that affect the weather and, consequently, the climate.”
Ed this is bullshit. You got caught with your pants down again.
LikeLike
Ed said: “The National Center for Policy Analysis is a far-right-wing think tank here in Dallas. They are incredibly weak on all science issues, a product of their hiring politicos over experts.”
Ed anyone who disagrees with you or any organization that debunks this global warming farce you are perpetrating is some right wing conspiracy that has no credibility according to you. YOU are paranoid Ed. You have been smoking too much dope. Lay off of that crap before you messes up your head.
LikeLike
Ed said: “The World Meteorological Association announced this morning that this is the warmest decade in history. With cooling like that, do we really need denialists to stab us in the back?”
Oh sure Ed. All of the reports are showing temperature drops and that has created a discussion about the credibility of global warming and then these bozos report an increase. Hmm sounds like the fox watching the chicken coop again. These people are so crooked, as evidenced by recent email discoveries, that this is damage control. Like I said Ed you would qualify as a denialist since you are in denial all of the time.
LikeLike
M@ said:
More CO2 only helps where there is a shortage of CO2 for plant growth — and that is nowhere on Earth at the moment. There are the Big Four limiting factors — water, temperature, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. Only where there is enough water, appropriate temperatures, and sufficient nitrogen in available form can CO2 become a limiting factor. I can think of no environment on Earth that does not have more CO2 than plants can use.
So, in order to sink CO2 into plants, we have to expand the amount of land plants take up. That is why environmentalists and other people of reason work against deforestation and over-logging, and against seriously soil-destroying farming techniques.
Those plants that benefit most from more CO2 now are weeds. Plant growth does not correlate with plant yield, and if you read the botany journals you’ll learn that more CO2 reduces yields of cereal grains — wheat, barley, rice and corn.
It is simply a botanical fact that more CO2 by itself will not be beneficial to the plants we need and depend on. Factoring in the warming doesn’t help, either.
The National Center for Policy Analysis is a far-right-wing think tank here in Dallas. They are incredibly weak on all science issues, a product of their hiring politicos over experts.
Check the botany journals. Check a botany text.
Remember, when you talk “basic science,” that oxygen is plant waste. Yes, our lives depend on it — but we aren’t yet in danger of cutting O2 levels to critical levels. However, CO2 causes serious trouble in just slightly greater concentrations than we have now in the atmosphere.
And please remember, in “basic science” CO2 cannot benefit plants until ample amounts of sunlight, water, and available nitrogen are provided. That condition obtains nowhere on Earth, essentially. CO2 will not be a boon to farmers.
M@T Says:
Increasing the life of weeds and noxious plants is not a benefit. See earlier notes on CO2 — it will not benefit crops.
Among other effects, increased CO2 contributes to leaf growth. That’s good for spinach and lettuce, bad for grains, fruits and most vegetables. CO2 keeps some plants from setting seed — a complete disaster for cereal grains.
Seriously, get a botany text. You won’t find many botanists excited over more CO2 or warming. It means disaster for ecosystems, and maybe for the crops humans depend on.
Oh, but of course, more CO2 could slightly increase the yield of hay, which would, after animal processing, increase methane in the air — methane is several times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.
Watch out what you ask for.
The World Meteorological Association announced this morning that this is the warmest decade in history. With cooling like that, do we really need denialists to stab us in the back?
LikeLike
Which makes two points:
1. Desertification is a problem
2. Humans cause a lot of desertification
Those two points directly rebut claims that our climate is not endangered, especially claims that water is returning to parched areas as a claimed cooling occurs (there is no cooling yet); and that humans cannot make huge environmental disasters that affect the weather and, consequently, the climate.
LikeLike
Hexmate said: “Gore pulled 9 months in Vietnam”
I stand corrected; Gore only served 5 months in Vietnam – “He was finally shipped to Vietnam on January 2, 1971, after his father had lost his seat in the Senate during the 1970 Senate election, 20th Engineer Brigade in Bien Hoa and was a journalist with The Castle Courier. He received an honorable discharge from the Army in May 1971.”
I want to make sure this is on the up and up.
LikeLike
Ed said: “But then, I’ve admired him since he volunteered, first for the Army, and then for Vietnam. His father could have gotten him out of it, or gotten him a nice, safe, stateside assignment, as Pat Robertson’s senator father did for him. But, as he noted at the time, that would have been unseemly. His father, you recall, was an opponent of the Vietnam War by then.”
Ed basically, not to take anything away from Mr. Gore’s service to our county, was politically driven since Al’s father was running for re-election he feared he would create an issue that could contribute to his father losing the election. His father lost the election anyways. Gore had a low draft number so he decided he better go and he volunteered for a 2 year stint. He was sent to correspondence school and then was assigned to Ft. Rucker until December 1970. His orders for Vietnam were held up probably for political reasons, and he wasn’t sent until January 1971. He was assigned to Bien Hoa Air Base. When we would fly our Huey in to fuel up at Bien Hoa we would make it a point to hit the head so we could pull the handle on the flush toilets just to get that feeling of being back the “WORLD” as we use to call it Ed. A concept you would never understand. Gore pulled 9 months in Vietnam as a journalist for the 20th Engineering Brigade when his service ended. Hey wish my daddy had been a senator or something, maybe I could a have been a journalist and then I might not have done 542 days, 3 hours, and 12 minutes in Vietnam with the U. S. Army’s 1st Aviation Brigade call sign Hexmate.
LikeLike
A few days ago hackers allegedly accessed the computer network at one of the world’s foremost climate change research centres, the Hadley Centre in the U.K. Copies of extensive email correspondence between many of the most prominent researchers promoting the climate crisis were posted on the web and the mainstream media have now jumped onto the story. I needn’t go into details here. Suffice it to say that along with the usual pettiness common to academia, the foul stench of scientific corruption has been released. This includes evidence of misleading selection and manipulation of data, the withholding and even destruction of data to prevent independent examination, as well as conspiracy to denigrate conflicting research and prevent its acceptance for publication.
In addition to the damming correspondence, a significant volume of scientific information was also released and is now being examined. Stand by for evidence of even greater malfeasance to emerge. If nothing else, what has already been revealed makes it clear that, regardless of whatever may be the real nature of AGW, the scientific proof for it is highly uncertain and conflicted. It is also clear that many of its leading proponents have been knowingly complicit in an ongoing scientific fraud the likes of which has never before been perpetrated. At his next public apology session the PM should feel a duty to add frightened children, coastal property owners, farmers, graziers, fishermen and climate sceptics to his list of those wronged.
Australia is better situated than any other nation to cope with energy constraints but can only do so by a full and rational utilisation of our resources. We cannot do so with a severely restricted productive sector having to support a parasitic majority of bureaucrats and drones whose only contribution to society is complaint about and interfere with those who support them. All this is not someday, maybe, if. It is staring us in the face. When are we going to wake up?
Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most senior and experienced marine biologists, with a professional career of studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems.
LikeLike
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/six-degrees-and-rising
When are we going to wake up?
http://aefweb.info/
LikeLike
A few days ago hackers allegedly accessed the computer network at one of the world’s foremost climate change research centres, the Hadley Centre in the U.K. Copies of extensive email correspondence between many of the most prominent researchers promoting the climate crisis were posted on the web and the mainstream media have now jumped onto the story. I needn’t go into details here. Suffice it to say that along with the usual pettiness common to academia, the foul stench of scientific corruption has been released. This includes evidence of misleading selection and manipulation of data, the withholding and even destruction of data to prevent independent examination, as well as conspiracy to denigrate conflicting research and prevent its acceptance for publication.
In addition to the damming correspondence, a significant volume of scientific information was also released and is now being examined. Stand by for evidence of even greater malfeasance to emerge. If nothing else, what has already been revealed makes it clear that, regardless of whatever may be the real nature of AGW, the scientific proof for it is highly uncertain and conflicted. It is also clear that many of its leading proponents have been knowingly complicit in an ongoing scientific fraud the likes of which has never before been perpetrated. At his next public apology session the PM should feel a duty to add frightened children, coastal property owners, farmers, graziers, fishermen and climate sceptics to his list of those wronged.
Australia is better situated than any other nation to cope with energy constraints but can only do so by a full and rational utilisation of our resources. We cannot do so with a severely restricted productive sector having to support a parasitic majority of bureaucrats and drones whose only contribution to society is complaint about and interfere with those who support them. All this is not someday, maybe, if. It is staring us in the face. When are we going to wake up?
Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most senior and experienced marine biologists, with a professional career of studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems.
Taken from this site
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/six-degrees-and-rising
When are we going to wake up?
http://aefweb.info/
LikeLike
AGW-Religion (Anthropogenic global warming) – rule 1
Never discuss the science
Attack the man – Repeat the mantra.
LikeLike
Ed said: “You should be looking for facts and data, not beliefs.
This is a key difference between scientists and denialists. Denialists say what they wish were true, not what the data show.”
Ed you are a DENIALIST! You don’t look at facts or data because you can’t provide any that support this global warming scam. The “scientists” you keep referencing don’t have data just some computer models they have run, and they use that to make PREDICTIONS that they manipulate on their wigi boards like you do.
LikeLike
Basic Science.
Sunlight, Carbon dioxide, water and Oxygen and all essential ingredients for life. CO2 is plant food. It is not a pollutant like the propaganda keeps telling us.
LikeLike
Sorry that’s meant to be have been done (not how). Not only does increased CO2 help the size of the plant and the yield. The life of the plant is greatly increased as well.
But lets not shy away from the fact that despite the increase in CO2 over the last decade. Global Temperature has been dropping. How many years do we have to have cooling before we will admit to it.
LikeLike
Ed Says 12. CO2 levels are not “way down” from levels in modern human history — say, the last 100,000 years — but are instead way up. That’s the problem.
As I noted, plants already have all the CO2 they can use, and additional CO2 will not contribute to plant growth with the exception of a few weeds. Additional CO2 reduces yields of cereal grains — more growth in taller wheat and barley does no one any good, but is instead harmful to world food production.
Studies how been done by botanist on plants showing that increased CO2 levels greatly increased size and fruit yeild.
Read this to learn the positive effects of rising CO2
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256
LikeLike
AGW-Religion (Anthropogenic global warming) – rule 1
Never discuss the science
Attack the man – Repeat the mantra.
A few days ago hackers allegedly accessed the computer network at one of the world’s foremost climate change research centres, the Hadley Centre in the U.K. Copies of extensive email correspondence between many of the most prominent researchers promoting the climate crisis were posted on the web and the mainstream media have now jumped onto the story. I needn’t go into details here. Suffice it to say that along with the usual pettiness common to academia, the foul stench of scientific corruption has been released. This includes evidence of misleading selection and manipulation of data, the withholding and even destruction of data to prevent independent examination, as well as conspiracy to denigrate conflicting research and prevent its acceptance for publication. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In addition to the damming correspondence, a significant volume of scientific information was also released and is now being examined. Stand by for evidence of even greater malfeasance to emerge. If nothing else, what has already been revealed makes it clear that, regardless of whatever may be the real nature of AGW, the scientific proof for it is highly uncertain and conflicted. It is also clear that many of its leading proponents have been knowingly complicit in an ongoing scientific fraud the likes of which has never before been perpetrated. At his next public apology session the PM should feel a duty to add frightened children, coastal property owners, farmers, graziers, fishermen and climate sceptics to his list of those wronged.
Australia is better situated than any other nation to cope with energy constraints but can only do so by a full and rational utilisation of our resources. We cannot do so with a severely restricted productive sector having to support a parasitic majority of bureaucrats and drones whose only contribution to society is complaint about and interfere with those who support them. All this is not someday, maybe, if. It is staring us in the face. When are we going to wake up?
Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most senior and experienced marine biologists, with a professional career of studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems.
Taken from this site
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/six-degrees-and-rising
When are we going to wake up?
http://aefweb.info/
LikeLike
Nice picture of the boat on dry ground ed.
Looks like over irrigation caused the boat on dry ground that ed put up. Quite a sticking photo. I like it.
“The Aral crisis is the brightest example of the ecological problem with serious social and economic consequences, directly or indirectly connected with all the states of Central Asia. Critical situation caused by the Aral Sea drying off was the result of agrarian economy tendency on the basis of irrigated agriculture development and volume growth of irrevocable water consumption for irrigation”.
