Pat Sajak solves manmade global warming

I’m sure that many will dismiss this because, well, ‘he’s a game show host”. But, most people don’t know this, but Pat was the TV weatherman for KNBC-TV in Los Angeles before being recruited by Merv Griffin for “Wheel of Fortune”. He also served in Vietnam, working in the Armed Forces Radio Network. So, he knows something not only about weather and climate, broadcasting, and human nature when money is involved as well. His background is not unlike mine.

Maybe he can teach these guys something?

MIT’s “wheel of climate” – image courtesy Donna Coveney/MIT

This excerpt from Pat Sajak’s essay on Ricochet.com yesterday, h/t to Planet Gore

Manmade global warming, like so many other social and economic issues, has become hopelessly politicized. Each side has dug in its heels and has accused the other of acting irresponsibly and dishonestly. For the believers, the other side has become the equivalent of Holocaust deniers; and for the doubters, the other side has become a cult intent on manipulating mankind to remake the world in some sort of natural Utopian image.

The divide has become so great, it seems virtually impossible to bridge the gap. However, I’m not writing for Ricochet merely to outline problems; I’m here to offer real solutions. And I’m not just blowing carbon dioxide.

Let’s assume that a third of the world’s population really believes mankind has the power to adjust the Earth’s thermostat through lifestyle decisions. The percentage may be higher or lower, but, for the sake of this exercise, let’s put it at one-third. Now it seems to me these people have a special obligation to change their lives dramatically because they truly believe catastrophe lies ahead if they don’t. The other two-thirds are merely ignorant, so they can hardly be blamed for their actions.

Now, if those True Believers would give up their cars and big homes and truly change the way they live, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some measurable impact on the Earth in just a few short years. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles, but truly simplifying their lives. Even if you were, say, a former Vice President, you would give up extra homes and jets and limos. I see communes with organic farms and lives freed from polluting technology.

read the rest here

About these ads

125 thoughts on “Pat Sajak solves manmade global warming

  1. I agree totally – I’ve said this all along. Al Gore could be a true prophet! (…no Al – not profit, prophet…)

  2. Pat’s ‘Modest Solution’

    I had no idea he was so sharp.

    :)

    (You run an excellent site, Mr. Watts)

  3. If politicians want us to give up our lifestyles, they can come out and say that instead of dressing it up in fraudulent science and hysterical predictions about what will happen if we don’t give it up. They can also start by living the “green” lifestyles they are advocating for everyone else, themselves. I’m not holding my breath.

  4. With a more frugal lifestyle Al Gore would lose weight and live longer. This would be good for him personally. The extra time on this green Earth would give him opportunity to gather wisdom. And that would be good for the rest of us.

  5. At face value this tongue in cheek proposition (presumably that’s what it is) sounds reasonable, but where would it lead if the believers were to luck-in, and we happened to be on the threshold of the next downward perturbation in planetary temperature?

  6. If our governments in the west keep mismanaging our energy policy as badly as they have over the last 20 years, we will soon be joining the great experiment Pat proposes whether we want to or not…

  7. The idea that the champagne socialists who represent the major support for warmism would give up their champagne just because it contains CO2 is surely as fanciful as the idea that pigs might fly. Still, I guess it tests their ideas to destruction!

  8. Good plan, but the hypocrisy of the ‘warmers’ means that it won’t work. They want to control the world and ‘do as I say, not do as I do’ is their watchword. The CAGW scam was never about science, rather just another attempt by the elite to enslave mankind.

  9. Problem is I think we’re in for a cold snap that could go on for decades, anyway. If the greenies gave it all up it might well become colder . . . and then we’d be obliged to go along. I think I’d rather just sit tight and then say, “Tolja so.”

  10. Reducing CO2 output by 1/3 would still mean increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and therefore supposedly increasing temperatures. Since they don’t claim to know the effect of CO2 within 30%, there would be no way to know if the 1/3 reduction did any good or not, even by their estimate, and therefore they would claim correctly that there is no justification to carry out Pat’s experiment. Furthermore, they probably wouldn’t want to do it because the economies of scale would make it much less burdensome if everyone switched together rather than them trying to go it alone. And besides, quite a few of them are reducing their consumption already. Some credit would have to be given to them for what they’ve already done, and that would mean that even if they did everything they should, the reduction would not be as high as the reduction that would come from the non-conservationists doing what they should.

  11. Gnomish: July 26, 2010 at 11:34 pm
    Pat’s ‘Modest Solution’
    I had no idea he was so sharp.

    He’s funny, too. Pat used to include a “weather report” for us every so often: “And for those of you flying in the Saigon area, ceiling is 5,000 feet, visibility 5 miles, ground fire is light to moderate…”

  12. “Now, if those True Believers would give up their cars and big homes and truly change the way they live, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some measurable impact on the Earth in just a few short years. “

    It is this grotesque hypocrisy of the leaders of the “green” movement, or environmentalists, that really annoys me the most.

    When they are flying around the world and being chauffeur driven in huge limousines to lecture me to reduce my already minuscule carbon footprint or face greater taxation, bureaucracy and will-sapping hassles I get really pissed off.

    I see Al Gore buying sea-front property when claiming that the sea WILL rise 20 feet or more, up to 20 meters.

    I see these experts flying private jets to copenhagen, only for those jets to fly out and park in another country, before flying back to pick these experts up again.

    I see Hollywood celebrities driving a prius and spouting “holier than thou” platitudes, then flying around the world and turning up to awards shows in stretch Humvees!

    And they have the gall to lecture and harass me about MY pathetic carbon footprint? When even if I cut MY footprint to absolute zero, their lifestyle in ONE YEAR would offset my lifetime reductions completely.

    So, WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL POINT OF ME MAKING ANY MORE REDUCTIONS?

    To Al Gore, and all his celebrity acolytes… LEAD BY EXAMPLE OR GET THE HELL OFF THE STAGE!

    Sorry for shouting, but this really gets me steamed!!!

  13. Leading by example is the best policy. So when the warmists stop flying thousands of miles to far off exotic places by the thousands, then we know they really mean business. However, as they don’t, & won’t, as said on a previous post, the new Fuedal system is in the wings, with the “Champagne Socialists” (haven’t heard that expression for a long time) lording it over everyone, in a Do As I Say Not As I Do, kind of way. Will they ban said Champagne, beer, sparkling wine, cola, 7-Up, etc etc. I think not somehow,I mean to say, just look at Al Gore’s lifestyle, & that of Tony Blair, another great profit! (That’s not a spelling mistake.) That surely must be the greatest get-out-of-jail-free story of all time, “I genuinely believed I was doing the right thing!”

  14. I would be more than happy to give up my champagne, jetset lifestyle…and I’m not an AGW believer.

  15. The effete elite surrender their lifestyles?

    Are you kidding?!?!

    Will the Queen of England, her consort, and her son Chaaaaaaahles, be surrendering their ‘humble’ digs anytime soon to live like the lowly commoners?

    What about the Dutch Royal family?

    How about that bunch of UN snobs, or the U.S. Congress?

    Will the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds, Maurice Strong, George Soros, Al Gore, and a the rest of that cadre of insiders be setting the example?

    Surely you jest!!!

    It is THEY who mean to drive the rest of US into rank poverty, so that THEY may lord it over us, rubbing our respective noses into the dirt.

  16. Excellent, I have often said the same thing myself, unfortunetly those soooo concerned about AGW seem to do less than most sceptics I know!

    My power is from hydro, I copice trees for fire wood, I grow my own veggies, dont eat meat etc… I dont see any outspoken alarmist doing even that much – Some go flying around in private jets to tell us to cut our emissions! Most wait for the Govt to come up with schemes that wont work that redistribute wealth from the poor low co2 producers and move it to the wealthy high co2 producers. Its all nutz! Lead by example, dont tell us what WE should do.

  17. To be fair, most foaming at the mouth eco type AGW proponents I’ve actually met do make energy reduction/low impact lifestyle choices. This is probably because most I’ve met are within the Permaculture scene.

    It doesn’t stop some them being hypocritical, or pious, in relation to their own ethics though. I was recently dragged into an AGW punchup on a permaculture forum because I expressed a position taught by their founder Bill Mollison in 1981.

