Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition)

Old 09-09-10, 10:38 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

A couple of weeks ago we talked about the incredibly close Australian national election in which the pro-CAGW Labor party and the more-or-less conservative "Coalition" ran neck and neck in an election Labor was supposed to win easily.

Now, incredibly, two conservative Independents sided with Labor and, even more incredibly, the Greens to keep Labor in power.


Aren’t elected representatives supposed to serve the voters?
John Styles
Saturday, 11th September 2010

By supporting the Labor Left-Greens alliance, the so-called Independents have shown contempt for their conservative constituencies, says John Styles

When you enjoy the sound of your own voice as much as the giggling, grinning Rob Oakeshott apparently does, there is always a chance you will say more than you may have intended. So it was during the Independent/maybe-Labor minister’s media conference on Tuesday at which he and Tony Windsor delivered federal government to the Labor-Greens alliance.

‘We’ve just had to go through an incredibly unnatural decision to draw some conclusions about lining up with a party that fundamentally we don’t believe with [sic],’ he said, during a typically long, rambling response to a journalist’s question about how the pair of independents could make a decision that was so comprehensively out of step with the conservative nature of their electorates.

Here was Oakeshott admitting that he was giving crucial support to a party he didn’t believe in. He described his decision as ‘unnatural’. How about bizarre, weird, crazy? How about calling it just plain nuts?

So we had the representative of a demonstrably conservative constituency, a seat that overwhelmingly supported the Coalition in its Senate vote and expressed a decided preference for a Coalition government in post-election opinion polling, siding with the Labor party and radical Left Greens. More than that, the decision defied the clear preference of the nation as a whole. On 21 August, the Coalition won the primary vote, the two-party-preferred vote and won the most seats in the House of Representatives.

In Rob Oakeshott’s Lyne electorate, the ALP managed to attract only 13.5 per cent of the primary vote and the Greens just 4.3 per cent. In Tony Windsor’s seat, the Left fared even worse: Country Labor 8.1 per cent, the Greens 3.6 per cent.

Former Victorian Liberal president Michael Kroger summed it up on Melbourne radio MTR 1377:

‘If [Oakeshott] had gone to that election saying that, if the opportunity arose, I am going to accept the position of a minister in a government led by a Socialist Left prime minister — let’s not forget, Julia Gillard has been in the Socialist Left faction of the Labor party for almost 30 years — I’m going to be a minister of a government which is supported by the extreme Left Greens, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania and another former National, you know, people would have been aghast.

‘He wouldn’t have got close to being elected. And if he accepts a ministry in a Labor government supported by the Greens … the people in his electorate would have every right to be absolutely feral at him, and so they should be.’

One Lyne resident messaged the same radio show to say that he now felt as if he lived in a safe Labor seat. According to other media reports, the locals were ‘screaming’ at the decision. A local told one reporter that when Tony Windsor returned to his electorate ‘they were going to lynch him’ (figuratively speaking, presumably).

The feeling of betrayal ran deep in Rob Oakeshott’s Lyne electorate. Even the ABC reported that constituents were ‘deeply divided’. David Finnegan, the defeated Nationals candidate in Lyne, told ABC’s AM: ‘I tried to tell the people that a vote for the ALP was a vote for the ALP, a vote for the Greens was a vote for the ALP and I certainly told them all that a vote for Rob [Oakeshott] was a vote for the ALP. So they can’t say I didn’t tell them.’

Voter outrage is likely to wash over Oakeshott. Two weeks ago he informed the Weekend Australian that his role has been ‘not just to be a slave to the electorate, but to lead the electorate’. Electors of Lyne, your ‘leader’ has made your decision for you.

Listening to Oakeshott, we were expected to conclude, it seemed, that somehow he has been a victim in all of this. He spent a rotten Father’s Day. He hasn’t been home for eight weeks. The ‘Three Amigos’ were asked to do what the rest of the parliament were not willing to do. The decision had caused splits in his extended family, and so on. One’s heart bleeds.

For two-and-a-half weeks it was impossible to be out of earshot of Oakeshott. Then, on Monday, Mr Oakeshott declared, ‘I have run out of things to say.’ We wished. By 3pm Tuesday he was in full voice again, and he had a lot more to say. Tuesday’s main event was The Rob Oakeshott Show at Parliament House. The warm-up act was a 10-minute speech by New England amigo Tony Windsor.

Considerately, Windsor revealed his decision to support a Gillard government at about the two-and-a-half-minute mark of his spiel. Self-indulgently, Oakeshott teased the process out, excitedly hinting at, get ready for it… ‘the juicy and sexy decision that everyone’s waiting on’. If he’d said that on the internet, Stephen Conroy might have tried to filter it.

Oakeshott’s performance, described variously as ‘farcical’, ‘an embarrassment’ and ‘cringeworthy’, meandered on… and on. At one point Oakeshott suggested that any politician who mentioned the word ‘mandate’ in the new parliament should be fined. Give us a dollar every time Oakeshott refers to ‘the national interest’ or ‘stability’ and we might begin to pay back the ballooning Labor-created national debt.

Eleven minutes into the speech, those who managed to remain focused heard Mr Oakeshott state, in the context of regional development, ‘there has been an offer come in to drive this’. That was his oblique, and only, reference to the ministerial position he had been offered by Labor until a journalist, much later, asked a direct question on the subject. Then this self-described ‘proud and strong’ independent hedged again, stating only that an offer had been made and he would be discussing it with his family. Rarely do the national interest, the regional interest and the personal interest converge so conveniently. The offer of a ministry, he said, ‘is separate to any consideration in this whatsoever’.

Oakeshott’s cringing summation rivalled the embarrassing opening: ‘This is going to be a cracking parliament. It’s going to be ugly. But it will be beautiful in its ugliness. I think we should all enjoy it.’ Go figure.

When asked on Melbourne radio if he was as embarrassed as everyone else by Oakeshott’s performance, former Howard government minister Kevin Andrews displayed remarkable restraint: ‘For someone who says there should be time limits in terms of speeches in parliament, he breached his own rules.’

Oakeshott’s performance, and Windsor’s, made much of the supposed rigorous and exhaustive consultative process that preceded Tuesday’s announcement. It was intended to give the impression that the national interest and the interests of regional Australia were the determining factors. Tony Windsor conceded that both sides offered ‘excellent packages’, and Rob Oakeshott said that the decision was, in the final analysis, ‘line-ball’. Windsor nominated the fibre-based National Broadband Network and renewable energy opportunities for regional Australia as his main reasons for supporting Labor.

Oakeshott, as preacher-teacher, seemed motivated most by a kind of therapeutic ‘smile-on-your-brother’ paradigm change: ‘Yes, there’s a mix of party political views, but the cultural shift we’ve all got to make in this parliament is no political party has dominance. We’ve all got to learn to work with each other even if they are traditional foes.’

Of the commitments offered by the parties, Windsor said both rural packages were ‘very strong’. ‘We didn’t sit there and add up the numbers to see who was going to win. But they were both well-intentioned packages.’ They didn’t add up the numbers to see who was going to win? Incredible. Why bother with process?

But, as Andrews pointed out, ‘Of the three rural independents, it was only Bob Katter who set out a list of matters which he thought were important to rural Australia and came to the conclusion, when objectively going through it, that the Coalition would deliver better for rural Australia. For the other two, we had, at best, a judgement call.’

On Tuesday afternoon, near the end of the excruciating media conference, Windsor let slip a little bit more than might be good, in the longer term, for the two independents. In the vein of Oakeshott’s admission that the decision made by the two amigos was ‘unnatural’, Windsor also made an interesting confession. He said that he sided with Labor because he thought they would be less likely to call an early election. When asked why he thought Tony Abbott would be more likely to call an early election, he said: ‘Because I think [the Coalition would] be more likely to win. [Labor’s] more likely to be here for a longer period of time if they can’t go to the polls and win in a hurry.’

When a fresh election could render your parliamentary vote unnecessary, it’s to hell with the ‘national interest’ and the people’s democratic rights.

The reaction of the citizens of New England and Lyne revealed that most had no idea that their independent members would turn to Labor and the extremist Greens in the event of a hung parliament. Well, now they know.
Oh well, they probably will still not be able to pass their version of ration'n'tax which they couldn't pass when Labor/Greens had a bigger margin. But really, what's wrong with these people?
Old 09-10-10, 01:40 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

China "beating" us in green technology by cheating.


