More stuff for the AGW cultists to dismiss!

It looks like we have a second round of e-mails from the church of AGW now doing the rounds, and as they did with the first batch of damning evidence, I expect the cultists to dismiss these e-mails replete with harmful information as inconsequential too. It’s damage control time for the cultists!

A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

The initial email dump was apparently timed to disrupt the Copenhagen climate talks. It prompted three official inquiries in the UK and two in the US into the working practices of climate scientists. Although these were critical of the scientists’ handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and lack of openness they did not find fault with the climate change science they had produced.

Absolutely brilliant strategy this. Hold back more stuff, let the cultists act the fool, then dump a second round to force them to double down and again dismiss evidence that is inconvenient to their political movement.

The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the “sheer volume of material” meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.

The response from the powers that be to these revelations?

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

Silence & punish the bastard that has torpedoed their lucrative power grab.

The new emails include similar statements apparently made by the scientists about avoiding requests for information. In one email, which has not yet been specifically confirmed as genuine, Jones writes: “I’ve been told that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the IPCC’s fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process”.

Ask yourself this: if the science was on these cultists’ side, why the need to hide this information? The whole scientific verification process lives & dies on the premise that when you postulate a hypothesis, you provide any and all information, in order to have the skeptics review and try to falsify your experiments, methodology, and claims, so as to then have them confirm your findings. So why the need to not allow others, especially the skeptics, access if what you are doing is all above water? The only one I find, short of national security reasons – and we can outright dismiss that card, if they ever try to use it, since I can not think of any reason or evidence that would compel that need other than this being some kind of nasty conspiracy to grab power – is that they have been playing fast & loose with the data, facts, and predictions, and are afraid this will justifiably discredit them all.

Don’t worry. They will set up another panel and some committees that will contort themselves into pretzels making excuses for why, while this is all wrong, smacks of politically motivated hackery, and is based on a pack of lies, the scientific findings of the AGW cultists still stand and remain relevant, and the faithful can just dismiss the evidence as inconsequential.

In the mean time those of us that pointed out this was all bullshit at least have the satisfaction of watching more and more people wise up to this bullshit and abandon the faith.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    So you already know what’s in the latest emails Alex? You’ve already read them all? You’ve already judged their contents on the merits? You’re absolutely sure you’ve interpreted them correctly?
    That appears to be what you’re saying. The only other alternative is that you don’t consider it necessary. In which case you actively destroy any credibility you could have on this issue from the outset.

    the first batch of damning evidence

    What evidence are you referring to?

    I expect the cultists to dismiss these e-mails replete with harmful information as inconsequential too

    Taking the contents of emails and interpreting them entirely out of context is completely inconsequential to climate science. If that’s what happens again, then it will be inconsequential again. The science and the scientists will continue.

    It’s damage control time for the cultists!

    Damage control and pointing out dishonesty are two entirely different things. But we’ll need to see what the contents of this next lot includes. Won’t we? Or, again, does it not even matter?

    Absolutely brilliant strategy this. Hold back more stuff, let the cultists act the fool,

    First of all you seem to be defending an illegal act. Second, how did anyone ‘act the fool’ other than those who engaged in misinformation about what was in the previous emails?

    then dump a second round to force them to double down and again dismiss evidence

    What evidence was dismissed the first time?

    The response from the powers that be to these revelations?

    No, that would be a statement from the police/investigators. Unless you’re suggesting that the police are also involved in this global fraud and conspiracy, the size of which the world has never seen?

    Silence & punish the bastard that has torpedoed their lucrative power grab.

    Ah ok, so the police ARE part of the conspiracy. Hell, why not. It would be difficult to make any less sense anyway. What about strippers and lion tamers too?

    So why the need to not allow others, especially the skeptics, access if what you are doing is all above water?

    There is a huge difference between a skeptic and a denier.

    Don’t worry. They will set up another panel and some committees that will contort themselves into pretzels making excuses for why, while this is all wrong, smacks of politically motivated hackery, and is based on a pack of lies, the scientific findings of the AGW cultists still stand and remain relevant, and the faithful can just dismiss the evidence as inconsequential

    .

    Nine seperate investigations vindicated climate science and climate scientists last time. Only certified nutjobs would conclude that all nine were part of the grand conspiracy of mass fraud.

    In the mean time those of us that pointed out this was all bullshit at least have the satisfaction of watching more and more people wise up to this bullshit and abandon the faith.

    I hope nothing more than it to all be proved to be a false theory. I just don’t see how it’s possible though.

    Anyway, I’m certainly interested in what’s in this second round. Presumably the ‘best’ emails were in the first round. We’ll see though. I’m looking forward to people putting their dishonesty on-show yet again.I’m looking forward to the deniers trying to argue it hasn’t been warming, even though the recent key BEST paper found “a degree of global land-surface warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the high end of the existing range of reconstruction’. The BEST data shows considerably higher warming in recent years than HadCRU. It demonstrated that the group whose emails were hacked have been UNDERestimating global warming.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    Explain this!

    Dec 31 23:49 1999
    From: Phil Jones
    Subject: One world government
    To: IPCC-group
    Comrades,

    Soon our once-great nation will rise from the ashes of the greatest war the world has ever known. Russia has changed. But our lives will not be wasted. The master plan is proceeding apace. Adolf Hitler once said “The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Indeed, the best kept secrets are the ones that everyone knows. Double agent Anthony Watts has a remarkable summary of the global warming charade. Stupidly is his sword and Folly his shield. By placing the truth where everyone can see it — nobody can! Today we have recruited over 2,000 scientists to The Team. To you I say we have only completed a beginning. There remains much that is undone. There are great tricks undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth’s protective layers. Onward.

    Phil.

    [Response: Darn! Can’t explain that one, but wasn’t it also cc-ed to our vegetarian overlords? – gavin]

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/

    I particularly liked this response:

    “I for one welcome our vegetarian overlords, for they leave all the spareribs for us.”

