Global Warming by Dummies


So much for the integrity of the Right over the Left in regards to self-serving negative characterization of the opposition and paranoid, reactionary delusions. Too bad that American Thinker has chosen to pander to partisans and religious zealots instead of sensible, moderate patriotic ideologues.

Climate Change or Global Warming is rather easy to debate once you take the time to learn a few basic facts and comprehend some elementary geophysics. Unfortunately the author of this piece seems to have skipped those steps and leaped directly into making an ass of his entire party. Instead of a rallying cry he has provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Maybe someone can persuade him to to change to the other party?

Criminalizing Weather-related Fatalities

Deaths from natural disasters are traditionally considered “acts of God,” or “acts of nature,” beyond human control. This view is being challenged in a French trial where prosecutors have charged a small-town mayor with manslaughter for deaths caused by storm flooding. The precedent of criminalizing weather-related deaths would delight climate-change activists who increasingly call for criminal trials of anyone skeptical of their agenda.

Right up front we see that the author is hunting snark; the entire piece is a poster-child for projecting thoughts and intentions into someone’s mind for the sole purpose of declaring those thoughts dangerous and threatening. With that said the other obvious point should be made: it’s the FRENCH! The only time the French do anything sensible is when you least expect it; the rest of the time, “ONLY the French!” seems to be a fairly common reaction to their antics, foreign and domestic. U. N. debates and Resolutions are one thing, the three-ring circus of French jurisprudence are quite another.

The mayor, Réné Marratier, was arrested after Cyclone Xynthia hit the French Atlantic coast in February 2010. The French State is seeking a four-year jail sentence for the drowning deaths of twenty-nine people in his town of La Faute-sur-Mer. The mayor’s lawyers describe the proposed sentence as “unprecedented and disproportionate.” After Hurricane Katrina, in comparison, no one suggested that Mayor Ray Nagin was criminally responsible for 1,800 deaths.

Mr. Wilson, I survived Hurricane Katrina. I knew Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina changed my life. Mr. Wilson, you’re no Katrina survivor. There actually were a few criminal investigations and prosecutions relating to outrageous misbehavior by city and parish officials. A strong case could be made for the same at the State AND Federal levels.

In the early 1990s, Mayor Marratier approved building permits for housing developments on a spit of sand between the Atlantic Ocean and the Lay River Estuary. The area is at or below sea level, protected by dunes and sea walls. According to a report from the Storm Surges Congress, the region historically had “low frequencies of storm surge related floods… and low levels of mortality.”

More evidence that the author has trouble relating to the idea of a flood zone. The problem that he fails to see is with modern, rather than pre-1950, residential construction.  A city like Miami planned and built today would be a criminal enterprise by any sensible standard. The entire core of the city sits on an artificial “island” that is a few feet above high tide, (some peripheral gutters flood twice a day.), at best. Eventually, Global Warming or no, a hurricane of at least force 3 will run right over that glorified sand-bar and Miami will simply cease to exist as a human habitation. If those hypothetical modern developers were still living afterwards I think that a criminal dock is the best place they could hope to wind up.

Vesuvius is always smoking, and the people never want to move. How does that make it a bad idea to use our understanding of the effects of weather and geology in preventing an endless succession of Pompeis and Herculaneums? If a Southern Californian Mayor approved an expansion of his town onto a hillside with “low” probability of a land-slip in “normal” extremes of weather said Mayor should be prosecuted if she is still around when the inevitable happens and a couple blocks of housing vanishes; even if the residents have time to evacuate, which is a game of Russian Roulette with 2 empty barrels in a seven shot revolver.

Furthermore, although the mayor had initial jurisdiction over building permits, the final stamp of approval was given by the Direction Départementale de l’équipement (DDE) in Paris. At the trial, the mayor’s lawyer asked indignantly how the prosecution could reproach his client, a small-town mayor with no expertise in coastal defense engineering, “for not having reviewed the work of specialists who have made it their career.”

Once again, please be patient; they’re FRENCH.

The fact that the houses were built in a low-lying area does not prove that the mayor showed disregard for the life and safety of the residents. 26% of the Netherlands is below sea level, land that is home to 60% of the population. The Dutch government constantly monitors dikes with high-tech equipment and satellites, repairing and improving them as needed.