Conference of the Central Asian region ministers. States of Central Asia: Environment Assessment. Aarhus, Denmark, 1998.
http://enrin.grida.no/aral/aralsea/english/arsea/arsea.htm
LikeLike
AGW-Religion (Anthropogenic global warming)
– rule 1
Never discuss the science
Attack the man
– Repeat the mantra.
A few days ago hackers allegedly accessed the computer network at one of the world’s foremost climate change research centres, the Hadley Centre in the U.K. Copies of extensive email correspondence between many of the most prominent researchers promoting the climate crisis were posted on the web and the mainstream media have now jumped onto the story. I needn’t go into details here. Suffice it to say that along with the usual pettiness common to academia, the foul stench of scientific corruption has been released. This includes evidence of misleading selection and manipulation of data, the withholding and even destruction of data to prevent independent examination, as well as conspiracy to denigrate conflicting research and prevent its acceptance for publication.
In addition to the damming correspondence, a significant volume of scientific information was also released and is now being examined. Stand by for evidence of even greater malfeasance to emerge. If nothing else, what has already been revealed makes it clear that, regardless of whatever may be the real nature of AGW, the scientific proof for it is highly uncertain and conflicted. It is also clear that many of its leading proponents have been knowingly complicit in an ongoing scientific fraud the likes of which has never before been perpetrated. At his next public apology session the PM should feel a duty to add frightened children, coastal property owners, farmers, graziers, fishermen and climate sceptics to his list of those wronged.
Australia is better situated than any other nation to cope with energy constraints but can only do so by a full and rational utilisation of our resources. We cannot do so with a severely restricted productive sector having to support a parasitic majority of bureaucrats and drones whose only contribution to society is complaint about and interfere with those who support them. All this is not someday, maybe, if. It is staring us in the face. When are we going to wake up?
Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most senior and experienced marine biologists, with a professional career of studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems.
Taken from this site
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/six-degrees-and-rising
When are we going to wake up?
http://aefweb.info/
LikeLike
AGW-Religion (Anthropogenic global warming) – rule 1
Never discuss the science
Attack the man – Repeat the mantra.
A few days ago hackers allegedly accessed the computer network at one of the world’s foremost climate change research centres, the Hadley Centre in the U.K. Copies of extensive email correspondence between many of the most prominent researchers promoting the climate crisis were posted on the web and the mainstream media have now jumped onto the story. I needn’t go into details here. Suffice it to say that along with the usual pettiness common to academia, the foul stench of scientific corruption has been released. This includes evidence of misleading selection and manipulation of data, the withholding and even destruction of data to prevent independent examination, as well as conspiracy to denigrate conflicting research and prevent its acceptance for publication.
In addition to the damming correspondence, a significant volume of scientific information was also released and is now being examined. Stand by for evidence of even greater malfeasance to emerge. If nothing else, what has already been revealed makes it clear that, regardless of whatever may be the real nature of AGW, the scientific proof for it is highly uncertain and conflicted. It is also clear that many of its leading proponents have been knowingly complicit in an ongoing scientific fraud the likes of which has never before been perpetrated. At his next public apology session the PM should feel a duty to add frightened children, coastal property owners, farmers, graziers, fishermen and climate sceptics to his list of those wronged.
Australia is better situated than any other nation to cope with energy constraints but can only do so by a full and rational utilisation of our resources. We cannot do so with a severely restricted productive sector having to support a parasitic majority of bureaucrats and drones whose only contribution to society is complaint about and interfere with those who support them. All this is not someday, maybe, if. It is staring us in the face. When are we going to wake up?
Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most senior and experienced marine biologists, with a professional career of studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems.
Taken from this site
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/six-degrees-and-rising
When are we going to wake up?
http://aefweb.info/
LikeLike
This isn’t an issue of religion. Beliefs don’t cut it (Gore is a Baptist, and his belief is, as Baptists say, “in God, and Jesus Christ is my savior”).
You should be looking for facts and data, not beliefs.
This is a key difference between scientists and denialists. Denialists say what they wish were true, not what the data show.
LikeLike
Hello people.
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history.
When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
– UN IPCC Scientist DR. Kiminon Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”
-Dr. Takeda Kuunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research in Japan
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace.
Interesting 10 min Video I came across.
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/03/stop-global-whining-site-promo-music.html
Keep up the research people. This topic gets more and more fascinating as it goes.
LikeLike
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
Here is the website that has the actual ice core data.By the way,it is the same data as Al Gore’s.
Hope everyone has a great day! Smile just a little Ed!
;)
LikeLike
Thank you Ed, I apologize if what I wrote gave you harsher feelings towards me.I was merely curious why you acted like you knew him. I am after all a high school journalist and as you know journalists are very curious. Thank you for being honest about that, however I am a conservative and do not believe entirely with the idea of global warming, since I have seen the actual data that Gore bases his beliefs on. There is a cycle people.
LikeLike
Nice post ed. Good to see you taking off the gloves and showing your heart a little. I can respect that. Just want to know why we are still seeing a decline in temperatures since 1998 if co2 is supposed to be warming things up. I know we had an spike in temp in 98 due to el nino but there still has been a decline. As mentioned in the emails (climate gate) how top met scientists were trying to hide the decline and after they had been told to release there data they went about deleting it and ever said to each other that they were not going to show there information to anybody. These were the scientists that were collecting and processing all the collected weather information that the world needed to know about.
here’s an interesting quote from the opening of the Rio earth summit.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong
Founder of the UN environmental program.
Opening Speech
Rio Earth Summit 1992
If the west is brought down (which is what we are seeing unfold now) the nations that are already poor and dying now will get even poorer.
AL GORE’S MENTOR IN ALL OF THIS IS MAURICE STRONG
I personally haven’t read the entire article the link will take you to so I don’t know if the quote from Maurice Strong I wrote is mentioned there but I do know people who were at the conference and can remember him saying this. I’m sure more information could be found at http://www.google.com
Please study this more yourself.
LikeLike
I staffed the Senate Labor Committee while Gore was in the House of Representatives. He had a full slate of health, education and technology issues that fell into the jurisdiction of Senate Labor. Among other things, we got to see him close up fighting for a computer networking operation DARPA had that was slated to be zeroed out — Gore claimed there were commercial possibilities and we shouldn’t pull the plug on what was the Grandmother of the internet. Clearly he was right.
