The Great Global Warming Swindle

The fix is in:

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

It’s easier to let these kinds of errors slip through the quality assurance process when you are ideologically invested in a specific outcome — namely, human induced catastrophic warming.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Cult leader Dr. Hansen should be fired. He is clearly too emotionally wedded to the religion substitute of global warming. Unlike journalists who aren’t held accountable by peer review, scientists live and die by their objectivity. Hansen has discredited himself. Anyone who believes scientists can’t be tainted by bias or corruption has a weak grasp of the constancy of human nature. Science is humanity’s Savior. I don’t want false prophets like Hansen as representatives of our last, best hope.

I predict that in ten or twenty years when the dust has settled and the truth of AGW gets a more reasonable hearing than it has to date, we will look back on this sorry episode as one of the greatest attempted swindles ever foisted by the global elite on the masses. I also predict that all those End Times leftists who embarrassingly swooned in apocalyptic fervor for the clarion call of cataclysmic global warming and ritually embraced it like a Sacramental Rite will pretend as if their lies never happened, and simply move on to their next self-congratulatory save-the-world cause du jour. And the media, of course, being hopelessly lost as a respectable institution of high-minded journalistic integrity, will enable them to evade public humiliation.

I read that the personality trait “openness to experience” correlates strongly with people of a certain political persuasion. It’s a nice personality trait to have. I have some of it myself. But there can be too much of a good thing. Armageddonationist global warming cultists are what happens when people are a little *too* open to new ideas.





Comments


  1. Some days you annoy me. Some days I’d like to buy you drink. Good post.

    Like


  2. Canada is already missing/backing away from Kyoto standards because they don’t want to suffer the resulting economic hit. It’s going to be real interesting to see if the donks, now running the show, really and truly get on board with the global warming nonsense while the economy is in its current state. My guess is: no.

    Like


  3. Czech president Vaclav Klaus is one Western leader I know of who makes unequivocal denounciations of the global warming cult. He in fact called it a religion.

    A big EU-sceptic too, my kind of guy.

    Like


  4. I’m old enough to remember when a coming ice age (now called “global cooling” to contrast it with the present hysteria) was the trendy fear.
    Wikipedia’s global cooling entry is written by a global warming advocate, but it isn’t flagged as biased. Figures.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
    When inflation is roaring a few years hence, low temperatures will be the hot issue for people who live in northern climates…low winter temperatures in their homes, that is. Nothing like personal discomfort to put idolatry on the back burner.

    Like


  5. on November 22, 2008 at 7:23 pm ironrailsironweights

    Well I’m hoping that the climate turns colder, then women will find that the hideous pedophilic Bald Eagle just doesn’t provide sufficient warmth on cold winter nights.

    Like


  6. Its highly unlikely with the new administration coming in that this character will have any reason to fear for his job….

    Like


  7. whoa… that’s weird…. i’m a different Daniel than #6, btw.

    Like


  8. You hit the nail on the head by calling attention to the religious nature of eco-freaking. Many, many (though not all) of these people will openly deride the traditional Western Christian worldview as unscientific and superstitious (as indeed it is). But they can’t seem to see how their own fervent, almost erotic belief in the eco-end-times is just the old myth transposed onto the new zeitgeist. Armageddon, repent-or-perish, judgment day is nigh, the holy are clean, the unholy are worse than animals for their sins, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

    However, you have a blind spot too (more than one, I’ve noticed). One fucked-up report, whether caused by mere incompetence, faulty systems of communication, or overly vested “scientists,” does not a conspiracy comprise.

    Anthropogenic global warming seems very well-founded if you read the literature (and I mean the actual peer-reviewed papers, and not the reports in various press organs). As Eliezer Yudkowsky says, “Just because a complete idiot says the sun is shining doesn’t mean it’s dark outside.”

    I laugh at two groups of people:

    1) those who so badly want eco-catastrophe be true; so they might feel holy and superior; because their entire self-view is wrapped up in their moral superiority; and who secretly and pervertedly wish for the worst because, at bottom, they can’t stand themselves or the world or other people.

    2) those who are so annoyed by the preachiness of group 1 that they would rather close their eyes to the truth than have anything to do with group 1… it’s an understandable impulse of course. I mean, christ those people make you want to puke. I invite you to be secure enough in yourself and the rightness of your skepticism (and it is certainly right to be skeptical) to admit the truth where it’s true.

    I predict that the twenty year prediction will be right about the people and wrong about the science. I predict that the world will warm (as it demonstrably and uncontroversally already has been doing) but it will be gradual enough that people who don’t want to believe it can keep their heads happily up their own asses… and that on the other side of the ledger, the pseudo-religious eco end-timers will either (A) do just as he predicts and pretend they never said anything or, more likely (B) continue on and on with more dire predictions about the future which, conveniently for predictors like them and me, never actually arrives.

    Also, incidentally, if people can’t be trusted to be honest about the science of anthropogenic global warming now, what makes you think they will do so in “ten or twenty years”? I don’t think they will. If anything, the cult will grow in strength… and I’ll still be laughing

    Like


  9. The vast majority of climatologists belive AGW to be true. I trust their judgment on the topic more than I do yours. You’re not qualified to blog on this topic. Stick to what you know.

    Conservation isn’t liberal or conservative. It is simply smart. You don’t even need to believe in global warming to think energy/resource conservation to be a good thing.

    Like


  10. SFG–

    Absolutely not. It’s the combination of politics and game, and ESPECIALLY the fact that the current state of the former REQUIRES the practice of the latter, that makes this blog so fascinating.

    Like


  11. an incorrect report (even if it was intentionally faked for reasons of ideology or personal gain) does not begin to question the extended scientific literature on global warming.

    Like


  12. Global warming is such a joke.

    Remember Greenland? Is it covered in ice? Yes. Talk to me about global warming when Greenland is green again.

    Or when England starts making wine for export like during the Roman Empire.

    Or when it’s so hot that women always walk around in short shorts and bikini tops….

    Like


  13. I’m no scientist and I have no direct contact with the field, so I have no way of evaluating any of this for myself. But I do note that Bjorn Lomborg thinks that global warming is happening. Lomborg has been very good about calling the enviro establishment out on some of their alarmism and exaggerations, and he’s been attacked hard by them for that reason. So I take his acceptance of global warming as a sign that maybe there’s something to it.

    Lomborg does go on to take issue with the usual response to global warming, though. He makes two points: 1) There’s very little that can be done. Even if we were to bankrupt ourselves trying to slow global warming, the best we could do would be to put it off for five or ten years. 2) The dough we might spend fighting global warming could be put to far better humanitarian use in other ways.

    Like


  14. You’re One Million Percent right here about the Global Warming Swindle! It’s a big shit sandwich and we are all being forced to take a bite. I say let them eat the shit and I’ll keep pumping CFC’s into the atmosphere. I recommend we all expel whats left of all the CFC’s into the atmosphere at the same time. If you don’t have any then cut down a tree, just for good measure. Of course I’m joking! I am joking, right?

    Like


  15. Daniel speaking: “I invite you to be secure enough in yourself and the rightness of your skepticism (and it is certainly right to be skeptical) to admit the truth where it’s true.”