In contrast, the dikes in La Faute-sur-Mer have been poorly maintained since Napoleon built them two centuries ago. The French government was aware of the weakness of their coastal defenses and after a smaller 1999 flood, funds were allocated to modernize and raise all dikes by one meter. Eleven years later only half the money had been spent, and 1,000 kilometers of dikes were known to be unsafe. The parallel to Hurricane Katrina, when the Army Corps of Engineers never performed work funded by Congress to improve levies in New Orleans, is striking.

Really? The facts say that the dikes and locks were stopped by continuous legal resistance by environmentalists.

Another factor that led to the high death count was the inappropriate design of the houses in the development. Until 1980, houses on the French coast had their living areas elevated by a few meters, as is common in many beach communities. The builders in La Faute-sur-mer, however, constructed single-story houses at ground level, responding to the needs of their clients, who preferred living on a single level without staircases. As flood waters rose, residents were unable to escape to upper floors.

It gets even more macabre: insurance companies offered rebates for the installation of metal shutters on the windows and doors to protect from wind damage. The elderly residents preferred shutters with electric motors over manual shutters. Apparently it didn’t occur to anyone that electric shutters don’t work during a power outage. When the flooding from Xynthia cut off power, people were trapped in their homes as water rose to the ceilings.

Finally, Meteo France, the equivalent of the National Weather Service, broadcast high wind warnings as Xynthia approached, encouraging residents to close the deadly shutters. The broadcast indicated potential flood danger with a small symbol on the television screen, which most viewers did not notice. Despite this flood warning, national and regional authorities did not issue an order to evacuate, leaving the decision to local officials.

In the aftermath of the storm, a proposal from the French State to bulldoze 674 homes in flood-prone areas was met with strong local resistance, evidence of support for the mayor’s pro-development stance.

Re-read the section above and try to be gentle. Remember, they’re French.

In sum, Mayor Marratier had opportunities to prevent the 29 deaths, but many other parties share responsibility. The prosecution, however, argues that the mayor’s failure to take appropriate action constitutes the crime of “involuntary manslaughter by criminal negligence,” defined in American law as follows:

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so… which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.

How about the text of the FRENCH law? That seems to me to be a tad more relevant to this issue.

A duty to act was established when “authorities” warned the mayor about flooding danger. France 24 summarizes: The mayor “is accused of ignoring warnings from the regional authorities by allowing construction in the low-lying area.” As we hear repeatedly, the science is settled; global warming causes rising sea levels, more extreme weather events and increased flooding.

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, this whole screed was just so the author could ring in his theory about the ultimately nefarious intentions the Global Warming forces have furthered by way of the French being inimitably French.

In this case, the “regional authorities” acted correctly. Adaptation measures like improving dikes and rewriting building codes are entirely sensible, and should have been done. But this does not mitigate the danger of making it a crime to ignore the warnings of mid-level bureaucrats and climate activists. The potential for abuse is enormous. Warnings about global warming are often motivated by anti-capitalism and utopianism. If “authorities” warn that burning fossil fuels will lead to millions of deaths, will it be a crime to oppose a solar energy mandate? Even questioning the science of “anthropogenic climate disruption”, as it is now called, could be a criminal act since it influences politicians to vote against climate legislation.

If this sounds farfetched, consider a small sample of the totalitarian invective coming from mainstream climate-change figures:

  • George Mason University Professor Robert Nadeau writes in his essay, “Crimes Against Humanity: The Genocidal Campaign of the Climate Change Contrarians”: “There is no doubt that the Big Lies told by the contrarians about climate science constitute a ‘widespread and systematic attack against’ all of humanity.”
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Those who contend that global warming ‘does not exist… are guilty of ‘a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.’”
  • David Suzuki wants climate skeptics to be “thrown in the slammer.”
  • James Hansen wants to put oil executives on trial for “high crimes against humanity.”
  • David Roberts wrote at Grist, “we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

(Note the ratcheting up of the vilifications: skeptics are no longer simply “deniers” of the climate Holocaust, but active participants in a Nazi-like genocide.)

The “Call out the Climate Change Deniers” campaign created by Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action identifies 141 members of Congress who made public statements questioning global warming. If climate zealots adapt Xynthia tactics, these statements could become evidence for the prosecution.