Steelworkers Accuse China of Unfair Trade Practices in Clean Technologies
By JOEL KIRKLAND of ClimateWire
Published: September 10, 2010

The largest American industrial union is accusing China of using unfair trade practices to create jobs in its clean energy technology sector and get a permanent edge on U.S. manufacturers.

The United Steelworkers yesterday filed a 5,000-page complaint with the U.S. Trade Representative that asserts China aims to control the global clean energy market at the expense of U.S. jobs. China's tactics for accelerating green technology development and securing big shares of the wind turbine and solar panel manufacturing businesses breach World Trade Organization rules, according to the union.

"This case draws a line in the sand," said union president Leo Gerard. "The petition presents comprehensive facts and data regarding China's illegal acts under international trade rules."

Gerard criticized U.S. trade officials for engaging in "unending diplomatic niceties" and photo-ops, instead of serious trade negotiations with China. "We're hemorrhaging jobs, seeing our bilateral trade deficit skyrocket and jeopardizing our future."

The state of U.S.-China trade relations has been a constant sore spot for groups that represent American workers. Increasingly, clean energy technology has been on their radar as China has made the development of that sector a national goal, and as concern mounts about U.S. job losses in a global market reliant on lower-cost Chinese manufacturers.

More broadly, the Bush and Obama administrations have come under fire for not aggressively challenging China's practice of intervening in currency markets to dampen the price of Chinese goods sold in foreign markets.

China recently surpassed Japan to become the second-largest economy in the world. That has happened as China has become the major global power player in renewable energy, producing about half of the equipment used in building solar panels and wind turbines. China and its companies, heavily subsidized by their government, invested more than $30 billion in 2009 to produce energy technology designed to lower carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming.

The United States spends about half of that, despite support through U.S. government loans and grants meant to boost fledgling energy technology companies competing for a share of a U.S. market dominated by lower-cost conventional fuels such as coal.

Union lawsuit forces Obama's hand

By filing a complaint at the office of the chief U.S. trade negotiator, which has 45 days to decide whether it will open a formal investigation, the steelworkers union forces the Obama administration to respond just weeks before a midterm congressional election that promises to focus on the U.S. economy.

"I'd be shocked if they said there's nothing to look into. It allows them to kick the can down the road past the election," said Tim Keeler, counsel at the law firm Mayer Brown and former USTR chief of staff under the Bush administration.

"But what do they do then?" he added. "If all of a sudden you have formal trade fights between the U.S. and China, how does that affect U.S. and China bilateral and multilateral climate talks and trade negotiations?"

Trade officials under the Bush and Obama administrations have advocated for WTO members to consider lowering tariffs on environmental products. A U.S.-China imbroglio over China's trade practices could jeopardize progress on that issue.

Keeler said, to some degree, these types of trade disputes will be increasingly normal. "As the global market for clean technology grows, the trade fights associated with it will grow also," he said.

Still, he and others responding to questions about the filing yesterday said this puts the administration in a difficult position. Top Obama administration officials have said China is doing the right thing by investing in cleaner energy sources.

From the perspective of United Nations-led climate negotiations, China's financial commitments could help smooth the way during future talks. In addition, the expansion of China's manufacturing capacity has driven down the costs of producing wind and solar power globally.

A clash between environmental and technology policies?

"At some point we'll have to answer the question: Is there a clash between our environmental goals and our goal of having a robust clean technology manufacturing sector?" Keeler said.

The union's petition asserts primarily that China is in violation of a number of WTO rules. The WTO prohibits export subsidies that give domestic companies an advantage when they sell into the global market; it also restricts tariffs and subsidies that could thwart foreign competition.

China produces most of the world's supply of rare earth minerals that serve as critical raw materials in the manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels and advanced batteries. In its petition, the union asserts China restricts exports of these minerals through export quotas, taxes and a complicated licensing process.

The WTO prohibits export restrictions on these minerals, and the U.S. and European countries are already pursuing a separate case against China tied to the trade of the rare earth minerals. The union asserts that China's alleged export restrictions increase prices for companies outside of China and create an incentive to shift U.S. manufacturing to China to gain access to the minerals supply.

The union's complaint also asserts China subsidizes companies based on export performance or on the use of Chinese-made goods in the manufacturing process. It notes that one program, called "Ride the Wind," grants access to loan benefits and connections to the power grid if a wind power project can show it uses Chinese-made equipment. Foreign companies that operate in China also get preferential treatment if they use Chinese-built products, according to the petition.

To Joanna Lewis, a China expert at Georgetown University, China isn't simply dumping wind and solar equipment onto the global markets, but also increasing its domestic market. "China was the largest wind energy market last year," she said. "It's not just that China is manufacturing these for export, but actually using it themselves."

Technology transfer and 'local content'

The complaint also asserts China rigs bidding processes for wind power projects by forcing consideration of "local content" in the project. Much of this is done through power purchase agreements with local governments, which the union asserts don't fall under a WTO exemption allowing "local content" discrimination for government procurement.

The U.S. Congress passed legislation in 2009 that included a "Buy America" provision for government-procured projects.

There is also the heated issue of technology transfer, which U.S. companies often agree to voluntarily as a way of entering the Chinese market. The transfer of advanced Western technology is considered a critical issue for helping developing countries such as China and India cut emissions and address global warming. But it's a highly contentious issue for U.S. companies afraid to introduce patented products into China for fear of losing their grip on the technology.

Georgetown's Lewis said a trade fight probably isn't the best approach for the United States. "There are plenty of areas that the U.S. has a comparative advantage over China, especially in advanced technologies.

"Our strength is never going to be low-cost manufacturing," she said. "There are plenty of areas where we are stronger and that we spend money on."

Adele Morris, an energy economist at the Brookings Institution, agreed that U.S. manufacturing -- be it green technologies or widgets or toilets -- isn't well-positioned to compete with China, and pursuing trade sanctions might not be the best approach to creating U.S. jobs.

"It's hard to see why clean energy should have a substantially different pattern of trade than the rest of the manufacturing sector," she said.

For example, she said, for a renewable energy standard to be in the interest of American consumers, the equipment and technology need to be affordable.

"In the interest of the environment, that's a good thing. We want the technologies to be cheap," Morris said. "So that's trouble for American manufacturers."
And we (at least our unions) are complaining why? China is winning the battle to subsidize inefficient technologies and lose tons of money. What, we want to lose all that money ourselves?
Old 09-10-10, 02:27 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

I always find China the most interesting in this. On one hand, they see the rest of the world as a sucker willing to pay crazy prices for this stuff. On the other hand, of all the countries, they can probably make the best case for actually benefiting from some of this, not because they're worried about global warming, but they need to do something about their air quality.
Old 09-10-10, 08:08 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Originally Posted by guildda View Post
I always find China the most interesting in this. On one hand, they see the rest of the world as a sucker willing to pay crazy prices for this stuff. On the other hand, of all the countries, they can probably make the best case for actually benefiting from some of this, not because they're worried about global warming, but they need to do something about their air quality.
But CO2 has nothing to do with air quality, i.e. actual pollution.
Old 09-11-10, 08:56 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Greenpeace releases video of a kid making ridiculous CAGW claims and threatening adults in some vague but firm way.

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vgvnqv1-_D4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vgvnqv1-_D4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

Complete with Unabomber hood.

Is Greenpeace telling us they are trying to make future James Lees?

Utterly sickening. But that's Greenpeace.

Here's a great comment from someone at YouTube:


@downriggershop I’m reminded irresistibly not just of James J. Lee but of the scene in Cabaret, in which a beautiful boy, eyes brightly steeled with moral fervour, starts sweetly to sing Tomorrow Belongs To Me. And only as the camera pans out do you see him in his Hitler Youth uniform, with shirt of forest brown.
Edit: I didn't realize this trash is actually three years old. (Posted 9-2-07)

Last edited by movielib; 09-11-10 at 09:05 AM.
Old 09-11-10, 10:28 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Dumb commercial of the week:

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BNeEVkhTutY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BNeEVkhTutY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>
Old 09-11-10, 10:42 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

How someone in the middle is treated by both sides, in his own words:


Global warming: War below the fold
September 11th, 2010 10:39 pm ET
Thomas Fuller

Most readers come by and read what I and other Examiners have to say and travel elsewhere on their internet journey. But about 1% of you decide to leave a comment, either in praise or fury. Almost all of the sites dealing with climate change are configured to receive comments, and many a discussion or even food fight has broken out below the final words of an author's article or posting.