He was right about organ transplants, and big about it — writing the bill, doing all the heavy lifting, and then stepping back to let conservative Republicans get much (if not most) of the credit, in order to make it tougher for Reagan to veto. Reagan signed it. Gore stood up for orphan drugs, better pharmaceutical testing, tougher, and fast-track.
I was a lowly staffer, but on a couple of occasions we got stuck together for periods of good conversation — he wouldn’t admit to being an Orioles fan, but he attended a lot of the games and we passed each other going in and out of the old Memorial Stadium — where his son, Al, was hit and critically injured on opening day one year.
As you know, Gore put his political life on hold for more than two years to take a large, personal role in the recovery and rehabilitation of his son. Rather than take credit for his huge, wonderful and selfless act, he noted that he had a job that would allow a person to take care of family business — and he wondered why we didn’t have that right extended to more people, in one speech I heard him give. I haven’t checked, but I’ll wager he played a role in the passing of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
We haven’t run into each other much since I left Senate staff — a few conventions here and there, and when he was running for president in 1988, on the way into and out of Des Moines. I was working for an airline, flying first class. He flew coach. The first time we flew Chicago to Des Moines he stopped me on the way out and asked, knowing better, if I still staffed the Senate. We laughed about my flying first class while he took coach, which he said he didn’t have to, but it saved his campaign a lot of money. In my experience, he’s always been very pragmatic that way.
But then, I’ve admired him since he volunteered, first for the Army, and then for Vietnam. His father could have gotten him out of it, or gotten him a nice, safe, stateside assignment, as Pat Robertson’s senator father did for him. But, as he noted at the time, that would have been unseemly. His father, you recall, was an opponent of the Vietnam War by then.
We’re not close friends. I’m one of probably a hundred thousand people who’ve known and worked with him on projects over the years.
In every case I’ve seen, Gore demonstrated the highest possible ethics and character. He lives by the Boy Scout Law, and he doesn’t take on issues for political purposes, but because the issue is one where he can make the world a better place.
It’s funny watching y’all denigrate this man, remembering Lincoln’s old story about how you can’t make a small man bigger by cutting off the legs of a truly bigger man.
I’ve seen a lot of politicians very close, for a very long time. Gore is one of the better men we’ve had in Congress in the last 100 years, maybe longer.
Saving babies is good work, the sort of stuff God smiles on. Your characterizing it as a “frolic in the flowers” says all we realy need to know about you and your character. See the Lincoln note, above.
LikeLike
I missed so much in one day. Ed you still haven’t answered my previous question. Do you and Al Gore frolic in the flowers together after work? Are you guys best friends? I would like a little more information about that before I’ll believe your “he’s the greatest mind I know” speech.
Props to Hexmate and Matt. I seriously think we need to have a powwow sometime.Sorry Ed, no liberals allowed!
JK
LikeLike
Nick said: “*yawns* Wow, Hex, you’re even ignorant and boring 16 times over.”
Wow Nick that is a very creative and intellectual response. Were you born with rectal cranial inversion or did you just grow into it?
LikeLike
Ed said: “Who said it then, Hexmate? You speak so convinced, but not convincingly. Where am I in error on this quote? Typical anti-knowledge rube, Hex — making false claims you can’t possibly corroborate.
Nice rambling, incoherent rant Ed. Have you always been this demented? It appears that you are suffering from a lack of oxygen Ed. Better get to the ER before you pass out.
LikeLike
Should have been: “Caution! This article contains some facts, not necessarily related to logic! You may not use this for policy!”
What is it conservatives have against fact-based studies, reading, conclusions, and policy?
LikeLike
Bob Carter.
An analysis of the facts of climate change.
-+-[ This is link to a great 4 part video. ]-+-
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/videos/bobcarter.html
LikeLike
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html
More very interesting reading. Caution! This article contains facts and logic. You may not like it if you are a liberal. :-)
LikeLike
You seriously claim it wasn’t Twain? The old Greeks were right — empty vessels make the most noise.
Who said it then, Hexmate? You speak so convinced, but not convincingly.
Where am I in error on this quote?
Typical anti-knowledge rube, Hex — making false claims you can’t possibly corroborate.
Prove to us you’re not a liar, and give us the citation.
LikeLike
*yawns*
Wow, Hex, you’re even ignorant and boring 16 times over.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Twain also commented on skeptics of global warming. He said (through Tom Sawyer), “Ain’t we got every fool in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?”
No Ed he didn’t, but you have proven you are an expert at manipulating a statement to fit your paradigm. Of course you would qualify as a fool but you aren’t in the majority Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “This isn’t the only gap in your memory, you know.”
Ed I hope there is gap big enough to extract your head from your rectum.
LikeLike
Ed said: “How would you know deceit about climate issues? How could you possibly tell someone were lying to you?”
Ed you can’t so how can you claim someone else can’t. You have been duped Ed!
LikeLike
Ed said: “In an age of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
This is excellent Ed! You should try telling the truth some time it is good for the soul.
LikeLike
Ed said: “May we come measure the size and density of your head? All in the interests of science, you know, working to deny that claim.”
Ed you just let us know when the surgeons remove your head from your rectum and we’ll be there with the tape measure.
LikeLike
Ed said: “The enemy is stupidity. There’s a famous saying that it is not true that hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe: Stupidity is.”
So Ed you are the ENEMY!? No Ed – you are the maggot, remember?
LikeLike
Ed said: “May we lock you in a room with a 10% concentration of CO2? (Here’s an article for the terminally ill-informed about CO2.)”
Ed is this what you have been doing for recreational fun? I told you that it was bad for your RCI to participate in recreational activities that are bad for your health.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Go look up the effects of particulate and aerosol pollution. Note especially when they were largely controlled.”
There you go again Ed – no data or facts just off on some rambling statement that is irrelevant. Please Ed get to the hospital now, your RCI is reaching the point of no return.
LikeLike
Ed said: “It is true that life expectancy is longer in those nations that waste resources and use an inappropriate share of fossil fuels, and thereby contribute most to CO2 pollution and global warming.”