Peter, Peter, they’re French, and your list of tin-hat wearers fails to justify your own aluminum headgear.

Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist


My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person


Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.


Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

World’s Biggest Beaver Dam, Damns Environmental Rhetoric


There are those who argue that the real environmental movement died after 1990 with the final amendment to the most successful piece of environmental legislation ever, the Clean Air Act.  IN three installments the CLA reversed decades of industrial and domestic pollution and halted rapid trends toward extinction for many species.

Since 1990, some would say 1970, the environmental movement has been more concerned with eliminating the embarrassingly successful human race than with learning what the real effects of our activity are and how to control them.

Given their acceptance of the science behind evolution I find it puzzling why Leftists consistently refuse to see Human activity as “natural”! With the same fervor a fanatical Christian has in declaring  homosexuals “against nature” the Leftist “environmentalist” sees only unnaturalness when Man is involved.

Since most predators keep strict territories it would not surprise me to learn that lions and tigers (and bears, oh my!) look on the herds they hunt as “theirs.” But, as humans we are supposed to “know better” and PETA tells us we are immoral for even daring to keep animals as pets or working animals.

And then there are the Global Warming idiots, folk who 30 years ago would have been stocking up for the coming Ice Age.  They find it thrilling to their self-hating souls to see ANY natural disaster that cannot be immediately traced to a natural source (and even some of those) as a weapon to wield in their battle against the human race.

Too bad for them that the natural world does not read Greenpeace periodicals!  Check out this AFP story about the…

“World’s biggest beaver dam discovered in northern Canada

AFP/HO – This 2008 handout photo courtesy of the Wood Buffalo National Park in Northern Alberta shows the world’s …

by Michel Comte and Jacques Lemieux Michel Comte And Jacques Lemieux Wed May 5, 7:46 pm ET

OTTAWA (AFP) – A Canadian ecologist has discovered the world’s largest beaver dam in a remote area of northern Alberta, an animal-made structure so large it is visible from space.

Researcher Jean Thie said Wednesday he used satellite imagery and Google Earth software to locate the dam, which is about 850 meters (2,800 feet) long on the southern edge of Wood Buffalo National Park …Construction of the dam likely started in the mid-1970s, said Thie, who made his discovery quite by accident while tracking melting permafrost in Canada’s far north.

"Several generations of beavers worked on it and it’s still growing," he told AFP in Ottawa.


…Thie said he recently identified two smaller dams sprouting at either side of the main dam. In 10 years, all three structures could merge into a mega-dam measuring just short of a kilometer in length, he said.

…Thie said he also found evidence that beavers were repopulating old habitats after being hunted extensively for pelts in past centuries.

"They’re invading their old territories in a remarkable way in Canada," he said. "I found huge dams throughout Canada, and beaver colonies with up to 100 of them in a square kilometer."

"They’re re-engineering the landscape," he said.”

Now wait a minute there Jean, do you mean these beavers have destroyed the habitats of virtually all the other species in what must total a full square kilometer?  And these “developments are springing up all over Canada? Why do I think get the feeling that if conditions for these beavers stayed ideal for a long time and they started to make serious inroads over large areas of Canada the Environmentalists would stand back and LET THEM, so great is their bias.

Personally I think it is great that the beavers are doing so well.  It just adds to my delight to know that they puncture TWO biases of the new environMental movement; that only humans can be destructive of the environment and that “global Warming” was threatening The Great White North’s animal populations.

Response to Mintman

A reader took issue with my post about climate change. Here is his comment and my reponse.  Forgive me if I am a bit terse. I just finished moving and am a bit stressed. The new place is great though and the new Castle Crusader is finally in shape for Christmas. On to MintMan’s criticism.

“I do not get you climate change denialists(sp).”

What kind of ad hominem label is that? I never denied that climate changes. It is childish labels like that dominating the AGW “debate”. The GW’s rant and rave but when it comes to accurate descriptions of ANYTHING, climate or opponents they fall back on classic propaganda techniques. Your handlers must be proud of how well you have retained their teachings.

“To hold your position, you must believe at least the following three points:”

Ahh, the old “excluded third” argument. Always bull but sometimes entertaining. Pray, go on.

