Look at what the despicable John Kerry says: click

The proper role of government, aside from prudent national defense, is to…

…BUTT OUT!!

Mike Ryan (14:21:52) :
. . . It is a pity that the whole debate about AGW seems to have got caught up in an entirely separate debate about the proper role of government in a modern democracy. Why is it that there is such a close link between climate scepticism and free-market/libertarian philosophy?. . .

Maybe because the big-government left has seized upon AGW, quite irrespective of its scientific probity, as an excuse to push for draconian programs of government expansion, control, and taxation worldwide.

If the advocates were to back off and say, “This is a really complicated issue. The science is not settled nor even clear. We don’t know whether the hypothesis of CO2-induced global warming is true, or even falsifiable. So let’s hold off on declaring CO2 a ‘pollutant’, and let’s not tax an already-faltering economy into depression with Cap-and-Trade. Let’s put the money we have into unbiased, empirical research,” then maybe you’d find people who value individual freedom, private property, free enterprise, smaller government, and pro-growth tax policies backing off.

But right now the Alarmists have the upper hand, and are about to smack it down on the rest of us. I suspect that if conservative and libertarian scientists were convinced that AGW was not only real but a clear and present danger, they would join forces with the Alarmists, even if they disagreed with the ‘solutions’. To which the Alarmists say, “Better to take precautions, even if it turns out not to be true.” But conservatives are not likely to buy the ‘insurance policy’ argument and give up freedom for a dubious theory and unlikely security.

/Mr Lynn

Note to Bruce Cobb

Did Schneider really write this? Do you have the reference for me.

Yes, he did indeed, in an Oct. 1989 interview with Discover Magazine. There are a number of references to it on the web, but here it is on wicki, with the full quote (scroll down to Public understanding of science, second quote).

In short, “the ends justify the means” for these people. Lying, and even worse is “ethical” if it serves the “greater good”. That way lies authoritarianism.

“Perhaps the conference would like to see the March 2009 temperature records, 597 new record highs and 150 tied highs. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=maxt&month=3&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records”

Mary,
Thanks for the link. There are a few things about the NOAA site I’m not sure about. Maybe someone can clarify. At the top of the page is a reference to “36,550 stations”. Looking back at January and February I find 170,613 and 162,782, respectively. I take it that “stations” here means something like “station reports” or “station daily maximums” I suppose I could bumble around on the NOAA site and verify this, but there must be a couple hundred WUWT watchers who could give a quick answer.
At any rate this chart does indeed show 597 new highs. And the corresponding chart at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=3&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records#recs

shows 145 new lows. So warming is ahead by 452 new records, out of 36,550 readings. Doesn’t strike me as excessive variability, for _weather_.

Did Schneider really write this? Do you have the reference for me.

Also, it was the majority of scientists who “knew” the universe had existed forever, until the middle of last century when Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered the signature of the big bang.
http://www.bell-labs.com/project/feature/archives/cosmology/
…which was predicted by a minority of Gamow.

I guess you’re implying that manmade co2 caused record temperatures. Or are you just implying that commenters here only pay attention to records of cold? I guess that’s what it was. I will have to guess your meaning because I see you haven’t checked back in to elaborate.

I think the reason I point out record cold, which has been happening for 2 years now, is because ‘global warming’ is supposed to be happening. Record cold for two years running, and cooling trends, were not predicted in AGW.

Occasional record heat, which is not unusual, isn’t worth pointing out, just as occasional record cold isn’t worth pointing out. These both would be normal ‘weather’, which your side is quick to point out. You should have been quick to point it out too.

Mike, apologies, I wasn’t being to specific. I was referring to the season through what is typically referred to as tornado valley, Texas, Arkansas etc. I believed this season usually starts in April. It an area of meteorology I’m just getting into.

Oh yes I know that I have to type something!!! I just made that screen capture from a reloaded page to show that my post comment button is permanently greyed out.

I am wondering if such a panel can be convened to serve in this capacity on published climate research?

The educational site is here

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/