I've been writing a series of guest posts at Watt's Up With That, mostly dealing with how media plays around with the science to put a favored point of view forward. In the meantime, I was also posting comments on the weblog of Michael Tobis, a serious warmist alarmist.

I'd like to share with you the experience of being involved in discussions on both skeptic and warmist websites. The quick bottom line is that I find the skeptics far more congenial than the alarmists.

That is despite the fact that my position is as far away from theirs as it is from the alarmists. However, the skeptics, who abound over at WUWT (although they are not the only visitors there) are more cordial and even tempered. They are nothing like the flat-earth denialist rubes that the media paints them as being. I have learned a lot over there, without ever once feeling hectored, insulted or harangued.

Over at Tobis' site, Only In It For the Gold, it has been a different story. It really is the case that if you don't buy their whole package (and I really do not), you are a default denialist whose heresies must be suppressed. The whole range of internet neuroses and borderline pathology is rampant in the comments section there, and I have been insulted, belittled, ridiculed and lectured at--while the main points I have tried to make over there have been just unaddressed, perhaps (I think) because they don't have the answers that suit their story line.

I'm a liberal Democrat from San Francisco--most of the commenters at WUWT are conservative Republicans. But none of them took this difference as a cue to come after me with cyberbricks or cyberbats. Instead we basically discussed the issues.

Most of the commenters on Only In It For The Gold are liberal democrats like myself. They basically make me ashamed of us. There's only so many times you can be called an ignorant pimp before your desire to have a discussion fades.

What I have been writing about at WUWT has been a short series of articles on how the basic symbols used in the media campaigns about global warming have been misused. I have written on that frequently enough here that I didn't want to repost them in this space, but you can probably guess what I had to say.

Instead, over at Only In It For the Gold, I have been responding to Michael Tobis' posts about how wrong my writing has been, both at WUWT and here. Suffice it to say he hasn't changed my thinking, nor I his.

I have a few more pieces I want to put up over at WUWT, but I will try and get some different material up here as well. I don't want you to feel neglected.

But if you do, feel free to let me know in the comments.
This says a lot.
Old 09-13-10, 09:00 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

DDT documentary opens this Friday (I assume in limited release).


DDT “a weapon of mass survival”

3 Billion and counting: The cost of banning DDT
By Dennis Avery
Sunday, September 12, 2010

CHURCHVILLE, VA—3 Billion and Counting is a new documentary film on the awful human cost of banning DDT. The film’s producer, medical doctor Rutledge Taylor, circled the tropical world, finding that malaria has claimed some three billion human lives throughout history—and the toll of needless deaths is continuing to mount by perhaps 1.5 million per year.

Moreover, it permanently debilitates millions more. Taylor says malaria treatment is a “tangle of red tape, misguided prevention policies and treatment that is ineffective in the face of continual re-infection.” Above all, he found “willful deafness to the pleas of local populations to help them eradicate the mosquitoes that deliver the deadly cargo.”

Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com has called DDT “a weapon of mass survival.”

Rachel Carson ignited the environmental movement when her book Silent Spring warned the world in 1962 that “DDT would be proven to be a [human] carcinogen.” In fact, no peer-reviewed evidence ever indicted DDT as a carcinogen—or a human health risk of any sort.

What about DDT thinning the eggshells of raptor birds? Audubon counted virtually no eagles in its annual “lower-48 states” Christmas bird counts from 1900 until after 1940. The birds were shot and poisoned for “stealing” fish, lambs, and poultry. The public thought eagles were just big, aggressive predators. Finally, in 1940, Congress passed the Bald Eagle Protection Act. The eagles began a long, initially-slow comeback. Today, Audubon typically records more than 15,000 eagles every Christmas—and the DDT ban had no role in their comeback.

But Rachel Carson struck a public nerve. DDT and window screens had eradicated malaria in America and Europe. Well and good. But then DDT started radically reducing the death rates of the brown, black, and yellow people in the tropics. Paul Ehrlich wrote his incendiary screed The Population Bomb in 1968, and the American public recoiled in horror at “overpopulation.”

Rutledge Taylor traces the horrific DDT mistake back to one man: William Ruckelshaus, the Nixon-appointed lawyer who headed the EPA in 1972. An EPA judge heard more than 100 expert witnesses, and ruled that DDT was not a carcinogen, nor did it pose a threat to mammals, fish or birds. Ruckelshaus overruled his own judge, and banned DDT. He had attended none of the hearing, and admitted later he’d never read any of the transcript. Dr. Taylor concludes he did it to please his friends in the Environmental Defense Fund.

The American DDT ban triggered similar bans across the First World—and with it, their refusal to fund its use in poor countries. Malaria resurged all over the tropics. Rachel Carson, and Ruckelshaus were the indirect cause of more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Genghis Khan combined. You can even throw in the Black Plague and still not match the numbers.

DDT is not only the most cost-effective mosquito killer, it is also a powerful mosquito repellent. If tropic homes get a mild interior DDT whitewash, the insects don’t come in, bite somebody, and then die two hours later. They just don’t come in! DDT is, by itself, capable of reducing a malaria outbreak by 80 percent—quickly.

Global population is now rapidly stabilizing, and will trend slowly down after 2050. Is it time to renounce the “overpopulation” panic and use the best chemistry to suppress the awful malaria scourge? Remember, each case of malaria causes not only the victim’s near-constant suffering, but the need for much nursing care from his family. Malaria may be enough, by destroying the vigorous health of its citizens, to explain the poverty of so many tropical countries

Meanwhile, Ohio’s governor is trying for an EPA waiver for malathion, another persistent pesticide, to control the bedbugs that were once eradicated by DDT and are making a vigorous comeback. We wish him good luck.

Conflict of interest note: I was proud to be interviewed in this film, and received no remuneration. My deepest thanks go to Dr. Taylor for his constructive dedication to correcting our society’s massive, tragic malaria mistake.


New film challenges DDT myths and lies that have caused millions of needless deaths

3 Billion and Counting
By Paul Driessen
Saturday, September 11, 2010

We will eradicate malaria by 2010, stricken families were promised a few years ago. Well, 2010 is nearly gone and, instead of eradication, we have more malaria than before … and a new target date: 2015.

Unless malaria control policies change, that date too will come and go. Billions will still be at risk of getting malaria. Hundreds of millions will continue getting the disease. Millions will die or become permanently brain-damaged. And poverty and misery will continue ravaging Third World communities.

For years, malaria strategies have been dominated by insecticide-treated bed nets, Artemisia-based drugs, improved diagnostics and hospitals, educational campaigns, and a search for vaccines against highly complex plasmodium parasites. All are vital, but not nearly enough.

Notably absent in all too many programs has been vector control – larvacides, insecticides and repellants, to break the malaria victim-to-mosquito-to-healthy-human transmission cycle, by reducing mosquito populations and keeping the flying killers away from people. Dr. William Gorgas employed these methods to slash malaria and yellow fever rates during construction of the Panama Canal a century ago.

They are just as essential today. But well-funded environmental pressure groups vilify, attack and stymie their use, callously causing needless suffering and tragedy. They especially target the use of DDT.

Spraying the walls and eaves of houses once or twice a year with this powerful spatial repellant keeps 80-90% of mosquitoes from even entering a home; irritates any that do enter, so they don’t bite; and kills any that land. DDT is a long-lasting mosquito net over entire households. No other chemical, at any price, can do this. And no one (certainly not any eco pressure group) is working to develop one.

This miracle chemical had helped prevent typhus and malaria during and after World War II, and completely eradicate malaria in the United States, Canada and Europe. It was then enlisted in an effort to rid the entire world of malaria. After initial successes, DDT ran into an unexpected roadblock in 1969.

As physician Rutledge Taylor chronicles in his pull-no-punches new film, “3 Billion and Counting,” Sierra Club, Audubon Society and Environmental Defense Fund enlisted DDT in their own campaign, to get it banned. They said the chemical posed unacceptable risks to people, wildlife and the environment – and used pseudo-scientific cancer and ecological horror stories, like those in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, to spook people, politicians and bureaucrats.

Along with Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Pesticide Action Network and other eco activists, they portrayed themselves as white knight planetary guardians. Their true motives were far less virtuous. “If the environmentalists win on DDT,” EDF scientist Charles Wurster told the Seattle Times, “they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.”