“1. That virtually the entire community of climate researchers is either grossly incompetent or part of an evil conspiracy.”

Here we have the first baloney term; entire community of climate researchers. What a load of garbage! Unless you only talk to the Lefties regarding this matter you know that there are many scientists who certainly disagree with many if not most of the “theories” of the AGW movement. The problem is that since the impetus for this scam came from POLITICIANS rather than scientists it has POLITICIZED climate research. It has been at least ten years since lazy “scientists” with political agendas discovered that they could get funding for just about anything if they included the words Global Warming in the proposal. The sorry truth is that despite the political solid front there is NO DATA AND NO MODEL provided by the AGW crowd that corresponds to reality. The only data they do have is so cooked as to be useless without peer review of the “Recipe” used to “normalize” it. That information has been held as an unreleasable secret by the movement’s “scientists”. IS this science? ALL data and ALL methods must be completely public ESPECIALLY when politicians are involved. Surely you would agree if it were Conservatives heading a silly science movement…like Creationism maybe? Hmm, come to think of it the tactics and methods and attitudes of BOTH movements are eerily similar don’t you think?

As to your assertion that this fictitious consensus exists I must tell you that when the list of hundreds of scientists that supported the U.N. report came out it included many people who had worked on the project but then withdrew their support!!!!! The AGW leaders refused to allow those scientists to withdraw their names from the report since they had contributed to it. No rebuttal was allowed to be amended. Many NON scientists’ names were included as “researchers”. It was as blatantly political a move as you can find.

“I do not know which is the more likely, as both ideas are completely beyond the pale. Assuming that such a world-wide conspiracy including so many people could be kept viable over such a long time is ridiculous even if you do not know from personal experience how scientists think and work. I have also never heard a plausible explanation of what the motivation for such a conspiracy would be. Do you honestly think that significant numbers of people would go to such lengths just to make others needlessly miserable and destroy their “way of live”? People are generally motivated by either self-interest or concern for others, but not by cartoonish evilness and spite that would gain themselves nothing.”

Wow, you are asking for a civics lesson and a history lesson as well as an explanation of common tactics in the more dirty of political arenas. Well, in the hopes that you might actually attempt to process some of what I say, that you will not simply reflect ALL of the information you are about to read from your shiny Leftist armor I will give it a shot.

“I have also never heard a plausible explanation of what the motivation for such a conspiracy would be.”

I told you above. It is a political movement not a scientific one. And just because this one came from the Left you have failed to be sufficiently critical of it. For Pete’s sake, Gore won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for his work on it! That should tell you something. Look at a list of PEACE prize winners for the last 50 years and try to find TWO that are worth the spit to drown them. That should have set off alarm bells all over your head!

“I have also never heard a plausible explanation of what the motivation for such a conspiracy would be.”

You haven’t? Who do you talk to? I can give you two huge ones. First is money. IF you look into the whole cap and trade idea and most other schemes for “managing” CO2 they all have in common the effect of making SOMEONE HUGE, fantastic OBSCENE amounts of money or at the least giving them control over those resources in an extra-national extra-constitutional “climate authority”. The second reason is that YES, there are people to whom breaking down traditional Western, Enlightenment culture is VITAL to their interests! For god’s sake they tell you so every day!!! Just go to any Leftist web site or news paper and read how the entire Constitutional system is merely the evil product of the diseased European mind and needs to be replaced with a socialist paradise on Earth where no one goes hungry and no one is offended by reality.

Do you ever THINK about the things you read or do you just wrap yourself in the warm glow of pretend righteousness and put your defense mechanisms to sleep?

In a nutshell the leadership of the 60’s and 70’s counterculture found themselves a new wagon to ride over the head of “The Man” called Global Warming. That leadership was body and soul controlled by the Soviets but were left confused when the U.S.S.R. threw n the Communist towel. They then took over the environmentalist movement and proceeded with an anti-Western scam even bigger than Communism.

“2. That the already observed increase in average temperatures and sea levels, and the loss of arctic ice and glaciers is either invented or part of a some natural process.”

