“NASA’s top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on National Public Radio (NPR) in the US made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare,” said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute.
“Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming,” said Ferguson.
Griffin said he doubted global warming is “a problem we must wrestle with,” and that it is arrogant to believe that today’s climate is the best we could have and that “we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.”
While NASA scientist, James Hansen, was sharply critical of his boss, other scientists from around the world came to Griffin’s support.
Said Dr. Walter Starck, an Australian marine scientist, “Griffin makes an important distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority. Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one chooses to define the Little Ice Age as “normal” and “optimal” the net effect of any warming has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin’s note of caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration.
Another Australian, who testified before a Senate panel last year, Professor Robert Carter, observed, “My main reaction to Michael Griffin is to congratulate him on his clear-sightedness, not to mention his courage in speaking out on such a controversial topic.”
Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, responded: “Griffin’s statement is sensible because it allows time for the testing of the man-made global warming hypothesis to continue as it should.”
“I certainly support Griffin’s comments,” said William Kininmonth, a former head of the Australian National Climate Centre. “Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today’s climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age? Frost Fairs were common on many rivers of Europe and the London diarist John Evelyn records that in 1683-84 the Thames River froze from late December to early February. Conditions were terrible with men and cattle perishing and the seas locked with ice such that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and exotic plants and greens were universally perishing. Food and fuel were exceptionally dear and coal smoke hung so thickly that one could scarcely see across the street and one could scarcely breathe.”
Kansas geologist, Lee Gerhard added, “Griffin’s statement focuses on the hubris that affects much of public
policy. It is great to know that someone out there besides geologists understands that humans do not dominate earth’s dynamic systems.
Said Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, “Claims of major, impending catastrophe are speculative and go far beyond what has been credibly established by researchers to date. Hence Griffin’s view is not at all controversial or out of step with available evidence, and he should be commended for having the courage to say it. The fact that it took courage, however, points to the deeper problem that questioning the catastrophic propaganda we hear so much is now considered politically incorrect.”
Dr. Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia agrees: “NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statement about whether or not it is in fact a “problem” is supported by a scientific literature that his employee, James Hansen, appears to ignore. It is well-known that much of the Eurasian arctic was between 4 and 12 degrees (F) warmer than modern temperatures for much of the 6,000 years between 3,000 and 9,000 years ago, and that such warming was caused by a massive intrusion of warm Atlantic water into the arctic. Given that the only way it can get there is to flow east of Greenland, Mr. Hansen’s well-publicized fears that a massive amount of Greenland’s ice will fall into the ocean in the next 100 years is mere science fiction. It is ironic that today President Bush appears to have given in to Hansen’s hysteria rather than to the calm reason of NASA Administrator Griffin.
Finally, Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl praised Griffin’s climate comments, calling them “sensible.” On his public blog, Motl said he applauds Michael Griffin and encourages him to act as “a self-confident boss of a highly prestigious institution.” “I have always believed that the people who actually work with hard sciences and technology simply shouldn’t buy a cheap and soft pseudoscientific propaganda such as the ‘fight against climate change,'” Motl added.
This is a media release from the Science and Public Policy Institute.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
That’s right, we greenies secretly want to live in an ice age, because, well, I don’t know. Apparently I would prefer it, but I don’t ever recall saying it.
Speaking of Ice Ages, what was the source or cause of the increase in global temperatures that brought to a end of the last ice age, 12000 years ago?
The geologists tell us that the land bridges were swamped and the anthropologists tell us that various population groups isolated eg Taswegians from Mainlanders.
Did the then inhabitants complain about sea level change?
Has it all happened before?
Griffin:
“I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists,” … “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”
“To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.”
Hansen:
“It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement,” …and… “indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”
Michael Oppenheimer:
“I think the administrator ought to resign. I don’t see how he can be the effective leader of a science agency if he doesn’t understand the threat of global warming,”
Why is that every time somebody makes a statement relating to global warming that does not include some sort of “we’re all doommed” prediction, that person gets vilified and the knives come out? Fer cris sake – the man even acknowledged that its happening…
Grifin:
It is NASA’s responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA’s mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies.
Hear Hear
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1
cheers
Arnost
Ball, Michaels, Kininmonth, McKitrick, Carter, Motl
ROTFL and LMAO – about as authoritative as asking Howard’s opinion on Rudd.
Griffin or Griffith – wouldn’t know – he’s just some administrator.
