Global Warming Consensus Gone Up in Flames
By Bob Ellis on June 26th, 2009
Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal has a great piece on the
global warming debate and how Al Gore’s much-professed “consensus” has
crumbled to ruin.
Her article lists a number of people who are no longer following Al
Gore’s herd on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, and also
provides some insight into how this fragile “consensus” has been
devastated by science over conjecture and hysteria:
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document
challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where
President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of
the population believes humans play a role. In France, President
Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new
ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was
among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the
geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new
government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen.
Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the
U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate
summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to
receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement
last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her
nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical
chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made
warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar
Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new
religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will
Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position
that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have
refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)
Proof of concensus or lack thereof is not an indication of the
reliability of a given position; after all, the majority has been
proved wrong countless times throughout history, and someone has to be
the first person to be right about a new conclusion.
But when you have a situation where the more information we have on a
given contention, the fewer people buy into that contention, well,
that speaks powerfully that the contention was a bad one from the
I have long said that the contention that human activity–over more
obvious and more powerful natural forces–is having a significant
impact on global temperatures just doesn’t pass the smell test.
To put it another way, it seems as if Occam’s Razor has been forgotten
in the modern world’s infatuation with wild and exciting ideas. In
case you’re not familiar with Occam’s Razor, it is a principle that
basically says assumptions should be avoided where ever possible. Or
to put it in plain language, of all reasonable explanations for a
phenomenon, the simplest is usually the correct one.
Sadly, objective examinations of information and assumptive restraint
have been abandoned in today’s world in favor of politically correct
agendas which are fueled by protection of reputation and ego. In
other words, instead of behaving like objective investigators, our
modern scientific and legislative community behaves like teenagers
caught up in herd-instinct pursuit of “the right clothes” or “the
right CD” or “the right look.”
I can only hope a sufficient number of the American people wake up to
the reality that the theory of AGW stinks…and that they get ticked off
enough to wake up a sufficient number of representatives in congress
to stop this mad rush to destruction before it’s too late.
.July 8, 2009 • 3:00 PM
.Global temperatures DROPPED .74°F since Al “Hot Air” Gore released
‘An Inconvenient Truth’
Climate Kooks suffer from mental illness. That’s undeniable. I think
it’s a form of schizophrenia. In the good old days, the climate kooks
would be institutionalized and most likely lobotomized. Oh how I long
for the good old days.
Real science has concluded, based on fact and data (NOT theory and
models) that the earth has cooled almost three-quarters of a degree
Fahrenheit since that dope Al Gore produced his fictional movie, “An
Inconvienient Truth.” For those of you in Europe or Canada, that’s .4
Here’s the best part. We have a kook president that wants to legislate
away “global warming,” and it’s not even happening! Only in America! I
told you, it’s about money and power.
Last month, June 2009 showed us yet another global temperature drop.
Yet, we still have kooks running around legislating the climate,
idiots screaming “do something.” Do something about what?
According to the latest data … “For the record, this month’s Al Gore /
‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Index indicates that global temperatures have
plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was
released.” (see satellite temperature chart here with key dates noted,
courtesy of www.Algorelied.com – The global satellite temperature data
comes from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Also see: 8 Year
Downtrend Continues in Global Temps)
I think sometimes people who want to preserve life "one raccoon at a
time" are following the same reasoning as the old joke about the guy
who lost his wallet in the pariking lot, but was looking inside the
restaurant "because that's where the light is". They don't think
about whether it actually makes sense, and often can't see beyond
their own perceived sphere of influence. It makes them feel good to
be accomplishing something, so whether they are helping with a real
problem is not relevant. It only becomes relevant when someone, by
word or deed, belittles what they feel they are accomplishing - then
they must go on the attack. This is, of course, much easier than
applying critical thought to the situation, and perhaps re-evaluating
On Jul 10, 12:55 am, firstname.lastname@example.org (Way Back Jack) wrote
disparagingly and at length about Pres. Obama.
I suppose when someone starts off with a point of view to denigrate
your incumbent president (Obama) it then becomes the task to try and
point out as negatively as possible anything/everything about the USA
your current administration is trying to repair!