    To borrow her own phrase: Daniel, you must be new here.

    Like


  16. “Or when it’s so hot that women always walk around in short shorts and bikini tops….”

    They do.

    Come to Miami Beach or Southern California.

    – MPM

    Like


  17. “Science is humanity’s Savior.”

    This is awfully lofty for a guy who believes that fucking (not reproduction, mind you, like science would tell us) is the goal of all life.

    Like


  18. If you were living in Southern California recently you might have more belief in global warming.

    Like


  19. Global warming. The type of science worthy of arts graduates.

    Like


  20. The point of this post is that no one CAUGHT the mistake.

    That suggests not science but religious belief.

    AGW is a crock. It ignores a more … important source of heating and cooling … the SUN.

    We are likely now at a Solar minimum, and likely to tip into a mini-Ice age more than global warming.

    Greenland … was once green. It had trees and meadows during the Medieval Warm period (Viking Settlement). We are more likely to see the mini Ice Age (1300-1850) or even Younger Dryas (glaciers down to Spain) than global warming.

    Variations in the Sun’s output, is orders of magnitude greater than that of Man’s carbon output. This accounts for the wide swings in global temperatures and glaciation within the last million years or so.

    Like


  21. Science is humanity’s Savior.

    Which half of your brain came up with that little gem?

    Like


  22. It’s funny… only faggot-ass white-guilt having leftist pinko-commie skirt-wearing ass-goblins buy into Global Warming.

    Don’t believe the hype you cock-gobblers…

    Like


  23. The measuring stations themselves are poorly located making the data suspect. As previously noted, temperatures have been higher in the past – e.g. Greenland. Satellite observations show global cooling for close to a decade now, hence the convenient re-phrasing to climate change. I’m looking out the window at several inches of snow, and it’s not even Thanksgiving yet…

    If it’s cooling, panic and destroy the economy. If it’s warming, panic and destroy the economy. It’s all political. Politicians want power over my life and my my money. No sale.

    I’m out. When Gore flies commercial, sells the houseboat, and drives a Prius, I’ll believe he’s deluded but sincere. Now, I won’t even give him that. He’s just another TV preacher.

    Like


  24. on November 23, 2008 at 11:15 am ironrailsironweights

    Another day, another GNP. We know what this chick’s favorite baseball team is.

    Peter

    Like


  25. @G Manifesto

    I know they do walk around semi-naked in Southern Cali. I live in the Great Absurdity — The SanDiego-LA-SantaMonica metroplex.

    I guess I should have said when they are semi-naked in Maine in winter.

    Like


  26. Good point about Gore. Although in his specific case, I believe there is more than just a little mental unbalance going on. There was always something creepy and “not there” about him; I’ve picked up on it in my teens during the 1988 primaries, the year Dukakis was nominated.

    Then, being that uncouth redneck Clinton’s understudy for eight years and finally losing to that [cough! sputter!] manifest retard, George W. Bush in 2000, pushed him over the edge.

    When the last hanging chad was counted, and counted, and recounted, and there were no more chads to be counted, he went to the desert, and for fourty days and fourty nights, he prayed and fasted, fasted and prayed. And he came back, as the Bearded Prophet. And the priests, they crowned him with the Nobel and the Oscar.

    Fucking headcase. But Al Gore aside, MarkD makes an excellent point about “Global Warming” being about power over our lives. Like I’ve said here in other threads, Leftism is a neo-aristocratic political movement.

    Like they’ve always told you in your civics class, Democracy is a precarious thing, and that it can always give way to tyranny. Well, boys and girls, they were right, but not in ways they thought. If there is going to be a totalitarian usurpation, its arrival will be accompanied by chants of “diversity,” “tolerance” and “climate change.”

    Like


  27. When it comes to ManBearPig, I enjoy David Friedman’s take- “Look, current projections are that over the next 100 years, global warming will make the seas rise a few feet and the temperature a few degrees Celsius. Many (other technologies) could, in that same time span, quite conceivably wipe out the entire human race”
    Additional context linked via my name

    Like


  28. on November 23, 2008 at 12:47 pm Patrick Bateman

    As a scientist with degrees in chemistry and physics, and someone who has actually done some serious reading (Geophysical Research Letters is serious, USA Today is not), I am far more qualified to offer my opinion on AGW than the vast majority of deniers and proponents, including most scientists who voice their opinions. The rest of you should probably shut the fuck up. GW is real, AGW is probably real, though the extent of A in GW has almost certainly been overstated and forecasts of what will happen are garbage.

    A biologist offering his opinion on the issue is no more credible than a plumber. A physicist offering his opinion is only slightly more credible, and even then, the physicist is unlikely to have seriously studied the issue.
    We usually have faith in our fellow scientists to do their jobs properly, and that faith is mostly justified. Few scientists intentionally make shit up. However, sometimes we do fuck up and publish garbage. When that happens, it is usually caught early, a corrigendum is published and no one gets into serious trouble. But sometimes it isn’t caught early, some fields are too small and inbred for things to get caught in the early stages. People build their careers on garbage they published in grad school. A decade down the line, they have a nice faculty position and are the scientific equivalent of a fucking rock star. Along comes a statistician who looks at the paper Mr. rock star scientist built his career on and finds some serious flaws. Mr. rock star has built his career on a shaky foundation, and he knows it, but he has every incentive to pretend his work was good. If he is found out, he loses ALL of his prestige and probably millions in funding. All his former grad students, post-docs, etc. also have an incentive to keep alive the lie they built their careers on. Now we have a principal-agent problem, the taxpayer is funding this guys research because knowing the truth about the earth’s climate is valuable to the entire world. But Mr. rock star is best served by hiding the fact that his first paper was erroneous, and many of the papers that cite it are erroneous as well. Thing is, those papers citing his original paper now form the bulk of the literature in the field of climate change.

    Like


  29. on November 23, 2008 at 1:13 pm Large Hadron Collider

    I tried to go to 7/11 the other day –
    but there was a line going out the door of
    penguins buying ice…

    Like


  30. I really don’t get why global warming has to be such a partisan issue. There are scientists who study the issue. The vast majority have come to the conclusion that global warming is real and man made. Some of them have been sloppy and some have made mistakes. What sort of mental frame work are you working with when you look at a mistake in recent record keeping and dismiss an entire theory? You obviously believe in evolution since a lot of your philosophy is pinned on the veracity of an evolutionary model. Yet in other issues where the political teams are drawn up differently you behave just like the pious little children who look at past and minor inadequacies in the evolutionary model and use it as an excuse for throwing out an unpleasant truth.

    Global warming is probably real. It might not but we didn’t need to be sure about the comparatively minor threat from iraq in order to spend huge amount of resources on addressing that concern. It is suspicious that only in the cases where actions run counter to interests of industry do we demand this amazing level of proof before taking action. We could shift some of our tax base from income to carbon emissions in a way that was revenue neutral and it would probably on the balance help the economy but you would be against it because you are a child and the teams have already been drawn up.

    Like


  31. “Or when England starts making wine for export like during the Roman Empire.”

