Today's potentially infamous gathering will employ the time honored and ubiquitous mechanism of fear in order to force the nations of the world into compliance with the UN's onerous program. "Our last chance is upon us" -or words to that effect- have been uttered for the purpose of forcing us all to fall in line with the UN diktat. Should we fail to do so we will all suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous GLOBAL WARMING!
Fortunately, the UN hacks, who are proffering this message of doom, have been undermined by an intrepid hack on the personal e-mails of the scientists who have led the way in pushing the message that "mankind is primarily-if not solely- responsible for global warming." Thanks to the hackers, we now have the very strong suggestion, verging on proof, that the science behind the claims of "anthropogenic" global warming is utterly concocted from bogus data.
In the meantime, the UN, despite the shameful and damning recent revelations, appear to be going full steam ahead with their climate scam, and will attempt, at this convocation, to institute their destructive agenda. Should their plans come to fruition, they will be ruinous to the economies of the west who would be taxed into penury to pay for all manner of nonsensical "green" modifications. It will be up to all of us to insure that the outcome of this day (week, really) of infamy has the same ultimate outcome as the day of infamy that occurred over half a century ago today.
9 comments:
No, tell us how you really feel on this one. ;-)
Personally I am at a loss on this subject.
I do know we can't predict whether a single person will have a heart attack in the next year so it does seem a bit of a stretch to think we can do the same for global climate.
The problem is we have facts and we have theories and we are trying to put them together.
Global ice is melting, this appears to be "fact". And the loss of a significant amount of reflective surface is likely to have significant implications for global climate.
This is common sense.
Further we know that ice caps have changed their global surface reach in the past. Earth existed as a snowball- I will admit that this is only a theory, but it is one with very strong evidence. Further earth has also had periods in its history when it had very little ice. And we strongly believe things were a lot hotter then.
But whether the current global ice melt is the result of the changes in atmospheric CO2 caused by human consumption of fossile fuels is another matter entirely.
CO2 is going up, that is clear. And it is fair to say that it is incredibly likely we humans are responsible for this rise. The science on this is seems very very good. Yet it does seem hard to imagine that changes in as little as 100 parts PER MILLIONin atmospheric CO2 concentrations are enough to alter sunlight absorption to a point our ice caps melt.
I am not saying it is impossible, far from it, but it is quite a stretch of the imagination.
And let me add the caveat that IF climate is changing, I firmly believe it will change RAPIDLY. When buffers go, we all know things change fast. I do see this.
But is CO2 the culprit for the loss of global ice?
I have tried to come to my own conclusions on this issue and if you have a good link, I would love to read it as I just don't know.
Smart people whom I trust on both sides of the issue exactly opposite things: "yes" and "no".
I do agree with you that there is a lot of emotion and hype in this issue, as this chart cleverly detailed.
But to call it all concocted bogus data is a bit stronger than I am willing to admit.
Emotions run high, but sometimes they run high because they are correct.
You make good points, Thai.
And fair enough if you don't want to ride herd with respect to my "concocted bogus data" remark, but, for my own part, I think the purloined e-mails reveal that more than a little fudging was going on in the halls of the proponents of "man made global warming." And this is from someone who was on their bandwagon for quite some time.
Look at it this way, what was revealed was pretty appalling with respect to the dishonesty afoot amongst the aforesaid, and unless one thinks that everything that was uncovered constituted the entirely of their far less than honorable machinations, it's hard to believe that the rabbit hole doesn't go a lot deeper.
The problem here is the same problem we see in so many areas of human inquiry, which is, "WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO SAY." And yet, we humans, or some of us anyway, are desperate, for a variety of reasons that range from the understandable to the despicable, to inject certainty where there ought not be any.
In the meantime, I'm afraid I can't provide you with a good link on the C02 question.
Thought you might find this interesting.
Regards
Well, perhaps utterly concoted data is too strong, and I am glad that I am not one of the "febrile nitwits" to use the two e-mails as a sledgehammer on the "mankind is responsible for global warming" crowd. However, it still appears as if the climate scientists in question have some serious explaining to do.
Agreed
AND I am never going to spend enough time personally to get to the bottom of this, which means that in the end I am going to have to trust someone.
And as we have all said from different perspectives, the biggest problem of all in a credit crunch is the lost of trust or faith.
Remember, I tend to blame all of us for this mess (myself included) more than I do any one particular group.
And my blaming "all of us" is very non-linear , so almost everyone gets a little blame in my mind and a few individuals get a lot blame. And these few individuals are located in all industries/sectors/corners of the globe.
Just the way I see things.
Thai, you might find the following of interest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
I finished reading the post. Thanks
And then there's this as well.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
Yes thanks. I have been aware of the controversy in the temperature data for a couple of months from other blogs as well.
I guess if the basic question were put to me: "would you vote 'yes' on the current proposals to limit greenhouse gases" and I had to pick a side as a elected representative, I would say "no".
However I would support a gasoline tax for purely mercantilistic reasons and it would accomplish much of what the greenhouse effect people want.
But I would not do this if the money was spent ANY way the elected representatives wanted. and I would not do this to INCREASE the revenue of the government.
I would only do it if other revenues were reduced.
... And I do know this is no better a way to build the proverbial bread box than other views on the subject, but it is my personal "preference".
America is simply too diverse a nation (and that is part of our strength) to centralize that much power.
... And I do have to be honest that synchronization is a fact regardless of what I want.
I can go round and round in circles all day on this stuff.
I do think arguing about it is the least effect thing to do whether it is done or not.
Lots of energy wasted in the argument. ;-)
Post a Comment