The foregoing article however manages to point out rather clearly so
many of the things that previously were done wrong and badly during
previous administrations. Whether it was falsely started wars (Iran,
Afghanistan) or poor financial industry controls that led to the
credit crisis, sour debts and scandals such as Enron, Madeoff etc.
Limitation of civil freedoms? Poor USA!!!!!
Obama has inherited quite a mess (and that's an understatement) from
The thought of the USA looking back fondly or thinking it was
successful during an era when it was "Shoot first" and worry about the
consequences afterwards; or a "Let's Nuke em" attitude, hasn't
And don't let's pretend the Viet Nam war was a success! In fact it's
doubtful if the USA has won any of the wars it has itself started?
Obama comes across as a realist; often telling it like it really is.
With doses of realism; not airy-fairy images of the way it used to be!
Maybe some don't like the truth?
It also appears the USA has not, for a long time, realised that it is
not and will not always be, 'The only game in town (the world)'.
What the US still does have is some (supposed) fundamental values
about hard work, family values, home ownership and place in community
etc. Although social and financial ethics have taken quite a beating.
But the USA or it's individual states does not back this up with good
social programmes and public care. And forget any of the forced
extremist Christianity cults; they are just as biased and intolerant
(and possibly dangerous when leaders think they are going on a
crusade!) as any other extreme religious format. Keep religion out of
government for God's sake (pun intended!).
How many US millions is it that don't have medical/drug care? Much
smaller (sometimes with less than the tenth of the US population) and
therefore smaller resourced countries have much better systems (some
would call them 'socialist' as though that were a bad word!) and do
much better job of providing incentives for a healthier and more
Also there is still something of a dog-eat-dog attitude although most
individual Americans are sensible helpful people! Maybe a sort of "If
I have the biggest/fastest gun I have every right to shoot the last
deer/elk/moose/bear etc.". How the West was won; i.e. stolen from the
Aboriginals and from Mexico!
Maybe some serious navel gazing is in order? That marvellous
expression from some US president, "Walk softly but carry a big stick"
comes to mind.
Good luck to all from somewhere else in the world!
Aren't you the master of spotting the conspicuously obvious.
Animals that have been free, and then are killed and eaten isn't what we
were talking about. We were talking about what passes for a man these
days, who plans to poison a flower fancying raccoon, and then leaving it
to rot. In my opinion, the sooner the cockroaches take over, the better
it will be for the planet.
Deep Fried Raccoon
~ 1 raccoon, cleaned
~ 1 lb bacon
~ seasoning salt
~ your favorite batter
Make sure all the fat and glands are removed from the coon.
Stuff the bacon inside the coon. Season to taste with seasoning salt and
Pour on the batter and shake to create a thin layer all over.
Add to hot oil in a Dutch oven, fish fryer or turkey fryer.
Cook until golden brown. Remove and drain.
Allow to cool a few minutes before slicing.
There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
I never made any such statement so your comment is irrelevant.
Some wild animal populations do migrate - eg Caribou, Wildebeest and many
Most wild animal populations live within a defined range and roam within
In terms of your comments about them making a 'decision' about where they
live, then non-migratory animals certainly do no such thing in the same way
that humans can and do. Wild animals follow food, shelter and in some
cases, seasonal conditions.
They cannot sell and relocate for the sake of convenience and nor do they
move to Florida for the winter in the same way that humans can.
Read what I wrote and respond to that rather than invent something I didn't
If you had understood what I wrote about 'history" and the fact that it
(meaning wildlife around your tiddling place and even the whole of the US
and the world) will not always be there, you would not make this statement.
The earth is not made up of infinite resources and that applies to wildlife
as it does to every other single commodity.
I repeat, read what I wrote. I did not comment about "current" risk. I
wrote about future risk. And regardless of how much wildlife you or the
whole of the US currently has, it will not stay that way.
Since Ann and I live on different continents and I made no statement
whatsoever about the wildlife in my area, you can make no meaningful
statement about whether I have local effects or not.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.