In short, the war on DDT was never about protecting people or birds. It was, and is, about power, control, money and ideology – regardless of the resultant human misery, disease and death.

For the new Environmental Protection Agency, it was about power and politics. As the greens’ campaign to ban DDT intensified, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus convened a scientific panel, which held six months of hearings, compiled 9,312 pages of studies and testimony, and concluded that DDT was safe and effective and should not be banned.

Nevertheless, without attending a single hour of hearings or reading a page of the report, Ruckelshaus banned US production and use of DDT in 1972 – at a time when over 80% of the chemical was being exported for disease control. He later said his decision had nothing to do with cancer. He had a political problem, he said, and he fixed it. How nice for malaria victims.

Carcinogenic? The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists DDT as “possibly carcinogenic” – right up there with coffee and pickles. Among products that “definitely” cause cancer, it includes birth control pills and ethanol. Mice fed DDT got 26% fewer cancers than control mice. Another study found that DDT actually cured malignant brain tumors in rabbits. Millions of war survivors were sprayed directly on their bodies, without any harmful effects.

Bird eggshells? The original Bitman DDT studies involved diets that were 80% deficient in calcium; when the birds were fed proper diets, there was no thinning. Audubon Society annual Christmas bird counts recorded that bald eagle populations rose from 197 in 1941 to 891 in 1960, while robins increased from 19,616 to 928,639 over the same period – when America’s DDT use was at its historic high.

Resistance? Mosquitoes have never become resistant to DDT’s life-saving repellency properties, but they are developing resistance to the pyrethroids used in agriculture – and bed nets.
Poisonous? People have tried to kill themselves with DDT – and failed. Its most common replacement, parathion, killed hundreds of people, who safety experts said were too used to handling DDT. But as Dr. Wurster once observed, it “only kills farm workers and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes.”

This modern, eco-style eugenics has since been broadened to the impoverished developing world, where DDT could reduce agony, brain damage, lost work hours, poverty and death – if it weren’t so frequently banished due to green ideologues like Wurster and the Club of Rome’s Alexander King, who worry more about over-population than human rights.

Thus the vicious cycle continues. Infected people are too sick to work, too poor to afford sprays or nets or get proper treatment. Ugandan activist Fiona Kobusingye lost her son, two sisters and four cousins to malaria. American expatriate Patrick O’Neal says every household in his Tanzanian village has lost at least one member of its extended family to malaria. On Sumba Island, Indonesia, one-third of all women have lost at least one child to malaria.

EDF and EPA lied. Millions of children died. How convenient, then, that UN Environment Program’s Nick Nutter can deadpan, “when someone here dies from malaria, they say God has taken them” – not baby-killing policies. How convenient that Al Gore can blame malaria on manmade global warming.

This is environmental justice? The kind championed by President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson? Eco activist groups get billions. The world’s poor get disease and death. And EPA and the greens want to be put in charge of our energy, economy, jobs, living standards and lives.

How inconvenient for them when folks like Dr. Rutledge raise questions they really don’t want to address. No wonder Ruckelshaus, Pesticide Action Network, USAID and EPA refused to grant him interviews. Stephanie from Pesticide Action did want to know who was funding the film. But when Dr. Rutledge said he was, she ended the conversation, without mentioning who funds PAN. (The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation, among others.)

Three billion humans dead so far from malaria … and counting. And green ideologues work tirelessly to ensure that the callous, needless global death toll continues to rise.

See this film. Tell your friends about it. Bring it to your college, club and local theater. It will make your blood boil, and change your perspectives forever about DDT and the radical environmental movement.
This movie is obviously not the type that is popular with the Sundance crowd, unlike the error ridden Gorefest from 2006. I doubt many cities will even get a release but I'm sure it will eventually be available on DVD.
Old 09-13-10, 05:13 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Gore's project's decline worse than was thought.


Gore’s “Unprecedented And Irreversible” Decline
By P Gosselin on 13. September 2010

Last week, I think it was, I remember reading something about Al Gore’s The Climate Project having slumped to an all-time low with the number of Climate Crisis presentations delivered.

The French sceptic climate website Changement Climatique has compiled a graphic showing the number of presentations given each month. I’ve posted it below.

Using complex Mannian statistical techniques, I’ve fitted a curve (red line) to the chart (sorry, code is not available). Conclusion: Al Gore’s TCP is headed for a crisis. He really needs to dramatically cut back his hot air emissions.

Probably the only 2 things performing worse are the all-but-defunct Chicago Climate Exchange and Obama’s Economy.

Changement Climatique describes Gore’s project situation as follows:
The number of presentations reached a peak of 193 in October 2009, just before Copenhagen, but then went on an “unprecedented” and “irreversible” decline to a total collapse in the last few months. At the moment, not a single presentation is scheduled for 2011, which bodes ill for future of the project. It’s a sure sign that “climatic fatigue” has struck the warmist movement.
Quelle misere.
That trend curve is sort of a reverse Hockey Stick.
Old 09-14-10, 06:43 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Mixed review for Bjorn Lomborg's movie, Cool It.


One cool movie
Peter Foster September 13, 2010 – 8:20 pm

Cool It, a new film featuring Bjorn Lomborg, is far more convincing than An Inconvenient Truth

Danish “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg is at least as charismatic as Al Gore and far more personable. Cool It, the film about Mr. Lomborg’s crusade to bring some rationality to the climate change issue — which premiered on Sunday night at the Toronto International Film Festival — is also every bit as well done as An Inconvenient Truth, the Oscar-winning movie about Mr. Gore’s ghastly but self-interested psychic projections.

Every schoolchild who was forced to watch Mr. Gore’s apocalyptic whoppers should also be given the opportunity to see Cool It, which presents a balanced and convincing case against doom and gloom.

The movie starts by demonstrating the disgraceful way in which children in the West have been terrorized by — and used for — catastrophic propaganda. It also cleverly uses bright-eyed poor kids in an African school to highlight aspirations that for the foreseeable future can only be fed by fossil fuels.

An Inconvenient Truth was essentially an Al Gore road trip. Cool It, while it similarly shows Mr. Lomborg on the lecture circuit, features many more interviews with experts who debunk Gore-ish catastrophism on rising sea levels, spreading disease, and polar bear deaths. Nevertheless, alarmists such as (the late) Stephen Schneider (to whom, for some inexplicable reason, the film is dedicated) and James Hansen are also given time in front of the camera.

The film — whose title comes from a book by Mr. Lomborg — notes how the erudite Dane came to his skepticism after reading an article by American economist Julian Simon that debunked many doomster claims and economic myths. Mr. Lomborg was offended and set his students to check out Prof. Simon’s work. He discovered that it was mostly true: things were not getting perpetually worse, but better. He published a book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, based on these thoroughly researched findings. It drew torrents of abuse and accusations of “intellectual dishonesty” from a branch of the Danish government, which relied for ammunition on the mainly U.S.-based environmental establishment. These accusations were subsequently proved to be not only without merit, but without content.

Mr. Lomborg points to numerous adaptive technologies — from dyke building to geoengineering — that could enable humanity to deal with whatever climate change may bring, but at a fraction of the cost of the pointless schemes promoted by the UN-corralled “international community.”

However, there are several more-than-minor quibbles with Mr. Lomborg’s approach. He concedes that global warming is a real and potentially serious issue, but the film makes no reference to Climategate or to the tendentious errors found in the last assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, this looks like a matter of strategy on Mr. Lomborg’s part, because his prime target is the ineffectiveness — according to the climate establishment’s own figures — of official “solutions.” Cap and trade is an invitation to fraud on a huge scale. Despite massive subsidies, we are a long way from viable “alternatives” to hydrocarbon-based energy. The commitments made by global governments over the past twenty years have been at best examples of democratic hypocrisy, at worst fraudulent.

This brings us to the second major problem with Mr. Lomborg’s approach. Having accepted the scientific reality of climate change, he then embraces the “Global Salvationism” that is arguably one of the major reasons for people buying dubious science in the name of helping out the world’s poorest people. If we really are concerned about poor people, he notes, then instead of spending hundreds of billions annually on economically damaging policies that won’t change the climate, why not just target specific problems such as health, education and clean water? This sounds eminently sensible until you realize that hundreds of billions, if not trillions, have been spent on direct aid in the past fifty years, often only to make matters worse.