    Thumb up 0

  3. Hal_10000

    See, told ya. The climate skeptics themselves find that the temperature records are correct. And yet … the talking points continue to get recycled.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CzarChasm

    Wow, it’s deja vu all over again. Alex’s OP sounded so familiar to me. I guess that’s because I had the honor of making the first post about the first CRU email release at the old MooreWatch Forums. I share a tendency with Alex towards umm….sarcasm, which, if anyone is interested, you can decide if my new nick, CzarChasm, suits me well when you read Post #376(!!) of the most awesome, stupefying, mind-bending, legendary thread on any forum anywhere on any planet on any intergalactic web ever. Pick 10 or 15 posts out of the 2049 (!!!!) in that thread at random, and you’ll find that anything that will be said in this one, was already said almost exactly 2 years ago in that one. Nothing new under the sun.

    Gotta say though, I do get a kick out of seeing people complain about the CRU emails being the product of an illegal act, when releases by WikiLeaks of stolen combat videos that they edited any semblance of truth out of, was all about transparency and open government blah blah blah. Seems to me that to far too many people, right and wrong boils down to who’s ox is being gored. I’d say that, illegal or otherwise, CRU is lookin’ like a bloodied-up ox (again) for the time being.

    CC

    Thumb up 3

  5. CM

    I agree entirely with your first paragraph Czar. Those who choose to take part here will no doubt go around and around in the same circles yet again. I’m currently working my around the denier blogs and going through the comments, and also reading the comments at realclimate where the rebuttal has begun (they obviously decided that ignoring it last time wasn’t the right move).

    As for your second paragraph, I would completely agree that stolen material is stolen material. However I would say that extreme care must be given to interpreting snippets of old semi-private emails. (Surely that’s about the most perfect example of ‘context-dependent’ that you can get?)

    Anyway, we’ll see what happens. People make their own choices.

    This is worth a read….it’s from 2010, but is just as relevant now
    http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1444

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    I’d say that, illegal or otherwise, CRU is lookin’ like a bloodied-up ox (again) for the time being.

    Based on?
    Or do you mean just the fact that they are probably forced to issue explanations again (which, by itself, will seem to some people like they’re in a weak position)?

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT *

    NOBODY found anything close to what you claim they did here, Hal, and we told you so already once or twice. But let me do it some more:

    The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has released its preliminary findings though not in a research journal but to the scientific community and the general public. Their trumpeted finding is not surprising – the world has gotten warmer in recent decades – or at least the land has. This is consistent with the other global temperature datasets.

    A press release issued by the project said, “Global Warming is real,” adding that it can find no evidence of a heat island effect, and that even weather stations considered to be of doubtful quality still show relative warming over the 1950 – 2010 period in question.

    Whilst the results are not that surprising, the findings of the research have been used by some to talk about the nature of climate skepticism bearing in mind that the impetus for the Berkeley initiative came from self-avowed skeptical scientists. But the results, and how they have been portrayed, also says something about the nature of today’s environmental reporting. In particular it reveals a narrow focus on trouncing sceptics at the expense of putting the science into its proper context.

    What is desperate here is you still refusing to admit that you have been had by these people. CM I understand, he is too dumb to know better.

    Thumb up 3

  8. AlexInCT *

    I agree entirely with your first paragraph Czar. Those who choose to take part here will no doubt go around and around in the same circles yet again. I’m currently working my around the denier blogs and going through the comments, and also reading the comments at realclimate where the rebuttal has begun (they obviously decided that ignoring it last time wasn’t the right move).

    Are you getting paid for this? Are you a priest of Gaia? I mean WTF? Jehovah witnesses have less faith and fervor to sermonize than you do about this. And do not pretend it is because you care about either science or truth. That would be insulting. My guess is this is your job.

    Thumb up 1

  9. balthazar

    What does that have todo with blaming humans for the warming again? I dont think ANYONE here denies that there is some warming going on, since its happening on all the fucking planets in the solar system as well. A lot of us just debate how much we effect it, and if we can really do anything about it.

    Thumb up 3

  10. CM

    CM I understand, he is too dumb to know better.

    So convince me that I’ve “been had” by using science and logic and honesty. If it’s all so obvious it should be easy.

    NOBODY found anything close to what you claim they did here

    So you don’t expect the usual garbage about the temperature records to be recycled? After all, the deniers were all CONVINCED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that the temperature records were all faked. So what happened to all that awesome Blog Science which proved they were fake? Do we just forget about all that? No harm no foul? Because deniers have NO STANDARDS to adhere to, they can therefore be as wrong as often as they like in the hope that one day they’ll be proven right which will then vindicate everything?
    Hilarious. The hypocrisy and double-standards are simply too vast to fit within the Earth’s climate.

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    I dont think ANYONE here denies that there is some warming going on

    Nobody has been denying warming here? Did those who get their climate science from right wing climate blogs not believe the considerable denial over whether the planet was even warming? I find that very hard to believe.

    since its happening on all the fucking planets in the solar system as well.

    Here is the science on that.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm

    There are three fundamental flaws in the ‘other planets are warming’ argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    Are you getting paid for this? Are you a priest of Gaia? I mean WTF?.

    Not getting paid, not a priest. Just interested in the science behind it all, interested in how people can be so intellectually dishonest, and I enjoy arguing. It says quite a lot about your mentality that you would assume I’m being paid. It’s consistent with your inability to consider that any other opinion but your own could possibly be right.
    Are you getting paid by the denier industry? Are you a priest of the industry? I mean, WTF?

    Jehovah witnesses have less faith and fervor to sermonize than you do about this.

    As I explained already, I don’t hold a position that requires faith. You most certainly do. Which is why you’ve jizzed in your pants at the second stolen-email coming.

    And do not pretend it is because you care about either science or truth. That would be insulting. My guess is this is your job.

    Nothing to do with my job. I’m a consultant town planner. My job largely involves assisting large corporations get around bureaucratic red tape in the quickest amount of time and at least cost.

    Thumb up 0

  13. sahrab

    It has nothing to do with Humans being the cause for any type of warming.

