>Climate chaos? Don’t believe it

>
You knew it all along.

“…Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst ‘market failure’ ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the ‘climate-change’ scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac’s chilling phrase, ‘creating world government’.

I’m thinking this will be the whole “DDT ~ Silent Spring” fiasco.
Malaria was on the verge of being wiped out until DDT was outlawed.
All the people who died since then can blame… someone.

Welcome Ace readers.
Climate chaos? Don’t believe it

UPDATE: Here’s the second article.

Advertisements

About Retired Geezer

Just another Old Retired Geezer in the Spud State.

Posted on November 10, 2006, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. >Oh nice catch RG! There’s a lady at work who e-mails everyone in the office links to stuff “in the News” that may have any passing relevance to our organization. This Global Warming nonsense has been featuring prominently in her latest round of stuff. I’m soooo going to enjoy throwing this link her way Monday!

  2. >RG,I’m fairly well rained in science(I’m an MD who started as a Ph.D candidate and dropped that part)and I’m not sure if I’m qualified to have a strong opinion.Actually,I know I’m not qualified;it would take a lot of study to be able to understand and critique a study.Im amused at people(an aunt comes to mind) who can’t convert Centigrade to fahrenheit but have strong opinions on global warming.My aunt will quote something she ddoesn’t understand with an authoritarian voice.That makes it real,I guess. Sincerely yours,Corwin

  3. >The first followup was released today. The link is to the first page of 5.Corwin/anonymous?I don’t get the vast majority of it, and I understand that the purpose of experts is to have someone who does know explain things to those who do not understand the intricacies.However, one thing that a normal person can easily understand with very little study or background, is that if something is so absolutely understood that it can’t be argued, and if it is argued whoever is doing the arguing must be a moron, shill or self-important, then you have to be exact.Something that everyone should be able to understand is the number of things Monckton, someone who does understnd, pointed out weren’t just misunderstood, but deliberately manipulated.Lambda, the reduction of non-urban temperature and weather stations in the world, the forcings/biasings of formula’s of a model to put a model in the right position with known measurements, the abolition of the warm period and the historical predictions that have been proven wrong, and then airbrushed from the discussion.If the science is absolutely possitively known to be true, then you don’t have to dick with physical laws, you don’t have to dick with history, you don’t have to cover up your previous mistakes, because you can now explain them.The gaia run over by a ford concept, if it was so clearly understood, could explain these discrepancy’s without saying people are just serving big oil.I think non-specialists could understand that.

  4. >A quote made to explain why defining a rough rate of discount as being intertemporally inequitable (thats the quote) proves that someone is full of shit.Of course something compared to another time is inequitable,t hat is why projections of rates are based on rate of discount. If the economic rate of discount projections are unfair for intertemporally inequitable-ity-ish-ous-ness then why is the climatalogical projection NOT intertemporally inequitable.I’m just saying. It’s a classic goose gander thing.

  5. >The AoSHQ blessing is so fickle isn’t it? What a load of crap.Random.Geezer?You have a lot of genital based metaphors (I do too) but . . . .well, is there anything that has touched any portion of your body that you don’t have a crude refference to male genitalia about?The Timber Dick thing? thats one, no problem, scoff it off, but a few hours later, you are talking about holding “horse cock”Really, we’ve covered your neck back, shoulder chest and hands. . . . .what other things do you have phalic like nicknames for. What do you call breath mints?Thats basicaly what I’m curious about. . . What do you call breath mints?:D

  6. >Tim Lambert is challenging Monckton’s piece. He says it is full of errors:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/even_moncktons_inadequate_corr.php

  7. >Lambert points out that Hansen’s claim was actually about 0.15ºC and that he was not the one who made the claim that the sea level would rise by many feet. Monckton himself has retracted that former claim.Sorry guys. The honest truth is that there is very little debate in the scientific community about the reality of global warming.Ya hear me now? Almost none. Most of the so-called global warming skeptics are either people who don’t understand how to properly interpret the data (like Monckton) or are people paid by corporations who have a vested interest in ensuring that people are misled.

  8. >Sorry guys. The honest truth is that there is very little debate in the scientific community about the reality of global warming.Uh, yeah. The debate centers over whether or not mankind is to blame for global warming. And that debate is far from settled.

  9. >Thank you Jordan.Misrepresenting a discussion has moved from politics to science.Scientists should be ashamed. I wish Heinlein was still alive at his most fit. He would have millions of warriors following him. (absent the fucking your mother thing)

  10. >Progressives continue to get stuck seeking exogenous models to explain everything, and subsesequently fail to get it when the change, variance and periodic catastrophy are part of the system (endogenous model).I have a hunch they seek to detach consequence from action as it serves their relativist goals. Bad economy in Germany? Blame the blood-sucking Jews. Troubles in the south? Blame the sub-human negros. Troubles in the north? Mindless bible thumpers. Muslims killing westerners for 40 years worldwide? Blame Bush going into Iraq 3 years ago (ever notice how many blame 9/11 on Bush Jr.s Iraq invasion? Even time is liberated from the relativist’s exogenous models).Of course, such detachment also permits irrational solutions that are also unable to find leverage on the original problem, like the usual liberal fantasy of a totalitarian state. Liberal social welfare states of Europe: failure. Liberal national socialist state in Nazi Germany: failure. Liberal socialism in the USSR and China: failure. Totalitarian socialism in Kampuchea: failure. Yet as they’re unable to correlate effect with cause, they keep thinking the failure must have been in the details and not the model.If you’re interested in man’s fascination with false exogenous models, read “Why Most Things Fail” by Paul Ormerod. Society greately needs more moderating rational thinkers to avoid the relativists from crashing society over and over again with their delusion.-redherkey

  11. >Yeah MikeZ,The problem isn’t that there is something happening but the explanations are not validated, since they are sequestering portions of the decision process.That alone is enough reason to believe that the consensus is not a real consensus.

%d bloggers like this: