We do have a moral obligation to block hysteria and dangerous policy based on junk and corrupt science.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
saveenergy on 65 Years Of Progress! Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun Barbara Stockwell on Nuclear Safety In The US
Junk, corrupt, delusional and let’s not forget criminal non-science!
The new religion has manifested into an ugly beast that is in need of extinguishing.
This summer was a real disaster for the alarmists, wasn’t it? They are getting outright bizzare now.
Way to misquote the Guardian. It really improves your credibility.
Most of the people here can think and understand the concept of a logical corollary. Were you born without critical thinking skills, or is that a recent development?
Steve obviously you are one of those “virulent anti-environmentalists” (to quote The Guardian). Actually, the more you put this Guardian article in context by quoting directly from it, the more and more stupid it becomes.
Whenever I see someone engaging in literalism that isn’t obviously tongue-in-cheek, whether they are doing so unintentionally or intentionally, I take it as a sign of absolute intense stupidity. Referring to themselves as ‘Politics Watcher’ as if they are somehow above politics really adds a nice clown face on top.
That article is just another in a long line of pieces written to make people who question the infallible ‘authority’ of AGW supporters look like morons when it is in fact the people that blindly follow that are the real fools. You can call peop,e names all day long but that does not change the fact that the predictions made by the climate models thus far have been flawed to say the least and yet we are to believe what these experts have to say without questioning them?
The Guardian has gone full fruit loop these last few months – which is saying something. That ‘pause’ is causing them immense distress, the poor luvvies, hence diversionary articles like the one linked.
Frantic arm-waving, while global temps do anything but signal catastrophe.
And you have said it. It is the temperature standstill and the fear of cooling that has caused the upsurge in shouting.
mark serreze now claims that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/china-northeastern-sea-route-trial-voyage
I thought he said in 2007 that it would be ice-free this year?
Serreze has always said 2030.
He has planned his retirement well.
It is not good enough to say there could be a long term problem which may eventually require a long term solution. No, you have to say it is a “crisis”, like we need your money right here and now.
The actual science shows that there is no “crisis”. No warming the last 15 years and only one 18 year period of significant warming since 1940. It isn’t apparently good enough to say that human innovation and free markets will solve the problems naturally over the next 50 years. No, it has to be a phony “crisis”, requiring an immediate and huge redistribution of wealth as well as throwing a monkey wrench into the economy.
And a wholesale overturning of the founding principles, and laws, of the United States of America–don’t leave that out.
what the heck is the “scientific fraternity”
it’s all clear now! 🙂