Remember how quickly “widespread homelessness” and “worst economy since the Great Depression” vanished from MSM news accounts after William Jefferson Clinton was elected in 1992?

Didn’t he aid in the reduction (homelessness and the economy) by use of Presidential Pardon?

Which is exactly why I am convinced that Hillary, Barak, and John Boy will never in a million years put into law any of the wacko environmental schemes they are campaigning for right now. A few cosmetic changes will be made if one of them gets elected, but the key word here is “cosmetic”. Democrats are not the sharpest set of knives in the drawer, but they recognize political suicide when they see it. The peasants can be conned into thinking they are saving the planet by turning off a light now and again, but if you ram Draconian measures down their throats they might rebel.

We see the same principle at work where politicians and other celebrities (with their lavish lifestyles and gigantic, energy-consuming mansions) jet all over the globe burning who-knows-how-many tons of CO2 telling everyone else that they must cut back. How many of them do you think follow Sheryl Scat-Crow’s “use only one square” advice?

I predict that if a Democrat gets elected President, within a year we will cease to hear about “global warming” (or “climate change” or whatever the spin-of-the-day is). Remember how quickly “widespread homelessness” and “worst economy since the Great Depression” vanished from MSM news accounts after William Jefferson Clinton was elected in 1992?

I’m glad to see that you recognize some of this, but unsure of why you seem to support the AGW consensus in light of your alleged distaste for irrational environmentalists.

Irrationality is opportunistic. Just because neo-nazi white supremacists think non-white immigrants are poisoning our country, doesn’t mean there’s not an immigration problem. Just because some take things to extremes, doesn’t make the foundation false. I refuse to accept the premise that one has to be completely and totally aligned with every single entity on a particular viewpoint. So, your unsureness of my support is an oversimplification that obfuscates the issue.

It’s naive in the extreme to not recognize that many different interests contribute to this brew…

I do realize that. It’s very complex with various groups positioning themselves so they can benefit. Agreed. Your post was about someone claiming AGW is a scam and a hoax. The position of people like Inhofe and his loyalists is of premeditated conspiracy. This is what I’m challenging. But people who seem to be intelligent and rational refuse to disagree with that extreme position based on their ideology. And, yes, it happens on the “other side” too, so you don’t have to point that out to me.

The simple fact is that I have never, to this date, seen any definitive proof worthy of merit of CO2’s forcing numbers that form the basis for this whole hoopla, that are the underpinning of the GCMs, are correct. I see an assumption of forcing, but no convincing validation. And then on top of that positive feedbacks are assumed, which have never been shown to be true, and if they were would have doomed life on this ball millions of years ago, again unproven, but which create results used by international NGOs and governments to rationalize massive wealth redistribution schemes called carbon cap and trade.

When this hoopla all started I was measuring atmospheric optical effects in support of optical phase conjugation work. Based on my own modeling and observation, the whole idea of a doubling or tripling of CO2 increasing temperatures by whole degrees didn’t make any sense due to what I know is the logarithmic nature of the absorption curve, and the overlap with other gases. To this date I have not seen convincing data that this will happen, only overly hysterical conclusions from GCMs that are quirky at best, and too often the result of a computer modeler who has mistaken their model for reality. And yes, I do read the papers themselves not the “denier” websites. I am a practicing physicist and computer modeler myself. Transmission of near and far IR thru the atmosphere is a subject I have done extensive work on and which I believe I understand quite well.

As for the “cabal” just open your eyes, there are tons of people and organizations hanging their hopes of implementing their agendas on this, from the anti-capitalist types, to corporations who think it will give them an advantage over others. It’s naive in the extreme to not recognize that many different interests contribute to this brew, all of which believe they can use it to their advantage, from average scientists who just want funding for their pet projects and don’t care about the global ramifications to anti-capitalist and anti-Western and yes, anti-US political animals who are using this to drive their own agendas of control.