Well Ed again, you gotta show your work and provide the data to prove this point that you are trying to make whatever that is. Otherwise Ed it is just more of your BS you are spewing out.
LikeLike
Ed said: “As I noted, plants already have all the CO2 they can use, and additional CO2 will not contribute to plant growth with the exception of a few weeds. Additional CO2 reduces yields of cereal grains — more growth in taller wheat and barley does no one any good, but is instead harmful to world food production.”
Ed we’re going to need some data to prove this one otherwise we’ll have to declare it more BS because you have no proof. You keep demanding proof Ed but you can’t provide any.
LikeLike
Ed said: “All that manure you’re leaving here is contributing mightily to greenhouse gas pollution.”
Ed this site is predicated on BS – YOURS! That would make you the king of pollution Ed!
LikeLike
Ed said: “I have tree stumps in my yard who wouldn’t make such fool statements.”
Ed only you would have tree stumps on your yard that could talk. You been eating them mushrooms again Ed?
LikeLike
Ed said: “It is also true that most drug users started out on mothers’ milk. Claiming that mothers’ milk causes drug dependency is not a better claim than the one you’ve made here.”
Ed I told you to get to the doctor and get that rectal cranial inversion taken care of. This proof positive that you becoming delusional.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Yeah, and if I choke off your esophagus, you use a lot less air, and that would benefit you — somehow, I’m not sure how, but perhaps by killing those rogue cells in your brain. Plus, I have a bridge across San Francisco Bay that I’m willing to give you a very good price on.”
We should be so lucky to have this happen to you and it would only serve you right, but it would cut down on air pollution. Ed you need a bridge across your behind to pull your head out of your butt so move it from San Francisco Bay and save yourself before you suffocate.
LikeLike
Ed said: “In general, your claim that our use of fossil fuels — coal, petroleum products and natural gas — doesn’t contribute to CO2 levels is dead wrong.”
No Ed you are dead wrong, but then you are dead from the neck up Ed. That is because of that rectal cranial inversion syndrome you suffer from.
LikeLike
Ed said: “You should probably be alerted that I worked professionally as a botanist in air pollution for several years.”
Ed this explains why you stink. You were working in all that excrement thus you are now spewing out all that crap you that you absorbed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “As I said, you have homework to do. A lot of homework. An awful lot of homework.”
Ed you have a lot more than homework to do. You need to start digging around for some credibility.
LikeLike
Ed said: “He didn’t get to be a millionaire by being stupid. That he won’t put his own money to make the case against warming tells you something. What do you suppose that is?”
Ed you didn’t get to be a millionaire so you must be stupid based on that analysis. Now we know why you are a BS artist and can’t make your case for global warming. Thanks for clarifying that for us Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Your statement is also the perfect example of a bald faced lie, if it’s unsupported by evidence.
Got evidence?”
Ed you keep demanding evidence yet you can produce none. All you offer up is the predictions of a bunch of lunatics that you say are experts. Expert what? Just like you Ed they are parasites living off of the accomplishments of others and presenting phoney credentials.
LikeLike
Ed said: “It would be were it not 100% factually correct. I notice that once again you offer not a scintilla of evidence to contradict that press information from the IPCC.”
No Ed, you have no proof and neither do these idiots. There are no facts being produced by these morons. It is all based on innuendo, postulations, predictions, just like the weatherman. Nothing they produce is a fact. Where is your proof Ed? You don’t have any! Show me your evidence Ed. All you can do dig through your tea leaves and predict what might happen. That isn’t proof Ed. That’s why you are a parasite Ed – you try to rely on work other people have done which is why I pegged you as a parasite. Now crawl off like the maggot you really are Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Not “many disagree.” A tiny handful.”
Eddie! We know this is bullshit! You must think everyone is gullible Ed. They’re not!
LikeLike
It would be were it not 100% factually correct. I notice that once again you offer not a scintilla of evidence to contradict that press information from the IPCC.
Your statement is also the perfect example of a bald faced lie, if it’s unsupported by evidence.
Got evidence?
LikeLike
Are you guys best friends or what?
LikeLike
Ed by the way, why are you talking about Al Gore like you and he frolic in the flowers when you were writing in response to my comment? Just curious, not to be taken offensively. ;)
LikeLike
Way to go Hexmate!
LikeLike
Hexmate I think you and I could be best friends. You brought up some really insightful points!
LikeLike
Ed said: “Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.”
This would be the perfect example of bald face lie Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Note that IPCC pays particular attention to sustainability issues — that is, what can we afford to do? In this area especially, critics of the IPCC, so-called climate skeptics and other denialists have been unusually quiet.”
Ed this statement is bullshit again. This group has no clue when it comes to evaluating the cost impact and neither do you. You are lying again Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Interestingly, Monckton is not among them that I can find. Is he fibbing when he wears a “Nobel Award pin?.” If he’ll fib in small ways — and he’s quite petty about this — in what will he not fib?”
Ed you fib all the time! That sort of puts things in perspective Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Don’t believe anything you hear, only half of what you read, and don’t get fooled by sleight-of-hand or sleight-of-documentation tricks.”
This is especially true if it is coming from Ed. He has rectal cranial inversion so you can count on him talking through his butt.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Don’t believe anything you hear, only half of what you read, and don’t get fooled by sleight-of-hand or sleight-of-documentation tricks. IPCC conducts its business in the open, with documents freely available — and has done since its founding in 1988. You don’t know who is on the IPCC, nor how it functions? You’re 21 years behind. Time for you to do some serious homework.
Here’s the report from the March 2009 meeting. Experts only at that one.”
Ed quit trying to blow sunshine up everyones butt, you don’t even know these yahoos. LOL!
LikeLike
Ed said: “2. Look it up for yourself. It’s an international, intergovernmental panel devoted to doing the right thing for the people and the planet (in that order) with regard to warming problems allegedly caused by human activities.
By its own description, it has got more than 2,000 people, top scientists, advising it on what to do.”
No Ed this group is a bunch of phoney misfits who are trying to pull off a farce just like you are. They have no proof just like you don’t. JUST PURE SPECULATION THAT YOU WANT TO IMPOSE.
