” The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.Data is evil.
” “Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. “Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate.”The ‘science’ doesn’t need any evil data. If you don’t believe what we tell you, then you have no ‘conscience or common sense’. So you are just as evil as the stinking data.
” “Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries,” the AP report said. “The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.”Well, a decade and a half isn’t enough. You’ll all be dead in, say, four or five more decades, so that means that six and a half decades ought to be about right before the “context of warming” quits being useful to us. In the meantime pony up a $Gazillion so we can put CO2 filters on cows, and eliminate all possible sources of energy.
All I know is what I read in the newspapers…
Will Rogers
8 comments:
Hell, I just posted something like this as a response to a Yahoo comment. What a waste.
Do they really think we haven't caught on?
" shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade."
Not true. There's more to the world then just air temperature. Oceans. Remember?
I see they're going the evolution route by stretching out the time necessary for their imaginary global warming 'crisis' to occur from years to decades and even centuries.
Science can be just as agenda-driven, misleading and dangerous as anything.
Stan, what are the global warming propagandists really after? Money?
The climate has always been defined as an averaging function. The first time I heard of a number, it was seven years. (Martin says not so, but I'm certain of that). Then it was increased as necessary for the Narrative. There is no reason, physically, for any specific number. So they can claim anything they want and not be contradicted because it is arbitrary.
It is apparent that much of global warming hysteria is Chicken Little fear mongering in pursuit of global taxation for wealth transfer away from western nations, in preparation for global governance (a totally undefined concept, but highly desired by the Left).
The Left is convinced, of course, that they are the elites who would govern the globe under their own moral codes, which apply only to non-Leftist elites. In other words, there is messiahism in play.
no name says
"" shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade."
Not true. There's more to the world then just air temperature. Oceans. Remember?"
Ah yes. The NOAA data shows oceans warming alright. Except for the arctic, which never unfroze this year. So maybe CO2 has changed its mind and has moved out to just cover the oceans, but not land.
I lost confidence in all governmental functions well before Obama dictated that NASA was to be an outreach function to Muslims.
I see. That certainly makes sense.
From Ed Driscoll,
"Of course, the leftwing elites who’ve grown the wealthiest pushing apocalyptic climate change fantasies are immune from such a reaction, yet another reminder that they don’t believe their own rhetoric, as they cheerfully hop from one apocalyptic climate conference to another on their private planes. A recent post at Newsbusters illustrates this sort of double-track thinking perfectly. At the liberal Brookings Institute this past Friday, Al Gore provided a fresh new update on his past rhetoric of calling conservatives “digital brownshirts.” Perhaps responding to President Obama’s call for an era of new civility, Al is now calling conservatives “political terrorists”:
Why does partisanship have anything to do with such a despicable and dishonorable threat to the integrity of the United States of America? It cannot be allowed. But it can only be stopped if people in both parties independents as well say, “look, I might not agree with everything that’s in the Affordable Care Act, but it did pass, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, it is the law of the land. You didn’t succeed in the constitutional process by which this was considered, and now you want to threaten to not only shut down our government, but blow up the world economy?….How dare you! How dare you!”
But in 2006, Al was busy telling people that the world was coming to an end a decade later — which means we have less than three years to go. If Al really believed his own rhetoric, wouldn’t he want the “the world economy” to “shut down,” to reduce warming and to extend the planet’s life? (Gore’s fellow Democrats, Sen. Claire McCaskill and then-Senator John Kerry, have both praised the diminished Obama economy for its Gaia-cleansing ways.)
But when Gore was cornered in the US Senate by Sen. Jim Inhoffe (R-OK) in 2007 to personally take the pledge that he had guilt-tripped audiences with in An Inconvenient Truth, “to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household,” Al of course refused. As Ann Coulter quipped at the time, Gore “may be a hypocrite but at least he’s not a moron.”
Hey, anybody who can parlay a low-rated environmentally themed cable TV channel into a $100-million paycheck by selling out to Big Middle Eastern Oil is no moron. But I don’t worry too much about Elmer Gantry; I worry about those in the pews who blindly follow him.
And it’s a form of religious hucksterism almost as old as Sinclair Lewis’s legendary preacher.
As Julia Gorin noted in the Christian Science Monitor in 2006, the cult of global warming returned to the forefront in the first decade of the 21st century as part of the left’s reaction to 9/11. “Freud called it displacement,” Gorin wrote. “People fixate on the environment when they can’t deal with real threats. Combating the climate gives nonhawks a chance to look tough. They can flex their muscle for Mother Nature, take a preemptive strike at an SUV. Forget the Patriot Act, it’s Kyoto that’ll save you.” Though the mindset of “the moral equivalent of war” dates back a century to William James and the earliest progressives; and Jimmy Carter explicitly used those words in 1977 to describe his war on fossil fuel, which is why we spent the end of the 1970s with gas lines and rationing. Carter followed up his non-energy energy speech with his infamous “malaise speech” of 1979, in which he assumed that the crisis of confidence he and his fellow leftists were suffering applied to the nation as a whole. The American people gave him their answer the following year at the ballot box."
That's an eye-opener. These snake-oil salesmen foster fear and paranoia over this fabricated apocalypse scenario while throwing labels at anyone who doesn't march along like a lemming. Although I wasn't a fan of Bush Jr., I'm still glad that Al Gore didn't become POTUS.
Post a Comment