Ignorance is not always bliss is it? Did you know that the arctic and Antarctic ice caps exchange mass regularly? Arctic down = Antarctic up. Check it out. Another inconvenient reality your handlers do not want you thinking about. They also do not want you thinking about the actual data collected that they base that conclusion upon. They do not want you to know that they massaged that data mercilessly to “smooth out” the known errors and inconvenient facts like temps near cities being higher than the surrounding countryside. They certainly do not want you to know that they REFUSE TO RELEASE the founding data or the methods used to massage it. Protecting the privacy of the participating “scientists” you know. SAY WHAT? This is unheard of in REAL SCIENCE my friend!

“…, see point 1. If it is a natural process, then there would still be reason for concern, because all our current population centers and agricultural areas are adapted to the current climate, and adapting to the new one will be a very painful process, euphemistically speaking.”

Do you think about what you are saying as it relates to the larger world or do yo just speak off the top of your head to refute the point you are facing?

If it is a natural process there is NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT as the only source of the change would be Sun! Do you feel that Humanity scurrying around like ants in a panic and wreaking havoc on society and the world economy somehow makes it all better? As to adaptation would it not be better if we accepted the FACT that things like warm periods and ice ages are out of our hands and that it is up to us t be ready to adapt? Oh, and you are not quite right anyway. The warmer the Earth gets the MORE hospitable it becomes for ALL life!!! FACT.

For small bands of coastline lost we gain HUGE areas of formerly arid land that will become fertile and welcoming to man, animal and plants. Your buddies at GW central never told you that for the few trees at the EDGES of a habitat that are lost in a warming trend HUGE numbers of critters and plants EXPAND their ranges. OOH, they didn’t tell you that? BAAD Pretend environmentalists!

If you care about the environment campaign against those “green” light bulbs that contain MERCURY for your kids, grandkids and great grand kids to play in after it accumulates in the landfills.

“This also as a rejoinder to the happy “warm times are fun times” argument, which, from a purely biological perspective, is correct. It just does not do the Italians any good to know that Russian agriculture has profited greatly when the Sahara has reached Rome.”

Such PROFOUND ignorance! WARM = WET you geologically uneducated fool! A few areas like Venice and parts of Holland are screwed, but you know what? They were doomed from the get go. Better enjoy them while they last like the Leaning Tower. Isn’t it “White man’s arrogance” to try to FORCE nature to allow us to keep follies like Venice for another hundred years before the inevitable?

“Nevertheless, the idea that it is a natural process is criticized quite effectively in the article you are trying to trash, but it brings me to the third point you have to believe to be a climate change denialist(sp):”

No, it wasn’t all the article proved is that the author did NOT talk to the skeptics with an open mind and ADMITS that he does not get the science. He makes a lot of ignorant assumptions based on common sense. JUST LIKE the Creationists do!!!

“3. That blowing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere does not have any effect whatsoever.”

It does, it promotes plant growth which provides food for more animals!!! Show me ANY evidence from history that it does anything else? The Jurassic and Triassic and Cretaceous had FAR higher CO2 than today, yet no fish dissolved in acid baths and the coasts were not that far from what we know. There was no water world or desert world epoch! EVER!!! In fact the closest to a desert world scenario the Earth has ever seen would be the ICE AGES!!!

You see the core of the Earth is slowly cooling off, that is why the ice ages suddenly started not that long ago. Now if the GW crap is true we should be welcoming it since the REAL data shows that the Earth most likely started sliding into an ice age about 800 years ago. Did you know that at the onset of the last chilly period England went from having Hippos in the Thames to being UNDER ALMOST A MILE OF ICE in only EIGHTY years??? And you think your buddies understand climate? They can hardly tie their shoes when it comes to modeling what the climate will actually DO. The ONLY rational response is for us to be ready to adapt to whatever happens and stop the arrogant breast beating about being responsible for something we are a flea beside.

“And sorry, that is true lunacy.”

Most science is lunacy to those without proper background.

“You can argue maybe about what the exact effects are, when they will take effect, and how strong they will be compared to those resulting from other variables, but the question whether we are influencing the earth’s equilibrium with our habit of burning fossil fuels is a no-brainer.”

No, it is not, it is arrogance to assume that a variable that has NEVER caused disaster no matter how much or how sudden the introduction in the past suddenly become deadly when WE do it.