LikeLike
Ed said: “1. The judge in the British case said Monckton was dead wrong on 26 of his claims of error. You do the math: A guy who is wrong 74% of the time on his own claims isn’t to be trusted more than three quarters of the time his mouth is working.”
No Ed this is bullshit and you know it.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Lord Monckton does grave disservice to Britain and to all other nobles when he reduces his rant to made-up tales.”
Ah, no Ed you are the one doing the disservice because you are making up everything, with a little help from your friends. You are a liar and a fraud Ed.
The rate of rise in arctic air temperatures from 1975 to 2000 runs roughly parallel to the rate of increase in our use of hydrocarbons for the same period, during the preceding period from 1940 to 1975, they run in exactly the opposite way. The second thing is that the rate of rise during the longer period from 1880 to 1940, which goes up at just about the same rate as the rise from 1975 to 2000, has virtually no similarity at all to the rate of increase in our use of hydrocarbons for THAT same period. 2 more things in order to bury the CO2 myth for good. The first is to point out that the 200 years of warming that led to the peak of the medieval warm period, clearly had nothing to do with rising levels of CO2, because man had hardly even begun to use hydrocarbon based fuels, and second, that during the same period from roughly 1880 to 2000 while the earth was warming, the temperatures on Mars and the moons of Jupiter, were going up at virtually the same rate as the earth’s, and they CLEARLY had nothing to do with the use of hydrocarbon based fuels. This of course leads us to the obvious conclusion that SOLAR ACTIVITY which almost perfectly parallels the entire rise in arctic air temperature and thus points out: IT’S THE SUN, STUPID !!!
LikeLike
Matt,
Lord Monckton does grave disservice to Britain and to all other nobles when he reduces his rant to made-up tales.
1. The judge in the British case said Monckton was dead wrong on 26 of his claims of error. You do the math: A guy who is wrong 74% of the time on his own claims isn’t to be trusted more than three quarters of the time his mouth is working.
2. Look it up for yourself. It’s an international, intergovernmental panel devoted to doing the right thing for the people and the planet (in that order) with regard to warming problems allegedly caused by human activities.
By its own description, it has got more than 2,000 people, top scientists, advising it on what to do.
Generally there will be at least one policy guy and one scientist working for each nation — do the math again: (100 nations X 1 scientist/nation) + (100 nations X 1 policy guy/nation) = 200 people, including 100 scientists.
Can you think of any other case where 100 nations have cooperated to get the best reports possible on a scientific question? Policy question? Your attempt to denigrate the authority of the IPCC is naive and puerile, and ugly. Surely you will change your mind with information.
Don’t believe anything you hear, only half of what you read, and don’t get fooled by sleight-of-hand or sleight-of-documentation tricks. IPCC conducts its business in the open, with documents freely available — and has done since its founding in 1988. You don’t know who is on the IPCC, nor how it functions? You’re 21 years behind. Time for you to do some serious homework.
Here’s the report from the March 2009 meeting. Experts only at that one.
Here’s how the panel is organized (note that it calls itself a “scientific organization;” you should take that to the bank).
Here’s a description of the three working groups, the task force, and the task group.
Check out the description of how the panel works here, and note particularly that it does no research on its own, but instead relies on the research of thousands of others. IPCC considers all published research. If someone claims their views are not represented, it is because their views have not been published with supporting data in a form that they might be considered. That includes everything Monckton complains about — why in the world can’t he write a paper and get it published, if he has contradicting data?
Interestingly, Monckton is not among them that I can find. Is he fibbing when he wears a “Nobel Award pin?.” If he’ll fib in small ways — and he’s quite petty about this — in what will he not fib?
Note that IPCC pays particular attention to sustainability issues — that is, what can we afford to do? In this area especially, critics of the IPCC, so-called climate skeptics and other denialists have been unusually quiet. Some use they are.
5. I’d like to see documentation on such a bold statement, which seems contraindicated in every research journal I can find. Here’s the Nobel Committee’s description:
There’s an outside chance you’re smarter than the Nobel Committee, but over the past 100+ years, smart money listens to the Nobel Committees.
Not “many disagree.” A tiny handful. No one who has ever published a paper challenging any aspect of IPCC’s information gathering or science reports. You’d think that, if they disagreed on the science, they’d have some science to back their positions, wouldn’t you?
But they don’t. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the journal indices. Check Pub-Med. See if you can find any peer-review research which runs contrary to IPCC’s AR-4 report. I dare you.
6. What would he sue Gore for? It’s a public service to get good information put into visual format. It costs Coleman nothing. Gore might have a good libel suit against Coleman, but the principles of Times v. Sullivan would complicate matters a little. Coleman knows that, and like a tiny chihuahau safe from the tiger by the cage the chihuahua is in, Coleman barks incessantly. He’s really very annoying, don’t you think?
Coleman is a millionaire. He could personally finance studies to back his positions, and yet he’s published nothing in the research journals, he’s financed no research. He didn’t get to be a millionaire by being stupid. That he won’t put his own money to make the case against warming tells you something. What do you suppose that is?
7. Controlling water vapor to prevent runaway greenhouse effect is a wonderful idea!
Just how do you propose to do that?
Get back to us when you get a plan.
Remember, IPCC is looking for affordable solutions. You think you’re smarter than 2,000 of the world’s best atmospheric and climate scientists? You think that hasn’t been thought of?
As I said, you have homework to do. A lot of homework. An awful lot of homework.
Matt said (hey, I can’t make this up — look at his original post):
A lot of homework. Got the figures on CO2 from volcanoes, cows and insects? Let’s see them.
8. Now, what is your proposal that will control CO2 from cows more cheaply than from powerplant smokestacks?
Get back to us when you have some cost estimates. Before you start calculating, see if you can buy a clue about how the universe works.
9. Under that definition, there is no such thing as air pollution.
You should probably be alerted that I worked professionally as a botanist in air pollution for several years.
10. Yes, plants use CO2. Plants would be happy with about a 0.009% concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Present CO2 levels are more than 4 times that high and climbing. The excess CO2 cannot be used by plants, and becomes air pollution. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, functioning to the Earth as the window glass in a greenhouse does, to warm us up. Alas, CO2’s ability to warm the planet keeps rising, and so does the temperature on the planet.