One of Mr. Lomborg’s initiatives is the Copenhagen Consensus, a small group of brilliant people — including several Nobel Prize winners — that he assembled to do cost-benefit analyses of poverty policies. They have concluded that attempting to regulate the weather is a sensationally ineffective way of spending tax dollars. But while this exercise is valuable in highlighting policy folly, it in many ways supports the top-down approach that has been at the root of so much of development policy’s corruption and ineffectiveness.

Again, Mr. Lomborg supports a moderate carbon tax to provide the funds for a vast increase in research and development on energy alternatives without explaining how the governments who will collect and allocate these funds will be able to spot the “technologies of the future.”

One of the many questions raised by the movie is why somebody as manifestly well-intentioned as Bjorn Lomborg should have been so demonized and misrepresented. While several people in the film note that “fear sells,” much deeper inquiry is needed into the dark political/psychological heart of the green movement. “Cooling it” always tends to be a good principle in heated debate. The issue is how the debate got so heated — and so skewed — in the first place.
I agree with Foster that Lomborg's approach may have more to do with strategy than with his true beliefs. By adopting the middle of the road, accepting the "science" of the IPCC approach, Lomborg is in a better position to show how the "solutions" still suck. Even his dedicating the film to the loathsome Schneider would seem to be part of the strategy. The trouble is, it still hasn't won him any points with the alarmists who are "if you're not 100% with us, you're against us" types. They still despise and vilify him every chance they get.

But it may win a few points with the general public.

I do not agree with Lomborg's strategy but I do believe he has done a great deal of good and look forward to seeing his film.
Old 09-14-10, 11:07 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

A Big Deal.

Andrew Montford has published his inquiry into the Climategate and Mann inquiries.


Damning New Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries
Monday, 13 September 2010 18:56 administrator
E-mail Print PDF

London, 14 September - The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations.

The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

In particular, the report finds that:

* none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
* insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
* none managed to be objective and comprehensive
* none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
* terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
* none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.

Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said:

"The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims."

"All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place," Andrew Montford warned.

Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said:

"The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence."

"The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford's report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified."

"Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need," Lord Turnbull said.

Lord Turnbull also called on the Government to look at the serious criticisms of the IPCC made in the recent InterAcademy Council Report. He said: "The Government should demand that the fundamental reforms recommended by the IAC in the practice, governance and leadership of the IPCC are implemented immediately for its Fifth Assessment."

The full report can be downloaded here

Hard copies can be order for £10.00 from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB, UK

About the author

Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008), a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He writes a blog specialising in climate change issues at http://www.bishop-hill.net and has made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective.

Lord Turnbull

Andrew Turnbull was Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords and a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

GWPF Reports

Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Advisory Council members or its Directors.
The report is 54 pages and I'm going to print it out and read it. I think it's very important. There is no one who is more qualified to write this than Montford.

If realclimate bothers to even acknowledge this report they will no doubt heap scorn upon it, just as they did on his book, while acknowledging they had not read it. No doubt they don't "have to" read this report either, they already "know" it's worthless. But they accepted all the "exonerating" inquiries uncritically.

In any event, the next few days should be interesting as I'm sure much will be written about this.
Old 09-14-10, 11:30 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Delingpole on the Montford report:


Climategate whitewashers squirm like maggots on Bishop Hill's pin
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: September 14th, 2010

Just back from the House of Lords for the launch of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s report on the failings of the three Climategate inquiries.

The official inquiries, as we know, found nothing untoward in any of the Climategate emails – nor in the behaviour of the scientists responsible for them. But the GWPF’s report, by Andrew “Bishop Hill” Montford, begs to differ. At the conference, one journalist asked Montford to try to summarise the juiciest of his allegations. Montford found this difficult: so many and varied are the failings of the three whitewash inquiries, he simply couldn’t decide which ones to choose.

Here, for example, are just a few criticisms of the Oxburgh whitewash.
The panel appears to have been deliberately selected to have a majority who would not address the review objectively and to exclude sceptical views entirely.

UEA appointed Oxburgh as chairman of the panel in the full knowledge that he had conflicts of interest.

UEA restricted the scope of the Oxburgh inquiry to published papers only, avoiding the serious allegations related to the IPCC activities of CRU staff.

The scope was further restricted to the conduct of the scientists. UEA had led the Science and Technology Committee members to believe that the quality of CRU’s scientific work would be re-assessed. The committee’s chairman, Phil Willis, felt that the UEA had misled them.

Lord Oxburgh’s report misled the public by stating that the papers were chosen ‘on the advice of the Royal Society.’

Lord Rees said that he had consulted with experts about the papers. In fact he had only discussed them with Sir Brian Hoskins, who had said he did not know CRU’s works.
While we’re on Lord Oxburgh, it’s worth reminding ourselves just how entirely unsuited to chairing a supposedly neutral inquiry on AGW this man is. Here’s an interview he gave to Guardian in 2005 in which he reveals why corporate Quislings like himself have so strong an interest in pushing the AGW agenda:
Oxburgh advocates that government uses the controls at its disposal: “Regulate biofuels. Or subsidise. Or tax” – any incentive really, but “what we don’t want to see is in two years’ time the government simply becoming bored with climate change after we’ve invested a lot of our shareholders’ money.”
Perhaps the most shocking new revelation in Andrew Montford’s report is that Sir Muir Russell appears to have been given evidence at the beginning of his inquiry that [paleoclimatologist] Keith Briffa had “taken steps that might be construed as an attempt to block Freedom of Information requests.”

Despite this, the Muir Russell report claimed “we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made.”

Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser.
Old 09-14-10, 05:25 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Alarmist journalist has praise - and some criticism - of Montford's report.


Montford lands some solid blows in review of 'climategate' inquiries
Fred Pearce
Tuesday 14 September 2010 16.39 BST

Andrew Montford's report for Lord Lawson's sceptic thinktank raises some valid criticisms but will most likely be ignored for its brazen hypocrisy

'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report rules

Oh, for an end to the climate wars. Lord Lawson's sceptic thinktank has offered its take on whether the inquiries into the University of East Anglia (UEA) emails did their job adequately. But for all its sharp – and in many cases justified – rejoinders to the official inquiries, its report is likely to be ignored in some quarters for its brazen hypocrisy.

Here is the problem. Critics of the official inquiries have remorselessly attacked the fact that no out-and-out climate sceptics were on the inquiry teams. Now they have produced their own review of the reviews. But guess what. The author is a man whose views about "climategate" were well-known in advance. And none of the team put up by his sponsors, Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), to review Andrew Montford's review of the reviews could be described as an outsider, let alone a sympathiser with the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The £3,000 fee for the review came from GWPF's coffers, but the secretive organisation refuses to reveal who its backers are.

Of course the GWPF is entitled to do what it likes. But the backstory leaves its conclusion that "insufficient attention was taken with the choice of panel members to ensure balance and independence" ringing a little hollow.

The three inquiries conducted into the "climategate" affair were all badly flawed. One, by MPs, was rushed to get it done before the general election. Neither of the other two, both commissioned by the UEA itself, directly addressed the scientific judgment of the emailing climate scientists under scrutiny. A failing that could hardly have been better designed to ensure that nobody ended up in the stocks.

Whenever the inquiries turned up, evidence that CRU director, Phil Jones, or his colleagues might have abused their positions as peer reviewers of scientific papers criticising their own work, or papered over some cracks while drafting chapters for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the inquirers concluded that it was a matter of scientific judgment. And thus either outside their terms of reference, or something where the scientists themselves were entitled to the last word. Montford dissects this systemic failure well.

One of the most serious charges to emerge from "climategate" was that CRU scientists did back-door deals to include unpublished research in the last IPCC report, published in 2007. This subverted the supposedly open review process of the IPCC. And, when someone asked for the emails that would have exposed it, they hastily deleted them – a potential breach of freedom of information (FoI) law.

The Muir Russell inquiry said it found no evidence that the CRU scientists had done this. Observers were incredulous. The chronology seemed straightforward. British sceptic David Holland submitted an FoI request to the university asking for emails in which CRU scientists discussed their work for the IPCC. Two days later, Jones sent an email to colleagues asking them to delete emails relating to the behind-the-scenes work for IPCC. That email, as Montford points out, carried Holland's FoI number as its subject line.