    Could you point where this sort of event is predicted as a requirement/proof of that real global warming is happening? Because for all I know it’s always suggested to be far more subtle, at least for the past decades, not when it was first theorized to possibly be a good thing.

    Like


  32. I’ll go with the Old Farmer’s Almanac. They predict global cooling over the coming decades due to fluctuations in sunspot activity.

    If I have to choose between Al Gore and the Almanac, I’ll definitely go with the latter.

    Like


  33. All I know is, there were a bunch of other things people were supposedly stupid for not taking seriously in the past, yet all the environmentalist Chicken Littles rarely mention anymore:

    * Acid Rain
    * Air pollution
    * Water pollution by pesticides
    * The Ozone and CFC’s
    * The Whales

    I predict like most children with trends, liberals will move onto a shiny, new trendy environmental problem before they finish solving this one. I’m not going to waste time buying into this scare. Liberals will get bored with it on their own, like they always do.

    Like


  34. Kick a Bitch >>> Peter

    Like


  35. What’s with this chicken little nonsense? Evironmentalists have been wrong about things in the past but you’ve chosen a variety of terrible examples. Acid Rain is real and proven and has had real consequences (ever go fishing in the Adirondecks? If it’s been in the past 20 years your better off not bothering.) and real steps have been taken to address the situation.

    Air Pollution is real and has had effect on air quality and steps have been taken to address it.

    The ozone layer has been depleted by free radicals and steps have been taken to mitigate the problem.

    Whales… you get the picture. The sky didn’t fall because people held it up. If a man gets AIDS and takes expensive drug cocktails for years and his T-cell count rise back up to normal that is not proof that AIDS is not a problem.

    In all of these cases there was a potential problem of varying degrees of severity people took steps to solve them so that you can ridicule them for pointing the problem in the first place.

    Like


  36. on November 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm Another Daniel

    Out of scope. Start another blog for your non-game opinions, and compare visitor statistics to see the real worth of that opinion set. Your talent is clear, but remember your consumers.

    Like


  37. as an organic chemist and a scientist, I look at “global warming” and think: 1)more carbon dioxide in the air. 2)warmer temperatures, 3)the earth is covered by 70% WATER.

    If 3 is true, and 2 is true, then we’ll undoubtedly have more water vapor in the atmosphere as well.

    SO, we’ve got an atmosphere rich with carbon dioxide and water.

    It’s like turbo climate for plant growth.

    There is no chance for any kind of extinction in this scenario.

    Even if all the ice caps melt, what’s that? a mile or two of coastline is underwater? big fucking deal.

    Like


  38. on November 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm molecular pimp

    as an organic chemist and a scientist, I look at “global warming” and think: 1)more carbon dioxide in the air. 2)warmer temperatures, 3)the earth is covered by 70% WATER.

    If 3 is true, and 2 is true, then we’ll undoubtedly have more water vapor in the atmosphere as well.

    SO, we’ve got an atmosphere rich with carbon dioxide and water.

    It’s like turbo climate for plant growth.

    There is no chance for any kind of extinction in this scenario.

    Even if all the ice caps melt, what’s that? a mile or two of coastline is underwater? big fucking deal.

    Like


  39. Guys, you’re all missing a great opportunity for some right-wing gaming. Global warming is the best thing that ever happened to nuclear power advocacy.

    If you can’t beat them, tool them.

    Like


  40. Mr. rock star has built his career on a shaky foundation, and he knows it, but he has every incentive to pretend his work was good. If he is found out, he loses ALL of his prestige and probably millions in funding. All his former grad students, post-docs, etc. also have an incentive to keep alive the lie they built their careers on.

    Isn’t more likely that one would not lose oneself’s career by admitting to have made some flaw rather than trying to cover up? If there’s a mistake, eventually the truth is brought to light. And whomever proposes something which does not stand up to scrutiny will eventually fade into obscurity, as some fringe not listened by anyone, if not worse, condemned as a fraud. I’m not a scientist, but I’d rather fear more to be a fraud than someone who make some mistake, even if a reasonably important mistake.

    Not that the other way around couldn’t happen anyway. If the mistake is really important, there’s a tendency to rationalize, to denial, so the real logic does not matter much. I’m just somewhat skeptical of how much this is significant. I think that more often than not, we don’t need to worry about the possibility, it would have to reach conspiracy-like proportions to be worth worrying about. I guess.

    Like


  41. Those that are ignorant of history are… ignorant of history.

    For the most part of recent geologic history this mudball was a frozen wasteland –you might have heard of the Ice Ages?

    When the Norse landed in Greenland, it was covered in grass!

    In other words, it was warmer then, cooler now.

    Even if it IS warming, till Greenland is green again, it is pointless to even begin to worry. Obviously the world tolerated being hotter by several f’ing degrees and nothing bad happened.

    In fact, if memory serves, there was a mini-IceAge around the time of the Dark Ages.

    If that’s not enough, go check NASA data on the other planets. They are ALL warmer. Guess what? It’s the damn yellow ball in the sky. It’s putting out a shade more power these last few years.

    Lastly, if you check the physics literature, you will find, prior to the Great Hysteria, the entries showing how orbital parameters of Earth and Moon explain the largest temp swings of the last couple million years.

    ‘Nuff said. Off to play with my Latin gattinas.

    Like


  42. “I predict that the world will warm (as it demonstrably and uncontroversally already has been doing) but it will be gradual enough that people who don’t want to believe it can keep their heads happily up their own asses…”

    I just love people who bring up “peer reviewed scientific literature” in their posts and then say things which make it obvious to all who are informed that they are not actually READING said “peer reviewed scientific literature.”

    The current buzz in the climate community is over the recent COOLING we have observed, and what it means for our theories and climate models which predicted warming for this time period. In the past two years the warming attributed to man over the entire 20th century has been wiped out. At this point it’s pretty clear that reduced solar activity is behind this cooling. The question is: how long will it continue? Estimates range from 10-30 years. (So Daniel’s prediction is already dead.)

    AGW proponents always assumed solar variance was too small to explain the observed warming of the 20th century, but the changes this decade throw that assertion into serious doubt. And we’re going to see more cooling before there’s another reversal. Maybe there’s time to resurrect the theory that man will cause an ice age and use that to scare people for a while.

    Take it from someone who has studied temperature charts and looked over “peer reviewed scientific literature”: our sun determines our climate. Our activities are lost against that backdrop. We might alter things by a small fraction of a degree one way or the other, at the most.

    But that won’t stop the donkeys from wasting billions on “alternative energy” projects and ignorant energy tax schemes to reduce our “carbon footprint.”

    Like


  43. I’ll take AGW seriously when guys like Gore (and the rest of the progressives hypocrites) do. You know when he stops flying all over the world to conferences and stops lighting his fucking place in Belle Meade up like a Christmas tree. When assholes like Hansen walk to work and every liberal who believes the AGW stupidity does the same, I’ll happy to hear what they have to say. Until then they should shut the fuck up and find another trendy cause du jour to wail about. Here, this one looks perfect:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081123/wl_time/08599186114500

    Like


  44. So true Taylor.

    Wasn’t it in August that there wasn’t a single solar spot the whole month?