I repeat it again, CO2 is not a pollutant, and is not the primary driver of the relatively mild warming we’ve seen since the end of the Little Ice Age (the magnitude of which is in doubt due to gross errors in temperature measurements). Spending trillions of dollars on CO2 will do nothing but bankrupt societies and result in a lower standard of living, and less capacity to respond to whatever climate change occurs. And all the while this entire global warming climate change boondoggle steals dollars from more important, more real, and more addressable issues. I’m glad to see that you recognize some of this, but unsure of why you seem to support the AGW consensus in light of your alleged distaste for irrational environmentalists.

I would suggest, knowing real scientists as I do, particularly university animals, that the reason they endorse the IPCC is it guarantees continued and significant funding. Government money has corrupted modern science in ways that are unpleasant in the extreme. And even as more and more good science is being done that undermines CO2s role in all of this, which calls into doubt the entire AGW premise, I see the politicians, media, NGOs, and a ton of biased scientists wailing that there is a rock solid consensus and we have to move now now now to implement the latest Ponzi scheme de jour. Scientists are shouted down, libeled, smeared, and ignored solely because they dare to challenge the “consensus” and are attempting to upset the funding applecart. It’s disgusting and repulsive, dishonest and unethical, and whether you realize it or not, whether you are personally benefiting from it or not, it’s happening, and you have to be blind if you don’t see it. The more research that comes out undermining the consensus, the more panicked and hysterical the pro-AGW groupthink minions get and the more they push to ram all of their agendas down everyones throat before the wheels fall off the bus completely. Already about half a dozen coal fired power plants have had their permits for construction rejected in this country, despite the fact they are clean, safe, and the energy is desperately needed. The fratricide from this is already hurting people in this country and around the world and it’s high time for it to stop and the Emperor to realize he has no clothes.

It’s easy to make these kinds of biased, elitist, self indulgent decisions when it’s not your children being killed by preventable diseases and poverty.

I wholeheartedly agree.
I am definitely not a fan of the most irrational environmentalist spoutings. They annoy the crap out of me. I am not a fan of the Kyoto protocol…I think it’s a horrible way to address the problem. It is wrong to think that all who accept the conclusions of the climate science community are all one, monolithic entity. As with most things, it’s far more complex.

But, I think people don’t like to accept complexity…they like it simple. It’s “them” vs. “us”. This is not constructive…but, hey that’s just me.

Firstly, who is in this cabal planning to take over the world? If they are so powerful, why not do this with staged terrorism, global war, manipulating economic markets or the like? Wouldn’t that be more effective? So, the IPCC, which was created in 1988, has been in on this from the beginning?

the work of a few dozen like minded individuals, not all scientists, many politicians, who write the summary reports that get all the attention

Secondly, you are complaining that policy experts are involved in writing a report called “Summary for Policy Makers”?

Thirdly, I think you ought to attend an annual meeting like AGU (American Geophysical Union) to see how scientists interact. We are constantly trying to tear each other’s hypotheses down (with data/results, not rhetoric, of course). This myth of “like-minded” scientists is plain wrong. The competitive nature of it is, I think, beneficial to science (much like it is beneficial for markets and economies). Go to a meeting like this and see hundreds of presenations, talk to thousands of climate scientists, and you’ll understand why an organization like that (50,000 members) has backed the IPCC conclusions. They are debating the details and complexities, no doubt, but the big picture is established.

Finally…you can dispense with the “gotcha” nonsense…maybe most people that come here are in it for the jib-jabbing and fun of debate. I’m actually here to discuss this. Thanks.

Add to that the impact on dirt poor third world countries, which will be denied cheap energy (read fossil fuels) in order to salve the conscience of Western environmental hypocrites who care nothing for the impact of their policies on the real poor of the world. Life without ample and affordable energy is brutal, unpleasant, and usually short. All the while we have greens telling the poor suffering masses that they really are happier there living as noble savages while they retire to their air conditioned SUVs on the way to the coffee shop. How dare the third worlders try and use DDT to stop the plague of malaria that is killing millions! It’s easy to make these kinds of biased, elitist, self indulgent decisions when it’s not your children being killed by preventable diseases and poverty.

