Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Quote of the day

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...

Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports


  1. "we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements"

    sounds like the basic M.O. for the conspiracy sites you draw on and pundits like Glen Beck

  2. Right, Bob. Here's the rest of the story

  3. Climategate: it's all unravelling now
    Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time.
    Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.
    Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits The Copenhagen Post
    Denmark rife with CO2 fraud
    Scams in many countries are subject to investigation by authorities

    Authorities in several countries investigate VAT tax fraud stemming from the Danish CO2 quota register

    Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel’, reports Ekstra Bladet newspaper.

    Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries.

    Hats off to The Daily Express – the first British newspaper to make the AGW scam its front page story....

    Sorry, Bob. You're on the wrong side of this one, too. Why is it you are so easily led down the path?

  4. "Sorry, Bob. You're on the wrong side of this one, too. Why is it you are so easily led down the path?"

    Maybe because he chooses to believe that a conclusion that is endorsed by 99.99% of the scientists in this field is true.

  5. 99% agreement is Saddam Hussein numbers bub.

    Absolutely false.

  6. 99% agreement is Saddam Hussein numbers bub.

    Absolutely false.

  7. I don't usually watch Beck, Bob - what was he up to today?

  8. Even former Governor Palin noted how Global Warming was affecting Alaska:

    "First of all let me make it clear that the State of Alaska understands the effects of climate change in the cryosphere. We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington. The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us."

  9. Now you're lying to make a point. 99.99% is absolutely true, as you know.

    You are trying to build a case based on the bought testimony of a few oil company sponsored whores and a handful of flat out cranks.

  10. Ever hear of the gong show? Enhhh You lose.

  11. Ignoring the Palin quote Rose?

  12. "Anon" - If you can't figure out whether or not I agree with that comment after all the time you spend here and all the discussions we have had and are having, then you are really wasting your time here. Go find a nice Palin-bashing blog where you will have more fun.

  13. So you disagree 100% with Palin's statement?

  14. Palin might be mistaken in that she doesn't realize things like this have happened many times throughout history.

    One thing that keeps getting lost in the argument here is that no one should be disputing climate change occurs. It certainly has through the millenia and will continue to go on. The issue is how much human activity contributes to global climate change, assuming man contributes at all.

    I don't know the context of Palin's quote, but for someone to say climate change is causing problems in a given area might be totally appropriate, as long as they don't suggest that change is taking place because of human activity. Not sure if Palin implied that, but many people- especially those in the media- assume that when one mentions climate change they also intend it to be meant as human caused climate change.

    As an aside, I noticed this morning CNN is trying to downplay the Climategate issue.

  15. I believe the debate is over the actual contribution of anthropogenic forcings to the observed climate changes. It appears from the record coming out that there has been manipulation of data, undocumented corrections to the data, and political attack of scientists that have spoken out against the apparently unscientific methods used to form conclusions.

    Of course, the personal attacks on those that disagree are indicative of the crumbling facade of science put up by the proponents of manmade climate change.

  16. Maybe Anon 3:17 PM should rethink that "99.99999%" fairy tale statistic in view of this item:

    "But the startling development is that, slowly, inch by inch, the mainstream media in America are being forced to address Climategate. Even ABC has now run an even-handed debate on the revelations. One of the causes of this new realism, after 12 days, has been the number of senior scientists breaking ranks to denounce the scandal and express reservations about AGW."

    Now that the warmistas have lost at least partially their ability to intimidate and bully those scientists who are skeptical of their dogmas, the unraveling of the entire scam will accelerate. The last, however to abandon the sinking warmista religion will be its high priests in government who stood to profit the most e.g. Babs Boxer.

    Cheer up guys. There is always the "anthropogenic asteroid impact" possibility.

  17. ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ ..... I am SO stealing that.

    But how do we make money from the idea....hmmm....


  18. You people don't understand how science works. You begin with a hypothesis: water boils at 100C. You then invite others to test it. If in fact water does boil at 100C all over the world, at say, 1,000 locations, it is held to be a fact.

    At that point, if a handful of cranks decide not to believe what 99.99% of the scientific community has established as true, that does not make it less true. Indeed, despite their protests water will still boil at 100 C.

  19. 4:36 PM, Anyone can test the hypothesis that water will boil at 100C if given the data necessary to replicate the experiment. Heat applied to a given quantity of water by anyone will cause it to vaporize when it reaches the measurable temp of 100C at sea level. But if scientists applying heat to water in Denver Colorado proclaim that water boils at 93C and refuse to reveal the location and atmospheric pressure obtaining during their lab experiment there are a certain number of ignorant boobs who will proclaim a "consensus".

    The straw man ploy utilized in your second paragraph does not wash.

  20. The statement that 99% of the world's scientists agreed is absolutely and patently false - so it is impossible to even begin a discussion with you.

  21. anon wrote,"Maybe because he chooses to believe that a conclusion that is endorsed by 99.99% of the scientists in this field is true."

    I have serious doubts about any scientist who comes to a conclusion on any matter they are studying.It isn't the job of the scientist to conclude,they are the ones who should be presenting the facts and thoroughly studying the "science".The conclusions should be brought about by those who have those findings presented to them.

  22. mresq,

    It certainly IS the job of a scientist to draw conclusions which are supported by research.

  23. "The statement that 99% of the world's scientists agreed is absolutely and patently false - so it is impossible to even begin a discussion with you."

    Actually, the number is probably a bit higher. This is truly a "flat earth" discussion, held by a bunch of science illiterates.

  24. You know 98 % of stats are made up on the spot

  25. Such as your comment Rose?

  26. OH, by the way, Al Gore, the premier speaker for the Copenhagen Conference, has cancelled his speech as well as any other appearance at the Copenhagen Conference.

    Gee!, I wonder Why?

    Will ObamaNation Cancel now Too?

  27. Global Warming is a recognized threat by 99.99% of the scientific community, including the entire physical science department at Stanford, Princeton and Yale.

    All you have is a handful of cranks and oil company whores. It's a truly pathetic display of blind party unity. You don't like Al Gore, so you're willing to let the whole earth go to hell.

  28. humboldt heretic12/04/2009 5:38 PM

    If 99% is the figure for scientific warmistas then it is obvious that there are a lot more government whores than oil company ones. The difference of course is that government grants come from cash that has been seized from the taxpayers at gunpoint.

  29. You will have to work your paranoia about the government somewhere else. Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Stanford are private institutions.

  30. And "scietists" at those institutions don't receive government grants?
    YOU ought to do your homework.

  31. humboldt heretic12/07/2009 10:46 AM

    7:24 AM, Let me help you out a little. Try going HERE and have a nice day.

  32. Yes, your government is trying to do something about global climate change by funding work on this subject at all our leading Universities. The evidence is in from a thousand good sources. It's time to take action.

    And if you can't connect those dots, you're either seriously paranoid or stupid.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.