How did Sir Muir miss this? In a development not covered by Montford, the university has since admitted, in correspondence with blogger Steve McIntyre, that it omitted the email from its list of FoI requests sent to Sir Muir. So Sir Muir seems to have been about the only person studying the affair not to have known about it.

This is all, we may hope, cock-up rather than conspiracy. But the university did itself no favours in its own response to Sir Muir last week, when it expressed its satisfaction that he had found no evidence of such culpable deletions. Advice to UEA: when in a hole, stop digging.

None of the inquiries have cleared the air. Maybe the scientists themselves can achieve it.

At several recent conferences discussing "climategate", I have heard a genuine responsiveness to the criticisms: a realisation that "groupthink" had led some scientists to become blind to the uncertainties inherent in their work; an understanding that they will have to share their data more swiftly, even with non-scientists; and a realisation that public trust in climate science will require a change of tone and a touch more humility on their part.

Anyone who doubts how far we have come should see this month's report of the InterAcademy Council into the workings of the IPCC. This breaks strongly with the old mantra that "one bad paragraph" should not undermine 3,000 pages. It too attacks groupthink. And it notes, for instance, how the IPCC has tended to "emphasise the negative impacts of climate change", many of which were "not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly".

I have no problem with Montford. His Bishop Hill website is not to everyone's taste, but he has landed some good blows here. Mainstream climate scientists need acerbic critics to keep them honest. And there are real signs of progress.
Pearce is one of the few alarmist journalists who has shown any inclination to not whitewash CRU himself. I commend him for that.

Perhaps it is brazen hypocrisy to have a skeptic write the review of the reviews. But I'm not sure what Pearce would have liked. Should Phil Jones have written it? Perhaps Michael Mann?

I submit that, of course a skeptic is going to write a critical review. However, the three "inquiries" have been lambasted by many alarmists, Pearce included. Indeed, in this article Pearce agrees that Montford is right about many of his criticisms and nowhere says he's wrong - just that it was "hypocritical" to have him write it. And no one knows more about the issues involved here than Montford.

I agree that the alarmists will almost universally dismiss it. But that's what they do with everything that is critical of them. This alleged hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.
Old 09-15-10, 10:18 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

A good reason to see that the Republicans at least take back the House. Waxman vows to continue ration'n'tax fight.


Waxman: You’re darned right we Democrats will pursue cap-and-trade next year
posted at 3:35 pm on September 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Democrats across the country are running against their own party, when they bother to mention their party affiliation at all. To hear their ads and speeches, they are all fiscal conservatives angry at the arrogance of power in Washington … even when they’ve been a part of it. Don’t fall for it, says Henry Waxman. If we leave Democrats in charge of Congress, they will pursue cap-and-trade and the rest of the current agenda:
The campaign to pass climate legislation will continue on Capitol Hill in 2011 – if Democrats are still in charge, that is.

That’s the word Tuesday from a top House Democrat who led the charge over the last two years to pass a major cap-and-trade bill.

Asked if he’d push climate legislation next year if he’s still in a majority leadership position, Waxman told POLITICO, “If we haven’t done the job completely this year, we’ll continue to fight it next year through the House and the Senate.”

Some of the House Democrats from heavy industrial districts who voted for the Waxman-led climate bill are now under fire on the campaign trail, a point that the congressman from Beverly Hills also bemoaned.

“I think we’ve got to get away form looking at this issue as a partisan issue,” Waxman said. “Unfortunately it has become partisan, as has everything become partisan. Even the Republican voters seem in their minds to identify the [climate] science as somewhat partisan. But I think the issue is becoming more and more serious and people are realizing it, which I hope will increase the pressure on the Congress to take the actions we need to.”
Waxman finds it odd that Republicans would make top-down government control of energy production a “partisan issue”? He’s either being disingenuous or actually believes that everyone wants government running everything — or perhaps a little of both.

And besides, it’s not just a partisan issue. Had that been the case, Democrats could have passed the House cap-and-trade bill in the Senate with their 60 votes in the summer of 2009. Enough Democrats objected to it that they couldn’t get a vote on it, and the Senate had to write their own version of it, which has gone nowhere. Senators representing coal-producing and coal-reliant states in both parties have balked at the massive scheme, which not only would create massive inflationary pressure on the economy but wouldn’t reduce carbon emissions anyway, as Europe’s failed system has demonstrated.

While Democrats around the country run against the Nancy Pelosi/Barack Obama agenda, Waxman reminds voters what they will really do if voters leave Congress in their hands. That will make a great public service announcement for the midterms.
Now I don't think he can get this passed even if the House stays Democratic (and certainly the margin will be reduced). But if he and others think they have even a small chance they will waste their time and our nerves on it. I hope he will see there is no hope and losing the House would probably do it.
Old 09-15-10, 03:51 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Bjorn Lomborg says: I haven't changed.


Bjorn Lomborg: U-Turn On Global Warming? Hardly.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010 13:16 Bjorn Lomborg, WSJ
E-mail Print PDF

After years of being accused of believing something I didn't believe—or, more accurately, not believing something I really did—I made headlines last month for changing my mind even though I hadn't.

Confused? Imagine how I feel.

It's worth explaining what happened to me because it tells us something important about why the global warming debate has produced so little in the way of results.

First, a little background. Ever since 2001, when I published "The Skeptical Environmentalist"—a book in which I argued that the world's environmental problems were getting better—I've been wrongly accused of being a global warming denier.

The fact that I've always asserted the reality of man-made climate change never seemed to make an impression on my critics. What mattered was that I had the temerity to question two key tenets of the received wisdom about global warming: I was skeptical of the idea that we were facing the apocalypse, and I didn't accept that the only solution was to mandate drastic cuts in carbon emissions.

That's the way it is with heresy—there is no middle ground. Either you believe global warming is the worst problem mankind has ever faced and that cutting carbon is the only solution, or you are an antiscientific ignoramus who probably thinks the Earth is flat.

My reputation among climate activists worsened in 2008, when the Copenhagen Consensus Center, the think tank I founded, published the results of a wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis of solutions to 10 of the world's most pressing problems. We assembled a group of top economists and asked them to assess which solutions to which problems would deliver the most bang for the buck. In addition to global warming, we considered issues like malnutrition, unsafe drinking water, malaria and terrorism.

The main global-warming solution our experts analyzed was the carbon-cutting approach advocated by Al Gore and endorsed at the 1997 global climate summit in Kyoto. We found that compared to solutions to other problems, direct carbon cuts were woefully ineffective. For example, while every dollar spent on fighting malnutrition would yield nearly $20 in benefits, every dollar spent on cutting carbon would avoid much less than a dollar of global warming damage. When we published our list of investments we thought should be prioritized, cutting carbon was near the bottom. Once again, I was pilloried for being a global warning denier.

The Kyoto approach is not the only way forward. In 2009, we convened another group to look at a variety of potential solutions to climate change beyond simply cutting carbon. Our experts (including three Nobel laureates) identified a number of other approaches to the problem that were economically feasible and likely to have a quicker and more powerful impact.

The most promising involved massive increases in R&D funding for green energy technologies and geo-engineering. I spent a good part of last year and most of this year advocating for this sensible approach to solving global warming, which is "one of the chief concerns facing the world today," as I said in an Aug. 31 interview with the Guardian, the British newspaper.

What happened next was startling. The Guardian reported my commonplace observation as evidence of "an apparent U-turn" by "the world's most high-profile climate change skeptic." This set off a media stampede; news organizations around the world scrambled to report my so-called change of heart.

I tried to explain that I had always considered climate change to be a problem. The only thing that had changed was that we finally had some good solutions to consider. Some people took the point, but just as many didn't. As far as the latter group was concerned, I had finally seen the light, and that was that.

I suppose I should take some comfort in the fact that I've been accused of being both a denier and a warmist. But the polarized nature of the global warming debate is no laughing matter. Limiting the debate to only two valid positions—for or against—makes a constructive discussion impossible. If we truly want to make progress on climate change, we must acknowledge a middle way—one that recognizes that while we do need to deal with the reality of global warming, solutions based on worst-case scenarios will actually do more harm than good.

The smart middle path means making green energy so cheap everyone wants it. There's nothing confusing about it.
Funny how we skeptics can respect someone who is somewhere in the middle, even if we disagree on one or more important points. The alarmists feel they have to pillory everyone who disagrees with them even at all - such as Lomborg or the much more alarmist Judith Curry.
Old 09-16-10, 09:16 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Another way to stop the EPA?


Senate takes another bite at the EPA’s greenhouse apple
September 14, 2010
By Steve Milloy

UPDATE: Senate Democrats have cancelled the mark-up of the EPA budget reportedly because they were concerned that Republicans would offer an appropriations rider to block EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (described in the article below).

The Senate has a chance to at least partially redeem the 111th Congress when the Appropriations Committee meets to vote on the budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, September 16.

Two Committee Democrats, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), have indicated they may vote favorably on an appropriations rider that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions starting in January 2011.

Given the 18-12 Democrat-Republican split on the Committee, only two more Democrats would be needed (along with a unanimous Republican bloc) to stop the EPA from implementing the most sweeping, expensive and controversial environmental/energy/economic regulation in history.

Those two Democrats might not be hard to find given that Committee members Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) voted earlier in the year for the Murkowski resolution to block EPA regulation. And Committee member Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) is a co-sponsor of the Rockefeller proposal to delay EPA regulation for two years.

Why should the Appropriations Committee take the extraordinary step of reining in the EPA?

First, greenhouse gas regulation would necessarily impact the entire U.S. economy, as it would affect 70 percent of electricity generation and nearly 100 percent of transportation energy use. The totality of this impact demands that Congress, as opposed to a single and often controversial federal agency, address the issue.

Next, there is no serious dispute over the fact that greenhouse gas regulation will raise energy costs without providing any offsetting and near-term economic benefits. Given current economic conditions, making energy cost more will do nothing but further set back, if not reverse economic recovery. EPA has shown precious little concern for the real-world impacts of its impending regulations, so it’s time for the adults in Congress to step forward and assert authority over the EPA.

Third, there is a misconception among many on the Hill and in the public that that Supreme Court ordered to the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Nothing could be further from the truth. In its 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision, the Court merely ruled that the EPA could, not that it must, regulate greenhouse gases. Evidence of the debatable nature of EPA regulation is that the Bush EPA opted not to regulate greenhouse gases while the Obama administration reversed that decision.

It is no secret that President Obama ordered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as a prod to get Congress and industry moving on greenhouse gas regulation. The Senate now has another chance (after the 51-47 defeat of the Murkowski resolution) to reassert Congress as the driver of this major domestic policy.

Moreover, the EPA may have acted illegally and usurped congressional authority by issuing its so-called “tailoring rule,” part of the suite of greenhouse gas regulations. Under the Clean Air Act, if the EPA decides to regulate a “pollutant,” then all sources that emit 250 tons annually of that pollutant must be regulated.

But the EPA has unilaterally decided to change the law for greenhouse gases. Over the course of the past year, the EPA has arbitrarily and without congressional authorization raised the threshold from 250 tons to 50,000 tons and then to 75,000-100,000 tons — otherwise the agency would find itself with the Herculean and unpopular task of regulating thousands of small businesses and apartment buildings.

If Senate Democrats want to take steps to stem the bleeding that seems likely to occur in November and perhaps beyond, they should remember that America has pretty much rejected the policy known as “cap-and-trade” and that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases amounts simply to “cap” — that is, all pain with no gain. Any politician that takes no action to stop that will be in deep trouble this fall and in 2012.
It looks like the Dems are scared that there would be enough defections. Good sign.
Old 09-16-10, 10:17 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Ecological species extinction models as bad as climate models? Even worse?

This article is long and difficult to reproduce so I'll just give you the link:


When I first brought up this subject some years ago I was criticized by someone touting the ecological models. You see, x amount of habitat loss leads to y species extinctions. I said, fine, please tell me what are all those extinct species are? Of course an answer to that was not forthcoming.

Like the CAGW alarmist who assumes positive feedbacks from increased CO2 (which they have never proved; instead, all the evidence points to negative feedbacks), the ecology alarmists assumes that nature is very fragile (when all the evidence points to its being extremely resilient).

In familiar terms, GIGO.

The article's conclusion:
Soooo … the notion of a decrease in Earth’s biodiversity relies on:
ignoring the inconvenient truths of the non-extinction of real species
+ the wide acceptance by ecologists of the false model of the species-area formula
= a true ecology of dirty test tubes.

The only thing that seems to be dead in biodiversity is the scientific method and the science in environmental “science”. Dead as a Dodo one could say.
And I can't resist posting this picture from the article:

A dead virtuous virtual environmental "science" Dodo
This also means that all those lists of endangered and threatened species are mostly hooey. Probably at least 95% (my conservative estimate) of those species don't belong there.

So, excellent article, well worth your time.
Old 09-16-10, 12:58 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

This is Obama's idea of a (presumably, since he appointed him) good, competent Science Adviser:


White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’

In a video interview this week, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”
Thursday, September 16, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy

In a video interview this week, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

In his role as President Barack Obama’s top science and technology adviser, Holdren deals with issues ranging from global warming to health care.

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdkU8zuznz" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdkU8zuznz" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

“De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

“Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries," Holdren and his co-authors wrote. "This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

CNSNews.com asked Holdren about this passage on Tuesday after he participated in an Environmental Protection Agency forum celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act.

CNSNews.com asked: “You wrote ‘a massive campaign must be launched to restore a high quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States’ in your book Human Ecology. Could you explain what you meant by de-develop the United States?”

Holdren responded: “What we meant by that was stopping the kinds of activities that are destroying the environment and replacing them with activities that would produce both prosperity and environmental quality. Thanks a lot.”

CNSNews.com then asked: “And how do you plan on implementing that?”

“Through the free market economy,” Holdren said.

CNSNews.com also asked Holdren to comment on the declaration he made in 1995 along with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of Stanford University that mankind needed to “face up” to “a world of zero net physical growth” that would require reductions in consumption.

“We know for certain, for example, that: No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth is sustainable,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in an essay for the World Bank titled, “The Meaning of Sustainability.”

“Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are unsustainable; and [a]t the sustainability limit, there will be a tradeoff between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote. “This is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person).”

Holdren would not comment Tuesday about this statement, saying he had to get to another engagement.
It's funny how it looks like he's about to turn on the reporter and yell at him but then thinks he can actually give a rational answer to the question and answers it. Of course, the answer is nuts but he thinks it's a good answer.

Saying he would de-develop the US through the free market economy shows he is as clueless in areas outside his expertise as he is in his supposed area(s) of expertise. And he is Obama's top Science Adviser.

I would guess Holdren's concept of a free market economy is a highly regulated economy run by Holdren.

And they said the Bush administration was anti-science.

Last edited by movielib; 09-16-10 at 01:04 PM.
Old 09-16-10, 02:09 PM
Needs to provide a working email address
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 16, 2010
With the global elite in a race against time to enforce their draconian eco-fascist agenda before more of the public realize that the entire climate change con is a rigged game, alarmists are getting increasingly desperate and transparently thuggish in their rhetoric.
The mask of the man-made global warming movement is slowly being ripped away to reveal the true nature of what we face – a gang of hardcore control freaks who have hijacked well-placed environmental concerns as a vehicle through which to enact their religion of death – eugenics.
This was exemplified earlier this week when Bill Gates was caught in a controversy after he advocated the use of death panels to make rulings on denying health care to the elderly. Gates’ justification that killing old people could save money to preserve jobs was a classic case of social cannibalism, the end justifies the means, and it revealed the true nature of the eco-fascist agenda.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds vaccines for the third world to the tune of billions, and yet in his own speeches Gates has advocated using vaccines to lower global population, all in the name of reducing CO2 emissions and combating global warming. In other words, Gates invokes the vaccines he funds in the name of improving health care as a tool of forced sterilization.

Gates’ call for death panels was mimicked by a September 2009 Newsweek article entitled “The Case For Killing Granny,” in which writer Evan Thomas made the case for rationing health care by denying old people treatment.
The eugenicist health care argument shares a central parallel with the environmentalist screed – using the threat of artificial scarcity to uphold the role of the state as an authoritarian re-distributor
This idea is embraced by a growing cult of climate change cult members, who are openly calling for freedom to be crushed and humans to be exterminated in the name of saving the planet.
Top environmentalist and creator of the Gaia hypothesis James Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet.
In a recent book, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.
“The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization,” writes Farnish in the book, adding that “people will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses”.