“It is like a doctor doubling a patient’s blood salt with an injection and saying innocently, hey, it is a very complex system, I do not know what will happen, so why not do it?”

No, it is not, salt is a corrosive and toxic more than small doses. CO2 in the atmosphere is nether. Another emotional bit of “logic” does not make your case any stronger. Go, learn, come back and have a real discussion.

“Yeah, maybe you don’t, but that is no excuse to play with a life. Yeah, maybe we don’t, but that is no excuse to play with the future of humanity.”


Man, if you were in charge we would live in caves and not dare to turn our huntring weapons to defense lest the gods be offended.

The whining of the ignorant at the educated ones trying to pull the ignorant out of the mud by their shirt tails.

While you whine about a problem you admit may not even BE a problem what are you doing about the REAL and PRESENT problems of sulfur dioxide and mercury? Anything at all or has the Global Warming bandwagon swept you up and made you forget what being environmentalist is all about?

Global Warming is Real(ly Good at Outing the Ignorant)

A recent article by Bryan Appleyard in The TimesOnline is a good example of why people who don’t understand science should beware of having strong opinions about it, in either direction. Going from one form of opinionated ignorance to another form of opinionated ignorance is not progress it is intellectual laziness. To Mr. Appleyard, impressions are equal to facts and the last pundit to bend your ear must be right. Especially when you don’t understand the subject yourself.
There are so many good reasons not to believe in global warming: summers lately have been cool and wet; since 1998 global temperatures have actually fallen; dissident scientists say it’s not happening; green believers are irritating — they wear Tibetan hats that only look good on Tibetans, and are so often wrong that they’re probably wrong about the Big One; large parts of the punditocracy say it’s all nonsense, usually that it’s a left-wing plot against capitalism; the rainforest is growing back faster than it’s being cut down and polar bears are, apparently, doing quite well. Global warming? Yeah, right!
But here’s the best reason of all not to believe, to sit back and relax. Global warming is just the latest apocalyptic story. There is always someone, somewhere predicting the end of the world.
That is a nutshell is Mr. Appleyards former thesis on the subject; I didn’t believe in Global Warming because I found it unappealing emotionally on several levels. Not a word about actual study and evaluation of the science involved for himself.
He may be a man with a sandwich board in Oxford Street or an American Christianist who expects the Book of Revelation to happen tomorrow. But he’s equally likely to be a scientist warning about asteroid impacts, super-eruptions, molecule-sized robots turning everything into grey goo or, not so long ago, the descent of Earth into a new ice age. Taking all these possibilities into account, Sir Martin Rees, the great cosmologist, says humans only have a 50/50 chance of making it into the next century. Yeah, right!
Stated like no one but the truly ignorant can! Poor Bryan cannot tell the difference between a scientist talking about a possibility (which all of the above most certainly are, when you understand the science) and a media outlet turning that into “warnings of impending doom by scientists” or an author trying to make money with a sensationalist book!
No wonder opinion polls show a majority of the population are sceptical about global warming. Just scanning the papers, the internet or watching TV is enough to convince anyone it’s just the usual apocalyptic hype. And, if they want to dig deeper into their own disbelief, there are shelfloads of books to give them a hand. There’s Nigel Lawson, ex-chancellor of the exchequer, with An Appeal to Reason. There’s Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North. There’s Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. There was even a very serious documentary on Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle with some serious-looking science guys pouring cold water on the warming atmosphere. …That was me, once. I thought global warming was all bog-standard, apocalyptic nonsense when it first emerged in the 1980s. People, I knew, like nothing better than an End-of-the-World story to give their lives meaning. I also knew that science is dynamic. Big ideas rise and fall. Once the Earth was the centre of the universe. Then it wasn’t. Once Isaac Newton had completed physics. Then he hadn’t. Once there was going to be a new ice age. Then there wasn’t.
Armed with such historic reversals, I poured scorn on under-educated warmists.
So, without actually STUDYING the subject, the claims, the facts and forming an opinion Bryn reached into his emotions and hauled out the answer that GW had to be bollocks. Ok fine.
… And then I made a terrible mistake. I started questioning my instinct, which was to disbelieve every scare story on principle.
This is a terrible mistake for the black and white minded to make. If they admit any possibility of error they believe it HAS to mean that the only real truth is completely opposite to their first emotional reaction. So they jump on the second emotional reaction and believe everything the other camp says. At no time do they contemplate actual attempts at understanding.