    Hal continues to blend causality with effect He latches onto an article, report, finding that states Warming may be occuring, and uses that as a basis to claim AGW is real.

    Thumb up 3

  14. sahrab

    Stay on subject. Balthazar was clearly talking about posters on here, not at Skeptical Science. As far as i have seen, Posters on here do not argue that Warming may not be occurring.

    The argument has to do with whether Humans have caused it.

    You know this, as its been hashed about many times, but continue the dishonest dialogue that our Argument is something other than what we very clearly state it is.

    But then again, using CM’s Rules on Posting, Balthazar is right and its pointless to discuss this with you any longer

    Thumb up 1

  15. balthazar

    Calling you out for your spambot posting pissed you off to no end didnt it? Poor CM.
    You forget that you posted a massive what 15 or so posts IN A ROW? Hell I think you had whole PAGES where you were the only poster.

    I think I actually contributed more since it seems you cut down on the spambot posting.

    Thumb up 2

  16. balthazar

    Why are you so dumb CM? I was obviously talking about posters here, hence the

    I dont think ANYONE here denies that there is some warming going on

    Thumb up 6

  17. Hal_10000

    So when this, like the last e-mail dump, turns out to be a whole bunch of nothing, are you going to admit it? Or does this now have a permanent place in the bullshit bullet point AGW conspiracy theory hall of fame?

    Thumb up 2

  18. AlexInCT *

    Only an absolute partisan fanatical idiot with something big to lose – research funding, prestige and power, and the socialist political agenda as we are finding out – would say that the last e-mail dump turned out to be “a whole bunch of nothing”. And that’s precisely because they need to dismiss the revelation made by these e-mails that very little science, and a lot of politicking, was behind this whole scam.

    That’s why the cultists and the media have been hard at work trying to whitewash what the last e-mails revealed. They will try to do more of the same, including having tools like you claim the last set of e-mails revealed nothing so this is more of the same, with what this one reveals. You might think that the blatant anti-scientific circus those faux review committees that you rely on, to pretend that the politically driven AGW campaign of lies was unaffected by these revelations worked, but the public has realized how fucking idiotic this stuff is, despite all the effort by the propagandists and apologists, and more and more people realize that they where had.

    Watch this waste of money in Durban go the same way as Copenhagen. Thank the powers that be. And that’s the victory that counts. You can keep pretending that this nonsense is real all you want, but you are not fooling less and less people. The world is wising up to the fact that it was just a bunch of hacks, selling out for research funding and prestige in the leftosphere, by colluding with power grabbing and resource hungry leftists nanny state governments of all things, that committed one of the greatest crimes against science & humanity, in the past century. The UN will keep propagandizing, people like you, who have sold their soul to this idiocy and now fear losing faith by admitting otherwise, will keep making excuses. But this nonsense is going to die, and die hard.

    I know you will never admit you where had, and had badly. If you can’t see or admit that by now, you are not going to do so ever. So I won’t even bother to ask you the same question you posted here.

    Or does this now have a permanent place in the bullshit bullet point AGW conspiracy theory hall of fame?

    You had that half right AGW was a pack of lies and the behavior of those that protect it borders on something conspiratorial. They deserve fucking jail time for what they did.

    Thumb up 3

  19. AlexInCT *

    Not getting paid, not a priest. Just interested in the science behind it all,

    That gave me a good laugh. You have no fucking clue about science, scientific process, or scientific integrety if you bleive in this nonsense.

    interested in how people can be so intellectually dishonest, and I enjoy arguing.

    Look in the mirror. It’s always been about the political agenda with you marxists, and as we know, you collectivists would sell anyone and everyone into prostitution to get more of your nonsense.

    Thumb up 4

  20. Seattle Outcast

    HAL is too invested in his position to ever give it up; it would be like Van Jones renouncing Marxism on the evening news. The world cold become a frozen-over hell and he’d still agree that it’s caused by everything getting warmer.

    Thumb up 5

  21. mikedomi39

    I love reading posts on this stuff. Alex rants and raves, and common sense gets tossed out the window. MITT ROMNEY has said that Humans are a factor in causing GW. MITT fracking Romney!
    There are 7 billion of us now. If you truly think that having all those people on the planet cant affect the environment in this way…thats just sad. that said, if you think the only way to fix it is to go back to being 7 billion nomadic sheephearders….thats also pretty sad.

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    Stay on subject. Balthazar was clearly talking about posters on here, not at Skeptical Science. As far as i have seen, Posters on here do not argue that Warming may not be occurring.

    In fact, we argue that warming, like cooling, occurs constantly, frequently, and cyclically, based on the interaction of the sun and the oceans. That’s what historical evidence, barring some real bizare stuff like meteor strikes or massive volcanic explosions, shows has been the major driver of the planets temperatures fluctuating wildly for billions of years. Long before man and CO2 ever came into the picture. This has never been properly addressed by people blaming CO2 then proposing a political solution that world’s people would otherwise never accept without the whole “the sky is falling” fear mongering that AGW depends on to sell this power grab.

    We are demonized and accused of being “deniers” for not accepting the ridiculous concept of a non-scientific scientific consensus. We are accused of harboring a political agenda when we point out that they sure as hell seem to be driven by a political agenda, heavily reliant on fear mongering lies that have had to be retracted since the last batch of e-mails they so nonchalantly dismiss came out, and their non-scientific big government solutions that remain the same regardless of if it is cooling or warming. If they really cared bout scientific rigor, they would make sure that everything they did and found, without exception, was published and made available for others to verify. We would also not have peer review process that dismisses contrary opinions and only lets in those that agree with AGW through with rubber stamps.