    “The effects of this [deforestation] on world climate are becoming apparent both in the composition of the atmosphere and in the inability of the atmosphere to buffer changes. In any month now, we wil break the world weather records in some way. In my home town, we are very isolated and buffered by ocean and forest. But we had in succession the windiest, the driest, and the wettest month in history, in two hundred years of recording. So really what’s happening in the world climate is not that it is tending toward the greenhouse effect; it is not that it is tending toward the ice age; it is starting now to fluctuate so wildly that it is totally unpredictable as to which heat barrier you will crack. But when you crack it, you will crack it an an extreme and you will crack it very suddenly. It will be a sudden change. Until then, we will experience immense variability in climate”

    You might think 1981 is a bit dated in relation to current propaganda, so I went looking for the most up-to-date presentation, which was from an online PDC course presented by Geoff Lawton (Permaculture Research Institute of Aus) in 2008 and I quote:

    “Erm, Climate Change, yeah right, yeah, you know climate could change, it has changed before, if you go back to the 500million yr climate graph, and all the ice core studies they’ve done, yes it’s been warmer than this, in fact the sea level has been 4 to 6 meters higher than it is now, and 140 meters lower than it is now, and it’s been that quite a few times. At the bottom of the ice age, or at the biggest freeze, your ocean is 140 meters lower than it is now. That makes quite a different global map, and 4 to 6 meters higher it makes quite a different map, especially when you look where a lot of our cities are. Erm.. yeah right… OK… those are issues of course. Erm… there are interesting things if you look at the carbon graph [shown on screen] and the carbon graph over 500 million yrs follows the temperature graph quite, almost like a mirror. And right now it seems that the carbon graph, in other words the carbon that’s in our atmosphere, is separated quite radically away from the temperature graph, and if you take an analysis on that it doesn’t look like a warm-up coming, it looks like an Ice Age, with a vertical shaft coming, it looks like a vertical drop into an Ice Age. If you look at the 500million yr climate and carbon graph, that we say we can prove, I don’t know, it doesn’t really matter to me. I’m a farmer. I’m inherently a farmer. I love to farm. I cannot live without it. I apply design to the ground. I teach people from the ground. I don’t care what you say about the world being round and the Sun going… us going round the Sun. I teach the way you see it… from the ground. It doesn’t matter to me that the Earth goes round the Sun. I can see the Sun from wherever I am, wherever I am on the Earth, and I can see the way it behaves in relation to a 12 yr cycle. I can teach from that. That’s what applies to me, what actually happens is a result on the ground. ”

    Smart guy that Geoff Lawton. Apparently I’m a Big Oil propagandist with questionable character because I mentioned it. :/

  18. Yes, the ‘weather’ has sadly become a political, destructive and often vociferous fight between two sides – and I’m not alone in wishing we could all reach a more amicable solution than (looking at some of the last few days of WUWT comments) the slanging match its become. Although hypothetical figures, Pat Sajak’s bridging the gap between the 33% warmist believer camp & the 66% of us who simply want to know the truth may provide a sound and constructive answer. Let them get on with it.

    It’s a bit like letting 10% of the people who still enjoy cigarettes to continue smoking in complete freedom until they can statistically prove that they died earlier than they would normally have done of lung cancer – a fact that still has yet to be proved as smokers have more chance of dying a premature death for all sorts of other non-smoking related reasons (including influenze as they now stand outside). And one day, when it’s proved that smoking was not as harmful as we were originally told, that the penalties, taxation and duty levied on smokers was politically immoral, we can all start puffing away again. Now where’s that ashtray?

  19. evanmjones says:
    July 27, 2010 at 12:13 am
    Problem is I think we’re in for a cold snap that could go on for decades, anyway. If the greenies gave it all up it might well become colder . . . and then we’d be obliged to go along. I think I’d rather just sit tight and then say, “Tolja so.”

    ——————————————————————–
    Nahhh… We can just tell ‘em, “Ya’ll can go back to SUVs and fizzy drinks now. It’s cold enough, thank ya’.”

  20. A couple of decades ago when I was a young man in my 20’s, I was on a domestic flight when whom should I see but one of the two co-leaders of the NZ Green party, at the time I was (and still am) a voter for the minor far right party in parliament. Naturally my thoughts on seeing him on a jet, burning kerosene through the stratosphere, were along the lines of “bloody Greenie, what a hypocrite, should be riding his bike from his constituency to the capital”.
    Fortunately I’ve grown up a little since then, even if Mr Sajak hasn’t. Few people who worry about CAGW actually advocate everyone abandoning cars (or jets) and living of veggie gardens in their backyards, and as Mindbuilder suggests above, most have at least switched to less carbon intensive options where they can, but whatever they do, if other people are (and people often do claim they are on blog comments) switching to SUV’s or other gas guzzlers just to make a point that they don’t accept AGW, there probably isn’t much difference that the average greenie can make with their own personal contribution to carbon emissions reductions.

  21. etoiledunord (and others) Right On!

    WUWT has wide readership. Please be aware that we are in the dawn of the Nuclear age. The old U-233 stored at Oak Ridge (and billed to be ‘diluted’ for $475.000.000 by the gooblement) can be used as a nuclear trigger to ignite Thorium in a safe, proliferation-proof Molten Salt Reactor, as already proven many years ago. No CO2, reduced fissionables storage cost, CHEAP energy.

    Get with it!

  22. The same people who believe in AGW also believe that there are 4 billion more humans than the planet can take. So wouldn’t it be appropriate for them to biodegrade themselves and save the planet? Having said that, the author of this proposal, (a warmist himself?) has pulled the rug from beneath the warmists’ feet.

  23. How is it that al gore’s book of lies and misinformation can be recommended reading for fourth graders?

    http://www.wvec.com/news/local/Parent-concerned-that-Al-Gores-book-on-summer-reading-list-for-Norfolk-fourth-graders-99257174.html

    When the Arabs make videos encouraging their kids to become martyrs, there is outrage everywhere. And yet this bullshit science is used to brainwash our kids, here, in the land of the free. Parents should be calling their school principals to make sure this junk science never reaches our kids.

  24. I love this. We’ll see the believers’ true colors now. I mean, who can hate Pat Sajak? But, they will.

  25. Despite Pat Sajaks disclaimer on the numbers right at the beginning, I suspect his initial 1/3 of the population figures are a long way out.
    350 million potential believers in North America.
    500 million in greater Europe.
    150 million in Russia.
    Plus throw in another 100 million or so to cover any wealthy upper classes from other global regions who may worried about global warming / climate change and you have the grand total of roughly 1.1 billion souls who may be AGW / CC believers and that cop an earful about global warming / climate change on a daily basis.
    That then leaves about 5.5 billion folk on this planet who couldn’t give a damn about global warming and climate change. They are too skeptical to believe in the spin or the scam or most of them are just too busy trying to make a living or are just trying to survive against all the odds.

    Now we know from the polls that only about half the populations listed above as potential believers are seriously or partly concerned about AGW / CC so those polls suggest that only about 550 million, nearly all wealthy westerners, are concerned or maybe have some concerns about AGW / CC .
    And that 550 million of the most blest of believers comprise just under 8.5 % of all of humanity.
    And a minority of that 8.5 % wants to set about changing and destroying the lives, the hopes and aspirations of the other 91% of humanity just to satisfy their own ideological cult like beliefs.
    Of course if push came to shove as in big increases in living and work expenses due to new government Climate Change tax depredations, the polls also suggest that 8.5 % of AGW / CC believers would be whittled away very quickly to numbers likely to be even less than 3 % or 4 % of the global population.

    So Mr Sajak’s suggestion that those believers who comprise that 8.5 % of the global population lead by example in living a frugal lifestyle is very fitting, although with those low numbers I’m not sure any of the other 91 % who are trying to climb to the living standards that the most blest of believers enjoys, would take any notice whatsoever.

  26. Come to think of it, if this proposal is truely taken up by the warmists, the price of fuel, electricity etc will fall sharply and my heating/cooling bill will be much less than present. Please warmists, nike it and just do it.

  27. I dunno why everyone harangues Al so much. Don’t they realise he’s a Gore – he’s been bred to live life surrounded by limousines and luxury; he’s genuine American aristocracy.

    So do as he says, not as he does – because, dammit, he’s a gentleman and he knows best.

    /sarc

  28. But it’s much less fun cutting down yourself if nobody else does it. In fact some recent research tends to show that people would rather be poor if everyone else is poor than be moderately well-off if everyone else is rich. Making alarmists cut down on their energy use while the rest of us go on having a good time will just make their resentment even bigger and nastier than it is now.

  29. Because of Pat Sajak’s current job, he might be easy to underestimate. However, he is intelligent, experienced, and dedicated. As a Board member for Hillsdale College, he has taken some strong and well-founded positions on other issues as well. His writing in the present case is right on point and very well expressed. Thank you, Pat! Keep on what you’re doing!

  30. We need to focus on CAGW,, being Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. That is the answer.

    You rip the wind from the sails of a Warmenist if you totally agree with the concept. However, you don’t agree with the models, you don’t agree with the frantic, irrational belief system. Attack the “Catastrophic” side of things, because that is the sole argument upon which they can rationally rely!

    YES, there is climate change. There has been for a few years. In fact, there will always be climate change. Why are we the “Deniers”?

    PROVE that it will be “Catastrophic”!

    Yes, there is global warming. There has been for a few years, up to 2001 or so.

    Agree with them, and you confound them. They have to take their tentaive philosophies sliding step by step along the long and slender branch of public ridicule.

    In a few years, the Warmenists will be utterly unwilling to acknowledge their youthful folly.

