They have “very likely” canceled their snow removaL. This area can be compared to bel air and they all probably have installed electric heating in their drive ways ;)

I have some ideas.

Well, demographics are my back. And these bozos have Pascal’s conundrum turned on its head. You are so totally dead-on about biofuels. And lord knows how many would die as a result of a bloodstained a Kyoto-equivalent.

This scam is a crime against humanity

I think they really believe those things they believe. But I heartily agree with your sentiments. It’s high time the so-called liberals of this world remembered what the word “liberal” actually means!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmenkollen

It is superficially reminiscent of Palo Alto (CA) or Lexington (MA).

Now, I would ask any denizen of this fine suburb … have you canceled your snow removal service?

Well, the problem is that avg. Joe has been told that making emission cuts are a good thing, because they do no harm none the less. All he has to do is to make a small sacrifice. To pollute less is a good thing. Not to do this is selfish. blah blah blah. As he is an illiterate when it comes to science, it all makes sense.

What the alarmist try to do is to claim moral superiority over realists to more easily convince the public.

Here is the news flash. A small step like bio fuel, starve the poorest people in the world. Therefore, they should ask themselves how much bio fuels cuts emissions vs. how many they help starve to death. The only demand the EU has to bio fuels is that it cuts emission by 35% compared to fossil fuels!! Increasing food prices is like pebbles to me. But, for those millions getting by on less then a dollar a year, a giant rock smacked in the face.

Maybe every sceptical site on the web should add a donate button for an organisation like “Sceptics against genocide” and kick the alarmist loons of their moral high horse. Open peoples eyes, that these decisions have real consequenses

This scam is a crime against humanity…

thanks.

REPLY: Actually you can do that yourself, just click on the little gear icon when the window opens

Every politician promises to “solve” the problem if you will give him/her to unconditional support (and money). But when you get into the details, step 1 always seems to be “appoint a committee to determine how to solve global warming”, which is the same thing that they have been doing over and over for the last 6 years. Why?

THERE IS NO POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE WAY TO ‘SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING’!

The studies agree that to ‘solve global warming’ require massive reductions in CO2 emissions by >70% by 2050. No study has come up with a way to accomplish this using available technology without massive involuntary population cuts (i.e. genocide).

So it does not really matter if global warming exists, because nothing will be done to stop it.

He has a “need not to know”.

(If he did, can you imagine the legal trouble he would be in considering his business interests?)

the Troposphere (wherever that is)

That’s where we live and breathe.

we might as well join them and make sure they don’t do too much harm

Dubya, too, unfortunately. OTOH, he seems to be wisely) kicking the can down the road and making them “goals” not “mandates”–and if temps have not warmed substantially by then, those “goals” will be by the boards.

I will further observe that this-here “Precautionary Principle” is starving babies even as we sit here twiddling our keyboards. Maddens me just thinking about it.

Technically, the Mann papers were peer-reviewed, but it is painfully clear that none of the reviewers ever really checked any of his sources or his analysis. To this day, Mann has not provided all of the data needed for a proper review. It literally took an act of Congress to get him to release some of his data and computer code.

Too often, peer review means somebody sitting down on the sofa on a Sunday night while the spouse is watching Desperate Housewives or Sunday Night Football, and giving the paper a quick read-through.

I’m working on an article for a national publication that is targeted at law/technology. I’ve written for the pub a number of times over the last several years on technology topics, but a recent request for “green” articles caused me to fire off a anti-AGW rant to the editor, who then offered me the opp. to write a counter-AGW article. I did that, only to be shotgunned by an assoc. editor who obviously is drinking all the cool aid. I need some help on identifying some credible data sources for some of the underlying data that you’ve so nicely highlighted here.

Would you be interested in assisting me with this? I’ve also enlisted the help of Dr. Timothy Ball as another resource to review my facts. Any help you’d be willing to provide will be greatly appreciated. E-mail me at the address above.

Thanks!

-Loren

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308