    But most important of all to people like me, as someone that understands that all this wind and solar nonsense. Neither will be ready anytime in the near or far future, nor ever able to generate energy on a grand enough scale to keep modern societies growing and prospering, even if all it is used for is to supplement other forms of power generation. If the calamity predicted by the church of AGW was really a true problem, warranting a real solution, what they propose now is a dead give away that something is remiss. The only viable technical power generation choice that can meet and keep up with growing demand would be nuclear. Considering that the risks of using nuclear power would dwarf the damages that their professed apocalypse would create, it baffles me to see how they still reject it. Instead they tell us we have to learn to live with far less energy, while the elite pushing this nonsense not only do none of that, but personally consume energy on par with a small city. It’s like having Bill Clinton preaching about abstinence & the virtues of fidelity in marriage: it’s just not believable.

    They profess to want honest debate. Well, if so, let us start from scratch. We collect all the data and share ALL results. We publish every single model and open it up for review by everyone. We redo every experiment openly, with everyone able to recreate it. We change the peer review process to no longer allow the bias to exists that dismisses those they don’t like and keep what they do. And most importantly, we tell the governments that pay for this in the hopes of profiting from the power grab that their solutions are dead in the water until this is all done. Once we have indisputable proof that man is the primary factor for change, and the proof is based on scientific findings and not scientific consensus, then we can talk about solutions: technical ones. Not world wide socialism.

    Until then, no game.

    Thumb up 5

  23. AlexInCT *

    So convince me that I’ve “been had” by using science and logic and honesty. If it’s all so obvious it should be easy.

    Why? It has been proven that what you believe in isn’t science at all but outright political bullshit, and you still refuse to accept it as evidence. Why do you think any of use wants to waste hundreds of posts trying to use facts, logic, and common sense to try and change your deep religious convictions that AGW exists, and that global socialism that robbing people of there wealth to redistribute it, at the same time as it curtails their freedoms, is the only answer?

    Would you want to argue with the Pope about why god doesn’t exist? I wouldn’t, because I know it’s a waste of my time. Same applies with you AGW true believers. The better question would be for you to outline what would finally make you doubt this nonsense. Methinks the answer is nothing grounded in the real world or the world of science, because it is never been about the problem, but the solution your kind wants to impose to it.

    Thumb up 3

  24. AlexInCT *

    THIS ^^^^

    Cause by now, even the dumb people seem to be catching on that this was all made up. The only ones still on this train to nowhere are the ones that like the end goal agenda and still hope the church of AGW can pull that off and people that would prefer to go down with the sinking ship rather than admit they were had.

    Thumb up 1

  25. AlexInCT *

    I love reading posts on this stuff. Alex rants and raves, and common sense gets tossed out the window.

    It is impossible to square what the church of AGW believes in and proposes as their solution to the problem if you have common sense Mike.

    MITT ROMNEY has said that Humans are a factor in causing GW. MITT fracking Romney!

    So? I expect it from him. He is one of the big government Washington insiders. He also said he believed in Obamacare before he turned against it. Frankly, I would have been surprised if he had said otherwise. It’s why if I am forced to vote for him I will do so only on the premise that he isn’t the fucking idiot in the WH right now.

    There are 7 billion of us now.

    There could be 35 billion of us and I doubt we could output enough anything to do much more than marginally affect the relationship between the biggest energy producer – our sun – and the biggest energy sink on the planet: the oceans. Then again, I would be quite willing to change my stance on that if someone would provide me real scientific proof, and not this bunch of false and cherry picked nonsense to justify a political solution. I will not accept that political solution even if someday man actually does do something that affects the planet.

    If you truly think that having all those people on the planet cant affect the environment in this way…thats just sad.

    If you think that just having those people around has to affect the planet, it shows me that your position is far more likely to be one driven by emotional nonsense peddled by these people, and not logic of any kind. Ant hills and bee colonies have millions of members and these species range world wide in the trillions, yet nobody is pretending they change climate or anything else just by arguing about the sheer numbers. Volcanoes, the natural oceanic cycle, and animals produce orders of magnitude more greenhouse gasses than man, let me stress it again, in orders of magnitude, and yet the people peddling this bullshit dismiss or ignore them.

    that said, if you think the only way to fix it is to go back to being 7 billion nomadic sheephearders….thats also pretty sad.

    I hope this is actually the worst case scenariom but I am afraid that you got it all wrong. The more I see of this the more I become convinced that what the AGW cultists really want, deep down inside, is to kill off a few billion otherpeople. I wish that they would just come clean about that.

    Thumb up 3

  26. balthazar

    7 Bilion nomadic sheepherders would become about 1 billion or so pretty quick. The only way to support the amount of people we have is with industrialized farming of all types. Organic farming will not cut it.

    So are you really trying to kill 6 billion people Mike? Or just building up a huge strawman?

    Thumb up 1

  27. CM

    No different to what Jabba did in every thread and you never once complained that. Also, I specifically said I was partly using it as a repository. I didn’t post just random shit.
    Different forum system, different time.

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    It has been proven that what you believe in isn’t science at all but outright political bullshit, and you still refuse to accept it as evidence.

    Says the guy who then posts 100% politics and 0% science. Brilliant. Projection doesn’t get any more obvious than that. And, again, I don’t rely on faith here. You do. You have faith that it’s all a big conspiracy and fraud. I just got with the balance of evidence. That’s my explanation for why you are the religious one. Do you have an explanation for how the opposite could be true (I mean how your reasoning works in a logical sense, rather than just repeating the same vague accusation over and over again and therefore avoiding it)?

    The better question would be for you to outline what would finally make you doubt this nonsense.

    You’d have to:
    (a) demonstrate another explanation for the warming and the speed of it
    (b) demonstrate how and why the greenhouse theory is false and therefore why (a) is the only realistic explanation

    You’d have to do it without dishonestly picking and choosing your evidence. I.e. you can’t claim something that defies the laws of physics, or is the opposite of what has been emperically demonstrated over and over again.

    Thumb up 0

  29. CM

    Stay on subject. Balthazar was clearly talking about posters on here, not at Skeptical Science.

    WTF are you on about? My Skeptical Science link was about the claim that other planets are warming, and that they must be warming for the same reasons as Earth is. I’ve got no idea why you’ve confused that with me finding it difficult to believe that some posters here would have denied the planet was warming. As I say, Watts is clearly a favourite for some, and he’s devoted about half his time to disputing that warming was even occuring (he even said he’d accept what the BEST results found, until they found the warming to be real, and now he’s gone back on himself and won’t accept it).

    But hey, if you’re all able to recognise the planet is warming, that’s great. Not quite as much banging heads on brick walls.

    You know this, as its been hashed about many times, but continue the dishonest dialogue that our Argument is something other than what we very clearly state it is.

    Nice try, but I wasn’t being dishonest. I hazarded a guess that some here would have been disputing that the planet was even warming until recently. It was a guess, and based on the sources used (e.g. Watts). My guess was just mentioned in passing, and was the result of Balt and Alex apparently missing the fact (I’ll be kind) that Hal only mentioned that “the climate skeptics themselves find that the temperature records are correct”. Within his comment Hal didn’t claim the BEST study demonstrated any more than that. And yet we got (from Alex):

    NOBODY found anything close to what you claim they did here, Hal…..

    And from Balthazar:

    What does that have todo with blaming humans for the warming again?……….

    But then again, using CM’s Rules on Posting, Balthazar is right and its pointless to discuss this with you any longer

    Well don’t then. Play the victim instead. Makes no difference to me.

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    What I said made sense. I said I found that hard to believe. I don’t recall you personally ever denying warming, but I don’t know about the others, so I guessed.

    Thumb up 0

  31. CM

    First up, as I’ve pointed out, what you quoted from Sahrab didn’t make sense.

    In fact, we argue that warming, like cooling, occurs constantly, frequently, and cyclically, based on the interaction of the sun and the oceans. That’s what historical evidence, barring some real bizare stuff like meteor strikes or massive volcanic explosions, shows has been the major driver of the planets temperatures fluctuating wildly for billions of years. Long before man and CO2 ever came into the picture.

    No it doesn’t. That’s not what the science demonstrates at all. We cannot find any period where warming occured at this point in the cycle (things should really be starting to get cooler). Not only that but we cannot find a period when warming that occured this quickly (the cloests we can find is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which involved major perturbations in the carbon cycle and where temps rose about 6 degrees over 20,000 years). The main driver of the planet’s climate is OBVIOUSLY the sun (the Milankovitch Cycle).

    This has never been properly addressed

    Of course it has. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

    by people blaming CO2 then proposing a political solution that world’s people would otherwise never accept without the whole “the sky is falling” fear mongering that AGW depends on to sell this power grab.

    Expose the science as wrong and the rest will take care of itself. But you’re not able to expose the science as being wrong because you don’t even acknowledge the existence of the science.

    We are demonized and accused of being “deniers” for not accepting the ridiculous concept of a non-scientific scientific consensus.

    No, that’s completely wrong. You’re known as ‘deniers’ for being intellectually dishonest when it comes to the science. And you actually spend most of your time providing the motive for doing so (which, in turn, means you can avoid addressing the science). A poster called ‘crichton’ was a classic example on that monster MW forum thread. You’re a carbon-copy (pun not intended but I’ll happily take it).
    The science is the science, irrespective of how many people accept it or not. However it appears that there is close to universal acceptance on the major questions from those with the greatest expertise and experience. But the consensus is unrelated to the science. Conflating the two is simply another avenue of confusion you like to try and drive down.

    We are accused of harboring a political agenda when we point out that they sure as hell seem to be driven by a political agenda,

    How can you be “accused” of harboring a political agenda when you set out your agenda as being political in clear terms?
    Who are they? (I can see myself asking you that question a lot, and I’m willing to bet a large amount of money that it’s another in a long list that goes unanswered – sure you might type some more vague response, but it will remain unanswered).

    heavily reliant on fear mongering lies that have had to be retracted since the last batch of e-mails they so nonchalantly dismiss came out,

    What has been retracted as a result of the first batch of emails coming out? (this is another question you simply refuse to answer, but I’ll keep asking it anyway to demonstrate how you’re full of empty accusations and allegations)

    and their non-scientific big government solutions that remain the same regardless of if it is cooling or warming.

    Who’s solutions? How do you mean they’re “non-scientific”? What solutions proposed would be the same if the earth were cooling?

    If they really cared bout scientific rigor, they would make sure that everything they did and found, without exception, was published and made available for others to verify.

    What hasn’t been available for others to verify? I already pointed out that no data was destroyed. The worst that can be said is that CRU scientists were unhelpful and unsympathetic to information requesters and at times broke FoI laws. And that was the result of an orchestrated campaign led by McIntyre to swamp them with requests so that responding would be the only work they’d be doing.

    We would also not have peer review process that dismisses contrary opinions and only lets in those that agree with AGW through with rubber stamps.

    The relevant IPCC texts where team responsibilities. Official records, reviews, and even the emails themselves suggest the CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of the IPCC rules. The CRU scientists’ influence extended to a couple of IPCC chapters covering only a small part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour of a few individuals.

    Where is the evidence to the contrary? Again, provide specifics.

    Neither will be ready anytime in the near or far future, nor ever able to generate energy on a grand enough scale to keep modern societies growing and prospering, even if all it is used for is to supplement other forms of power generation.

    Why not? Even if that were true, what has that got to do with the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming?

    If the calamity predicted by the church of AGW was really a true problem, warranting a real solution, what they propose now is a dead give away that something is remiss.

    Who are “they”? I mean specifically.
    I get the impression you think the science and proposed solutions have all been dreamed up by a couple of guys sitting in a room.

    Considering that the risks of using nuclear power would dwarf the damages that their professed apocalypse would create, it baffles me to see how they still reject it.

    Who are ‘they’?

    Instead they tell us we have to learn to live with far less energy,

    Who says that? Why are ‘they’?

    while the elite pushing this nonsense not only do none of that, but personally consume energy on par with a small city. It’s like having Bill Clinton preaching about abstinence & the virtues of fidelity in marriage: it’s just not believable.

    Hypocrisy doesn’t affect the science or what the best adaptations might be.

    They profess to want honest debate.