  31. Some of my friends are global warming believers by default, they subscribe to the Washington Post and believe everything in it. Their total footprint is not like Gore’s with lots of airline flights, but they are constantly wasting energy and using their A/C double to undo the energy wasted in the house. Examples are obsessive clothes washing and full drying, half full dishwasher run daily, large oven used to cook one serving of chicken nuggets, high wattage incandescent bulbs on everywhere (they don’t like the CFL light), A/C set too low with little use of natural cool air, etc. I go there and nag all the time about the waste, but they just expect their politicians to tax businesses to deal with global warming.

  32. The futility of Mankind trying to control climate

    On average world temperature is +15⁰C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33⁰C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18⁰C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.

    Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into ⁰C:
    • Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C
    • Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C
    • Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C
    • CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = ~1.24⁰C
    • Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%:
    • Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C:
    So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 ⁰C?

    See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg

    So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.

    If this is really so, then the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
    • concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
    • it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
    • if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
    • any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
    • a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.

    Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
    • security of supply
    • increasing scarcity
    • rising costs
    • their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.

    The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.

    However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades.

    And now Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.

  33. So start Tweeting each other and get the ball rolling. We’ll anxiously await results. See, I told you I had the solution. My work here is done. ;-)

    “….buy a Prius, drive it around for a while, and give it to the maid….”

  34. Heh – Pat Sajak has been writing political stuff for a while now. Unfortunately, a certain group who consider themselves “tolerant” (while actually being the most intolerant people on the planet) pretty much made it impossible for him to continue.

    Take a wander around his site, starting at:

    http://www.patsajak.com/message-from-pat/

    There used to be a whole page of links to political essays, but I can’t find it anymore.

  35. Pat just doesn’t quite get it!
    Look at ALL the science and not just what is reported through the media as science.

    Has science figure out how an “ICE AGE” can be generated like clock work?
    Science fluffs off anyone that is not in their prestine group of “intellectuals” meanwhile there are many researchers being kept out the have some very important knowledge to share.
    Physicists have locked in our idea of how motion should work while failing to understand what centrifugal force is and in doing so deemed it a psedo-science.
    What confuses scientists is that the planet is 3 dimensional, yet rotation is 2 dimensional. You weigh less at the equator due to centrifugal force, yet this is not included in the study of the sun. The energy at the equator of the sun is stronger and deminishes as you move towards the axis. PLANETARY DRIFT is the planet moving horizontally at an slow angle through the equator of the sun and cooling when it moves towards the poles of the sun and coming back through the hottest trail in a pattern.

    Ops, sorry, I guess this is just an opinion and not actual research.

  36. Ed says:
    July 27, 2010 at 3:43 am

    “Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into ⁰C:”
    “• Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C” – Right
    “• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C” – Wrong
    “• Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C” – Wrong
    “• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = ~1.24⁰C” – Wrong
    “• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%:” – Wrong
    “• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C:” – Wrong
    “So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C. " – Wrong

  37. Ed, this “ Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect” meme is very popular in some circles, have you got a link for it?

  38. Brilliant article, as some people say Pat owes me a keyboard as I laughed tea all over mine.

    He does miss the point though as AGW is not about affecting the rich as they can simply buy Carbon credits, the main push is to get the poorest of the world staying in the stoneage (without the fires).

  39. Since research by individuals is not considered…

    Why does our planet not drift away?
    The suns strong magnetic field on this hunk of iron tries to keep the planet in place by exerting it’s influence.

  40. Oh goody.

    Colder winters – more ice – shorter summers – slower growing plants – less rain – bigger glaciers – less crops – bigger deserts – um – frolicking – ah – polar bears – er – cool. I suppose.

    What was the problem with global warming again?

  41. Lead from the front. It’s the oldest solution in the book, even Michael Jackson called for us to “Change the man in the mirror”.

    When they do it then I’ll join them. Until then I won’t trust those who say one thing and practise another.

  42. Andrew W says:

    “Wrong… Wrong… Wrong.”

    Who elected Andrew W the Authority?

    Just as one example, human CO2 emissions are but a tiny fraction of all CO2 emissions, per the UN/IPCC.

    And the University of Oslo falsified the canard that CO2 from fossil fues use can be distinguished from all other CO2.

    As an Authority on the subject, Andrew should be aware that CO2 causes no measurable warming, making his own presumed judgements on Ed Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

    Most of the rise in CO2 is due to the Earth’s emergence from the LIA. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature on all time scales. The insignificant warming from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, which is far in the future and probably will never occur, is so minor [<1°C] that it is insignificant.

    CO2 is a minor trace gas. It does not drive the climate, and never has. Once that fact is accepted, it is easy to understand that natural variability completely explains everything being observed.

  43. Alexander Feht wrote:
    “your joking right”
    No I wasn’t joking. What was it about what I said that made you think I was joking? What do you think was incorrect about it?

  44. Here in Melbourne Australia we have a ritualised quasi-religious football game named Australian Rules. On a typical weekend 8 games are played between 16 teams, before crowds that would reach a cumulative 200,000 people, typically.

    We are talking about game shows, so try to imagine the impact if this game show of football was to be declared a “social poison” by the EPA, because of the fuels used to get people to the game, the labour productivity waste, the cost of several huge stadia (up to 100,000 people in one of them), the whole misapplication of the huge administrative structure, the money lost on gambling, the social disintegration of children missing parents at the game – you get the picture.

    Who can make a case that if we want a greener world (and I emphatically disagree that we do) then we should ban all large sporting games before we ban coal fired power stations? The effluent GHG is probably similar on a per capita basis, but it would be against the will of God to do an econometric comparison.

    I’d rather play marbles, just to remind me I still have them.

  45. The planet might just look like a global warming bomb went off by 2016-17… keep on talking!

  46. Al Gore believes so much in AGW and rising sea levels that he purchased an ocean view villa for $8,875,000. The villa has six fireplaces churning out “toxic” co2, essential fountains and the obligatory swimming pool. This villa is just his second home after his mansion in Tennessee.

    Practice what you preach and let everyone follow your example! Hey, If this is going green because concern for the planet’s resources then I want some of it; however, I am not prepared to lie for it.

  47. Being my first time to comment, I just want to say how much I enjoy reading WUWT and thank Anthony for his hard work.

    Pat Sajak’s solution to manmade global warming was an interesting read to say the least. I have always wondered why so may so called environmentalists talk the talk but never walk the walk so to speak. When it comes to helping the environment if they were true believers they would be doing there part and start living a different life style. Hey did you here that Al Gore!

    I always like to have my share of fun and three years ago I build and installed a solar water heating system here at my home. I did this project not because I’m an environmentalist but because it was fun. Most of my neighbors where skeptical, believing that we do not get enough sun here in Western Pennsylvania to make solar water heating worthwhile. However, the thing works better that I thought it would and I ended up saving between $40-$50 on average on my monthly Natural Gas water heating bill. My total investment for the project, around $3,500.00. Was it worth it? you do the math. As far as any water heating this past winter, 3 months of clouds and 240 inches of snow, mostly cold showers in the morning. I am so happy I did not thought out the gas water heater.

    My regular work allows me to travel and I like to strike up conversation with people about climate change, and my solar water heating project . It’s and easy way to see if their believers or skeptics when it comes to global warming. I always try to keep to the lighter side in the conversation. But when I fine a strong believer , and I see their nods of approval, I always like to ask, so what have you done personally to protect the environment and lower your carbon footprint? The expression on peoples faces are worth ever penny I spent on that solar water heating system. Because they have just realized they have met a skeptic who has done something for the environment and they them selves, a believer have done nothing. So, you talk the talk but you don’t walk the walk!

  48. Senator John Kerry has a new toy, a 76 ft yacht. So much for his leadership in global warming. He also has docked it in Rhode Island to avoid paying $500,000 in taxes to his own state, Massachusetts. So much for leadership in paying what one owes.
    Always remember that those who preach sacrifice never mean for themselves.
    “We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others”.

  49. This is insulting: Let’s assume that a third of the world’s population really believes mankind has the power to adjust the Earth’s thermostat through lifestyle decisions
    Just watch the “first world” economics. Real facts show that “Global Warming”/”Climate Change”, those lies manufactured and believed in the first world, it is a symptom from the unconscious of the people living there that their civilization is about to end.

  50. Like all scam artists the only ones expected to lose is us not them. And they don’t need proof, all they need to do is say it enough and silence all opposition.

  51. I have always felt the same way about those that want statism. Why don’t they just give another 30% of their income beyond what is required. Send it right to their goverment.

    The founding Father’s of the United States were correct to separate Church and State, and to do all possible to limit the power of government and emphasize personal freedom and responsibility. In this they tried to protect society from the dark side of mankind when it forms any group , regardless if that group is Capitalist, Communist, Coorporate or Christian. (Just to go with some “C” groups.)

    When a group, any group wants political power to tell other people how to think, how to live, what to give to whom, then that group is in violation of our founding principles.

    The idea of universal consciousness, compassion, living selflessly for others, is indeed inspiring and at the heart of most religious ideals.

    The ideals of universal giving are primarily expressed by two groups, one is the various religious teachings, the other is Communism or socialism which is seen by true statist as a step to Communism. Sometimes religious groups want to dictate their views in formal ways over others, and sometimes they mainly try to attract people by free choice. Communism always is a dictator, and due to the inherent human weakness in human nature, is always hypercritical to the extreme. (Check Obama’s meager record of charitable donations prior to his running for president).

    Obama is not my conscience, and I will not let him do as his wife said; “require you to work” and “never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed.” She said “Barack will require that you work & require you to “volunteer” your time. He will “recommend” that you meet “obligatory volunteer” goals. (Is this why he wants a National Security Force as large and well funded as the US military? Michelle Obama, has repeatedly suggested that the purpose of the campaign isn’t just to transform our politics and to heal our earth, but to rescue shattered and stricken souls. On February 3, 2008, she told a rapturous crowd at UCLA: “We have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.” Sounds like we would have Obamanity as the official state religion.

  52. Let’s assume that a third of the world’s population really believes mankind has the power to adjust the Earth’s thermostat through lifestyle decisions. The percentage may be higher or lower, but, for the sake of this exercise, let’s put it at one-third. Now it seems to me these people have a special obligation to change their lives dramatically because they truly believe catastrophe lies ahead if they don’t. The other two-thirds are merely ignorant, so they can hardly be blamed for their actions.

    I’ve pointed out a few times now that if those who believe it’s a problem buy 100% renewable energy (we all have the choice these days) and change all investments (eg pension funds) to ‘ethical’ investments, the problem with go away without any need for government intervention.

    Do they do it? Do they hell. Are they committed to the cause then? Are they hell.

    I buy 25% renewable and do not believe in CAGW, and most who argue with me do not. Anthony has Electric cars and LED lights, they don’t; Go figure…

  53. Pascvaks says:
    July 27, 2010 at 3:20 am

    ‘Utopians Need to Lead by Example’ — Six simple words that say so much.

    You are far more right than you know (I suspect). The true meaning of ‘Utopia’ is really “No place”: Greek ou, not, no; Greek topos, place (coined by Sir Thomas More).

    So let them go there, and soon…..

  54. Geoff Sherrington says:
    July 27, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Here in Melbourne Australia we have a ritualised quasi-religious football game named Australian Rules. On a typical weekend 8 games are played between 16 teams, before crowds that would reach a cumulative 200,000 people, typically.

    Waddaya mean, “quasi”? And only in Melbourne? Just because Juddy has moved back there, sheesh!

  55. “TV weatherman for KNBC-TV in Los Angeles before being recruited by Merv Griffin for “Wheel of Fortune”. He also served in Vietnam, working in the Armed Forces Radio Network. So, he knows something not only about weather and climate, broadcasting, and human nature when money is involved as well. ”

    Nothing in his background means Sajak knows anything about weather or climate or broadcasting or human nature. And, as his opinion piece shows, it definitely doesn’t mean he knows anything about math…

  56. Kate says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    If politicians want us to give up our lifestyles, they can come out and say that instead of dressing it up in fraudulent science and hysterical predictions about what will happen if we don’t give it up. They can also start by living the “green” lifestyles they are advocating for everyone else, themselves. I’m not holding my breath

    ——————————————-

    Yeah, no breath holding please. We can even get them to pay taxes.

  57. I read this yesterday. I like it. I read what he is saying is .. put up or shut up.
    However, that will not happen. For the elite socialists to actually do what they
    say is beyond their comprehension. And make no mistake … those clamoring the
    loudest do have a social agenda and it is not in our or the planet’s best interest.

  58. Mr. Sajak, and family, are reasonably well known here in central Maryland, (where they make their home). He owns a local AM radio station which allows him to sometimes do brief, somewhat lighthearted editorials on the air, entitled “I’ve been thinking about…”. Like many wealthy celebs, they are charitable, and our local hospital has a new wing named The Sajak Pavilion; based of course, on his large donation. When Mr. and Mrs. Sajak make a public appearence for such endevours, it is always in their quietly dignified manner. It is so very refreshing to see.

  59. Cal Barndorfer says:
    Nothing in his background means Sajak knows anything about weather or climate or broadcasting or human nature.…
    =======
    1. “ANYTHING about weather”? He was a TV weatherman.
    2.”ANYTHING about broadcasting”? He has dedicated his career to it.
    3.”ANYTHING about human nature”? Not sure, but I believe he has raised teenagers.
    4. “ANYTHING about climate”? Looks like he reads WUWT. That puts him above most other Hollywooders at least.

    (Were you being sarcastic, and I missed it? )

  60. “That then leaves about 5.5 billion folk on this planet who couldn’t give a damn about global warming and climate change. They are too skeptical to believe in the spin or the scam or most of them are just too busy trying to make a living or are just trying to survive against all the odds.”

    Agreed, but most of these billions are dirt poor and not producing any carbon pollution worth a damn anyway. There are millions of people on this planet who live in abject poverty, eking a miserable survival out of recycling the recycled junk that other impoverished people have thrown away.

    It matters not if these people believe in Man-made climate change or not, as their carbon footprint is already minuscule. Even IF they are aware of the debate, they could not do anything to make any real difference to their own carbon footprint anyway.

    So we should only concern ourselves with those people who
    (A) are believers in, or at least concerned about, the catastrophic man made climate change theory and
    (b) are in a position to vastly reduce their OWN personal carbon footprint, but are not doing so.

    That could conceivably amount to one third of the people in the developed world which could amount to a sizeable amount of carbon reduction.

    Let them take the lead in PERSONAL ACTION!

  61. “FTA- Even if you were, say, a former Vice President, you would give up extra homes and jets and limos. I see communes with organic farms and lives freed from polluting technology.”
    Good one Pat! As far as Algore goes the Commune lifestyle might appeal if there were
    massuse services. Can you see these soaring egos in a commune?! Travolta, DiCaprio,
    Lohan, Striesand,? Oh give be a break!
    Can’t see any of them Including Al who claimed he’s plowed with mules-I have BTW
    as a lesson by my Cowboy Pop as to why we don’t it any more.- Doing any manual labor.
    However the term “Serf’s up!” might have new meaning…

  62. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 6:55 am
    Nothing in his background means Sajak knows anything about weather or climate or broadcasting or human nature. And, as his opinion piece shows, it definitely doesn’t mean he knows anything about math…

    You could be right Cal. But he does seem to have an inkling about hypocrisy. The loudest voices about CAGW may be whizzes at math, but they don’t have a clue about walking the talk. That’s Sajak’s point. What’s yours?

  63. Bob of Castlemaine says:
    July 27, 2010 at 12:01 am
    At face value this tongue in cheek proposition (presumably that’s what it is) sounds reasonable, but where would it lead if the believers were to luck-in, and we happened to be on the threshold of the next downward perturbation in planetary temperature?

    Those who didn’t believe would be way ahead of the game. :)

  64. If they believe it they should live it, and if they did then at least that would show their sincerity, and that might win them a few more committed supporters. Not living by what they claim to believe in, and this goes as much for governments as individuals, shows straightforward hypocrisy, regardless of whether or not they believe their contribution will make a difference. What’s the point of belief/conviction/values if we don’t live by them.

  65. Oh come on, we all know that, just like laws and taxes, changing your lifestyle and reducing your carbon footprint is for us little people.

  66. Coalsoffire says:
    July 27, 2010 at 7:34 am

    You could be right Cal. But he does seem to have an inkling about hypocrisy. The loudest voices about CAGW may be whizzes at math, but they don’t have a clue about walking the talk. That’s Sajak’s point. What’s yours?

    ===================================

    I don’t think either you or Pat Sajak have a clue how most people who think AGW is a real threat are living their lives. And in any case, Al Gore could be using tire fires to heat his personal jacuzzi and it wouldn’t change the science. Pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t make the science any more or less correct.

  67. Wonderful proposal. It’s that easy.
    Fortunately, I belong to the 2/3 group.
    Will be watching how it works out.

  68. Mindbuilder says:
    July 27, 2010 at 4:44 am

    What was it about what I said that made you think I was joking?

    My brain, I guess. What’s left of it, anyhow.

    What do you think was incorrect about it?

    Just about… everything?

  69. Uh, Enginer – wasn’t Chernoybl a liquid sodium reactor? Not that I’m opposed to Nuclear power, but the point is to learn from our mistakes.

  70. Tom in Florida says:
    July 27, 2010 at 5:26 am
    Senator John Kerry has a new toy, a 76 ft yacht. So much for his leadership in global warming. He also has docked it in Rhode Island to avoid paying $500,000 in taxes to his own state, Massachusetts. So much for leadership in paying what one owes.

    Apparently, it’s better than that. The $500,000 is just sales tax. He is also saving (avoiding paying?) approx. $70,000 in annual personal property tax. Talk about leading by example.