Science and Public Policy Institute. – another account holder for Exxon. Was it $600,000 or something like that?
Yep all really convincing sources that are so published in the field. I asked the bloke at the fish and chips shop and he reckoned they were all wrong. He reckoned it was just a right wing astroturfing plot.
Luke
I just don’t understand why you warmers are so narrow-minded. You have just exemplified the Hansen / Oppenheimer kneejerk denigration I questioned / complained about above with: “Griffin or Griffith – wouldn’t know – he’s just some administrator”.
If you took the time to find out (takes about a 10s on the web), you’d find he’s THE administrator – you know, THE MAN who runs NASA… And unlike Hansen, somebody who CAN speak on behalf of ALL of NASA.
And before you dismiss him as some politically appointend lightweight, please read up in his quals at the bottom of this:
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html
Using your usual argument from authority – whatever Griffin says TRUMPS anything than what Hansen because he’s Hansen’s boss and (by my calcs) he’s four Master Degrees more qualified than Hansen (all the undegrads and Ph.Ds being equal)…
cheers
Arnost
As much as it pains , I find myself in agreement with Luke ; it would be more interesting to hear from some new advocates other than Hansen ( you must have forgotten him in the list of reliable opinionistas Luke – he’s obviously never been paid so he’s a ” goodie” ?? ), Carter , Ball et al.
If there is a growing body of sceptics/rationalists let’s hear from some new ones.
It must create something of a headache for the true believers though to have a reputable source like NASA not singing along.
Yes Arnost – checked CV prior. I was playing on the name typo in the lead post title.
And nuh – he’s not into climate. But I didn’t say he’s dumb. Just wrong on assessing his own staff’s work. I note a political appointment though ! George’s man in NASA.
And it’s not merely a question of being “paid” Jim – just that many contrarians have taken a totally indiscriminate campaigning approach. Throw any old mud no matter what the quality of the argument.
Frankly I’d let it go and not swing at it. Surely there’s work to be done? At some point the contrarian position will be comprehensively overrun with a landslide of evidence.
The whole issue with this debate is risk management. The information is imperfect. So you have to assess how much you think the story is correct and what the downside of acting and not acting might be.
“NASA’s top administrator, Michael Griffin”
Souldn’t he be telling me how to put a budget together?
“At some point the contrarian position will be comprehensively overrun with a landslide of evidence.”
Just noting your acknowledgement Luke that we’re not there yet.
What’s the prediction for when the debate really will be over?
Jim
when it’s too late.
The evidence is actually in already, but that’s not good enough. As this article already demonstrates, many people feel warming might be good.
We can’t believe models, we can believe intution.
5-10 years (but there will always still be some hanging out – mainly elderly geologists 🙂 !)
IMO (and I’d love to be wrong) the evidence mounts more with each subsequent issue of Science, Nature and Geophysical Research Letters. As well as the march of time.
LOL Luke,
I assumed that you checked up and just wanted sombody to bite and then spring a trap. So I sprung it.
So where are the punji sticks? 🙂
The question is however, should NASA (or indeed any other organisation) be responsible for modeling AND supporting with observational evidence something as critical as global warming? AND on top, then lobby to influence policy? There is no spearation of powers – all three should be independent of each other.
Griffin is stuck between a rock and a hard place – he needs to resurrect NASA aeorospace research and especially the manned mission to Mars project, but he can’t do anything about the budget that Hansen and co are eating up – politically they are now untouchable.
So what do you do in his place? A statement like this is an unambiguous attempt to position NASA away from climate politics (or indeed any politics) and a sign that there will be a reallocation of resources. Given that NASA is just now predicting a very low solar cycle 24 and a non existent cycle 25, what needs to be managed is the risk of damage to NASA as an institution that will occur in the event that (hypothetically) there is little or no increase in global temps over the next five + years as a consequence of decreased solar activity.
Fighting for budget for a manned mission to Mars will be impossible if somebody can point out that they backed (and indeed made) the wrong side in the climate issue. By depoliticising it and moving away from an “activist” role now, then regardless of what the outcome is, they can move forward. They can always fire a couple of convenient scapegoats and problem fixed (always worked in the past).
And yes it would be nice if somebody else occasinally gets quoted from the “denialist” side…
cheers
Arnost
A manned mission to Mars would be pointless. The robots are already telling us just as much as any human being could up there. What’s a human going to do? Just run experiments, and send back the data, just like a robot does. The risks for humans, however, are incredible. The isoloation, time and pointlessness of such a mission render even attempting it a big mistake. Man on the moon? That was risky, but it came off, and it opened up the notion of space to us. It was mostly just a symbolic victory.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3223473
this guy is trying to outdo Gore.
what a scumbag!!