    Who are ‘they’?

    Well, if so, let us start from scratch. We collect all the data and share ALL results. We publish every single model and open it up for review by everyone. We redo every experiment openly, with everyone able to recreate it. We change the peer review process to no longer allow the bias to exists that dismisses those they don’t like and keep what they do.

    That’s what’s happened. There is no evidence that it isn’t. You can keep repeating that there is, but you can never seem to provide it. Why not?
    We don’t need to start from ‘scratch’. There is no evidence that there is anything wrong with the developing body of science on this issue. If there were issues of fraud, the BEST study would have presumably produced a different warming result. Because if a large group of people were going to run a scam, that would be one of the obvious areas to fiddle with.

    And most importantly, we tell the governments that pay for this in the hopes of profiting from the power grab that their solutions are dead in the water until this is all done.

    There is no evidence that there is a need.

    Once we have indisputable proof that man is the primary factor for change, and the proof is based on scientific findings and not scientific consensus, then we can talk about solutions: technical ones. Not world wide socialism.

    Until then, no game.

    Again, ‘proof’ is in mathematics. This is science. You should really understand the difference as a starting point. You also need to discover what consensus means and how it’s being used in this context because you’ve been led down the garden path on that one too. It sounds like you need to start from scratch.

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    That gave me a good laugh. You have no fucking clue about science, scientific process, or scientific integrety if you bleive in this nonsense.

    So let’s go through it all in detail and see. So far you’ve done nothing to demonstrate this. You don’t seem to be able to separate science from politics, so it doesn’t look like you’ll get far.

    Look in the mirror. It’s always been about the political agenda with you marxists, and as we know, you collectivists would sell anyone and everyone into prostitution to get more of your nonsense.

    Broken record dishonesty. Boring.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    This is what I really love the most: the blind accusations that professionals are committing fraud. In any profession such accusations are considered to be extremely serious. Reputations are on the line. People don’t make those sorts of accusations lightly. Not on the internet though. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything and it’s apparently fine. No evidence required. There are no standards whatsoever.

    It’s the same people who preach ‘personal responsibility’ demonstrating the exact opposite. It’s woeful and you should be personally ashamed to be stooping to such a gutter level of argument.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    It is impossible to square what the church of AGW believes in and proposes as their solution to the problem if you have common sense Mike.

    It’s a shame that that’s as far as your analysis ever goes. Other than ranting about Marx, and personal attacks.

    Don’t worry, Mitt Romney has doubled-back and is back on your side again. All the candidates now dispute the science (apart from possibly Huntsman).

    There could be 35 billion of us and I doubt we could output enough anything to do much more than marginally affect the relationship between the biggest energy producer – our sun – and the biggest energy sink on the planet: the oceans.

    And that’s an inexhaustable sink is it? And there are no other factors?
    If the air and ocean temperature are warming, doesn’t that suggest to you that there is a fundamental energy imbalance? If so, how do you explain it? If you think the warming is due to the sun (even though that doesn’t match the emperical data) then why doesn’t the ocean simply absorb the excess energy? Why is there an imbalance?

    I will not accept that political solution even if someday man actually does do something that affects the planet.

    Is it that you dispute the greenhouse theory in general? Or simply that man is responsible for the additional greenhouses gases?

    If you think that just having those people around has to affect the planet, it shows me that your position is far more likely to be one driven by emotional nonsense peddled by these people, and not logic of any kind.

    But that makes ZERO sense Alex, because science indicates that we ARE able to affect the planet. For example, are you disputing that we were largely responsible for the ozone depletion issues? And that the steps we all took made no difference, it just sorted itself out naturally?

    Ant hills and bee colonies have millions of members and these species range world wide in the trillions, yet nobody is pretending they change climate or anything else just by arguing about the sheer numbers.

    Oh. My. God. This is primary school level. Since when do ants or bees do anything remotely on the scale that we have? Sheer numbers isn’t the issue, It’s sheer numbers multiplied by the average impact of each individual. That’s fundamental logic, Alex.

    Volcanoes, the natural oceanic cycle, and animals produce orders of magnitude more greenhouse gasses than man, let me stress it again, in orders of magnitude, and yet the people peddling this bullshit dismiss or ignore them.

    You clearly need to start from the beginning on the science and learn about concepts such as global energy and carbon balances and imbalances. Here is a visual summary of what’s contributing to manmade CO2 (eg – electricity, cars, planes, deforestation, etc).

    The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.

    About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

    What you’re trying to dispute here (through sheer ignorance it seems) aren’t even issues in dispute. They’re not the uncertainties.

    if you think the only way to fix it is to go back to being 7 billion nomadic sheephearders….thats also pretty sad

    From my understanding, we need to start doing something to avoid going back to being sheepherders. The longer we leave it, the more likely we’re going to have to adapt to more extreme conditions. We’re all going to be crammed around the polar areas. The equatorial band won’t be inhabitable. The earlier we start to take action, the less disruption to the systems we’ve set up. The less costly it will be, as we can spread it out over a longer period. That’s just logic.
    I’d prefer the solutions to all be driven by private enterprise. But that’s not going to happen. There is no incentive too. There is even less incentive to if more and more people think it’s all a fraud.

    Thumb up 0

  35. balthazar

    More like a suppository, since that’s what the majority of your post on the subject amount to. Diarrhea of the keyboard.

    Jabba was purposefully trolling, you actually think your posts on this subject are worth something, there’s a huge difference.

    Thumb up 1

  36. CM

    More like a suppository, since that’s what the majority of your post on the subject amount to. Diarrhea of the keyboard.

    Feel free to ignore it all.

    Jabba was purposefully trolling, you actually think your posts on this subject are worth something, there’s a huge difference.

    How would I be able to improve my contribution on this subject then? I’m all ears. Presumably it involves defaming people with no evidence and claiming fraud and conspiracy with no evidence, and being dishonest about the actual science. If not, then what?

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    1. ‘Again’ would assume I’ve admitted it before, which I haven’t.