Another prominent figure in the climate change debate who exemplifies the violent and death-obsessed belief system of the movement is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.
The current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocates the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in the name of environmentalism. In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.
Enforcement of the global warming doctrine in its many guises has become more aggressive, onerous and in-your-face as the years have gone by. With less and less believing in man-made climate change and with more and more understanding that eugenics is the real agenda behind the global warming bandwagon, the vitriolic nature of the propaganda has intensified.

The ugly endgame behind the global warming mantra is now crystal clear – rebranding climate change as “global climate disruption” and overpopulation, eugenicists are intent on exploiting hyped fears about environmental apocalypse to set themselves up as Gods with the power to regulate, oppress, and even make life and death rulings over a subjugated population, who through sophisticated barrages of propaganda will be convinced to acquiesce to their own enslavement and ultimately slaughter.
The Green movement is harnessing the ignorance of its followers to push population reduction and call anti-CO2 tax protesters terrorists. We can only assume to see more families killing themselves off and more terror attacks in the name of removing human parasites from raping the earth. In reality less people means more control... check out the Georgia guide stones to get an idea of just how many people the elite want to get rid of.

Last edited by Guarddog; 09-16-10 at 02:19 PM.
Old 09-16-10, 03:11 PM
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Navinabob's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Guarddog... How I missed thee. You really have to start fact-checking yourself before you post stuff.


It appears that someone from a Creationist website misquoted Pianka (Prisonplanet misquotes? Unheard of!) and all hell broke loose. He was NOT calling for a mass genocide but was instead making a morbid joke regarding over-population. The wiki covers both sides pretty well so I won't go into it here.

The wiki on John Holdren also offers a better picture of how the this article again only took bits and pieces of the truth.

"Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[19] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[20] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.[10][21]

Other early publications include Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defenses and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), and Conversion of Military R&D (1998).[12]"

10 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/...holdren-again/
19 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1294858
(the other references lead to books)
Old 09-16-10, 03:21 PM
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Navinabob's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
And they said the Bush administration was anti-science.
Bush was Anti-science. Obama is just possibly pro-bad-science. I'd rather have bad science then no science. At least then theories can be refined as new data comes in. Global warming research is exciting as it is still polarizing in many areas... but the truth will come. And as truth does come we can begin to make changes and refine our thinking.
Old 09-16-10, 04:13 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Bush was Anti-science. Obama is just possibly pro-bad-science. I'd rather have bad science then no science. At least then theories can be refined as new data comes in. Global warming research is exciting as it is still polarizing in many areas... but the truth will come. And as truth does come we can begin to make changes and refine our thinking.
Don't worry, I'm not one to praise Bush. He was pretty goofy with his stem cell rules (although I don't think government is the way to fund science, that doesn't make it sensible to consider using embryos from in-vitro fertilization that would otherwise be discarded akin to murder). Bush did not always say intelligent things about evolution either.

But compared to Obama embracing the entire range of the environmentalists' pseudoscientific beliefs, I think Obama is much worse for science.
Old 09-16-10, 06:11 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

<strike>Global warming</strike>, er, <strike>climate change</strike>, er, global climate disruption.


The morphology of “global warming”
Posted on September 16, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Obama’s science Czar John Holdren has decided the new name for global warming, er, climate change shall be:

Because the first two didn’t work apparently.
(CNSNews.com) - John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, says that the term “global warming” is “a dangerous misnomer” that should be replaced with “global climate disruption.”
I have a new name for Mr. Holdren, sort of like a superhero name: “Johnny Desperate”.

From CNS news and the American Thinker, barf bag optional.
WH Science Czar ‘Global Warming’ is ‘Dangerous Misnomer’
By James Lewis, American Thinker

John Holdren, our official fraudulent “Science Czar” for our equally mendacious President, has dumped “global warming” as a “dangerous misnomer.” Ah, yes, that would be it then. It’s not the facts but the words that are wrong, says America’s official Doctor Science.

In scientific terms this means John Holdren has run up the white flag and is begging for mercy. “Warming” is something we can measure scientifically. “Global Warming” is a lot more speculative, but with satellites, weather balloons, and plenty of ocean buoys, we now know that it’s just wrong. Global Warming has been shot down in flames by scientific skeptics who resorted to an unfair tactic called “facts and observations.”

The wild hypothesis of “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming a 100 years from now,” is so obviously harebrained sci fi that no sane person can believe in it.

Dr. Holdren’s newest brainstorm? Forget all that warming stuff. No, we are now supposed to believe in something called “global climate disruption.”

That way some wildly overpaid “internationally respected” climate modeler can predict that in a hundred years things will get two degrees warmer, colder, or neither one or the other, and still predict the end of the earth. That’ll be a couple of hundred million dollars for more life-saving “research,” if you please.

The media are banging on “scientific” doors for another cataclysmic headline, right now, to feed their hunger for the Scare of the Day. Their whole business model depends on it. The New York Times is talking about giving up their paper edition entirely. ABC has fired its “News” chief. They desperately need another Scary Hobgoblin to goose up the ignorant masses, or they might go belly-up tomorrow. Let’s hope they do go down tomorrow, because it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. That why free markets have losers, and boy, are these people ever losers.

I suppose that’s why Dr. Holdren thinks that old and toxic phrase “Global Warming” is now “dangerous.” But dangerous for whom? Not dangerous for the real world, that’s for sure. Not dangerous for developing countries that build another coal-fired power plant every day to feed their billions of hungry people. They can see people dying on the streets in Calcutta, but they can’t see two degrees warmer in a hundred years being such a big deal. Maybe Dr. Holdren thinks that “Global Warming” is now “dangerous” for the corrupt politicized faux-scientists who have built their careers on ecological hobgoblins? That sounds more like it.

Climate modeling is now becoming perfectly theological in spinning new and fancier epicycles to save their bad old scare campaign. How many angels can dance on the head of tomorrow's ecofraud? How many weird goblins can populate Dr. Holdren's feverish imagination? It changes from day to day.

This is how dying political establishments behave. In real science you don't have play those save-your-butt games, because you make really sure to keep out crazy and unsupported hypotheses from the very beginning. Really bad ideas never hit quality journal headlines, because you have honest reviewers who stop the corruption before it even starts.

This isn't science. It's "JournOlismo." It's supermarket checkout tabloid Martians meeting Russian cosmonauts fantasy mongering. It is beneath contempt for anybody who cares about real science.

After the biggest fraud in the history of science it will take years for scientists to recover their good names -- and that's assuming they cut out the cancer fast, before it spreads. Remember that the clergy once had the credibility we give to scientists today. Credibility can be lost, and credibility should be lost when it is abused. Global warming has been the worst money-grubbing scandal in the history of science. Let's make them keep that phrase "Global Warming", to remind them of their billion dollar fraud. Don't let them deep-six it into the memory hole of Stalinist history.

In science you are supposed to put your wild brainstorms at risk of empirical falsification. Global Warming has been falsified very nicely after a decade of satellite observations that support a small cooling trend. For True Believers and their legions of addicted suckers, that's only a temporary deviation from those marvelous computer models they keep fiddling with. But scientists are not supposed to be True Believers in somebody's money-making brainstorm. Leave that to the swampland real estate salesmen.

John Holdren is the guy whose stellar career started with Global Cooling in the 70s, and who has managed to surf the wild waves of ecological hysteria for decades, making a damned good living at it.

Should we believe him now?

In your dreams, John.

Science is nothing without truth-telling and honesty, and you're no scientist.

You're a fraud, and so are your buds in the White House.
These people get more desperate and sillier every day.

Holdren seems to be our Person of the Day. Or, alternatively, (thanks, Keith Olberman) today's Worst Person in the World.
Old 09-16-10, 06:17 PM
X's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 11,148
Received 76 Likes on 64 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

How does the climate get "disrupted"? Isn't whatever the climate is, the climate?

Maybe they should have called it "Deviation from the global climate we wish we had".
Old 09-16-10, 06:17 PM
DVD Talk Ruler
General Zod's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 23,266
Received 633 Likes on 392 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Global Climate Disruption

I'd prefer if they want with something a little more honest and straightforward. How about..

Climate Scare Tactic v3.0

Then they can just change the number when they dream up some other way everything I do destroys the planet. What was it 4 years ago now that Al Gore said if we don't do something drastic in 2 years it's too late? I'm going by that premise and not worrying about it anymore since it's apparently too late anyhow.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.