Nev
in what way is Hansen a scumbag. The results are in, his models have predicted the temperature rise to date, while the ‘solar’ backers in TGGWS can only do it by cooking the figures.
A serious manned mission to Mars would be one of the most beneficial projects that humans would have undertaken. EVER!
The thing that muct be understood is that the value of “science” advance of the actual trip is just a tip of the iceberg. The real value is the technological advances NECESSARY to make it happen.
Consider that a manned mission to Mars will take probably two years – and consider that you will have to take just about everyting you need with you. Just think of all the advances necesary with respect to recycling of food / water, energy efficiency / storage and the requirement to use “alternate” use energy sources such as solar. All these plus much much more will need to be developed and engineered – with the spinoffs oh so necessary in the world today.
Spending money on this sort of project is a much smarter way of addressing the “global warming” problem than any emissions trading scheme…
cheers
Arnost
Well Arnost – I guess most Africans are simply overwhelmned how the moon missions have transformed their lives.
Arnost
Maybe the same argument could be used to justify the money spent on managing carbon emissions. It’s a topic much closer to home.
Hansen has a proven case of grande mall scumbagia.
He is still flogging this “tipping point” crap, and, surprise, surprise, “big burp theory”. And, don’t you just love that “dark forest” scarenario.
The claimed tipping point for greenland ice melt was suppposed to occur when the altitude of the ice was lowered by surface melt and this lowering of altitude would reinforce higher temperatures and produce a rapid collapse of ice volume.
But nobody explained to the morons that it would take, first, the cessation of precipitation on top of the sheet which actually raises the height. Then it would need 100m of surface melt to produce even 1C of temperature increase. But this would only increase the mean annual temperature from -23C to -22C and certainly not much tipping. And the cretins never mentioned that this 100m of reduction in the 1500m thick sheet would, at current melt rates, take about 1200 years. And still no tipping.
The turkey forgets, or ignores the fact that both lichen covered tundra and forest have much the same albedo in summer while actual insolation in winter, when the snow is about, is close to zero. So the feared changes in albedo from snow to forest is three fifths of sweet FA.
The guy is a AAA rated dropkick.
But that won’t prevent Luke and SJT from breaking out their pathetic little attempts at deriding the credentials of anyone who doesn’t share Hansens delusions.
Ian’s contribution to climate science – punching his way out of a wet paper bag.
Hansen – well go Google.
“Big burp theory” is Ian’s alone. Any good shill needs a good rumour to flog.
The fact that these ice systems are being undermined Ian forgets (and oh that’s right – we were at “water can’t exist down there” – which was readily proven wrong).
And on Ian’s wonky albedo – “hey dudes I’ve got a GCM in my pocket story” – give us the global impact of a vastly changed area for 6 months of the year. Added up the joules and calculated circulation impacts have we? Hansen has.
Oh and that’s right Ian is going to build drains over all of Canada too. The Mott canal – which will probably pump water from Canada to southern USA deserts changing streams on the way. Perhaps we can pump it back again and keep it going in a loop. Half of the journey is downhill – north to south anyway.
Then we had the heat evenly distributed over the oceans.
Then the ocean pH is not changing. Oh whoops it is. Well it won’t be changing much. Well soon anyway. Sort of.
Then we had volcanoes spewing magma into the ocean – but they actually they didn’t – they warmed carbon beds from underneath and the CO2 escaped from vents.
Then we revisited the heat ocean distribution with the Indian Ocean warming. But it can’t be warming because the heat is evenly distributed. Huh but it isn’t.
Just like cross resistance and super resistance were bulldust but seem to exist anyway – now he’s done a thread runner.
As usual no apology. No offer to wash my car or make me dinner in apology. No offer to lecture my children in totalitarian philosophy. A herbal tea and Nimbin vegetarian corn fritters in bed. Nope. No bottle of red left on the door step with a sorry note.
Ian fess up – being a contrarian is going to get harder and harder an your position is undermined daily. Shhhh. Did you hear that. Shhhh. Was that the sound of running water?
Exxon Mobil strikes again.
