Right Pundits

“Climate Change” my man… climate change.

That would be ‘weather’

As weird as it sounds, its been an unusually cool winter here in Hawaii.
Waikiki is sinking at a rate of about 1/10 an inch per year.
Turns out it snot because of climate change, but a really bad idea to build elbow to elbow hotels on a landfill next to the ocean.
I heard it was the earthworms fault.
Not because they’re undermining foundations but they’re contributing to the earths temperature by being too promiscuous, prolly liberals, will Obamacare cover their abortions, and solve global worming ?
I’ll quit while I’m ahead

Global warming, i.e. climate change = polar ice caps shrinking = water levels rising = increased precipitation. So yes, more snow is EXACTLY what climate scientists have predicted.

I haven’t been around here long enough to tell if TA is just kidding.

No sane person disputes whether or not the polar ice caps are shrinking and the seas rising. They are. The only dispute is WHY. My point was simply that people who use every snow storm to try to make the point that the climate is not changing make no sense. At all.

Do I believe that some change has happened due to industry? Yeah probably, although I don’t know to what extent.

I think it would be naive not to think that there might be some effect due to emissions released since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

If there is a dramatic effect, however, I don’t have any idea what to do about it since the real growth in emissions is in countries that have no plans to make changes and are in the midst of population explosions.

Interesting that the Dark Ages were the result of only a few degree decrease over a period of time. The outcome was unfortunately exacerbated by the inability to make agricultural adjustments in that era.

The good news, however, is it resulted in trees growing at a slow rate, which meant wood had a tight grain.

Why is this noteworthy?

Stradivarius violins. The tightly wound wood is what gives them their unique sound and why they have never been duplicated.

You see, I’m a glass half-full guy.

“The Greenland ice sheet has in fact recently thickened by 2 inches per year – a total of 20 inches in 10 years” (Johannesen et al., 2005).”

You can’t play, “this study, that study” on this issue as there is too much information available.

A study published in 2005 was probably based on measurements for the previous years and ten seconds of google searches will demonstrate a decrease in the Greenland ice sheet in the last couple of years.

The trouble with google; I can say “up is down” and probably come up with supporting documents.

It is effective for many things, but it does have its shortcomings.

It reminds me of that TV commercial for State Farm, “It must be true, it’s on the Internet”.

“It reminds me of that TV commercial for State Farm, “It must be true, it’s on the Internet”.”

Yeah, typical liberal maneuver, bash the source.
(which happens to not be the internet)

Heres the entire piece from a debate I had in 2009
If it doesnt sound like me its because its not.
But, the gentleman commenting is a close friend who worked with me in compiling the sources and data researched.

He can be found here > http://rayharvey.org/
Relevant links were deleted to dodge RPs spam filter
===================