    Like


  45. on November 24, 2008 at 2:08 am Cannon's Canon

    Christopher C. Horner makes for an interesting read on this subject.

    It makes sense that George Soros would fund “global warming awareness” to drive the value of his alternative-energy basket. Extreme environmental conservationists will eventually rationalize destroying the human race to save Mother Earth if they follow out their train of thought. This is beta selflessness all the way.

    Personally, I like to neg Mother Earth by using the air conditioning WITH the windows down in my car. Now that’s a DHV!

    Like


  46. Regardless if you believe in global warming or not, what we are doing in terms of pollution to the planet is far from good for it.

    Like


  47. What a laugh!

    You’re really playing the same old ideological games that the die-hard ‘End Time leftists’, as you call them, play. Where’s the actual facts here? Not there, perhaps, but certainly not here.

    Perhaps you’d like to ignore the fact that many developed countries are running out of resources fast, such as the 10+ year drought here in Australia that has left us with pretty much no water. Or that pollution is endemic, that China’s pollution is due mostly to feeding Western consumption, or that the US is shipping $100b a year to petro-dictatorships for the honor of using up whatever oil there is left. In the broadest sense, this is all climate change.

    And then write a blog post like this, which seems to imply that we aren’t running out of oil or clean air, and that any interest in seeing a sustainable future is just ideological tree-hugging. Wow, good work!

    Like


  48. It has gotten cooler since 1998. Thats ten years ago now.

    This was a great valiant poist. It takes a REAL MAN to STAND UP and state TRUTHS that are unpopular.

    We are witnessing less sunspots and have for the past few years. This correlates with lower temperatures on earth (the earth used to be quite a bit warmer by the way…….wine used to be made in Greenland by the Vikings, which is unthinkable now). In fact some non-ideologue scientists think the data shows that we might be entering a global COOLING period, not warming, culminating around mid-century.

    Global “warming” is a scam by which some groups hope to harvest “carbon-taxes” on all of humanity, limiting development in the third world, lessening the poplulation (these are Malthusians to the nth degree) and empowering unelected government officials to unprecedented levels through legal precedents via treaties. Its a power-mongering scam of massive proportions. The actual temperatures have not really been rising for ten years, but have been getting cooler. We went through a cool period post-WW2 through 1970, and then it started to heat up. It heated up from 1970 until 1998. Now it seems to be getting A TAD cooler. We have much more to fear from global cooling folks. A loss of two or three degrees would render much of Canada agriculturally much much less productive and would shorten growing seasons in a great deal of the world’s farmland (which the Malthusians would probably love—-since they hate humanity). The world used to be quite a bit warmer than it is now…………………….with no internal combustion engines.

    If the eco-worshippers really were concerned, they’d back nuclear power like France (almost 80% of the energy in France is from Nuclear power plants). If you “watch their feet”, its the eco-worshippers who fight wind, solar, and waves the hardest. They are anti-humans, anti-population growth, and anti-wealth (for the third world) more than anything else. P.J. O’Rourke, whom I oft disagree with, described greens as “watermelons”: Green on the outside, but Commie Pink on the inside.

    Like


  49. Yes, blame the Russians!

    Like


  50. on November 24, 2008 at 9:26 am Michael Katcher

    @ Ben – What does peak oil or water shortages or pollution in China have to do with global warming?

    Like


  51. Glad to see you know better than the leading scientists of the world. Will you get off politics already? You really jumped the shark with that idiotic Ayn Rand poem.

    Like


  52. A lot of environmentalists (myself included) DO favor nuclear power, you twat. Environmentalism isn’t monolithic, any more than conservatism is. I’m sure if a leftist posting here conflated paleoconservatism with neoconservatism, howls of protest would emanate from this site. However, the posters here are themselves unable to distinguish Earth Firster type anarcho-primitivists (who are less than a fraction of a percent of environmentalists, but who have inspired the conservative caricature) from sensible people who think that the promotion of resource and energy efficiency is a good thing and that pollution and waste can be significantly curtailed even while maintaining a fully modernized and high-tech economy. Why let reality interfere with the construction of a fictional enemy?

    Like


  53. Kick a Bitch:

    “It’s funny… only faggot-ass white-guilt having leftist pinko-commie skirt-wearing ass-goblins buy into Global Warming.”

    I do muay thai kickboxing, brazilian jiujitsu, and cycle everywhere. I am stronger than you, in better physical shape that you, and can probably kick your ass, as well as that of the vast majority soft, pathetic, American couch-potatoes who regard a two-block walk to the store as requiring too much exertion. *I* buy into GW because most scientists who specialize in climate believe in it.

    Typical fat-ass, consumerist Americans =/= alpha

    Like


  54. I do muay thai kickboxing, brazilian jiujitsu, and cycle everywhere. I am stronger than you, in better physical shape that you, and can probably kick your ass, as well as that of the vast majority soft, pathetic, American couch-potatoes who regard a two-block walk to the store as requiring too much exertion. *I* buy into GW because most scientists who specialize in climate believe in it.

    Typical fat-ass, consumerist Americans =/= alpha

    you buy into global warming because you’re a complete and total fucking tool. congrats big guy!

    also, i’m baking some cookies for you right now. sit tight, you sound like someone that REALLY needs one.

    Like


  55. chris w:

    A lot of environmentalists (myself included) DO favor nuclear power, you twat. Environmentalism isn’t monolithic, any more than conservatism is. I’m sure if a leftist posting here conflated paleoconservatism with neoconservatism, howls of protest would emanate from this site. However, the posters here are themselves unable to distinguish Earth Firster type anarcho-primitivists (who are less than a fraction of a percent of environmentalists, but who have inspired the conservative caricature) from sensible people who think that the promotion of resource and energy efficiency is a good thing and that pollution and waste can be significantly curtailed even while maintaining a fully modernized and high-tech economy. Why let reality interfere with the construction of a fictional enemy?

    Well, it’s not like just anarcho-primitivist nutcases oppose nuclear energy with irrational quasi-religious zeal. I have yet to see a major mainstream environmentalist group (I have in mind groups like Greenpeace, Al Gore’s personal cult, WWF, the Sierra Club, etc.) that wouldn’t be fiercely opposed to nuclear power as a matter of principle. Greenpeace, for example, strongly opposes even research into nuclear fusion.

    From what I’ve seen, heard, and read from mainstream, respectable, “sensible” sort of environmentalists on this issue as well as countless others, I would say that your above description of them as “sensible people” is equally remote from reality as the worst conservative caricatures.

    Like


  56. so what then? take away pollution restrictions on industry? allow any and all forms of pollution? lower gas mileage requirements? i dont get it.

    Like


  57. “Well, it’s not like just anarcho-primitivist nutcases oppose nuclear energy with irrational quasi-religious zeal. I have yet to see a major mainstream environmentalist group (I have in mind groups like Greenpeace, Al Gore’s personal cult, WWF, the Sierra Club, etc.) that wouldn’t be fiercely opposed to nuclear power as a matter of principle. Greenpeace, for example, strongly opposes even research into nuclear fusion.”