And herein lies the reason I am so repulsed by the pro-AGW trolls and sheep, it’s the willful ignorance coupled with the character assassination that makes a mockery of what science should be. It’s the lack of concern for what the effects of their actions truly are, the disdain and lack of concern for the people who really get the short end of the stick in these kinds of issues. And the deliberate misuse of both science and money to chase AGW rainbows instead of focusing our limited resources on issues that are truly serious and perhaps even solvable.

We have the IPCC which, contrary to claims, is not the work of thousands of scientists, but rather the work of a few dozen like minded individuals, not all scientists, many politicians, who write the summary reports that get all the attention.

Supporting Sev’s claim is the IPCC’s own mandate, which states:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.

Notice two things: first, AGW is a forgone conclusion to them; second, they don’t do science. All of which means that IPCC is a political group, not a scientific group. They can decide what data and statistics support their political objectives – or what data can be distorted to support them – and ignore anything else. Unsurprisingly, they try to screen out distinguished scientists who might dispute their findings (one particularly blatant example here). Science? No. Politics? Yes.

So what’s left? The Goracle? Maybe the AGW crowd missed the British court ruling pointing out the errors in his crockumentary and characterizing it as a broadly political piece of work. Again…science? No. Politics? Yes.

In fact, if you peel away the faux-science veneer from all the AGW proponents, what you find is a Luddite with a thirst for state control of everything. They’re not concerned with the environment so much as they are with power – otherwise they’d be concentrating their efforts on countries like China, which has no concern for climate or environmental protection at all. The AGW movement is just a poor attempt to steal the good name of real scientific inquiry and use it to hide another attack on the free market system that’s made us the most prosperous nation in history. They’d gladly see our standard of living go in the tank if it meant they’d be able to dictate to us.

Oh, except for the preferred politically correct people, of course. al-Gore and the noted climatologist Leonardo diCaprio won’t have to give up their Gulfstreams. But you might be expected to bicycle to work, if they have their way.

So, let’s review. We have the IPCC which, contrary to claims, is not the work of thousands of scientists, but rather the work of a few dozen like minded individuals, not all scientists, many politicians, who write the summary reports that get all the attention. We have a cadre of “climate scientists” (although I use the term loosely) who coauthor and “peer review” each others work in a virtual echo chamber, who refuse to share their data and methods, who make copious mistakes, either accidentally or more likely deliberately (and Wang and Mann both have shown strong evidence of deliberate data manipulation and fraudulent practices), who then smear anyone who points this out, and who keep pushing things that have been discredited. Mann’s RealClimate site has been caught in numerous lies and deliberate distortions, something I’ve never seen Pielke or McIntyre do.

So, a UN panel, doing political not scientific work, writes the document, in coordination with a very few researchers who’s livelihood depends on research grants from these same like minded government and international agencies, who collude and actively and aggressively attempt to suppress the work of the evil “deniers” and who manipulate an all too willing media to attempt to foist a massive redistribution of wealth on the world, and you think the word hoax or fraud is not applicable? Gotcha.

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

The Center for American Progress’s Think Progress blog attacked a Noel Sheppard post on NewsBusters and a handful of other conservative blogs today. Their crime? Citing climate change comments uttered b…

Do you have to take your meals through a straw?

I think Al Gore has recently stated that straws are melting the ice caps so Joe wouldn’t ever use one.

And out of curiosity, have you ever won an argument through a never ending stream of insult? Have you ever tried it to somebody face to face? Do you have to take your meals through a straw?

OK, now do you get it? If you AGW cultists are going to come in here with hysterical ranting, expect to be called on it. I know you left-wing clowns are working on outlawing independent thought, but at this blog, people are still allowed to disagree. Even with al-Gore.

By the way, while Severian provides links to scientific studies, it’s noteworthy that none of you members of the First Church of Global Warming and Discount Carbon Credits Outlet can provide a single link to your so-called facts.

I like the work CA is doing…more scrutiny is great! I’m simply asking for those who believe this is a hoax, a scam, a diabolical plan to trick the global population, to provide evidence for that. If the conclusions of the IPCC are wrong, that’s one thing…but you (and others) insist on a hoax. You could not provide evidence for a hoax, because there isn’t one. This whole conspiracy theory crap reminds me of the 9-11 “truthers”. All you got is circumstantial anecdotes and rhetoric.