I exposed myself to any journalist’s worst nightmare — very thoughtful, intelligent people.
And even worse, to people good at fooling the ignorant into thinking they are thoughtful and intelligent instead of being out for all the traffic will bear. The Global Warming mafia must have taken lessons in propaganda from the Creationists, so similar are their “it SOUNDS reasonable right? So it MUST be true!” patter with the general public.
I talked to some brilliant scientists and thinkers, some mainstream Greens, some truly tough-minded scientists. There was James Lovelock, the man whose Gaia hypothesis sees the world as a single, gigantic organism. There was Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York. There was Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum and former head of the British Antarctic Survey. There was Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at Oxford. There was Sir David King, once chief scientific adviser to the British government. There were many others.
When did Mr. Appleyard talk to the brilliant thinkers and scientists, dissenting Greens and truly tough minded scientists who oppose the movement? Instead he went from an ignorant opinion to a propagandized opinion without taking a breath.
There is, I saw, a fine line between the hard-head and the bone-head. The denialist hard-head swaggers his way through life hearing only what he wants to hear, that warmism is either a hoax, a gross error or just another End-of-the-World scare story. But if you suspend your prejudices and your vanity for a moment, everything changes. You find out that the following statements are true beyond argument.
Between the hard-head and the bone-head is the soft-headed fool who can’t tell facts from hot air due to sheer laziness preventing them from doing their own evaluation on both sides logic. This leads to accepting as “true beyond argument” things that are highly arguable. Like:
The climate is warming.
For the climate itself to warm, and not just the atmosphere in places, the oceans have to first warm. This takes HUNDREDS of years to occur and for the effects to be felt on the atmosphere. This fact ALONE makes the whole idea of Human caused global warming silly at first glance. There simply hasn’t been time for the effects they claim to have occurred since the 1850’s!
It is almost certain this is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity.
Given that it is not certain that the warming is happening at all, it definitely is not certain what caused it! The effect is so short term, if it exists, that it could be caused by a number of factors, the most likely being changes in the output of the Sun.
Nobody has come up with an alternative explanation that stands up.
Really? Who did you ask? What ideas failed in your mind to fit the bill? Why? Or did you just succumb to snake oil from the GW crew in lieu of actual information?
If the present warming trend continues…
Which we haven’t even established is happening, given the “cooked” nature of the data from the GW bunch.
…, nasty things will probably start happening to humans within the next century, possibly the next decade.
Nasty things? Such as? Hasn’t anyone pointed out to Mr. Appleyard that for every inch of coastline that might be lost to rising oceans vast areas of interior will go from arid to arable? Is Mr. Appleyard totally unaware that the BEST times for plant and animal life that this planet has EVER seen occurred at times when the CO2 and temp were significantly higher than they are today? I assume not, since Bryan is adamant that…
Something must be done. If nothing is done, then the benign climatic conditions that have sustained human civilisation for 10,000 years are in danger of collapse to be replaced by… well, write your own disaster movie.
More ignorance pretending to be profound. Those 10,000 years are hardly representative of any kind of average for Earthly conditions! And the best years for humanity of those 10,000 years were the WARMER ones!!!!
…You will note that there is some wiggle room in these statements. It is “almost certain” that humans are responsible; nasty things will “probably” happen. That is because all science can ever be is the best guess of the best minds. Also, the climate is a complex system, meaning it can behave in ways that are opaque beyond our most sophisticated calculations. But, as I have often been told, those statements are as true as any scientific statements can be, and nobody — I repeat, nobody — has been able to refute this. In short, to deny any of these statements is to put yourself beyond the bounds of rational discourse.
Funny, I think that maybe you need to talk to the ones doing the refuting instead of the ones afraid of being refuted! Then maybe you can learn something from them and stop letting yourself be “often told” things that you could understand for yourself are nonsense!
The article goes on to demonstrate Bryan’s ignorance of several new subjects, amongst them predictions and computer modeling. I might analyze the rest at a later time, but for now I think Bryan has shown us fairly clearly that his early opinions have been replaced by nothing more than new beliefs with no more basis in fact than his original prejudices.