“The Center for Sound Science and Public Policy, also appearing under the name of the Center for Science and Public Policy, is run by the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, an organization founded and chaired by former Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming. Frontiers of Freedom receives money from tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco. Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $467,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35; accessed 4/20/05) According to the New York Times, Frontiers for Freedom received $230,000 out of its $700,000 annual budget from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001. (Lee, John. “Exxon backs groups that question global warming,” The New York Times, 5/28/03) Malcolm Wallop has been a board of directors member of the El Paso Natural Gas Company since 1995. (PR Newswire, “El Paso Natural Gas Company names new director,” 1/13/95)
ExxonMobil direct donations to the Center for Sound Science and Public Policy/Center for Science and Public Policy:
2002: $100,000 Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report (http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Newsroom/Publications/Corp_P_AnnualReport2002.asp; accessed 4/21/05)
2003: $50,000 Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report (http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Newsroom/Publications/Corp_P_AnnualReport2003.asp; accessed 4/21/05)”
We are constantly being reminded that there is a
concensus on AGW. The following link suggests that many of the worlds top scientists are themselves sceptical. It also once again raises concerns about the IPCC.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
perhaps the AGW pushers are just better at propoganda?
I’ve fixed the name that was incorrectly spelt in the title. … thanks Luke, for pointing it out.
And as regards all the complaining about some comment from an Administrator and a few contrarians … well I thought it was all in the bag for you believers in the climate crisis. I mean we will soon have a carbon trading system even in Australia.
And I’m not complaining about the new carbon trading system proposed for Australia.
Everyone, almost, is singing from the Al Gore hymn sheet.
Yet, still you guys complain and suggest that ExxonMobil is really evil because it funds a few contrarians.
I mean you guys now even have Rupert Murdoch on your side!
If Exxon Mobile and the Centre for Science and Public Policy weren’t really committed to the truth … they would have given up long ago!
Jen – I think Gore has got a few things wrong. His sea level rise for example (although not explicitly stated as when) is misleading. He should have formally addressed the CO2/temperature lag issue.
To my mind there has not been a full side by side documentary that examines the full pros and cons of the points under debate. So we either have Al Gore or TGGWS – sweet or sour – no boring vanilla allowed. You can either have a serve of alarmist calamity or IPCC conspiracy.
If Exxon was fair dink – they wouldn’t simply try to level the playing field – they’d get some meaningful analysis of the views going. But I can’t see their reaction as any more than USA tobacco industry stuff.
Murdoch worries me an I take no joy.
Is a carbon trading system a good thing ? I’m not sure actually. Not if it leaks and not if Motty et al and the foresters are unhappy.
AGW is a risk management issue. Is there enough evidence there now or enough of a calculated future risk to do something about CO2.
The risk is not in the number of degrees of warmth – but what happens to the tails of the climate distribution under climate change. Does drought, floods, cyclone intensity and heatwaves go through the roof. How fast will ecological systems change.
And you’re not going to get 100% definitive soon. So it does come down to a management assessment of risk.
Serious management is about making GOOD decisions with imperfect information.
If we are to proceed we need a new bipartisan approach to energy. Personally I’m up for clean coal, renewables and nuclear. But not seeing enough movement on these issues.
Should have serious discussion on an economic soft landing for de-carbonising not a Rudd or Garret crash landing.
Meanwhile a major rainfall events builds says BoM – hope those bloody dams get drenched.
Luke,
I reckon that you would never be happy.
You would always want more and/or want it to be done differently. 😉
And as regards Rupert Murdoch and Exxon. I guess you would also be concerned if Exxon decided to support Rupert. ;-0
And if the dams fill you will complain we now don’t have a reason to make the hard decisions.
All true !
“Tol and Sir Nicholas are worlds apart, and not just because of Sir Nicholas’s recklessness with the facts. Where Sir Nicholas paints an altogether bleak picture, Tol’s is far more nuanced: Global warming creates benefits as well as harms, he explains, and in the short term, the benefits are especially pronounced.”
Perhaps he hasn’t heard of Australia. Now we need a La Nina just to get what used to be average rainfall in the South/East.
This is why Hansen & Co are in the scumbag category. If they had this chaps Integrity, Intellect & Experience they would not be making Voodoo science predictions and follow in Schneiders footsteps. They would be good guys, ie EcoHeretics
This article also briefly explains one reason why I’m backing our gradual cooling over the next decade or two. This explains Hansen and Cos obscene predictions for the next 10 years. If nothing is done they will be shown to be what we know they are. Frauds!!
http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Public/Bill_Gray_hurricanes.doc
if it has been posted before, apologies, but I keep reading it wondering why the Media types do not pick it up but refer to the SBs as Icons.