  71. Mindbuilder says: “Reducing CO2 output by 1/3 would still mean increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and therefore supposedly increasing temperatures. Since they don’t claim to know the effect of CO2 within 30%, there would be no way to know if the 1/3 reduction did any good or not…”

    But it would become readily apparent that a 1/3 reduction in man-made CO² has zero effect on atmospheric CO² trends, thus tossing greenhouse gas pseudoscience into the trashcan.

  72. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 8:00 am
    I don’t think either you or Pat Sajak have a clue how most people who think AGW is a real threat are living their lives. And in any case, Al Gore could be using tire fires to heat his personal jacuzzi and it wouldn’t change the science. Pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t make the science any more or less correct.

    You thinking that we don’t have a clue doesn’t make it so. Al Gore is the poster boy for CAGW and we know how he fails to walk the talk. Reading the Climategate emails is relevant because the “climate scientists” can hardly carry on a coherent correspondence with each other because they are too busy chasing off to climate conferences all around the world. And we know how the John Kerry and other politico’s and strident celebrities carry on. We are also blessed with eyesight, literacy and certain powers of observation. These all tell us that the “little people” are doing little more than their hypocritical leaders. There could be an underground swell of lesser known CAGW believers that walk the talk that Pat and I don’t know about, but I haven’t noticed it. I know that congregations get mighty upset when their preachers are found to living below their stated principles. My guess is that the adherents to CAGW are not much better at walking the talk than their leaders or they would be ranting and raving against them.

    On the issue of the science you are absolutely correct. The earth’s climate will not be influenced by what we think or believe. But Sajak’s point is that those who profess CAGW policy seem to think that we can influence the climate by our behaviour. So why don’t they do it? Those of us unconvinced about this may not want to change our behaviour, but surely those who are better enlightened, if they truly believed it would change theirs? This brings into question whether the leadership of the CAGW movement can be trusted as to how they describe the science to us. One of the important revelations of the climategate emails was that the scientists had some questions and doubts that they shared among themselves but would NEVER share publicly. Further hypocrisy? Or a manifestation of the same hypocrisy I suppose. Not only do they not walk the talk, they modify the talk according to the audience. What is the best description of the true science then? What they say to the public, what they say to each other, or how they act? Inquiring minds want to know.

    My own opinion is that CO2 concentration does not control the climate in any meaningful way. If I thought it was that sort of pollutant and that global warming was not a good thing anyway, I would be looking to reduce my carbon footprint in a responsible, even exemplary, manner. And I don’t mean just purchasing indulgences and carrying on as I pleased. I do some farming and I’m very appreciative of the increased yields that come from higher ppm of CO2. A little more heat would be a big help for me. If it gets any colder I’m in great trouble. I wouldn’t be doing anything to promote global cooling, even if I understood that was possible.

  73. Jesus said do as I do.
    Progressives say do as I say, not a I do.
    That’s 2000 years of progress.

  74. Anybody in the climate business is considered to be a nobody by the alarmists if he will not attend the IPCC Climate Conference at Bonn in Germany this summer ..
    The German organisation will surely not make the same mistakes as the ones from Copenhagen during last december , when limos had to be hauled from Hamburg and Berlin to give the high , wise and handsome the minimal status signs . All of which signifies nothing when compared to the life of a celebrity in the spotlights , right MR Al Gore ? When asked directly he will ascertain that he can do without limos , but then he will be expecting from the organisation at least a space shuttle , which Mr. Barak Obama would be glad to put at his disposal . Just for the cause and without strings attached .

  75. I will do my part.

    For those who own ocean front property, I will buy your property for pennies on the dollar. I am being extremely generous. As we all know, these properties will be worthless once the oceans rise. Instead of having your property be worthless and 10 feet under water, sell it to me at ridiculously discounted prices and I will give you at least some value for the property.

  76. By Jove!….. I think he has found the solution!

    It has been within the power of the AGW catastrophists the whole time. Who woulda thunk it!

    I shall suggest this plan to them on every occasion….. Actually I’ll print out his solution and present it to any concerned warmist whenever I meet one…. Then I’ll retire back into my ignorant and dastardly world of hot coffee, warm houses, bright lights and shopping malls….. a trial I know. But someone has to do it. ;-)

  77. Coalsoffire says:
    July 27, 2010 at 9:22 am

    “You thinking that we don’t have a clue doesn’t make it so. Al Gore is the poster boy for CAGW and we know how he fails to walk the talk. Reading the Climategate emails is relevant because the “climate scientists” can hardly carry on a coherent correspondence with each other because they are too busy chasing off to climate conferences all around the world. And we know how the John Kerry and other politico’s and strident celebrities carry on.”

    Believing in the infallibility of Al Gore (or John Kerry or any other political leader or celebrity you choose to mention) is not a prerequisite to believing AGW to be a problem.

    “There could be an underground swell of lesser known CAGW believers that walk the talk that Pat and I don’t know about, but I haven’t noticed it. ”

    There most definitely could be. So far you’ve given no credible argument to the contrary other than ad-hominem ([insert celebrity name] is their leader, thus they must be doing no more than he is) or your own unsupported anecdotal evidence. I stand by my statement that you have no clue.

    “On the issue of the science you are absolutely correct. The earth’s climate will not be influenced by what we think or believe. But Sajak’s point is that those who profess CAGW policy seem to think that we can influence the climate by our behaviour. So why don’t they do it?”

    Sajak’s point only makes sense if there has been some prior evidence to support the idea there are activities that 1/3 of the population can engage in that are sufficient to counteract the activities of the other 2/3. I haven’t seen/read anything to that affect. I’d be happy to take a look if you or Sajak can offer up some examples, though.

  78. Pat Sajak has a great point but, I would like to take it a step further. Do they realize the tremendous harm that would come to the peoples of the third world if their programs are fully implemented. These billion or so people (based on their lack of access to electricity) would loose all hope of ever being able to improve their lives. There is though, an intelligent middle ground position, namely adaptation. Those advocating mitigation are chasing an impossible dream and seem willing to drag the civilized world down the drain with them.

  79. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 10:11 am
    Sajak’s point only makes sense if there has been some prior evidence to support the idea there are activities that 1/3 of the population can engage in that are sufficient to counteract the activities of the other 2/3. I haven’t seen/read anything to that affect. I’d be happy to take a look if you or Sajak can offer up some examples, though.
    ============
    I understand that the CAGW theory is that man is producing excess CO2 to the extent that it is building up in the atmosphere and that the increase is creating a bit of warming and that this bit of warming is provoking some sort of mysterious feedback that is overheating the earth. Obviously if this is true it is wise to reduce the production of CO2 which will thereby reduce or even perhaps avoid the mysterious feedback. Don’t forget about the even more mysterious tipping point. Can’t have that at any cost. So if you believe that man made CO2 is a virulent force for runaway warming how could you NOT do all you could to reduce your own contribution to the problem? Surely every little bit of reduction helps, or using the famous precautionary principle, even if a little bit won’t help, you should do it because it MIGHT help.

    For someone with this belief system to simply behave as normal and not do anything until everyone is forced to do it is worse than hypocrisy. It’s malevolent. Please, please please, all you that believe in CAGW caused by the build up of CO2 follow your conscience and stop producing CO2. Curtail your breathing if you can. Don’t wait for the rest of us to be converted. Because you won’t make many converts if you don’t practice your own religion. What you do speaks so loudly we can’t hear what you are saying. And toss out those spokespersons and scientists who are won’t walk the talk. They are destroying your credibility.

    Oh, and if you could offer some scintilla of proof for that feedback mechanism that would help.

  80. I have personally lived that “frugal lifestyle, not as a matter of choice, but because I was a WWII child, living on a 240 acre farm near Sioux City, Iowa. Until REA came through in 1941, farms in that area had no electricity (one farmer several miles down the road had a windcharger).

    At the turn of the 20th Century, a great majority, some 95% of Americans, lived a frugal lifestyle, on small farms.

    The world population at that time is estimated to have been well less than 1 billion people. That was about all that that frugal lifestyle could support. The poor people of the world have not been able to grow in numbers except through the largess, principally by America, that largess available only because of rapid advancement in farming technology, mostly coming from right here in the US.

    The Club of Rome, consisting of liberal intelligentsia, would like very much indeed for the world population to return to that of the turn of the 20th Century, with the great majority of people living on Planet Earth having that same lifestyle as that of the turn of the 20th Century, with the technology of that time. Perhaps even less technology.

    Only with the coming of the petroleum age was significant betterment of lifestyle (standard of living) able to occur.

    If the huge benefits petroleum still provides are done away with, rest assured that a return to that standard of living will occur, and population numbers of then become the population numbers of the near future.

    We have at least 4 Centuries, here in the US, worth of petroleum and equivalent barrels of petroleum in coal and natural gas to maintain our present (and now falling) standard of living in known, and if not prevented by government policies, economical to safely remove deposits of petroleum, natural gas, and coal.

    There is not the slightest rational reason for we in the US to rush into an attempted effort, one surely to fail, to solve a problem which will not be a problem for at least 4 centuries, and most likely, a good many centuries after that. New technologies, which will need no financial support of government, only financial support of individual investors, will come to be, if only we don’t destroy ourselves first by most foolish and detrimental government policies.

    Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

  81. I have never been an environmental activist, protesting and screaming for others to do the work of conservation. How ever I have always been an active environmentalist, doing what I could to lower the pollution and waste of good organic matter, composting tons / year of municipal leaves and grass clipping more than half of my life, participating in community organic garden projects.

    I haven’t flown on a plane since I got out of the Air Force in 1971, then spent most of a year, back packing around most of the perimeter of the contiguous USA, just to get to know the lay of the lands than I did not get to see while on duty.

    I have lived a lifestyle with little waste, and a closeness to nature with out loss of nutrition or good daily exercise, I have participated in the economy by having productive jobs that improve the basic living standards of those who are the end users of the products or services I have helped to provide, at any point that I could affect the environment in a positive way with out damaging the goals of my employers I have labored to do so. Changing jobs frequently to effect as much technological education from the production floor as possible.

    There is not much more I could have done to lower my pollution footprint. Seeing all along that CO2 is plant food and that all life is sustained from the photosynthetic capture of energy by green plants, I cannot believe the hype and BS of the “greens” that have derailed / subverted the true environmentalist movement. We should all be focused on increasing the levels of CO2 and the effectiveness of local agriculture, to increase the total global photosynthetic energy capture. That would be my choice of religion to dedicate myself to.

  82. In my experience many green activists are saving the planet one bath, one bar of soap and one wash cycle at a time :-)

    As a supermarket in the UK says; “Every little helps!”, so please go little easier on them.

  83. Coalsoffire says:
    July 27, 2010 at 11:15 am

    “I understand that the CAGW theory is that man is producing excess CO2 to the extent that it is building up in the atmosphere and that the increase is creating a bit of warming and that this bit of warming is provoking some sort of mysterious feedback that is overheating the earth. Obviously if this is true it is wise to reduce the production of CO2 which will thereby reduce or even perhaps avoid the mysterious feedback. Don’t forget about the even more mysterious tipping point. Can’t have that at any cost. So if you believe that man made CO2 is a virulent force for runaway warming how could you NOT do all you could to reduce your own contribution to the problem? Surely every little bit of reduction helps, or using the famous precautionary principle, even if a little bit won’t help, you should do it because it MIGHT help.”

    Again, if you have evidence, as Sajak is arguing, that 1/3 of the population can somehow counter the affects of the other 2/3 please provide it.

  84. Mindbuilder says: July 27, 2010 at 4:44 am
    Alexander Feht wrote:
    “your joking right”
    No I wasn’t joking. What was it about what I said that made you think I was joking? What do you think was incorrect about it?

    Mindbuilder: You are having us on! – You must be joking – still. Otherwise I’m afraid that you don’t understand the irony in Pat Sajak’s solution and I can’t believe anyone could be so —–.

  85. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 10:11 am
    (…)
    Sajak’s point only makes sense if there has been some prior evidence to support the idea there are activities that 1/3 of the population can engage in that are sufficient to counteract the activities of the other 2/3. I haven’t seen/read anything to that affect. I’d be happy to take a look if you or Sajak can offer up some examples, though.
    —————–Reply:
    After reading ROM (July 27, 2010 at 2:48 am), I agree that 1/3 of the population is overblown and I submit that it is by an order of magnitude. To whit: “…the polls also suggest that 8.5 % of AGW / CC believers would be whittled away very quickly to numbers likely to be even less than 3 % or 4 % of the global population…”

    So engaging that proportion of the population would make little or no impact, especially considering that China is now or will soon become the dominant CO2-emitting nation, not the US. And it is doubtfut that China would ever consider taking part in such a futile exercise.

    Sajak does point out the Warmer’s hypocricy, however, regardless of their demographic weight.

  86. “Sajak does point out the Warmer’s hypocricy, however, regardless of their demographic weight.”

    He doesn’t actually. He gives no evidence of the hypocrisy of anyone.

  87. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 11:51 am
    Again, if you have evidence, as Sajak is arguing, that 1/3 of the population can somehow counter the affects of the other 2/3 please provide it.

    +++++++++++++++++
    Again you miss the point. Those who believe in a course of action should take the lead and start living it. Maybe the rest of us will be converted by their good example. Maybe the reduction in emissions will help. Maybe it won’t. My own view is that reducing all man made CO2 emissions to zero won’t have any noticeable effect on the climate. So I won’t be doing anything to reduce my carbon footprint. But when the CAGW team relentless circles the globe in an endless course of climate conferences, wailing about how it’s always worse than we thought, it strikes me that they don’t really believe in the junk they are selling. That Copenhagen thing was obscene by any measure of consumption, let alone emissions. And as long as that sort of thing goes on we can know that the promoters of CAGW are disingenuous. This doesn’t, in and of itself prove that the science is spurious, but it does show that the promoters of it are.

    If I believed in CAGW I wouldn’t be running around spewing out CO2 and saying I won’t change my behaviour until everyone else does. Or even that I’m waiting until my sacrifice can be proven to make a difference. That would be inexcusable. And that’s why I have made a personal study of this whole issue. Not because I wanted to change others, but because I like to take responsibility for my own actions.

  88. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    “Sajak does point out the Warmer’s hypocricy, however, regardless of their demographic weight.”

    He doesn’t actually. He gives no evidence of the hypocrisy of anyone.
    ====================
    Actually he gave some examples. But I’ll give you my own one word proof of the hypocrisy of the CAGW crowd:

    Copenhagen

  89. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    “Sajak does point out the Warmer’s hypocricy, however, regardless of their demographic weight.”

    He doesn’t actually. He gives no evidence of the hypocrisy of anyone.
    ————Reply:
    Then I shall point it out. Most Warmers I’m familiar with are hypocrites. They don’t walk the walk even though they are the loudest talkers. Most have taken volcal positions in the Warmer movement for the sake of their personal investments and egos, not because they’re overly concerned with the planet.

  90. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    “He doesn’t actually. He gives no evidence of the hypocrisy of anyone.”

    Cal, that’s because for most of us, it’s common knowledge, gained by firsthand observations on a daily basis. For Mr. Sajek to present evidence, it would be redundant and time consuming. Things like Gore buying oceanfront property this year. The limos boated into the Copenhagen conference. The airline tickets sold as all the conferences. The local loudmouth crying about our impending doom while he engages in the same behaviors as the rest of us. Or even the president of the U.S. Personally, I think its quite humorous. All claim the great guilt of mankind, but take no personal responsibility. It fits quite well with the totalitarian statists among us, more than that, it exposes them for what they really are.

  91. Pat:

    You are so right.

    I just got my eyes opened over the last 10 days. I have a friend who is a firm believer in AGW, environmentalism, and all of the other ‘isms that go along. I was asked to care for their pets while they flew out west.

    While in their house getting instructions I was really chilled. As I and they were leaving to close up the house I went to the thermostat, setting at 72F and went to move it up before the house was left vacant. I was immediately asked, “What are you doing?”. I said they didn’t really want their house 72F with it mid 90s outside the whole 10 days they were gone. Well… yes they did. The poor dog would be uncomfortable and it might stress their lone fish. OK, OK, I’ll set it back down.

    Hour after they left I went back and set it to what my “skeptics” house is in the summer, 81F. Back down to 72F the night before they returned. Can’t wait to see if they actually notice the huge drop in their electric bill. Might not get asked to do that favor again, but that’s fine with me, dog bit me anyway.

    So there is a true environmentalist. Always wondered what that really meant, being a conservationalist at heart.

    BTW, the fish and dog made it just fine. Brother!! AGW, phooey.

  92. Then, when the rest of us saw the results of their actions—you know, the earth cooling, oceans lowering, polar bears frolicking and glaciers growing—we would see the error of our ways and join the crusade voluntarily and enthusiastically.

    I disagree, Mr Sajak. You know as well as I do that selfish people who categorically refuse to think about the consequences of their actions will only assimilate the material consumption that others are relinquishing voluntarily. A variation of sorts on Jevons Paradox.

    If the whole AGW debate is showing one thing it is that people will never change out of their free will. No matter how big a looming catastrophe is (and one day there will be one, if AGW isn’t already it in combination with a host of other global problems) people will always find ways to translate their psychological defense/denial mechanisms into actions that will resist unwanted change to the bitter end, until it is forced upon them and everybody else.

    This site is definite proof of it. It isn’t so popular because of its talent or its quest for truth. It’s successful because it tells people what they want to hear: that there’s nothing wrong, that They are the enemy and We are the good guys defending our way of life, which is the best and ultimate God-given way of life. Promoting the status quo loving path of least resistance is the easiest thing there is.

    All you have to do is set up something akin to WUWT and tell people what they want to hear, ie that they do not have to change their little habits that they are so attached to and that will probably leave their offspring with a world of increasingly complex problems. The irony is mind-boggling.