    2. It was only a guess in terms of posters here. I never pretended it was anything else. It’s a fact that deniers elsewhere have spent considerable time and effort disputing that temperature had risen, and providing all sorts of Blog Science explanations and Blog Evidence examples of wrong-doing (and I would be very surprised if all deniers here, who frequent those sites, accepted the mainstream scientific position on whether the planet has been warming). Anyway it seem that the Blog Science and/or Blog Evidence was either wrong (or made absolutely no difference). But there is no mea culpa on that whatsoever. Because they have no personal standards. They just move on and pretend it didn’t happen.

    But my bet is that some of those deniers will trip themselves up and still try and argue that cherry-picked words from the newly-revealed emails PROVE that fraud was used to show warming. Which is why I said “I’m looking forward to people putting their dishonesty on-show yet again.I’m looking forward to the deniers trying to argue it hasn’t been warming, even though….”

    Thumb up 0

  38. Hal_10000

    SO, if your comment doesn’t show the dementia of the anti-AGW movement, nothing does. I opposed collectivist solutions bu because I accept the science, I’m Marxist religionist. It’s pathetic.

    And Alex, Climategae I did turn out to be a bunch of bullshit and you know it. Coburn’s investigation found nothing, Parliament’s investigation found nothing. Six investigations found nothing. And a God-damed study by Richard Muller confirmed their temperature data.

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. This is why AGW denial is called denial and why it is a religion. NOTHING ever removes talking points from the list. NOTHING is ever seen in any light other than proof of a giant conspiracy theory. When the BEST results came out, I predicted that they would not change the Cult of AGW Conspiracy Theorists. And every word you type proves me right.

    Thumb up 0

  39. CM

    There were actually nine investigations in all.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

    You know, the really sad thing about this whole episode from its inception in 2009 is that it has been a tremendous learning opportunity that has been largely wasted. It shows how science actually gets done by fallible but largely well meaning humans. It shows the power of the scientific method to elucidate truth even when wielded by fallible human. We see pettiness, rivalries, misunderstandings and politics. And yet not one single result has been overturned or even called into question as a result of the revelation of these emails or any other activity the denialists have carried out. NOT ONE!!!

    That is the true lesson of this affair, and the denialists have missed it utterly. Of course, to learn, one’s learning curve must have a positive slope, and those of the anti-science side of this debate seem to have slopes capped at zero.

    Comment 90

    Thumb up 0

  40. Hal_10000

    Here’s the thing, CM. It’s fairly easy to show that even the climate skeptics know that Climategate was a bunch of nothing.

    All the e-mails and climate records are *public*. Anyone can do an investigation of them, no official designation required. It’s been two years. Where are all the investigations by the skeptics saying, “here, here and here — that proves fraud”? There were some early gripings about the climate modeling code and that’s about it. The damning investigations that could easily exis don’t exist because the evidence of fraud is simply not there. The only real investigation by a skeptic — Berkeley Earth – confirmed the CRU analysis.

    The skeptics are hoping that if they make enough smoke, they can claim there’s a fire. They’ve had two years with access to the e-mails and the data to prove their case. They have not. What does that tell you?

    Thumb up 0

  41. Mississippi Yankee

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. This is why AGW denial is called denial and why it is a religion.

    Control the Narrative™ at any cost!
    All skeptics are DENIALIST!

    ALINSKY RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    Thumb up 3

  42. CM

    Yep, I totally agree Hal. This is pretty much what was said at Comment 62

    Got a really dumb question here — at the risk of testing folks’ patience here, I’m gonna ask it anyway.

    It’s been about 4 months since the CRU released all the raw temperature data that skeptics have been screaming for since “Climategate-I”. And given that the Muir Russel Commission was able to put together a preliminary analysis of the CRU data in just a couple of days, I figure that 4 months is plenty of time for all those talented skeptics out there to do a real bang-up job analyzing that CRU data.

    So at the risk of sounding really stupid, I’d like to ask if anyone knows where I can find some results published by the skeptics who had been hounding the CRU for that data. I mean, didn’t 31,000 talented scientists sign some kind of skeptical petition a while ago? With talent like that scrutinizing the CRU data over the past few months, there most be some really amazing studies published somewhere. But I’ve googled high and low for them and haven’t been able to find anything. Anyone here having any better luck???

    And as Tamino says:

    Fake skeptics like Anthony Watts try to blame global warming on bad station siting. Turns out he was wrong.

    Then they try to blame it on dropout of reporting stations. Turns out that was wrong.

    The fake skeptics can hardly contain their worship for a new team to estimate temperature (the Berkeley team) which is started by a skeptic. They’re sure the new estimate will prove that the other estimates are fraudulent. Anthony Watts proclaims that he’ll accept whatever their results are, even if it contradicts him. It contradicts him. He refuses to accept their results. He launches into multiple tirades to discredit the new effort.

    Fake skeptics try to blame global warming on UHI. Turns out they were wrong.

    Fake skeptics try to claim global warming has “paused” or “slowed down” or isn’t even happening. Turns out they were wrong.

    Scoundrels resort to stealing a bunch of private emails and take them out of context so they can launch a campaign of character assassination. Multiple investigations follow, the science of global warming is vindicated. Again.

    The fake skeptics have got nothing. Zero. Zip. Squat. With all the real science against them, apparently their only recourse is to look for “sloppy seconds” in the stolen emails in a lame attempt to revive their smear campaign. It tells us all we need to know about the so-called “skeptics.” They are pathetic.

    Comment 46

    Thumb up 0

  43. CM

    No, skeptics and deniers are vastly different.

    Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.

    Good scientists are inherently skeptics.

    Thumb up 0

  44. CM

    The Denial Movement

    Got denial constipation?
    Can’t get that train to leave the station?
    Not a plausible fact in creation?
    But then how to spread it across the nation?
    Simply use insinuation and allegation
    Add accusation and defamation
    Then simply call for a new investigation
    To enable sphincter relaxation

    Thumb up 0

  45. Seattle Outcast

    The whole point is that the “science” has been debunked very thoroughly, yet you still cling to it. Hell, read the emails, not even the “scientists” in question actually believe they have anything to actually work with – they KNOW it’s politics.