SJT, what used to be average rainfall in the south/east?
Like the choice of words – scumbag, voodoo, frauds, obscene.
So here we have Gray, who should be out fishing, ranting through a pay for opinion yank think tank. Full of the usual porkies. And a bibliography that conveniently omits the relevant literature of recent years.
Next !
Once again, Luke reverts to his favourite ploy of arguing with himself. He invents absurd snippets, attributes them to me so he can knock them down, and then ponces about like Mussolini on a Viagra holiday.
Notice the extent to which Luke and SJT have gone to avoid the key issue in this thread, the very strong possibility of major benefits from climate change. Beneficiaries will include landowners, both traditional and commercial, in the Pilbara/Kimberley region, for example, where rainfall has increased considerably.
So what? This region is as big as NSW and Victoria combined, thats what.
Ian
the landowners down here haven’t done to well at all out of the persistent droughts. I’m used to them carrying on in the past every couple of years, and lining up for a handout because while last year was great, this year isn’t, but the drought has been draggin on a bit too long this time. When the PM says that even irrigation will have to be shut off, you know it’s time to worry.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=rain®ion=vic&season=0112&period=1950
“Mussolini on a Viagra holiday” hahahaha – what a classic – this is going on the notice board.
OK here’s another absurd snippet up ya – the increase in NW WA rainfall is due to circulation relocation by the Asian brown haze. (Rotstayn – CSIRO – this blog) When they eventually fix the pollution up, the effect will go away or back to normal.
Anyway having experienced Ord insects – they go berserk on agriculture Ian – so I’ll have to give you another lesson in insect resistance. Unless Jen finds GM everything.
voodoo:
2/A charm, fetish, spell, or curse holding magic power for adherents of voodoo.
4/Deceptive or delusive nonsense.
Based on unrealistic or delusive assumptions: eg voodoo economics.
“from the american heritage dictionary”
looks like voodoo to me.
Last century rainfall pattern here:
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/1607.html
cheers
Arnost
So nevket – what do u find especially voodoo-ish about AGW ? Like how?
SJT, Your link was not to anything showing average rainfall?
Arnost, You link was not to anything showing average rainfall either?
Some would argue there is no such thing … that it depends which ENSO cycle we are in?
Jenifer, I understand that what you are trying to convey is that an “average” number is rather nebulous. And I agree… it is a statistic based on an arbitrary starting point.
The point of my link above was specifically to highlight this issue. If as SJT did, a starting point of 1950 is used, this then includes in the first 28 years (midway point of sample), a period of the highest rainfall in the last century. So any trend based on this period will automatically be downwards…
I wanted to correct this – or at least put another perspective on it.
Figure 7 in my link above shows the yearly (average) rainfall for each year from 1900-99 over Australia, and shows a “very weak rising trend in total rainfall during the century”…
By the way,
If you want a “number” then the average for all of Australia to 2002 is 472mm.
If you actually want to see some averages for major cities for each month:
http://www.arid.asn.au/html/documents/Rainfall.pdf
The current “base” to which anomalies are quoted is the 1961-1990 rainfall average. Any official BoM advice re below / above average rinfall will be a comparison to this period. The link below shows the regional (yearly) rainfall average basis…
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/averagemaps.cgi
cheers
Arnost
Which is why I linked to one of the long term trend. As I said, La Nina used to mean a lot more rain than it does now.
From the Wentworth Group
http://www.wentworthgroup.org/docs/Australias_Climate_is_Changing_Australia1.pdf
For Nevket – some more voodoo coming at ya !
Hurricanes and cold wakes. More to do !
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/global_climate_change_and_hurr.html
Watch out for the Kadaitcha Man !
I’d like to say that Griffin should fire Hansen for working outside of his job description and damaging NASA’s reputation for sound science by spouting crap.
The trouble with that proposal is that incompetent malcontents like Hansen, when they are fired, are quite often hired by the Greenies at considerable multiples of their former pay rates and then become mouthpieces for the logorrhea of the political Left.
Regardless, we have interesting times ahead of us. The predictions of impending doom are falling flat at an increasing rate.
When the AGW scare finally flatlines, the “climatologists” who signed on to the AGW bandwagon will go begging. They won’t find a home among those who retained their credibility. They’ll flee to the arms of the Greenie neo-Marxists begging for asylum, and the value of being an ex-AGW agitator will plummet.