    But I’m implementing Sajak’s solution on a personal level, even though the WUWT army will get its Pyrrhic victory. It’s not that difficult as it seems, on the contrary. After some initial pain (mostly because you’re one of the few who are willing to make the effort needed for working towards a sustainable society) the reward is increasingly paying off. It turns out our God-given way of life is actually a mirage to enslave us to the machine of perpetual and infinite economic growth (which is physically impossible). We need not be addicted to our enslavement.

    Will you all come and visit my strawbale passivehouse next year and eat a home-made meal from my permaculture garden?

  93. Ken Hall says:
    July 27, 2010 at 1:06 am

    ….It is this grotesque hypocrisy of the leaders of the “green” movement, or environmentalists, that really annoys me the most…

    And they have the gall to lecture and harass me about MY pathetic carbon footprint? When even if I cut MY footprint to absolute zero, their lifestyle in ONE YEAR would offset my lifetime reductions completely.

    So, WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL POINT OF ME MAKING ANY MORE REDUCTIONS?

    To Al Gore, and all his celebrity acolytes… LEAD BY EXAMPLE OR GET THE HELL OFF THE STAGE!

    Sorry for shouting, but this really gets me steamed!!!
    _________________________________________________________________
    What steams me is the automatic assumption that you and I and the rest of us at WUWT do not give a hoot about the environment, are big polluters, have a HUGH carbon foot print and are in the pay of “big oil”.

    Darn it all I was cleaning up the environment, hauling out big bags of trash in the sixties, my vehicle is almost twenty years old and a diesel, I buy most of my things at fleamarkets, auctions and direct from the local farmers.and I do not have children.

    For the likes of Al Gore and Maurice Strong to tell ME

    “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and `convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”

    Is the ULTIMATE in HYPOCRISY. What they want is to reinstate feudalism with us as their serfs.

    The ultimate goal of Maurice Strong and his UN buddies is to get rid of “the concept of national sovereignty” and that of “property rights”

    The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN’s official policy on land. The Preamble says:

    “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

    “Either you have a right to own property, or you ARE property.” – E. Wayne Hage, March 1992

    They have made themselves very very clear, we are to become property of our feudal overlords.

    Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1)

    Obama’s Chief Science Adviser John Holden.’In the 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” wrote of de-developing the United States

    Articles on the UN and Global Governance:

    http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/ggunreform.htm

    http://sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm

  94. SFTor July 27, 2010 at 12:00 am says:

    With a more frugal lifestyle Al Gore would lose weight and live longer. …

    What are the chances that he will have to find someone to “Take care of that” for him too (since Tipper has left as well)?

    .

  95. Gail Combs July 27, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Articles on the UN and Global Governance

    Coat-rack much Gail?

    (Geez … a one-track mind.)

    .

  96. Günther Kirschbaum says: July 27, 2010 at 2:35 pm
    Then, when the rest of us saw the results of their actions—you know, the earth cooling, oceans lowering, polar bears frolicking and glaciers growing—we would see the error of our ways and join the crusade voluntarily and enthusiastically.
    I disagree, Mr Sajak. You know as well as I do that selfish people who categorically refuse to think about the consequences of their actions will only assimilate the material consumption that others are relinquishing voluntarily. A variation of sorts on Jevons Paradox.

    Günther: I just can’t believe you people taking every point Pat made so seriously. He was extracting the urine for goodness sake. Lighten up you guys. But then maybe Günther I misjudge you too – perhaps with your last comment – ‘Will you all come and visit my strawbale passivehouse next year and eat a home-made meal from my permaculture garden?’ you too are extracting the urine?
    Doug

  97. Sajak definitely has a point that many, many environmentalists and AGW-proponents are hypocrits. They suffer from the same ailment as the people who are in psychological denial: they do not want to change their habits. They think that by making their habits/addictions green everything will be OK. And this makes them a) exploitable (by people like Gore), and b) a hindrance to real solutions that should eventually lead to a more sustainable society.

    But active spreading of disinformation isn’t the answer. It is not constructive. AGW is a real problem and it is worrying to see that the conservatives offer no solutions whatsoever to solve it, because I believe conservatives could develop much better policy than liberals to mitigate the consequences of AGW. More government will not lead to a sustainable society. What is needed is transparency and decentralisation.

  98. Günther Kirschbaum says:
    July 27, 2010 at 2:35 pm
    “[…]the effort needed for working towards a sustainable society) the reward is increasingly paying off. It turns out our God-given way of life is actually a mirage to enslave us to the machine of perpetual and infinite economic growth (which is physically impossible). We need not be addicted to our enslavement.”

    Consuming less energy naturally pays off. It’s called economics. That’s why i drive an LPG car. Yes, it pays off. Now i could sing the praise of climate chancellor Angela Merkel and her infinite wisdom; or i could simply look at the scientific evidence for CO2-caused climate change independently of my money- and CO2-reducing decisions.

    What i’ve been seeing is an angry Gavin Schmidt, an angry Joe Romm, people like Al Gore with his carbon offseting business and Dr. James Hansen with his books. I’ve seen how Michael Mann distorts statistics.

    Günther, you could enjoy your passivehouse and its economic advantages without stopping to think.

    Will you all come and visit my strawbale passivehouse next year and eat a home-made meal from my permaculture garden?

  99. DirkH says:
    July 27, 2010 at 3:37 pm
    “Will you all come and visit my strawbale passivehouse next year and eat a home-made meal from my permaculture garden?”

    Sorry, the last sentence was of course an editing error. I’m not living in a passivehouse yet. The EU will enforce that standard from 2012 or so on anyway.

  100. The EU will enforce that standard from 2012 or so on anyway.

    Ah, if only they would. No, we’ll be building obsolete houses for a while to come.

    But it’s interesting, isn’t it? The fiercest alarmists and pseudo-skeptics have one very important thing in common: they both don’t want to change the status quo, or only superficially.

  101. Smokey says:
    July 27, 2010 at 4:40 am

    But Smokey, surely you recognise the authority of the Prophet Monckton (of the “Explaining misconceptions on “The Greenhouse Effect””thread) on the subject??

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 23, 2010 at 9:13 am

    I am delighted that this simple and clear but authoritative statement of the reality of the “greenhouse effect” has been posted here. Too many inaccurate statements to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect have been published recently, and they do not deserve to be given any credence. The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is), nor about whether additional atmospheric CO2 causes warming (it does), nor about whether CO2 concentration is rising (it is), nor about whether we are the cause (we are), but about how fast CO2 concentration will rise …

  102. Günther Kirschbaum says:
    July 27, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    “[…]But active spreading of disinformation isn’t the answer. It is not constructive. AGW is a real problem and it is worrying to see […]”

    If you say that pointing at the deficiencies of the science – the fact that current models cannot even model cloud formation, let alone small-scale features like thunderstorms correctly; or the fact that they ignore Miskolczi’s statement that according to measurements by radiosondes the optical density of the atmosphere has stayed constant over the last 6 decades – is spreading disinformation, then i can’t help you.

  103. Andrew W,

    Lord Monckton isn’t a prophet, he’s simply a realist and a skeptic. If you want a prophet, Professor Gore is available. Just don’t send a masseuse to interview him.☺

    I agree with what you quoted from Monckton: “The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is), nor about whether additional atmospheric CO2 causes warming (it does), nor about whether CO2 concentration is rising (it is), nor about whether we are the cause (we are), but about how fast CO2 concentration will rise…”

    We may have our own way of saying it [eg: “measurable”], because we each arrived at our conclusions independently. But I agree with everything in Monckton’s parentheses.

    The debate in the blogosphere is a little different, since most commentators are non-scientists. Some of them still believe, against all the real world evidence, that catastrophic, runaway global warming will happen due to an increase in CO2. That will not happen because it can not happen. Further, any incidental warming due to trace gases is most welcome, since the benefits of a 1°C rise in temperature are enormous: a healthier biosphere, more arable land, more rainfall, fewer deaths from cold, etc. There will be no 3° – 6° increase that the IPCC claims. They are simply selling an unscientific scare for their own aggrandizement.

    For those who have followed the debate here for the last few years, that is a preposterous belief based on emotion. It does not help that the UN/IPCC perpetuates that ridiculous model canard vs reality in order to preserve their income stream and their rapidly eroding status.

    It is very telling that the U.S. is always made out to be the bad guy, with China and other heavy emitters given a FREE PASS.

    Now why would that be? Can you explain it to u$?

  104. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/john-kerry-yacht-sales-tax-rhode-island/2010/07/27/id/365777?s=al&promo_code=A5D4-1 made me laugh after Sajak’s idea.

    Excerpt:

    Sen. John Kerry on Monday snapped at reporters and tried to dodge questions about his new $7 million, 76-foot yacht.

    On Friday, the Boston Herald reported that the Massachusetts Democrat had berthed his yacht Isabel in Rhode Island and suggested he was seeking to avoid paying about $437,000 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of around $70,000 that would be levied if he berthed the vessel in Massachusetts.

    Rhode Island has no sales tax on yachts.

    Following his first public appearance since the story broke, Kerry tried to dash off to his SUV but was intercepted by reporters who asked about the yacht controversy.

