But Global Warming Is Different
3 Responses to “But Global Warming Is Different”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 31st, 2010 at 1:33 pm
OK, the early Glow-Bull Warmening alarmists got it wrong, and are generally discounted (has anyone seen Al Gore lately?), but that hasn’t stopped a new generation of alarmists from taking root, like weeds after a summer thunderstorm. These new wonks are steeped in Socialist theocracy also, so they believe that they can kill two birds with one stone: the Bird of Freedom and the Bird of Prosperity.
No, the old science twits of the 70’s aren’t the issue, it’s the new ones we have to worry about. Just look at how the University of East Anglia skated on the science-gate scandal. They just basically let it blow over, and now they’re back to the same level of cooking “science” as before, only now they’ll be more careful to not leave tracks.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:26 am
It’s the climate alarmism that has been consistently wrong, yet we still have climate alarmists. Why? They refuse to learn from the past because it contradicts their efforts to influence politics. They are so eager to have an impact on the world that they make dire claims of impending disaster that turn out to be false. They then rationalize their failures and proceed to make new dire predictions that also turn out to be false.
Someone needs to make these climate clowns sit down and shut up. Obviously, their peers aren’t up to the task, and are in fact usually complicit in the fraud. How many times does a climate kook with a Ph.D. get to hoax us before he’s held accountable and has to start driving a cab to make a living? Honesty counts for nothing in academia these days, while political correctness counts for everything. Honest academics who boldly dissent from the global warming groupthink are abused, while those who meekly subscribe to the fraud are praised for their “courage”.
The effort to advance socialism through climate fraud is regarded as an honorable profession among leftist academics these days – it is no such thing. It is a fraud, just as it has always been. Why is it illegal to sell a car with the odometer turned back, but it’s perfectly legal to advance socialism by turning back the climate data? Those who manipulate science to advance a political agenda should face criminal charges. It should be illegal to “hide the decline“. In the past, academics were assumed to be honest, since it was supposed that they functioned outside of politics. That assumption is obviously not valid and laws should be changed to reflect that.
A scientist who is merely trying to gin up his own career with phony data might be left to academia, but when there is a concerted effort to create fraudulent data to directly manipulate government and UN policy, that should be a crime.
January 1st, 2011 at 3:16 pm
You could write a whole article just with Ehrlich’s predictions. The man defines Chicken Little. He has, as far as I can tell, been wrong much more often then he has been right. Yet he advises the President. Fear for the future, because the lunatics are running the asylum.
This is from Ehrlich’s masterpiece, The Population Bomb:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…
So in the second sentence of the book he’s already made a testable prediction, which turned out to be wrong.