This will swell the ranks of discredited scientists among the Greenies, and these scientists will face working at a discount from their earlier salaries.
They will have to re-invent their careers, and work on things like “electro-smog,” “genocide of the bees,” “plasticizers in child toys” (though that is growing rather passe), and other sundry and tawdry alarmist enterprises.
So my advice to Hansen: Get out and join Greenpeace or the WWF when you can. If you don’t do it soon, to make ends meet, you’ll later have to don a FishTomato suit and hand out leaflets decrying modern crops, at a train station in Croatia.
Schiller – I reckon we should incarcerate you for treason. And you should be sued for libel.
“are quite often hired by the Greenies at considerable multiples of their former pay rates ”
cleverly written Schiller – either put up on this or be a big whopping liar. You’re just lying your butt off implying Hansen has been paid off. You’re a coniving little grub aren’t you?
It’s trade mark of totalitarian anti-freedom anti-choice anti-capitalist scum like yourself to silence any perceived opposition. You’re obviously against free speech and are not a patriot.
And as we suspect the DDT scam is simply about big tobacco running a diversionary skunk campaign. More to come on this. Any interests in the tobacco industry Schiller?
Griffin needs to write 1000 times on the whiteboard – “I will not be competent”.
Hansen hasn’t reinvented anything – you’re just spewing as his early predictions turn out to be correct.
It’s fascinating how you sepos, despite your bullshit about free speech and liberty love to silence any opinions that don’t suit. If that doesn’t work run an astroturf campaign. Take a hike creep.
Schiller; ever a whip man hey
Gosh Luke, keep up that level of spittle and the water nazis will be fitting your gob with a water metre. Do you have any plans for some substance, other than bile, any time soon?
Hansen dredges up all the gonzo scarenarios and wraps it up as official science. If this crap was found in a company prospectus he would be doing a stretch by now. But he will be enjoying his pension by the time he can be called to account.
Well unlike youself Motty he’s been correct in his predictions to date.
Don’t bung it on about fessing up the evidence – it’s been done before – remember the super resistance, under sea lava, ocean pH and who came a gutser last time we went down those routes. Do your own research.
Schiller’s just part of the ninny neocon PR brigade and you know it.
Regrettably, global warming is too often narrowed to only some catalyzing impact living creatures add to this natural process of the Earth aging as planetary magnetism, gravity and mechanical forces are inextricably linked, mutually affect and alter each other.
Solar radiation and space rays add significantly to a global reality, of which ozone depletion and climate change have been natural processes themselves following and representing the unstoppable deterioration of the biosphere accustomed:
The X-Challenge
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/302957
This is a realistic picture, short of a usually acclaimed children-horror-tales-style threats too often and too loudly substituting THE issue itself, which is adopting the natural change rather than attempting to artificially deny the inevitable by simply engineering some human efforts essential to postpone but not prevent and avoid a natural way the Universe is used to.
“I certainly support Griffin’s comments,” said William Kininmonth, a former head of the Australian National Climate Centre. “Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today’s climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age? Frost Fairs were common on many rivers of Europe and the London diarist John Evelyn records that in 1683-84 the Thames River froze from late December to early February. Conditions were terrible with men and cattle perishing and the seas locked with ice such that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and exotic plants and greens were universally perishing. Food and fuel were exceptionally dear and coal smoke hung so thickly that one could scarcely see across the street and one could scarcely breathe.”
Regardless of past temps, surely of concern is a sudden change in conditions, such that organisms can not adapt. This Kininmonth guy mentions just one year, which I think is a cop-out and not comparable to what we are seeing today, eg Murray-Darling. He mentions the cold being unpleasant, but a sauna aint my idea of a good time, plus there are more people now, more presures on the planet than in the 1600s.
“Notice the extent to which Luke and SJT have gone to avoid the key issue in this thread, the very strong possibility of major benefits from climate change. Beneficiaries will include landowners, both traditional and commercial, in the Pilbara/Kimberley region, for example, where rainfall has increased considerably.”
How do these beneficiaries benefit if other organisms from bugs up dont adapt to a change in temp and humidity and those that feed on them dont adapt to a change in food resources and habitat and so on up the web’s ladder? Its not only about people.