  105. I’ve always thought like Pat Sajak does concerning this issue but with one twist: On the next census form have a pointed question which would identify you as a warmist or a skeptic, then use that info to drastically curtail gasoline, heating fuel and electricity to the warmists for one year. And when they scream like banshees and try to take it out on you just tell them that it’s been decided by higher powers that they have to live the lifestyle they would like to impose on us all, then to really salt the wound, inform them that they should consider themselves heros and that they should actually be thanking us instead of squawking.
    At the end of that year of exile they will be welcomed back to humanity with open arms with the explanation that some tough love was needed to bring them to their senses and it’s hoped that from now on they will actually think things through before imposing their false ideology on the rest of us.

  106. Coalsoffire says:
    July 27, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    “Again you miss the point. Those who believe in a course of action should take the lead and start living it. Maybe the rest of us will be converted by their good example. ”

    All I see is you making arbitrary rules and then criticizing people for not following them…

    “Maybe the reduction in emissions will help. Maybe it won’t. My own view is that reducing all man made CO2 emissions to zero won’t have any noticeable effect on the climate. So I won’t be doing anything to reduce my carbon footprint. ”

    …and then going on to show why it would be foolish for those people to adopt your rules in the first place.

    “But when the CAGW team relentless circles the globe in an endless course of climate conferences, ”

    There’s no evidence of anyone of the CAGW team going to the extremes you’re implying here.

    “That Copenhagen thing was obscene by any measure of consumption, let alone emissions.”

    Again, I don’t see how the actions of politicians and celebrities can be used to make assumptions about the decisions others make.

    “This doesn’t, in and of itself prove that the science is spurious, but it does show that the promoters of it are.”

    Certain promoters anyway. In any case, I’m glad to see you admit it proves nothing about the science.

    “If I believed in CAGW I wouldn’t be running around spewing out CO2 and saying I won’t change my behaviour until everyone else does. Or even that I’m waiting until my sacrifice can be proven to make a difference. That would be inexcusable. ”

    In your opinion. And again you’ve no proof that what you describe is the typical way those who “believe in CAGW” actually behave.

  107. “Lord Monckton isn’t a prophet”

    Sorry, in which sense are you using the word “Lord”? I fear I may have under-ranked him ;-)

    I don’t know how the benefits vs costs of AGW will stack up over the next hundred years, this is because I don’t personally have the maths and science skills to reasonably make such an assessment. All I can do is make the judgment on the best evidence available. The IPCC without doubt provides the best science available evidence.
    But I’m also well aware that scientists are human too, and that with the best will in the world their personal assessments can make them the victims of confirmation bias.

    While I’m no climate expert, I’ve seen claims being made, and repeated Ad nauseam, by both sides that are certainly false; volcanoes produce more CO2 than Man, there’s no greenhouse effect, H2O contributes 95% of the GH effects, and claims about possible sea level rise of several meters this century, mass extinctions from climate change, (and of course, one of your favourites) Most of the rise in CO2 is due to the Earth’s emergence from the LIA.

    I lack your certainty, I think it’s probably because I lack your hubris.

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

    A passage like: “Now why would that be? Can you explain it to u$?” does nothing to advance your argument, it’s just the same claim the CAGWers make about big oil,
    nor does pointing out that some countries are increasing GHG emissions faster than others, you can whine that the Chinese should be doing more if we’re doing our bit, but that’s not relevant to the science, the consequences of any particular level of GH gas emissions will be entirely dependent on the physics, not on the politics or which country produces the emissions. rationally you can only fit policy to science, it’s irrational to try to make the science fit the desired policy.

  108. (1) “But when the CAGW team relentless circles the globe in an endless course of climate conferences, ”

    There’s no evidence of anyone of the CAGW team going to the extremes you’re implying here.

    (2) All I can do is make the judgment on the best evidence available. The IPCC without doubt provides the best science available evidence.

    Where have you guys been for the last 8 months?

    FOIA’s for the travel records of the Hockey Team should be interesting reading.
    Wasn’t Tahiti mentioned in one of Phil’s emails?

  109. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 27, 2010 at 7:15 pm
    Coalsoffire says:
    July 27, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    “Again you miss the point. Those who believe in a course of action should take the lead and start living it. Maybe the rest of us will be converted by their good example. ”

    All I see is you making arbitrary rules and then criticizing people for not following them…

    ==================
    That’s ALL you see? Do you see me publishing a proposal for carbon emission reductions or cap and trade rules or anything like that? Who is making those arbitrary rules? Is it the same bunch of climate scientists, politicians and celebrities that promote CAGW and that jets all around the world from one conference to the next discussing what arbitrary percentage of carbon emissions should be imposed? Hint: yes it is.

  110. Coalsoffire says:
    July 27, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    “That’s ALL you see? ”

    Well, now I see you trying to change the subject.

  111. Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 28, 2010 at 4:09 am
    Coalsoffire says:
    July 27, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    “That’s ALL you see? ”

    Well, now I see you trying to change the subject.

    ________________________
    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    You suggested that I was imposing arbitrary rules on others. I replied that the CAGW are, in the very act of concocting arbitrary rules (carbon emission limits and cap and trade and tax strategies), demonstrate amazing hypocrisy by jetting about from Kyoto to Copenhagen in a profligate carbon emitting lifestyle . This is exactly on topic. Your accusation that I was making rules is, however, a perfect illustration of someone trying to change the subject. The topic is the hypocritical behaviour of CAGW believers. Which, I suppose we have canvassed rather thoroughly. You have said that it would be fruitless for then to walk the talk until everyone is forced to do it. Pat Sajak and others, including myself, take the position that this is hypocritical. Further you have said that we have no evidence that they don’t walk the talk. Sajak gave evidence, others have too. I say Copenhagen and the climategate emails show a blatant continuous lack of any real effort to walk the talk. Then you say that I am making up arbitrary rules for others to live by. That was more than changing the subject, it was twisting the bounds of logic and common courtesy of discourse. In short, it was a random non sequitur. Go tease someone else as you plainly have nothing to say on this topic.

  112. Don’t you just love it when someone calls out people on their bluff ?

    It’s high time these alarmists put their money where their mouths are and set an example for the rest of us ‘non-enlightened ones’… I hear used peddle bikes can be purchased for rock-bottom low prices at your local neighbourhood garage sale.

    Kudos to Pat Sajak for calling a spade, a spade.

  113. Coalsoffire says:
    July 28, 2010 at 7:19 am

    “You suggested that I was imposing arbitrary rules on others. I replied that the CAGW are, in the very act of concocting arbitrary rules (carbon emission limits and cap and trade and tax strategies), demonstrate amazing hypocrisy by jetting about from Kyoto to Copenhagen in a profligate carbon emitting lifestyle .”

    I know how you replied, I’m just confused about why. Are you trying to say it’s ok for you to make up rules because others have? Or is it just ok for you? Or are you agreeing with me that it was wrong for you to do so? What does your example of others making up rules have to do with our discussion?

    And who was it who was jetting around to Copenhagen and Kyoto? I assume you have names or at least some other method of determining who made the trips and why it makes sense to extrapolate their activities to represent anyone else who believes in AGW.

    “The topic is the hypocritical behaviour of CAGW believers. Which, I suppose we have canvassed rather thoroughly. You have said that it would be fruitless for then to walk the talk until everyone is forced to do it. Pat Sajak and others, including myself, take the position that this is hypocritical. Further you have said that we have no evidence that they don’t walk the talk. Sajak gave evidence, others have too. I say Copenhagen and the climategate emails show a blatant continuous lack of any real effort to walk the talk. ”

    And now we’re back where we started. I repeat ‘I don’t think either you or Pat Sajak have a clue how most people who think AGW is a real threat are living their lives.’ You’ve yet to show me otherwise…

  114. Just so there’s no confusion the above was written by Cal Barndorfer, not t&kbrunner.

    Too many people using one computer here…

  115. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 27, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Mr. Meteor, have you noticed too that all Global warming-stuff is removed from Crichtons web-site? That is very sad. He had lots of good stuff.

  116. _Jim says:
    July 27, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Gail Combs July 27, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Articles on the UN and Global Governance

    Coat-rack much Gail?

    (Geez … a one-track mind.)
    ___________________________________________
    AND the e-mail AND the person who links them all together. Do not forget that.

    Ged Davis with connections to Shell Oil, the UN, Sustainability (Agenda 21) and the IPCC. Follow the money. Follow the political connections. Without the connections the prostitution of science does not make nearly as much sense, with the connections it makes a lot of sense.

  117. Pat makes a good point.

    The people who say that we need to change our lifestyles to combat global warming are often those who’ve been jetting from continent to continent for years, traveling in expensive, inefficient cars, purchasing products from the other side of the globe, etc.

    Why should they get off scot free while people who have never had these opportunities aren’t allowed to aspire to them?

    And I love the idea of people flying to “climate change conferences” around the world.

    Ever heard of Skype?

Comments are closed.