    The Sierra Club has been bought off to never mention that immigration is destroying the environment. Same with other “environmentalists.” If environmentalists really cared about Gaia, they’d oppose massive immigration. But they don’t. I can’t imagine why…
    And for those of you who believe liars like Hansen, who is basically using shitty data and saying to trust him, there is a bridge for sale. It connects Manhattan and Brooklyn. While kind of old, it is in really good shape.

    Like


  58. How is immigration ruining the environment? I get that it allows people to enjoy a higher level of consumption than they otherwise would but lots of forms of progress allow that and you probably aren’t against them. Because they do wet your xenophobic cunt. Circle jerks aren’t alpha.

    Like


  59. “How is immigration ruining the environment?”

    If you need that explained, then you are a fucking moron.

    Like


  60. Sickened, if it’s by enjoying a higher standard of living then your probably doing more to ruin the environment than they are just by being a corpulent retard. Why don’t you live off the moss in a cave for the environment? Maybe because that’s stupid. Stupid.

    Like


  61. He’s a brainwashed prog-fundie. The X-word gives him away.

    Like


  62. Well call me a fucking moron then. I have no idea what the link is nor have I ever heard it mentioned before.

    Like


  63. Is this a higher standard of living?

    Is this environmentally firendly?

    Like


  64. Higher than Mexico. Yes. Any other brain-busters?

    Like


  65. So immigration increases population in economic centers, increased population causes LA rush hour, and LA rush hour contributes to global warming, and so therefore immigrants cause global warming?

    Is it ironic that anti-immigration people base part of their argument on the poverty of new immigrants… the very same immigrants who are apparently buying millions of cars with which to clog the roads of LA?

    Like


  66. The only solution to the LA traffic situation is more roads or fewer cars. I enjoy watching people twist themselves into knots to force fit their prejudices with that reality. I seem to recall some honest people remarking how light the traffic was when the migrants stayed home to protest something…

    Meanwhile, in frigid and unpopular and unpopulous Syracuse, we have rush hour for about 20 minutes in the evening. I cannot remember the time I’ve waited for more than one turn of a light here. The weather and the taxes are the downsides.

    Like


  67. probably a good excuse to burn more oil and coal, then.

    Like


  68. Perhaps our resident Rand-roid Seeking Alpha doesn’t know that our population just went past 300 million and counting, all immigrant-driven.

    Syracuse: the easiest city on America in which to find a parking spot. However, I remember waiting for infuriatingly long periods of time for lights to turn green. I’d just stand there at a red light — on the main road mind you, while the side-streets had eternal green lights, with not one single car going through them. Nothing but Lake Earie winds kicking up some stray cardboards nearby, no sign of life, at mid-day, all around me. And I’d sit at that red light, until it finally turned green. And then I advance 25 yards, and another lonesome light turns red. This was really bad on the streets under the elevated I-81.

    I took note that there were no red-light cameras and just started running red lights when there was no one nearby.

    Like


  69. 300 million. I got to admit that that’s a round number. But isn’t it a problem that Europe had its population stagnating. Or is that good for the environment. Or do we only pretend that population growth is a problem when it’s in America? I don’t really know how this is supposed to work. If Mexican immigrants enjoying a higher standard of living is ruining the environment then should I be for leftist economic policies that will lower our standard of living? The mental acrobatics you have to go for to pin all the evils of the world on mexican immigration must be exhausting. It must have been a lot less work to be racist back in the day when you didn’t have to exhaust yourself coming up with rube goldberg device theories to justify it.

    Like


  70. Economic growth is driven by population and productivity, and I’m in favor of both, but we don’t need to cover that argument again. I kept the “x-word” out of my replies though, so why don’t you save the caricatures for less nuanced posters.

    Let’s see here. I could live in Syracuse. I’ll have lots of parking and no brown faces to look at. I’ll live in a poor, economically declining part of the country with few job prospects, shitty night life, and no one my age.

    Or I could stay in Fairfield County. Sadly, I see all different colors of people. I’m forced to deal with all kinds of immigrants (including my two best friends who were born in Vilnius and Baku, and my girlfriend, whose family is from Tehran). There are lots of jobs here. I’m fortunate enough to work in finance, but I have friends doing contractor work making more per hour than I did my first year. The night life is pretty great for a second tier city, there are young people everywhere, and NYC is 30 minutes away.

    If living in Syracuse is the price of an all-white community, count me out.

    Like


  71. I’ll give you further credit for also not using the v-word, “vibrant.”

    So you’re completely unaware of how W. Europe and Canada are pushing speech/thought-crime laws in concert with population-replacement level of non-Euro immigration?

    I’ll paraphrase a question Michael B. once asked in his usual elegant way: is it a good idea to bring so many damn people into this country, and in the process upset our ethnic balance?

    To sum it up: in 1950, there was one Oslo and one Mogadishu. Given current trends, there will one day be no Oslo, and two Mogadishus. Is this an improvement?

    Like


  72. No of course it’s not an improvement. That’s what happens when you have a rigid job market, and a racist populations: poor, unemployed immigrants with no pride in their new country because they’re shunned.

    We’ve never had an ethnic balance. Gangs of New York had Bill the Butcher railing against the dirty Irish immigrants who flooded the city with cheap labor. Well I’m damn sure not cheap labor any more and it’s my more ignorant brethern who are railing against the new immigrants. You know, the brown ones. No, not the Asian brown ones… we like them. Just the other brown ones.

    Like


  73. To clarify on my first paragraph, the difference is that in America (well most of it… not the parts that you live in I guess) a) you’re American as long as you wear a Yankees hat, listening to Jay-Z or Linkin Park, and eat a hot dog, so we don’t have a disenfranchised, entrenched minority class of immigrants and b) we have a flexible labor market that doesn’t keep unproductive, overpaid people in unnecessary jobs, or worse, sitting around in a ‘job bank’ like a bum.

    Like


  74. racist populations

    But you are not above using the r-word, I see.

    In sunnary: the Norwegians have let in thousands of Africans. They pass laws that makes so much as a bad thought about immigrants a crime punishable by prison. They give them welfare, apartments, language and job training, they conceal statistics on hitherto non-existent violent crime. They blame Norwegian girls for getting themselves raped at epidemic proportions. And then they let in even more Somalis. But they’re racist.

    Like


  75. I see you will also happily use the d-word, “disenfranchised.”

    That’s it for me. I’d rather talk with a flaming liberal than with an autistic neocon.

    Like


  76. First of all, I’m against hate speech legislation and the welfare state, so slow your roll. Second of all, maybe racist is the wrong word, maybe it’s not, but what I mean is that an African immigrant will never be ‘French’ or ‘Norwegian’. He could be a law abiding citizen for 20 years with a good job, but he will still be considered an immigrant because of the color of his skin. In America, that isn’t the case.

    Now you could argue whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing and both sides have good points. But what isn’t debatable is that it makes assimilation impossible, and assimilation (along with a dynamic, flexible economy) is the key to a successful immigrant experience.

    Bringing it back to the point, in America it is easy to assimilate and easy to get a job (both not true in Western Europe) and so I don’t think we’ll ever have the immigration problems that Western Europe has. Aside from the theoretical evidence I’ve offered, I’d also offer the practical evidence of the fact that we’ve had low-class immigration in this country for over a century (far longer than Western Europe), so if the problems you cited were a de facto consequence of immigration, we’d have experienced those problems by now.

    Like


  77. LOL, and please next time include a list of words that aren’t allowed to be used. And neocon is a foreign policy philosophy (one I don’t subscribe to), and has nothing to do with immigration and the definition of autistic has no relation to any part of my argument, so I suggest you take some time to process what you’re about to say before you vomit on your keyboard.

    Like


  78. I was once training to be a biology professor. When I was younger, I had a dreamy romantic vision of how science was done. I thought scientists put their petty political differences aside when they went to work every day. I thought they spent their time occupying the rarefied air at the highest heights of human endeavor. I could not have been more wrong. Now I know science has never really worked that way; after all, scientists are human beings like the rest of us. But what I experienced in grad school went beyond that. It seems that the trend in Western culture over the past several decades has been characterized by a slouching of standards in almost all respects. Science has not been immune to this trend. When you really think about it, how could it be otherwise? The quality of any endeavor will never be greater than the quality of the people participating in that endeavor. I gave up on being a scientist, not because the work was too hard, but because I saw that I would be in the minority of people who still made an attempt to separate their personal values and preferences from their work. I acknowledge the fact that the world has warmed a little bit over the past 100 years or so. I also acknowledge that satellites can now measure temperature changes on a global scale like never before. But my experience in school with modern scientists has made me suspicious of the human element of the global warming equation. That is, I just don’t trust that all the “peer reviewed literature” represents a genuine consensus of opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, because I think many scientists today put other things ahead of true objectivity, like career advancement, prestige, and a strong desire to “make the world a better place” as they see it. When you think about it, it’s really sad. Rational, reasonable citizens now have to view science with the same degree of suspicion reserved historically for far less lofty endeavors. We have to wait for more definitive evidence because taking the word of scientists – just like people in society in general – is becoming more difficult to justify. Granted, scientific method is a self-correcting mechanism. Eventually enough facts come to light that the reality becomes obvious. In the meantime, we’re in a real bind, because the climatologists are the experts. They make the knowledge, and none of us outside their field has the ability to criticize the technicalities on their level. We have to hope they’re good people who realize that either way, their conclusions will affect the livelihoods and standard of living of countless millions of people around the world. Think about that – we have to rely on a few thousand unelected climatologists around the world to do the right thing. Are the liberals on this blog who have read this far starting to understand why some of us are so nervous about jumping on the global warming bandwagon? Probably not, but hey, it felt good writing it down.

    Like


  79. raise your hand if you remember the climatolgists who said the 70’s were on the verge of a coming new Ice age?

    Like


  80. Second of all, maybe racist is the wrong word, maybe it’s not, but what I mean is that an African immigrant will never be ‘French’ or ‘Norwegian’. He could be a law abiding citizen for 20 years with a good job, but he will still be considered an immigrant because of the color of his skin.

    You’re right and also completely wrong. Europeans do not have a racial view of ethnicity. We have a tribal view: you need partial ancestry and you need to grow up a part of the tribe. A person with a Norwegian parent who has grown up as a Norwegian in Norway will be considered Norwegian even if the other parent has given the child dark skin. Of course, there are people who do want to see such Norwegians but that’s a different thing.

    Similarily, there’s no conception of half-anything. My Swedish relatives are Swedish, my Finnish relatives are Finnish, even though the Swedes have half or more Finnish ancestry.

    Obviously, an immigrant will never be considered Norwegian but that’s because he’s an immigrant. A white American can never become a Norwegian, either.

    Like


  81. It’s kind of ironic that all the scientists that have posted so far are skeptical of global warming, and all the liberal arts graduates with no scientific training are going on about how obvious it is that there’s a problem.

    Like


  82. LOLZ. I know, and EVILUTION is a hoax, too!

    Like


  83. What are you so nervous about? With such a large and varied consensus, I dont understand the great push to be so aggressively skeptical. Skepticism is great and necessary, but the validity of skepticism on this topic has been dwindling for years and years.

    The passion and strength of the skepticism can only imply that you think there is some ulterior motive. That there is some incentive to skew the figures, or fall in line with (only now) common beliefs. You could come up with some kind of theory why you think there might be some incentive for that, but when there is far greater incentive – as we have seen for the past 30 years – to reject these ideas, because of the cost of regulation and modernization of industry, its difficult to not question the motives/incentives of the doubters (mostly GOP, big-business lovers, etc).

    And really, when it comes down to it, whats the harm in making things more environmentally friendly? You act like it would be some horrible thing. In fact, it will very realistically spur a new industrial revolution that could help get the economy back on track.

    Like


  84. @ Jaakkeli – That’s a good explanation of what I meant. It’s not racist so much as tribal. And that isn’t necessarily a good or a bad thing in general but there’s no question that it prevents successful immigrant assimilation.

    Like


  85. Seeking Alpha, there’s such a small sample that I think it is less funny and more meaningless. Most of the comments on the site are from global warming skeptics. Only a handful of posts are from people with a background in the science and most have a pretty weak background at that. I’d chalk it up to selection bias. And I’d be skeptical about some of those pulling rank through the relative anonymity of these comments based on what I’ve read and what I know from my work (I’m not a scientist).

    Like


  86. Rick –

    That’s the funny thing about liberals like yourself. You’re so divorced from your own values that you don’t even realize when you’re preaching them. It isn’t the job of climatologists to “make things more environmentally friendly”. Their job is to explain how the earth’s climate works and predict what they think will occur in the future based on data and well-constructed models. Society then takes that information and decides, through the messy but essential democratic process, what we’ll do about it. It is not appropriate for scientists to make assumptions in their models to sway the results in a way that makes global warming to be a greater danger to society than it is, just because certain scientists think something should be done about it. Scientists are (thankfully) NOT policy makers.

    Like


  87. SA, it only prevents assimilation because we’ve *decided* so and changed our ways for the new multiculturalism where we even give financial incentives to encourage immigrants to form their own permanent minority communities instead of just marrying into the tribe.

    It would be the perfect way to rapid assimilation if we could only design immigration policy to fit the culture, but no, we now specifically encourage immigration from cultures where people kill their burqa-clad women if they refuse to marry whichever spouse the father planned to import from the home country.

    Like


  88. But so what, Jaakkeli, as long as the Economy Expands!

    Like


  89. “And really, when it comes down to it, whats the harm in making things more environmentally friendly? You act like it would be some horrible thing. In fact, it will very realistically spur a new industrial revolution that could help get the economy back on track.”

    I believe this is an example of the broken windows fallacy (not the broken windows theory, which is a different thing entirely).

    Say I decide to spur economic activity in my neighborhood by breaking half the windows. Local glassmen clean up in the ensuing demand for their skills. But is the local economy spurred? Of course not, because the cost to everyone else of getting their windows fixed at least equals the new business for glass repairmen.

    Killing existing industry to create new “green” jobs will not result in actual economic growth.

    Like


  90. “It is not appropriate for scientists to make assumptions in their models to sway the results in a way that makes global warming to be a greater danger to society than it is, just because certain scientists think something should be done about it.”

    I agree. I never suggested it was appropriate.

    “Killing existing industry to create new “green” jobs will not result in actual economic growth.”

    How would it kill existing industry? It would probably revive it, in several instances – like the auto industry for example.

    Your point falls apart by comparing the growth of green industry to something that is destructive (breaking windows). It is the opposite.

    Like


  91. But so what, Jaakkeli, as long as the Economy Expands!

    It doesn’t, considering that many of these groups clock almost complete unemployment (often with even better benefits than natives). Sweden, for all of previous written history a notably wealthier place than Finland, is now poorer than Finland, a difference that seems to be entirely due to the massive costs of immigration.

    Like


  92. I think you just gave our Randroid a coronary.

    Like


  93. For PA and Racer X. The two of you are the only guys I can think of who prefer blue eyed blond women.
    <a http://www.garancedore.fr/2008/11/18/fresh-kiss/

    The US needs to move away from it’s dependence on foreign oil. Even if we start offshore drilling, how long will that oil last? Believing that there will always be vast amounts of oil, is equivalent to those homeowners who thought they could continually to refinance their homes. We need to decrease our consumption of gas by driving smaller cars. Walking 5 blocks down to the supermarket to get a gallon of milk will not kill you. Ride a bike or use public transportation sometimes instead of driving a car. For people who live in places like DC, LA, and NYC, smart cars are a great option to cut consumption and waste.

    SD saidKilling existing industry to create new “green” jobs will not result in actual economic growth
    Good point but I think it’s important that we fund research for “green” energy.

    Like


  94. The two of you are the only guys I can think of who prefer blue eyed blond women.

    Chic – those are some cuties. But I’ve sang many praises of green-eyed, dark-haired women — my favorite kind — on this blog.

    Like


  95. jaakkeli
    SA, it only prevents assimilation because we’ve *decided* so and changed our ways for the new multiculturalism where we even give financial incentives to encourage immigrants to form their own permanent minority communities instead of just marrying into the tribe

    Those Somalli girls really are pretty aren’t they.
    <a http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/somali-girls.jpg

    <a
    http://radiohadhwanaag.com/files/waryaa_2_400_02.jpg

    Don’t let Somali men see you sniffing around “their” women.

    Like


  96. Chic – those are some cuties. But I’ve sang many praises of green-eyed, dark-haired women — my favorite kind — on this blog

    No problem. I thought you and I were commented on the lack of “waspy” looking women in Hollywood some time ago?
    That big-eyed look appeals to Agnostic as well, unfortunately she may be too old for his tastes

    Like


  97. @ PA – Your ‘Randroid’ (isn’t it cute how idiots swap snark for substance) already said that the European welfare state is the primary cause of Western Europe’s immigration problem. Since America doesn’t have the same system, and since most of our immigrants are employed, we don’t have the same problem.

    You don’t even know what you’re arguing about. You just type random words of snark and hope you they form something resembling a coherent thought.

    Like


  98. What do you guys think about the small house movement?

    Like


  99. — I thought you and I were commented on the lack of “waspy” looking women in Hollywood some time ago?

    Wasn’t me. In fact, to me the hottest actresses are Irene Jacob in “Red” and “Veronique,” and Jami Gertz in the TV show “Still Standing.”

    — Those Somalli girls really are pretty aren’t they

    I’ve known one Somali chick a few years ago – she was working at a convenience story near my work in Baltimore. Superhot. Really friendly and charmng too.

    — unfortunately she may be too old for his tastes

    Agnostic sounds like is going through a phase I kind of recognize from my own 26-27 y.o period. It was starting to bother me that I am getting out of range for teen girls. I didn’t pursue them, dated women about my own age or slightly younger, but the fact that I wold soon be off a teen girs’ radar bothered me in principle.

    But today, 10 or so years later, I find teen girls nice to look at, but alien life forms otherwise. Not someone I would want to date. A good lookin’ 26-28 year-old is where it’s at for me now.

    Like


  100. @ Chic, I think it’s great idea, but it’ll be like the Prius – something wealthy liberal people do to feel like they’re doing good, rather than something poorer people can do to save money. Stuff like this is cool, but I’m not sure if it would ever take off.

    Like


  101. Okay PA, I now know your type & will be on the look out.

    Like


  102. Randroid – you keep blathering on about how great immigraion is, and how you don’t like welfare and speech codes.

    In that case, show me one instance where mass third world immigration in today’s West wasn’t somehow accompanied by brutal crime, degradation of cities, ethnic conflict, explosion in welfare rolls, and a clampdown on basic rights and liberties for the native population.

    Like


  103. @ PA – America.

    Like


  104. PA – America.

    Black-Hispanic turf wars. Hmong murders in MN and WI. Overwhelmed emergency rooms. Growth in political correctness. An ‘Obama’god.’ Somali cabbies in Minneapolis refusing fare. CAIR-led firings and persecutions. Rising unemployment. MS-13 in Vermont towns. Middle class driven out of California.

    Like


  105. on November 24, 2008 at 5:55 pm Cannon's Canon

    @ chic

    Howard Roark laughed. As do I.

    Like


  106. Fabian, that was pretty reasonable but I still disagree with your conclusions. Human beings have to guess everything. We can act with various degrees of certainty based on the evidence and analysis at hand. In many situations I’m going to have to defer to experts not because I know that their right but because for all the imperfections of academic science it’s pretty good. Certainly better than those advocating comparatively fringe theories.

    There are consequences of certain actions that humans can take to forestall climate change. These consequences are going to be taken into account. But the lack of certainty does not mean disregard unwelcome information. It means take uncertainty into account. Some people are probably overzealous in stating the likelihood, consequence, or best way to ameliorate global climate change. But it’s really silly that people see the potential for flaws in science as an excuse to elevate… not science or worse science. As though that constitutes an improvement. She doesn’t know shit about climate change. Neither do I. The difference is that I choose to trust smart people who spend there lives trying to find the truth (subject of course to human flaws) while he and others choose to trust those that are paid to tell people what certain people want to hear.

    It’s the same with evolution. people take the necessary imperfection of science as an excuse to believe whatever they want. Supposedly this is were “pretty lies perish” but the PC left doesn’t have a monopoly on pretty lies. I almost had enough restraint to not mention an inconvenient truth.

    Like


  107. When people keep talking about teenage girls here, what are they talking about? 18-20 year olds or real teens like 14-16 year olds? I hear so much teen talk here without specifying what is meant…

    Like


  108. Hahah, you’re an idiot. Quick, someone alert the papers! Finally time to go home. Night everyone.

    Like


  109. I think “teen” means about 17-19, unless Gannon’s around, in which case the age dips too low for my comfort.

    Like


  110. PA
    MS-13=Black-Hispanic turf wars. I think T and I commented on this before?
    cabbies in Minneapolis refusing fare
    Please tell me more
    Middle class driven out of California
    As in NYC esp Manhattan.

    Cannon’s Canon
    @ chic

    Howard Roark laughed. As do I.

    So you think Americans are too attached to our tradionally large homes and cars to make an ajustment. What about you, Do you see yourself driving a smart car living in a small home.

    T, I am talking about under 18 often 14-16 year old girls. 18&19 year olds are legal. PA, Agnostic has some posts about girls who are not in the 17-19 years old group.

    Like


  111. Please tell me more

    There were several publicized incidents where Somali taxi drivers who service the Minneapolis airport refused to pick up passengers who had seeing-eye-dogs or bottled alcohol in their posession, on the grounds of Islamic law.

    Like


  112. So you think Americans are too attached to our tradionally large homes and cars to make an ajustment.

    When I was in high school (1980s) middle class families lived in modest-sized split-levels and even townhouses, and same-sex siblings often shared bedrooms. 1.5 bath was the norm.

    The McMansion is a Housing Boom phenomenon.

    Like


  113. Agnostic has some posts about girls who are not in the 17-19 years old group.

    Anonymous-shmanonymous. He needs to quit doing that, for his own good. That one “smiling braces” photo he recently posted was past the creep-line and felt very NSFW when I opened his blog page.

    Like


  114. on November 24, 2008 at 7:03 pm Comment_Not_Mattering

    Oil hit $150 a barrel, and certain people can’t shut-up about carbon emmission increasing global warming.

    Teacher! Teacher! I have a question!

    WHERE ARE THE CARBON EMMISSIONS GOING TO COME FROM NOW THAT OIL HAS PEAKED?

    We have water-shortage, oil-shortage, and the Gobi Desert is swallowing China.

    So let’s talk about Global Warming! Because it is possible to have an exciting, COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS debate over something that will have an effect in a few decades at best!

    It’s called a DISTRACTION.

    As this poster so obviously pointed out:
    *****
    What a laugh!

    You’re really playing the same old ideological games that the die-hard ‘End Time leftists’, as you call them, play. Where’s the actual facts here? Not there, perhaps, but certainly not here.

    Perhaps you’d like to ignore the fact that many developed countries are running out of resources fast, such as the 10+ year drought here in Australia that has left us with pretty much no water. Or that pollution is endemic, that China’s pollution is due mostly to feeding Western consumption, or that the US is shipping $100b a year to petro-dictatorships for the honor of using up whatever oil there is left. In the broadest sense, this is all climate change.

    And then write a blog post like this, which seems to imply that we aren’t running out of oil or clean air, and that any interest in seeing a sustainable future is just ideological tree-hugging. Wow, good work!
    ******

    Like


  115. PA saidAnonymous-shmanonymous. He needs to quit doing that, for his own good. That one “smiling braces” photo he recently posted was past the creep-line and felt very NSFW when I opened his blog page
    I was thinking the same thing. At times, Agnostic plucks my nerves but I wouldn’t wish Dateline’s to catch a predator type stuff on him unless he has performed an “ act” against a minor or may do so. If he is having strong leanings towards minors, he should help before he makes a big mistake.

    Like


  116. on November 24, 2008 at 7:21 pm Cannon's Canon

    @ chic

    I went with the short Howard Roark quote because I just learned a new favorite word today, “Rand-roid.” I aspire to this caricature.

    On its own, I think that the type of minimalism encouraged by the Small House Society is noble. The Small House Society and its Small House Movement themselves are not noble. To encourage martyrdom through advertisement is exactly the same holier-than-thou beta swindle that eco-extremists push with global warming alarmism and democrats push with the great “Redistribution of Wealth” idea. The “mission statement” of the SMS is for research and development, yet they laud participation, not funding. The problem is not that Americans cannot wean themselves off of big houses and fancy cars, but that they believe as a collective that they are entitled to them. This is not the libertine, capitalist way.

    Personally, I drive a Toyota and rent outside of Manhattan because those choices are prudent for my current financial situation. I aspire to drive a costlier car and live closer to the heart, but I have not saddled myself with debt or sacrificed my base savings allocation to do so. That’s my own ‘noble’ minimalism. If I were pursue the ideal of driving home to a shack in my smart car, I might as well disfigure myself and marry a 4, since I’d be living to give to others. I would, however, drive a smart car home to my shack if this was so cost-effective that it afforded me other tangible quality-of-life improvements. Say, perhaps, weekends in the Dream Hotel. I’d still be aspiring for a higher quality stasis, though.

    Like


  117. @Comment_Not_Mattering- I am not a scientist.

    Like you, I don’t understand why people think we may never run out of oil. Let’s say we don’t run out but the demand keeps increasing (China and soon India), are Americans ready to pay 6 bucks a gallon? Now air is questionable. As long as we don’t kill to many trees and plants we can/will/should have clean air. Plants take in the carbon dioxide we exhale and make oxygen by way of Photosynthesis. The question is, what about all of the many other chemicals toxins released into the air(ex paraldehyde) .

    Global warming can/may be slowed if the world consumed less beef. Our waist lines would be smaller too. From my reading, the gas of cows is a bigger agitator of global warming than car emissions.

    Like


  118. @Cannon’s Canon
    “Rand-roid.” – Have you met our dear Tupac? He is lover Ayn Rand. Are you aware there is a website eharmoney like for Ayn Rand lovers?

    Like


  119. Personally, I drive a Toyota and rent outside of Manhattan because those choices are prudent for my current financial situation. I aspire to drive a costlier car and live closer to the heart, but I have not saddled myself with debt or sacrificed my base savings allocation to do so

    I respect you for making smart money choices & not getting caught up with the joneses. Manhattan is beyond expensive. In it’s own way, NYC is sort of like living in a “small house” since many of people live in such small spaces.
    Personally, I would have only two problems with living in a small house:
    1. As a single woman I would worry about my safety.
    2. I need a toilet that flushes. A bucket will not do it for me.
    3. I need about 400 feet.

    The good thing about small houses is that they cost little( 15-45k ). Most people can pay for one within a few years. Having a McMansion and being saddled with debt for 20-30 years is not something I aspire too. A small house would also cut out consumption of useless junk(wants not needs).
    A small house would be perfect for someone like Roosh
    🙂

    To encourage martyrdom through advertisement is exactly the same holier-than-thou beta swindle that eco-extremists push with global warming alarmism and democrats push with the great “Redistribution of Wealth” idea
    Small houses are now being touted as a way to avoid debt and mortgages. I would hate having to work 12-16 hr days just to pay a mortgage for a home I never spend much time in.

    I would, however, drive a smart car home to my shack if this was so cost-effective that it afforded me other tangible quality-of-life improvements. Say, perhaps, weekends in the Dream Hotel. I’d still be aspiring for a higher quality stasis, though
    We are I2I

    Like


  120. This whole noise over global warming appears to be yet another instance of people misusing the label of science for power. Michael Crichton seems to have been criticizing this for some time, as he does in this speech of his at Caltech:
    http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

    Incidentally, when religion is misused by people for power, religion gets blamed; should we blame science also similarly?

    Like


  121. The sheople will defend their programming to the bitter end, not realizing how deeply they’ve been programmed, but there will always be those who are willing to publicly poke holes in the machinery of the corporatocracy. Well done.

    Like