Winston
Yeah, not Oz, but close enough
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1942061.htm
Well, Luke,
Judging by the quality of your rhetoric and your closely-reasoned arguments, I have become convinced of… hmph. What was that?
Something about incarceration, treason, lying, conniving, being a ‘grub,’ perhaps doing these things on a butt, totalitarianism, anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, anti-choice, being scum, DDT, tobacco, and maybe some “campaign” which weaves these odd threads into something you seem to comprehend well enough to rant about.
Luke, you forgot to put the aluminum foil under your toupee today, you are inadvertently channeling others’ cell phone conversations.
Well you are against free choice Schiller – you just can’t help it that you’re essentially totalitarian in outlook. We fought wars against creeps like you.
Luke,
I am familiar with the tired Marxist arguments you like to trot out. You call me a “totalitarian” because you perceive that I am against the “free choice” of people who want to issue diktats that kill personal freedom.
That is chicanery. And we fought wars against creeps like you. We won the hot war, and then the cold war, and then your creepy system collapsed of its own weight.
I’m a totalitarian, if that means I’m free to ‘tend my own garden,’ as Voltaire would say. And I’m a totalitarian to the extent that I believe government should totally guarantee my freedoms, to the widest extent possible.
Sorry if that offends your tender Marxist sentiments.
No, not really. And Marxist sentiments aren’t tender.
Has it ever occurred to you Schiller that some here might be tired of your ‘greenie’ arguments you like to trot out? Anyone who makes an apology only to intentionally retract it in the next sentence is malicious and sadistic. Go hang out at Abu Ghraib.
Travis,
I am quite certain that some here, such as yourself, are tired of “greenie” arguments. I assure you, there are others who are tired of arguments made by greenies.
As between the two groups, malice and sadism is commonplace, so you don’t present any novel observation.
Your reference to Abu Ghraib is not very sensible in the context of this discussion. Perhaps you could explain.
Schiller,
My reference to AG was with respect to sadistic acts perpetrated for…?….totalitarians fighting not a hot or cold war but a useless one you can’t win. I’m quite sure the soldiers there said sorry too, before they committed heinous crimes and filmed them whilst they laughed their freedom-fighting butts off. If you want to talk sensible in-context discussions Schiller, I suggest you delete this blog website from your computer ‘favourites’ now.
Schiller’s first mistake. He thinks we’re marxists. No – we just don’t like people like Schiller or what he stands for. So he thinks we’re marxists. That’s the actual size of the totalitarian brain space. The reality is Schiller that the DDT scam is a big tobacco smoke screen ! And that is criminal. And the same with most of the other astroturfing b/s you’re on about. This is Australia mate and yank bulldust doesn’t wash. Try getting fair dinkum for once.
The government can guarantee your freedoms as much as you like but not when it starts impinging on me for your benefit (mate!).
Luke,
You hurl offal like an expert in the field, but you never rebutted my claims that you’re a neo-Marxist, claiming you want “democratic” power while actually demanding an end to private property and personal rights.
Dude.
Well you’ve never rebutted my claims that you’re a tosser either. (That’s a joke mate – Aussies take the piss)
I looked up neo-marxism and western marxism in Wiki. Looks like I’d have a lot of study to do to be a good marxist. Or neo-marxist.
Did I say was against private property or personal rights? You’ve just assumed I was.
I don’t want to regulate people’s lives and tell them what to do (beyond what’s absolutely necessary). All for individual self-determinism.
But I did say it was unacceptable to trash the environment with impunity. The word is impunity. Some modification of the natural world is absolutely necessary. But there are limits surely. I’m fine really with agriculure, chemicals in agriculture used responsibly and GM technology. But I appreciate the need to do better. – small example – Australian farmers used to have continual problems with disposal of chemical drums – a small amount of thinking has now progressed to reusable plastic crates in steel mesh. Bulk systems of storage. No drums and a better system – so was that that hard really?? Did it severely impinge your rights that much??
In terms of hurling offal Schillsy you do too. But you think it’s acceptable if the enemy is left or green in persuasion. It’s just you guys aren’t used to getting it back.
You see I’d like to believe in a better world where we might use our intelligence, technology and cooperative behaviour to improve things. Is that so bad? I’m not out to shut you down.
And as you get older it starts to dawn on you that you can’t take it with you.
And so the big disappointment here is that we never progress to a consideration of making things better. Improvement through compromise, smart thinking and dialogue.
Emitting CO2 is not the same thing as “trashing the environment.” The environment likes CO2. Dude.