11. In general, your claim that our use of fossil fuels — coal, petroleum products and natural gas — doesn’t contribute to CO2 levels is dead wrong. If you wish to dispute my characterization of your understanding of this issue as naive, with claims like the one you’re making now, we’ll have to change the valuation to “evil,” if your view is not just based on massive ignorance.
All that manure you’re leaving here is contributing mightily to greenhouse gas pollution.
12. CO2 levels are not “way down” from levels in modern human history — say, the last 100,000 years — but are instead way up. That’s the problem.
As I noted, plants already have all the CO2 they can use, and additional CO2 will not contribute to plant growth with the exception of a few weeds. Additional CO2 reduces yields of cereal grains — more growth in taller wheat and barley does no one any good, but is instead harmful to world food production.
You’ve never studied botany, have you.
You know, I thought you didn’t know much. But that’s just an evil lie. I’ll call your bluff: What data are you talking about? Show us the paper that makes that claim. Desertification across Africa, Asia, North America and South America is a major problem. You’re claiming that desertification has reversed somewhere?
13. Bullshit.
See this picture of the former Aral Sea:
Yeah, and if I choke off your esophagus, you use a lot less air, and that would benefit you — somehow, I’m not sure how, but perhaps by killing those rogue cells in your brain. Plus, I have a bridge across San Francisco Bay that I’m willing to give you a very good price on.
14. More bullshit.
15. It is true that life expectancy is longer in those nations that waste resources and use an inappropriate share of fossil fuels, and thereby contribute most to CO2 pollution and global warming.
But there is no cause-effect chain there. You have made a post hoc ergo propter hoc error. It is also true that most drug users started out on mothers’ milk. Claiming that mothers’ milk causes drug dependency is not a better claim than the one you’ve made here.
It is true that CO2 pollution ultimately reduces the production of mothers’ milk as mothers die off (see Subsaharan Africa). Consequently, there are fewer kids to get hooked on drugs (they die, or are not even conceived), and ultimately a reduction in illegal drug use. I’d go on, but I’m probably confusing you. (Watch what Monckton does with these claims.)
16. Not weird, just astoundingly ill-informed and ill-tempered.
17. I have, over the past 30 years. Take your own advice. Call me when you’ve read 100 journal articles.
18. I have tree stumps in my yard who wouldn’t make such fool statements.
19. Go look up the effects of particulate and aerosol pollution. Note especially when they were largely controlled.
20. May we lock you in a room with a 10% concentration of CO2? (Here’s an article for the terminally ill-informed about CO2.)
The enemy is stupidity. There’s a famous saying that it is not true that hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe: Stupidity is.
May we come measure the size and density of your head? All in the interests of science, you know, working to deny that claim.
21. But telling lies cribbed from professional liars is commonplace, mean and rude (look ’em up before you leap to conclusions). There’s nothing revolutionary about standing up for bigotry and ignorance.
How would you know deceit about climate issues? How could you possibly tell someone were lying to you?
That quote is usually attributed to George Orwell. Can you verify the quote? If you can’t verify it quickly, how can you possibly know how to verify claims made against warming by people determined to mislead you?
This isn’t the only gap in your memory, you know.
Oh, that one’s Mark Twain.
22. Twain also commented on skeptics of global warming. He said (through Tom Sawyer), “Ain’t we got every fool in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?”
Don’t get too comfortable being in a majority.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Coleman has a First Amendment Right to be stupid, and to believe stupid things. He has no right to force smart people to stop shouting the truth.
Ed! Nice that you recognize you also have that right to be stupid, excellent job of achieving that goal Ed, being stupid that is. The TRUTH! Ed you couldn’t come up with a true statment if your life depended on it. Wow Ed! That rectal cranial inversion you have has really flared up! You better get that looked at, you might have an infection cranking up there.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I wouldn’t know. I’ve never had a stick up my butt, and my physician does an annual check.”
Oh Ed – yes you have! Don’t you remember that little experiment you were trying out? Pull your pants up Ed!
LikeLike
You’re joking, of course.
Coleman has a First Amendment Right to be stupid, and to believe stupid things. He has no right to force smart people to stop shouting the truth.
30,000 scientists? How many engineers? (That’s a joke about creationists, actually.)
LikeLike
Click to access monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
Sorry people. Didn’t have time to read all the posts. Was some interesting stuff mentioned? I do believe that attacking someone’s character rather than discussing the issues is often a sing someone feels backed into a corner by the facts. The link is to a PDF showing 35 inconvenient truths. Also I heard that the IPCC consists of only about 50 scientists, the rest are political people just making up the numbers. Also there isn’t a consensus on the issue of global warming. Many scientists in the IPCC itself disagree. Also does anyone know how John Coleman from the weather channel with the backing of over 30,000 scientists (9000 PhDs) got on taking Al Gore to court oven the issue at hand?
Also should we ban watervaper. This is by far the biggest greenhouse gas?
What about insects as they produce more co2 than humans, or rotting vegetation as this produces far more than us too? And we could plug up all the volcanoes as if several of them went off there would be a massive co2 release. Let’s face it. Mans tiny contribution
of the total co2 isn’t going to change things much at all. Co2 is not a pollutant. Plants take in CO2 and use the carbon to bulk up and release the oxygen for us to breath. At present CO2 levels are way down on what they have been in the past and an increase would actually help plant life and in turn help animals and us. Crop production would be better. Forests would do better. Our planet according to satellite data is greening up due to increases in CO2. There is a huge amount of it stored in the massive amounts of coal and oil around the planet and burning it would release it into the atmosphere and help the plants more and in turn us. Stats show that the more CO2 a country burns the higher the average life expectance. If we try and limit the CO2 emitions we are showing ourselves
to be anti the environment (or anti human as humans are part of the environment).
This may seam like a weird stance to a lot of you for me to take & no I am not being funded by the oil companies (I have been accused of that by greenies). I’d like some of there money as my gas needle hardly ever gets over the half mark. Please research this
for yourself. Most of the warming over the last 150 years accrued before 1945 when mans co2 emotions weren’t very high at all as there was very little production.
After WW2 (post War economic boom) way more co2 was being released into the atmosphere but temperatures instead of rising actually fell for 3 decades until the 1970’s.
