The Evisceration of Copenhagen
Mark Steyn does it like only he can. A sample:
I wrote a couple of weeks back about the corruption of “peer review” revealed by the CRU leaks. But, once it’s got the peer-reviewed label, it’s hard to dislodge. The famous hockey stick graph created by Dr. Michael Mann played a critical role in persuading millions of people we’re all gonna fry. In the National Post of April 2, 2001, after the UN had adopted this graph as the official proof of global warming, I pointed out that the first nine centuries of the millennium were measured by using tree-ring cycles, and the modern era was represented by temperatures. Now I’m not a climatologist. I’m not even a railroad engineer. But, if you show me a graph that looks like a long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end, I’ll go, “Whoa! That looks pretty serious. We better head for the hills.” If it then emerges in the fine print that the bungalow was created with one unit of measurement and the skyscraper another, I’ll postpone my departure and go, “Er, hang on, what’s the deal with that? If we’ve got tree rings for the first nine centuries, why can’t we stick with the tree rings through the 20th?”Answer: because after 1960 the tree rings show no express elevator up the thermometer, but in fact a decline. That’s the “decline” that Dr. Phil Jones, in his leaked email, is trying to “hide.” Because, if you don’t hide it, a basic truth emerges-that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and the planet managed to survive and indeed prosper during it. It took two dogged Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, to demolish the hockey-stick fraud, and the enraged priests of the Settled Science cult have spent the years since 2006 trying to stick it back together. Dr. Keith Briffa had a crack in 2007 for the IPCC report. As usual, the CRU refused, in defiance of basic scientific etiquette, to reveal its raw data, but eventually the Royal Society ordered them to. And, when they did, it emerged that Dr. Briffa had cherry-picked a few trees from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia to obtain the desired result.
Question: can you measure any tree-ring cycles for the last millennium and get a genuine hockey stick?
Answer: yes. Tree Number YAD061. That’s it. One tree. The temperature records show no warming in Siberia over the last half-century. But you can’t see the forest for the tree, singular. Mr. McIntyre calls it “the most influential tree in the world,” which hardly does justice to what’s being contemplated in its name. YAD061 is the Tree of Life, at least in the sense that millions of lives across the world will, in its name, be transformed by ever greater taxation and regulation. And, as Dr. Pachauri rebukes us, YAD061 can never be questioned because it’s peer-reviewed.
There you go again, pulling BS off the net and condeming a couple decades of intense work by hundreds of scientists. I won’t try proving you wrong ; the scientists already have.
You are wining though, a growing number of people believe the denier lies, so cop15 is a bust and our children are screwed. 10 years from now your children will hate your guts and when you are dead they will curse your memory.
Now there’s a winning strategy for 2010!
“Denier”. It’s a word associated with those who refuse to acknowledge the concentration camps. When used outside that context it’s an odious word, and one that should get people banned from otherwise polite discussions. A pathetic word, used by pathetic worms, in an attempt to brand as a Nazi, anyone who disagrees with them. They seek to accomplish with bigotry, that which they are unable to do through logic or science.
If we just put our efforts into providing clean water for the people of the planet, we’d have a far better off planet and populace than every idiot bigot standing on a soapbox shrieking “denier” out there could ever accomplish.
To be on the winning side, you have to have a winning argument. Breaking out Hitler in an ad hominem attack is the last resort of the loser.
I’m afraid it is the only strategy left, Gregg. The danger of climate change came into focus for the scientific community in the late 80’s. At that time the deniers said that there was no warming evident and that cooling was taking place . The fossil fuel industry was funding a number of scientists at this time to prove this. The oil company scientists actually comfirmed the warming and the oil companies research was shut down in the mid 90’s. At that time the deniers tack changed to one of ,warming, but not caused by man, that is where we are today.
You can always find flaws in science and work them into doubts. This at least should be done in the peer reviewed process by scientists. That is why I call these things you pull off the net BS ,because if there is validity to it scientists using the given process will illuminate the flaws in the climate change concensus. This isn’t happening by your side. What you are doing is what you want and that is to raise doubts about the settled science mainly by way of bullshit artists.