    Not only do they disavow the hockey stick, Mann, Briffa, and their ability to predict weather & climate at all, they freely discuss that it’s going to bite them on the ass when exposed.

    Thumb up 1

  46. CM

    The whole point is that the “science” has been debunked very thoroughly, yet you still cling to it.

    Thankfully science isn’t conducted on right wing blogs. Or blogs at all. If you’ve deluded yourself that’s fine, but don’t expect anyone actually paying attention to do anything but laugh at you.

    Hell, read the emails, not even the “scientists” in question actually believe they have anything to actually work with – they KNOW it’s politics.

    Science isn’t conducted via semi-private email communication either. Even less so via email snippets taken completely out-of-context in some lame desperate attempt at ‘gotcha’.

    Not only do they disavow the hockey stick, Mann, Briffa, and their ability to predict weather & climate at all, they freely discuss that it’s going to bite them on the ass when exposed.

    Who, where? On which cherry-picked email snippets do you reach those conclusions? Or are you taking the Alex “I don’t need to provide any evidence” route?

    Thumb up 0

  47. balthazar

    Cant you think for yourself? All you do is re post stupid shit other liberal fucktards have thought up first. Here’s a clue, you ripping them off doesn’t impress anyone, in fact we could read it from the original source if we wanted to. You parroting inane shit is fucking old.

    Thumb up 3

  48. balthazar

    Whether you admit it or not its fucking apparent you do it all the time. You project your idiotic opinion on what you feel the “evil booosh-hitler right wingers” think, onto anyone who doesnt carry your jock for you (read as Kimpost). ITs fucking old.

    I dont recall ANYONE on this site denying that there was some warming. You, on the other hand just spout off that we all did and DO think that way with no proof whatsoever. GFY.

    Thumb up 2

  49. CM

    I only had to see it was James Delingpole to know it would be woefully dishonest and inaccurate. The guy has serious form. Especially on how it was fraud being used to show the planet was warming.

    Thumb up 0

  50. Mississippi Yankee

    What is it about leftist and this big void they have in their being? Yanno, where the rest of us have a sense of humor.

    Although you may not have noticed I don’t normally get into AGW discussions, I find them pointless.
    But I bet Stalin would have loved them.

    Thumb up 2

  51. CM

    Although you may not have noticed I don’t normally get into AGW discussions, I find them pointless.

    They ARE pointless, but usually only because some people rely on vague accusations and well-debunked errors. No intelligent discussions ever come from those. Look at this thread – it’s entirely devoid of substance. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts it mindlessly becomes part of the ‘evidence against AGW’.

    Thumb up 0

  52. CM

    From the latest WMO bulletin:

    Carbon dioxide is the single most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing ~64%[3] to radiative forcing by LLGHGs. It is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade and 81% over the last five years. For about 10000 years before the industrial revolution, the atmospheric abundance of CO2 was nearly constant at ~280 ppm. This level represented a balance among the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere. Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 39%, primarily because of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels (total of 8.4±0.5 PgC[4] in 2009; http://www.globalcarbonproject.org), deforestation and land-use change. High-precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1958 show that the average increase in CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds to ~55% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion. The remaining ~45% has been removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. The airborne fraction, the portion of CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion that remains in the atmosphere, varies interannually without a confirmed global trend. Globally averaged CO2 in 2010 was 389.0 ppm and the increase from the previous year was 2.3 ppm (Figure 3). This growth rate is higher than the average for the 1990s (~1.5 ppm/yr) and the average for the past decade (~2.0 ppm/yr).

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/GHGbulletin.pdf

    Thumb up 0

  53. CM

    What is it about leftist and this big void they have in their being? Yanno, where the rest of us have a sense of humor.

    Sorry, I didn’t realise you were mocking yourself and others like you. That IS reasonably funny then. My apologies.

    Leaked climate emails force carbon dioxide to resign

    CARBON dioxide has resigned from being a gas, it has been confirmed.

    The move came after a fresh batch of leaked emails between climate scientists showed that CO2 had been lying about what it is and what it does.

    According to one of the emails, sent by Julian Cook, a researcher at the University of East Anglia, carbon dioxide had got drunk and admitted it had made the whole thing up.

    Cook adds: “He says he’s not even a gas, never mind a greenhouse gas. He says his name’s Brian and he used to work for Kwik Fit in Norwich.

    “He says his application to UEA was turned down ‘because he doesn’t talk all posh’ and he’s done all of this just to embarrass us.

    “What are we going to do???????”

    But Professor Phil Jones replied: “For Christ’s sake don’t tell the press. In the meantime we have to go back to our notes and work out what in the name of fuck has been coming out of engines and power stations in ever increasing quantities for the last 150 years.

    “Then we have to see if this thing traps heat in the atmosphere in the same way that Brian did.”

    Martin Bishop, who has a PhD in blogging from Delingpole University, said: “At least carbon dioxide has finally owned up. Hopefully David Attenborough will now have the decency to stop machine-gunning my children into a pit.”

    Meanwhile, carbon and oxygen, the gas’s constituent parts, have been suspended from the periodic table of elements pending the outcome of a high-level inquiry.

    The chief medical officer is to issue guidelines for people who want to keep breathing and have bodies.

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-&-technology/leaked-climate-emails-force-carbon-dioxide-to-resign-201111234578/

    Not funny? Then you don’t possess a sense of humour. How so typical of {insert stereotype here}.

    Thumb up 0

  54. mikedomi39

    So are you really trying to kill 6 billion people Mike? Or just building up a huge strawman?

    I’m not sure what you are talking about, Balthy. I said that thinking we need to go back to being nomadic sheepherders to stop Climate change is just as dumb as thinking that 7 billion humans cant affect the ecosystem. But I’ll play…NO I dont want to kill 6 billion people. Maybe just red sox fans;)

    Thumb up 0