CO2 is not the enemy. It’s essential for life. I love CO2.
Can’t remember who said this but it’s a good one.
In an age of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
And before anyone comments on bad spelling remember that it’s a poor kind of mind that
can think of only one way to spell a word. I think the spell checker got most of them anyway.
LikeLike
Erin said:
Threatened? Look at the date on this post, Erin — August 16. My only concern at that time was the astounding falsehoods promulgated by this film — all of which are still false. Were there a case to be made against warming, it would not rely on liars finding gullible marks. It would not need to have a film like this one — and would run from such a film were there an ethical case to be made.
Why do you hang your hat with such a group?
Not only does this film fail to make a case against warming, no case has been made since, either. Ice in the Arctic still melts more than it should for sustainable wildlife; birds have not returned to their traditional migratory trails; palm trees are used as landscaping in Dallas. Warming is a fact.
What caused the warming, and will it stop, or can it be stopped? The best case remains that warming is caused by astounding releases of CO2 into the atmosphere, releases that were masked for years by particular and aerosol air pollution. Once the particulates and aerosols were significantly cleaned up, the greenhouse gases were unopposed — and still are.
That case hasn’t been touched by anyone. There are a lot of press releases, but almost no research (and you know, a chemistry Nobel would be swiftly awarded to anyone who could produce the good news that the Earth isn’t warming, or that it’s a mere cycle and will soon cease).
I’m threatened by air pollution, and so are you. The question is, why aren’t you working to stop it?
I wouldn’t know. I’ve never had a stick up my butt, and my physician does an annual check.
Not only do I not “know” that Al Gore asked for illegal and unethical manipulation of data, I’ll wager you can’t find a credible source to make that claim. It’s false. That would be a federal crime for someone like James Hansen, or any of a number of other U.S. researchers. It would ruin Gore’s political capital, and he’s a smart guy.
Moreover, he’s among the most ethical people I’ve ever dealt with. He’s an old Boy Scout, and he still follows the Scout Law.
A lot of calumny, a lot of false charges without any hint of evidence in a short piece, there, Erin.
It’s not my conceit that you’ve displayed.
You’ll also notice that the producers of the film never returned to defend their accuracy as they had promised, as I had hoped they might. I suspect they did some fact checking instead, and hope their inaccuracies will not be noticed by anyone.
LikeLike
ED are you threatened by the fact that the farce liberals have created in the past couple of years has finally been seen for what it really is? I think that you’re just another upset liberal/democrat that has a stick up his butt. Face the facts. We already know that Al Gore asked the scientists he interviewed to manipulate their data for his film. Get over yourself.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I didn’t think you’d read it, or if you had read it, that you have any possible response based on the facts. I see I was right.”
Ed you shouldn’t try thinking with that rectal cranial inversion problem you have – you could hurt itself. Ed, the facts are that you are full of BS, you are perpetrating a fraud, and you haven’t presented one fact at any time from the beginning of this charade you started. Now pull your pants up!
LikeLike
Well, I don’t see the british courts derailing this movie for use in schools. (I saw it in school) They must have been wrong about Al Gore’s film then. Right? Because that’s the “truth”, right? Silly justice.
LikeLike
Hexmate said:
I didn’t think you’d read it, or if you had read it, that you have any possible response based on the facts.
I see I was right.
LikeLike
Ed said: “See above. I detail nine in the trailer.”
Come on Ed you know all that crap you put up there is nothing more than an erroneous smoke screen to try and derail the facts. Everyone already knows Gore is a liar – just like you! Birds of feather Ed! Pull those feathers out of your butt Ed and pull up your pants.
LikeLike
Moderation said: “Ed, by now you should realize that “what you find” or your analysis of things doesnt hold a lot of weight with me. So when you say that you “cant find any evidence” I am more likely to belive that you didnt look hard enough.”
Moderation you should know by now that Ed can’t find his pants so Ed looking for evidence is like Stevie Wonder taking a driving test. Ed wouldn’t know evidence if he ran into it.
LikeLike
See above. I detail nine in the trailer. Did they edit those out? No?
You want to make a case they are not errors? Here’s the forum.
LikeLike
There aren’t any errors in this film, unlike Gore’s, which have nine significant errors, and now has to have a permission slip signed for children to view it Democrats are angry because this exploits everything that they stand for and shows the American and people of the world that they are exaggerating the truth in their favor and or replacing them with lies and logical fallacies. I’m sorry to tell you all the truth, but Al Gore is the biggest liar on the face of the planet, and the republican party and the filmmakers of “Not Evil,Just Wrong” are right to exploit this. Every news media in the country, with the exception of Fox and talk radio are all biased in the democrats favor. Sorry guys, but the truth sucks.
;)
LikeLike
Yeah, Errors are only errors in the mind of “liberals” if they go against what they have been taught and what they believe.
Bye the way folks, Liberal, USED to mean open minded to new ideas. Looks like your not so liberal after all.
LikeLike
You cannot cry foul without stating your “true facts”. Your name calling and quotes of “lies lies lies” and “wrong wrong wrong” do not prove your point. ERGO – you have not proved your point – you have only ranted. Science is NOT on your side – emotion is what YOUR side is about. Grow up. Your side is the wrong side.
LikeLike
“I have attempted to stick to evidence and avoid these immature comments, but sadly that is not the case for Ed and Hex.”
Ah… I like this Moderation, but I find that Ed begets what he begot. He deserves no respect because he gives none. Never has, never will. He belittles and brow beats anyone who presents the opposite point of view, he dismisses any data presented and tries to demean that information in order to debunk it by claiming it is obtained without authority or is from some crackpot. Unfortunately Ed is the crackpot and can present nothing that refutes the fact that global warming is nothing more than a farce being perpetrated by himself, and the likes of Al Gore for pure profit. His behavior is consistent with his immaturity and thus he draws the appropriate responses and will continue to draw those responses. It is only proper to give Ed and this website that level of respect and regard, since that is what he, and it have earned. You see there are things in life that are serious like Vietnam, but this is not serious, and it does not deserve to be regarded as serious – it is a fraud and a scam. However I like Ed, so I think I’ll hang around to keep him company. Besides he needs someone to tell him when his pants are hanging around his ankles which seems to happen quite frequently.
LikeLike