The best predictions show that we are truely running out of time and that the concrete evidence that your side will need will come too late. The 2 pack a day smoker decides to quit when the tumor shows up on the x-ray. It is our childrens generation that will see the x-ray and reap the hidious future of an environment that fails to support not only humans but so many of the other creatures on earth.
The evidence that you personally seem to use is the fact that there have been warming periods in the past and that what is happening is just part of a cycle. The temerature data to this point could maybe support that except for the co2 concentration. For over 650,000 years co2 stayed between 200-280. It is now at 390ppm. This along with the proven physical property of the green house effect caused by co2 is the science the scientists use to predict the continuation of the “hockey stick effect”. As I said when proof is absolutely undeniable it will be too late.
The tabacco industry did this same thing with the science to magnifying uncertainies to stave off legislation and lawsuits for years. The science was clear in the 60’s that smoking killed you . But it wasn’t until 96′ that a scientist found the specific site on the specific gene that was mutated by the specific group of carcinogens found in smoke before they could change the warning label from smoking may cause cancer to smoking does cause cancer . You see, we new it in the 60’s but it was profitable to keep it questionable as long as possible. the same thing was done with asbestos.
My harsh prophacy is all I’m afraid we have left. It is sad because even if the predictions are false the cure is not a burden but an incredable opportunity
for all of mankind. The cure is the changing from fossil fuels to solar derived fuels . Not only could this truely be the driver of our economy but its adoption over the world could help with development in all countries and quell the insane reliance on the mid east. Renewable energy also has the ability to create thousands of new small energy buisnesses instead of the necessary concentration to large buiessness that fossil fuel use requires.
For those that talk of the great cost to make this change, would you have seen it as a great burden when we switched from horse and buggy to cars, it did devistate a number of industries and required a sizable investment in infrastructure but it spurred the economy and made life easier. This next technology shift could also be very beneficial. Too bad it ain’t gonna happen soon enough,you win
A pretend agreement for a pretend problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCltHjyVso0&feature=player_embedded
That is a better discussion. Of course, the globe is warming. Of course, getting the United States off fossil fuels is highly desirable. We need to do that for a lot of reasons. We could offer huge tax incentives and open our doors to scientific research, but we’ve got liberals who want to tax innovation into another country and hate the idea that the bright and the achieving should be encouraged and that not everyone should be treated equally, and conservatives who are morally opposed to science.
However, for the United States to make a significant impact on global warming, even in the long term, it would take a reduction of something like 85% reduction in our methane, carbon, etc., output. We’d be reduced to a third or fourth world country. The misery that those who wish to hasten “the long emergency” so devoutly is almost as bad as that wished for by those who devoutly long for the Christian apocalypse.
Some people could live in Montana sustainably, like the native americans did, or as a basic ranching economy. The cities and towns are not sustainable. It’s hypocritical to live in Bozeman, for example, and insist that you’re doing it “sustainably” or put out the perpetual whine about it. Move to the midwest or the south, go off the grid, and try it the way we did in the seventies. I know one guy who still does it. But Los Angeles and Chicago and New York are going to turn into agrarian sustainable societies only with “black death” type misery.
I have yet to find a person interested in a sustainable present and future who supports a balanced budget amendment. The very first thing we have to do is get stop the federal government mortgaging our future to the chinese and anyone else who holds our debt. How will we create the wealth to pay this back? By selling resources.
Montana requires their government to have a balanced budget, to say “no” to current spending even in the face of special interest groups. If the “sustainable” crew paid as much attention to the fiscal destruction they were causing, as to the global warming they think others are causing, they’d have some better credibility.
anonymous- Switching fuels does not require a severe decrease in our living standard, it wouldn’t hurt though to conserve more, not through denial but through better efficency in our use of resources and energy . Technology is at the point now that with conservation and renewable fuels we can easily meet our present and future needs and put millions of people to work in the proccess.
We can derive a huge amount of our wealth from the sun, wind and earth( geo-thermal energy) . These are abundant unending supplies.
There is no reason to go off grid. I did it already for years before grid-tie net metering came along. Like I said the technology is here and deploying it will cure many ills and spur an incredable economic boom.
As for the US making a difference , what we need to do is our fair share . We produce 20 tons co2/ person while China is about 4 tons/person. We need to at least show we are trying by approaching Chinas level of co2 then we can better negotiate mutual reductions.