7 thoughts on “What Wasn’t Said ….”

1. But it wasn’t postponed due to global cooling. It was postponed because of an excess of snow that shut down Washington.

   Warming the planet’s atmosphere means that weather gets more violent, and swings to greater excesses both warmer and cooler. Global cooling would mean milder swings, and probably milder winters overall in Washington, D.C.

   You’re confusing weather with climate.

   Where was Sen. Inhofe, by the way?

   • It wasn’t my day nor is it my inclination to watch Senator Inhofe, but I do remember he was in Copenhagen recently. I did not confuse weather with climate, I simply said:

     The announcement and wording came from the minority party side of the committee and the fact that the post didn’t use global cooling or frigid climate change or some other descriptor probably can be credited to the minority party’s desire not to ruffle the goose down to the extreme.

     You’re sure about those violent swings in all examples or is there a chance that some other cause and effect could pop out of the box of tricks?

2. Sure about the violent swings. It may be difficult to pin down the entire effect on any one particular swing, but that’s a problem with all weather forecasting — which is why climate forecasting takes a longer look.

   I suspect the meeting was called because the immediate local weather was too rough to get people into town, let alone into the hearing room. Committees generally don’t bother with politics on such announcements — I’d be surprised if that committee even has a press operation.

3. Every day is your day to watch Inhofe. You can’t avoid all responsibility forever. Your movement has to grow up some day.

   • My movement? I’ll take that as an indication that you think you know “my movement,” which I take as so much guess work on your part.

     Certainly my movement is not the movement that became dishonest in the pursuit of evidence that global warming or climate change is more anthropogenic than caused by the sun and other natural causes unconnected to man.

     You know. Things like hiding material asked for under a FOIA, scoring unsupported papers as proof that the Himalayas are being denuded of their glaciers, that the Polar Bears are losing their habitat, China’s monitoring is where it isn’t and on and on.

     I’ll believe the warmers are serious when they quit lying and manipulating (which is lying) about the so-called proof.

4. Certainly my movement is not the movement that became dishonest in the pursuit of evidence that global warming or climate change is more anthropogenic than caused by the sun and other natural causes unconnected to man.

   At what point did your movement become dishonest, then? I was unaware that anyone outside of scienc ehad pursued the very compelling evidence that warming is speeded by human actions. Who was that? Did they publish what they found?

   No one has been able to make a science case that humans are not the cause — you are probably aware of the recent action of the U.S. EPA to designate CO2 as a greenhouse gas that should be controlled. This was done only after more than a decade of serious consideration, and a court order that required EPA to stick to the law and science and do its duty.

   Were there not ample evidence of human causation, of course, under U.S. law such a regulatory action would be illegal. Where is the appeal?

   You know. Things like hiding material asked for under a FOIA,

   You slander. There is absolutely no evidence that any material requested in the heckling abuses of England’s FOI was ever hidden. Quite the contrary, it’s mostly published, and mostly in the public domain.

   So, did your movement become dishonest when it got the stolen e-mails, or when it stole them? In any case, scientists having their e-mails stolen does not make any case against their science.

   . . . scoring unsupported papers as proof that the Himalayas are being denuded of their glaciers,

   Are you denying that those papers exist? If you’ve followed that teapot tempest, you know that the evidence is overwhelming that the glaciers are melting, and that the Himalayas are being denuded of their glaciers. It’s simply false to suggest otherwise.

   There is good news in the discovery that the projected end point of the glaciers is 2350, and not 2035 — a typo. There is considerable other evidence of problems with water depletion in the rivers fed by the those glaciers.

   You don’t mean to tell a falsehood, that the glaciers are not melting prematurely, or that the rivers are not in trouble, do you?

   . . . that the Polar Bears are losing their habitat,

   Those are the facts. Polar bears are in trouble, with major threats to their habitat, especially to the habitat of the most healthy populations. The world’s best experts in polar bears and polar bear populations call for action to preserve the ice and study hard the effects of global warming on all populations of polar bears.

   Those are the facts, and of course scientists will stick to them. To say anything else would be telling falsehoods, and counter to the ethical guidelines of scientific research.

   It’s not the scientists who are dishonest about polar bears.

   . . . China’s monitoring is where it isn’t and on and on. . .

   It’s not the scientists who defend China’s monitoring as adequate, you know. It’s the contrarians, who say we don’t need to act. They’ve done all they can to hide China’s pollutant output, including trying to sully the definition of “pollutant” by saying nothing can be a pollutant if it occurs naturally, which excludes all major pollutants from the definition.

   That’s impressive, in a depressing sort of way: You made four claims in that sentence, and all four are 180 degrees from the facts.

   I’ll believe the warmers are serious when they quit lying and manipulating (which is lying) about the so-called proof.

   You’ve got very little room to complain about falsehoods from others, especially those who provide the factual, truthful evidence you reject on false and bigoted grounds.

   If you had a case to be made against warming or human causation, why did you steal the e-mails? Wasn’t that rather a confession that you’ve got no evidence, and your case is a hoax?

   • You’ve spent a lot of time in saying nothing to very little. You have managed to do the things of which you accuse others. Have you picked up a paper lately. Of course the folks at East Anglia hid and did not release documents asked for under the FOIA. And, I might add, escaped possible prosecution due to the time limit of compliance being reached that allowed an escape hatch for their violating selves.

     So someone stole the emails. But we don’t know who. Could it be a co-conspirator that got tired of the game? We only have to look at the terrible funk that Phil Jones appears to have sunk to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html

     I could go on and link to several other articles, Some from your precious publications, but frankly a global warming apologist is not likely to follow anything offered by someone who questions the gospel.

     Just to get the record straight after you’ve meandered a “crooked mile,” I have not said that global warming doesn’t exist. I have said that I do not believe it is anthropogenic in its entirety (with more warming from natural causes) and I have said there is a lot of so-called evidence that has been called into doubt (there’s those dirty skeptics again) because warming assertions are falling down like so many dominoes. Can you admit, or have you even heard that there are those of your brother and sister warmists that are miffed at the ham-handed methods in East Anglia and Pennsylvania. Those brothers and sisters that want to back up and see where they dropped the hot globe.

     The Himalaya “source” was a student that had his work hijacked by some of your scientist friends and then misused in the most dishonest way possible. Check here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

     I’m sorry that you’ve not been able to keep up, but if you’ll read something besides http://www.realclimate.org/ you might see that the light of day is not always a heat lamp.

     Finally, it been great fun jousting with you regarding a subject that is ripe for satire, which if you failed to notice, I drop into on occasion.

Comments are closed.