Some final thoughts, if Eric (Eric at Tygrrrr Express) will allow me to overwhelm his comment box, on Mr. McJones’s precautionary principle concerning global warming:
On October 19th, 2007, the Rocky Mountain News ran an op-ed piece entitled “Al Gore’s ignoble Nobel,” by Denver talkshow host Mike Rosen. Five days after that, a rebuttal appeared.
This rebuttal, “Mostly wrong on warming,” was written by a scientist named Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder.
In turn, Dr. Trenberth’s article was rebutted by a man named Christopher Monckton, third Vicount of Benchley and Former Advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Mr. Trenberth’s article did not appear in the Rocky Mountain News; it was published on the Science and Public Policy.
Mr. Monckton, who, like Mike Rosen, is not a scientist, then appeared as a guest on Mike Rosen’s radio show, to discuss in greater detail what he calls the “swindle” of global warming.
It should also be noted that Dr. Trenberth was invited on the program to debate the issue with Mr. Monckton, but, as you might suspect, Trenberth declined – and did so, according to Mike Rosen’s producers, none too politely.
Among global warming alarmists, it’s become somewhat vogue to criticize the “credentials” of anyone, scientist and non-scientist alike, who disagrees with the catastrophic scenarios. Turnabout, as mentioned above, is only fair play.
“There is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
As Doctor Lindzen notes in the above-quoted passage, government-funded scientists depend entirely upon politicians for their research money. Science, therefore, which by definition is an objective discipline, is instantly politicized: i.e. science is made non-objective.
Science becomes a thing of consensus – which by definition means that science is no longer science.
Instead of rational debate and scientific inquiry, we’re subject to these endless lobby campaigns, these endless invectives, these endless personal smears against any scientist who dares to do her job — question and investigate — and this is the reason we now hear the constant authoritarian cry: “Silence! The debate is over.”
This kind of ad hominem attack is many things, but science is certainly not one of them. Nor is it going to get the world to a better place, as Mr. McJones imagines.
If you doubt my words, observe what Dr. Kevin Trenberth himself says in his Rocky Mountains News response: “Gore’s statement that ice-sheets melting in Greenland or the West Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct, although it was misleading that he did not put a time-frame on this.”
Ask yourself: why didn’t Gore put a time-frame on it?
The answer: a twenty foot increase would, all things remaining equal, take millennia.
As Dr. Trenberth himself once stated: “… temperatures would have to remain 5.5 degrees Celsius higher than today’s for several millennia before the Greenland ice sheet would lose even half of its ice. The Greenland ice sheet has in fact recently thickened by 2 inches per year – a total of 20 inches in 10 years” (Johannesen et al., 2005).
Is that, as Dr. Trenberth says, merely “misleading” on Gore’s part?
Or is it an outright prevarication?
Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand scientist who recently resigned from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), where he had served as an expert from its inception, left because, in his words, “the world will slowly realize that the ‘predictions’ emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any global warming for the past 8 years is only the beginning. The whole process is a swindle. The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide evidence that carbon dioxide increases were harming the climate even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using people’s opinions instead of science to prove their case.”
I wrote Dr. Kevin Trenberth a number of emails in which I asked him, among other things, why he’d declined Mike Rosen’s invitation to debate this issue on-air. His response, which came very rapidly, did not surprise me: he said that he’d been tied up in meetings that day, but more than that, these men, according to him, have no scientific credentials – which lack of credentials did not, however, preclude his original Rocky Mountain News response to Mike Rosen’s article. Nor, for that matter, his rather strident support of non-scientist Al Gore and Al Gore’s famous non-scientific melodrama: An Inconvenient Truth.
Dr. Trenberth, whom I paraphrase here for reasons I will make clear in a moment, also, in our email exchange, intimated that any non-scientist, no matter how erudite the person may (or may not) be, by virtue of being a non-scientist, is simply not qualified to raise objections to global warming scenarios.
Thus, we who are not scientists must simply take on faith what these men and women of “science” tell us, regardless of their politics, or their fraudulent premises.
What about the actual scientists who disagree with the alarmists?
I named a few of these thousands upon thousands to Dr. Trenberth – such as Dr. William Gray – and Trenberth, as you would also suspect, immediately called into question the “credentials” of such people. Dr. Gray, I was told, is “long-retired” and, anyway, has been “reprimanded by CSU.”
There is, in other words, no way for anyone, scientist or not, to debate the global warming alarmists. We must simply accept what they say without public discussion or debate.
Now that’s what I call convenient.
The following, however, is more convenient still:
When I asked Dr. Kevin Trenberth if I could quote our exchange, his response to me – and I’m paraphrasing, of course –was an unequivocal, no, you may not quote me from our exchange.
One is strangely reminded of W.H. Auden’s lines: “The blessed don’t care what angle they’re regarded from, having nothing to hide….”
You should realize also that environmentalism’s goal of global limits on carbon dioxide and other chemical emissions, as called for in the Kyoto protocol and certain other treaties, easily lends itself to the establishment of world-wide central planning with respect to a wide variety of essential means of production. Indeed, an explicit bridge between socialism and environmentalism is supplied by one of the most prominent theorists of the environmental movement, Barry Commoner, who was also the Green Party’s first candidate for President of the United States. The intellectuals, who insist that man must be forced to live for others and now for “the environment,” have kept the monstrous philosophy alive. It is a philosophy of slavery, and bandwagon thinking is what propogates it: the unanalyzed, unquestioned acceptance of environmental platitudes. We must, for instance, “save the planet” by carpooling and recycling. This is where your precautionary principle gets you.
The precautionary principle is Pascal’s famous wager applied to environmentalists. It is thus equally as absurd.
If socialism had died, the entire world, including the Third World, would now be moving toward unprecedented economic progress and prosperity.
Instead, the elitist intellectuals, who live off the fruits of technology, progress, and, in a phrase, free-market capitalism, have chosen to foist the doctrine of environmentalism onto the world, so that the Third World cannot develop but must (so say the intellectuals) be kept in grinding poverty, replete with disease and death — all because our “jeopardized planet” demands it, and because corporations are evil, and because, anyway, the elites say so. The environmental elites are the new socialist rulers.
This is the government that the people have turned to for ’social justice’; for protection and aid, in the form of labor and social legislation; for reason and order, in the form of government ‘planning.’ This is the government that has implemented progressive income taxation and inheritance taxation; minimum wage laws and maximum-hour laws; laws giving special privileges and immunities to labor unions; antitrust legislation; social security legislation; public education; public housing; socialized medicine; nationalized or municipalized post offices, utilities, railroads, subways, and buslines; subsidies for farmers, shippers, manufacturers, borrowers, lenders, the unemployed, students, tenants, and the ‘needy’ of every description. This is the government that has implemented food and drug regulation, building codes and zoning laws, occupational health and safety legislation, and more. This government has created arbitrary money and abolished the gold standard — to make possible the inflation of the money supply without limit. They have, in short, created over fifty thousand new laws and countless other regulations, which have swept across the country and the world with the force of a tidal wave, so that the concept of self-ownership, self-governance, and limited government seems antiquated to all but a handful who understand what’s at stake; thus, any mention of individual rights, the recognition of which is the only way for humans to actually live prosperously and freely, is now considered out-of-date. Yet if human freedom is ever to be won, it is only through the recognition of each individual’s absolute right to his or her own life and his or her own property that will accomplish it.’
Please think about that the next time you call from “more government involvement just in case, because, after all, what could the harm be?”
The harm is the piecemeal abolition of private property and, hence, freedom.”

Yeah, so solly boss.
I overshot the cut before I pasted and missed it

HAH! Global warming! Too funny!

I remember not all that long ago when scientists were predicting another Ice Age. In the 1990s, many were worried about the increases of the Antarctic glaciers. There was one book I recall, I believe it was titled “5-5-2000″, which predicted that a planetary alignment, along with the ‘bottom-heavy’ Antarctic ice, would cause the Earth to shift on its axis. Needless to say, May 5, 2000 came and went without the end of the planet.

We used to get 2 or 3 foot snowstorms, 2 or 3 times a Winter, when I was growing up in New Hampshire.

I Know ! I used to have to shovel it.

Now, it’s a 24/7 hysterical news event. Might as well wile away the hours applying for

2 or 3 TONS OF FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF