Cambridge Conservative: Kerry Emanuel speaks out against the anti-science GOP

Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren’t incompatible

MIT professor Kerry Emanuel is among a rare breed of conservative scientists who are sounding the alarm for climate change and criticizing Republicans’ ‘agenda of denial‘ and ‘anti-science stance.’

Not touching this one with a ten-foot pole — just wondering what the motivation is for yet another Emanuel article, which get more and more political.    Enjoy the article written by Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau, with character witness Michael Mann.    Article Links to the LA Times.

Update more about hurricanes: The Team at RealClimate can’t score on an empty net and are being disingenuous about the “global tropical cyclone record lows”.  Let me help them: their colleague Dr. Emanuel produced a 2005 Nature paper and used a metric called Power Dissipation, which is analogous to ACE.  I use ACE — I could have used Power Dissipation.  The data is publicly available, and I am simply updating Emanuel’s work.  Also, this work is already published back in 2009 for the Northern Hemisphere, when the global ACE was tanking.  See Maue (2009), but then again, why bother with that peer-reviewed literature.

Fact:  2010 produced the fewest Tropical Cyclones globally on record — and it has NOTHING to do with global warming.  The Team only can look at the Atlantic — but did they talk about 2009 being one of the quietest seasons on record?

[also, a note to RealClimate:  Larry Bell was absolutely correct about global tropical cyclone activity record lows.  You owe him an apology.]

[Follow up note to Ryan: RC’s apology really doesn’t matter, since nobody is paying attention to them anymore anyway, see below – Anthony]

Global Traffic Rank from Alexa, lower number is better

Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/forbes.com

97 thoughts on “Cambridge Conservative: Kerry Emanuel speaks out against the anti-science GOP

  1. This idiot voted for Barack Obama?

    Well, that proves he certainly doesn’t base his decisions on anything resembling evidence and logic – much less common sense.

    The corrupt and incompetent history of Obama and the media’s refusal to vet him really opened my eyes – I no longer identify as a democrat.

  2. Texas Tech atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian who travels widely talking to conservative audiences and wrote a book with her husband, a pastor and former climate change denier, explaining climate change to skeptics.

    The pocketbooks must be opening to us now, just grit your teeth when you smile as all you see in the photos and say… I am now a warmist, I love warm, no, I hate warm, no… now what DID that contract say I think?

  3. The LA Times has been a socialist rag, suitable mostly for lining the bottom of a parrot’s cage, for decades. When their marketers used to call to ask me to subscribe, I’d just tell them, “I don’t need the Times; I subscribe to Pravda and get everything a day earlier, including your editorials!”

  4. Dear Moderator;

    I tried to leave this in tips and notes but could not find the “leave a reply” section.

    Under the category of does it cause cooling or warming? In climate science it is both check out this Scripps Institution of Oceanography on particulates now cause warming, not cooling.

    http://ucsd.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=163b78ae1b0a65426bc594984&id=a2a56ffa6e&e=837f2222cb

    Or this inconclusive scripps research article framed in alarmism. http://ucsd.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=163b78ae1b0a65426bc594984&id=1c1d5d8964&e=837f2222cb
    (Scripps researchers see evidence that melting polar ice could alter climate by slowing ocean circulation…or speeding it up)

  5. Christopher Hanley says: (January 6, 2011 at 11:04 pm) A person can’t be an “oxymoron”.

    A “silly cow“? (Ausralian slang.)

  6. … just wondering what the motivation is…

    Ah… er… follow the money?

    If people have not figured out yet that CAGW is Enron times a million on a global scale, then there truly may not be any hope. Conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican… those categories are just a smokescreen. CAGW is a scam. It’s all about the money.

  7. Hmmmmm. Well, ok, maybe he has a couple of conservative views…gay marriage and strong military….but the obvious conservative argument is the overarching planning and controlling of the US economy. Industrial planning is much more of a sore point, not to mention the picking of winners and losers (can you say”volt”?)

    my general rule is that until these guys who say that they are paniced start lobbying for and embracing billions of US dollars for research, implentation of nukes, then I can’t take them very seriously

    if they really want to be heroes and help the world, they need to educate the country on why the nuke fears are hollywood hype, brought to you by crazed eviros.

  8. I saw this over at Lubos’s site. Why are all the “Smart AGW” people trotted out into the public so out-of-date on their knowledge base?

    And speaking of – Real Climate really goofed on that attack on Larry Bell. As I highlight on my blog, not only did they not use the complete ACE data set, but I loved how they used only Northern Hemisphere data to show that global cyclone activity was higher…. Hmmm, haven’t we seen this pattern before? (hint: Mann 1998) And remember how they got on our cases about how 1934 is only the hottest year for the US, and NOT the globe! Apparently, only skilled climate scientists, with their robust calculations, can use northern hemisphere data to represent the entire world.

    They also erred on the ARGO data, not even realizing us Jesters here at WUWT had the data that again proves Bell right.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole sloppy and arrogant RC post disappears by morning.

  9. Sometimes my customers call me a cow, doesnt mean I give milk and moo though does it?

    The BBC likes to label the current senior partner of the UK coalition ‘conservative/right wing’ when by any rational critical observation they are nothing like that description. The Nissan Leaf was awarded an international prize when in fact the old USSR Lada was more deserving of an award. Al Gore was awarded a Nobel prize for lying and deceiving the viewing public. The met office rewrite the past even when caught red handed. The UK government increases spending while claiming it is cutting it and the MSM peddles the lies, they promise we cannot afford a valid navy while spending far more on foreign aid to nations that do not need it.

    Its a mad mad mad world, its Alice through the looking glass and getting worse with a madness infecting the upper echelons of the great and the good. The wrong things are being praised, the wrong fixes applied to non existent problems, people are rewarded for lying and the innocent are condemned and the guilty not only go free but are rewarded with generous abandon.

  10. “MIT professor Kerry Emanuel is among a rare breed of conservative scientists who are sounding the alarm for climate change…’

    Yes, and I’m sounding the alarm cuz I’m a Fire Engine!

  11. Emanuel is exactly what Roger Pielke Jr. calls a stealth advocate: he’ll pretend to be anything including reasonable just so he can gain the credibility of being objective.

    Unfortunately (or fortunately) there are a number of documented instances where Emanuel’s views are shown – including the MIT debate where he rails against the ‘coal conspiracy’ and so forth.

    A hack in every sense of the word.

  12. How can you say your level of global warming idiocy is something to do with how far left-right you are when David Cameron is a right wing toff who has fall hook line and sinker for the nonsense of global warming!

    And to be honest, I think when Barack Obama drops the global warming rubbish as he is bound to do (he’s not exactly enthusiastic is he!), he’ll be the best president the US ever had … but then again, he’s not exactly left of centre!

    The great thing about real science is that it isn’t based on people’s personal opinions. That’s why the global warming religion can’t be called a science and why it is so political.

    And it’s about time the US got a decent health care system which cared for those who don’t have the economic means to look after their health … LIKE THOSE WHO ARE ILL AND CAN’T WORK! There’s an awful lot of similarity between the way the self-serving medical “profession” in the US has manipulated their own income stream to the detriment of the common person in the US and the way the global warming academics have done the same!

  13. Sonic Frog’s comment impelled me to look at RC (I hate going there, it feels like walking through a very dubious neighbourhood that has a resident team of bullies) and the cobbled-together attack on Bell is still there, in all its malignant glory.

  14. Cool.

    So, he’s a ‘self proclaimed’ ‘rarity’. (Legend in his-own-mind, kinda thing – so much for humility.)

    And, if he wants to become a ‘progressive’ or already ‘is’ one… I ask you – ‘who ON EARTH cares’ if he ‘comes out’ or not…?

    I grew up ‘in and around’ Country Clubs all my young life. Swam on ‘swim teams’, dined at ‘Mixed Grills’…ad nausium (because most everyone there was a fake or a ‘copy’ of someone else. No one was ‘an original’ anything, or so it seemed.

    Then, at the tender age of 32, I ‘found’ that I couldn’t grab an ice tea ‘poolside’ with my decidedly BLACK girlfriend but, those of her ‘ilk’ could serve at these clubs… So…that was my unceremonious END to the coattails of my parents. By the way – ALL OF THEM WERE ‘REPUBLICANS’.

    I say that – to state quite EMPHATICALLY ‘this':

    MOST Republican ‘boys’ are TOTAL NOTHINGS.

    I care not if they be Scientists or (gasp!) Politicians – for, they have simply ‘won the lottery’ birth wise and walked through places like Hillsdale College with low C’s and D’s (if that) and somehow matriculated to become ‘Daddy & Mommy’s Vice President’ with no real effort of their own. That makes for a VERY shallow fellow, indeed.

    Now… a Republican MAN is very – very different. He’s savvy. He knows how to roll up his sleeves and WORK. He’s the guy (regardless of color) who knows WHO HE IS AND WHAT HE STANDS FOR… Why? Because he’s lived and fought and learned what ‘true Conservatism is’. ..Now HE, friends – is a totally different…please forgive me…but, I’m using it for effect ‘ANIMAL’.

    I believe that ‘being’ ‘something’ means you’ve mastered it. In 2011, I don’t think superfluous labeling will ‘cut it’ any longer. We’re smarter than that. It’s the old ‘burn me once…’ concept. Who CARES if this guy likes wars? Do I CARE if he prefers one ‘sex’ or the ‘other’? Certainly not unless he’s putting the moves on me or a friend of mine. WE ARE ‘DONE’ WITH LABELS (hahaha…my dad’s name is ‘Ralph Lauren’ so…that’s a funny one…) WORLD-WIDE.

    DO NOT TELL ME ‘WHO YOU ARE’ – – – ‘HAVE THE GUTS TO ‘SHOW ME WHO YOU ARE’!!! All the rest that don’t – are jus’ bottom feeders that need backbones. In fact, they turn into those ‘flat fishes’ with the eyes on one side…

    I’m a SKEPTIC (on multitudinous levels) and I’m damned proud of being one. It beats the word ‘PATSY’ any day of the week! And…speakin’ of that word and the images it dredges up…does this guy’s last name bring any other thoughts to mind, hmmmm???

    The last two Emanuels I’ve heard about were/are known to be abysmally corrupt, sad to have heard. One wants Chicago, and the other – just wants most of us ‘scientifically’ dead since the mid-70’s.

    Doesn’t bode well for that ‘gene pool’. And, if it STILL means ‘God with us’ then, like any good and TRUE SKEPTIC in 2011, I’d have to ask, just for the sake of clarification, you understand… oh really? WHICH one…?

    Cynthia Lauren

  15. According to the LA Times article Emanuel states:

    Scientists are being asked to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is an imminent danger before we as a society do anything,” Emanuel said. “The parallel to that is saying, ‘You won’t buy property insurance unless I can prove to you that your house will catch on fire right now.’

    Surely if someone warns your house is about to catch fire “trust me”. Should we really be prepared to spend a large amount on fire insurance, an amount so large that it would cause great hardship and have a devastating impact on the living standards of our family, without direct evidence substantiating the supposed risk?

    Perhaps relevant, a recent study carried out at University College London suggests that:

    Political views may be hard-wired into people, according to a study that suggests those with right-wing views have a larger area of the brain associated with fear.
    Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond-shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions, London’s Daily Telegraph reports.
    They also have smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life, than those from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

    I wonder if Kerry Emanuel fits with this hypothesis? And what of the old adage if a man is not a socialist at 20 he has no heart, if he is not a conservative by 40 he has no brain.

  16. I’m more of a centerist than a socialist, but If I had to choose, I’d choose the left side of the political spectrum. I find the idea that lefties can only be pro AGW and vice versa ridiculous. The AGW scam has gone way beyond political spectrum – money is to be made on all sides. Why should the conservatives and their lap dogs abandon Climate Change when it gives them so much revenue?

    Cameron is and always will be a right-winger, but he also knows that by leaning more to the center he can get away passing laws that are very right wing. Things like more money or tax relief for married couples – Family values is at the core of conservative ideology. How about raising VAT, knowing that proportionally the worse off will be even more worse off. How about cutting housing benefit, so long living residents are driven off estates that have gone through gentrification. The list goes on, and he hasn’t even been a PM for a year. His spending cuts are in fact disguised pro-conservative social-economic engineering. The absolute hilarious thing is that the supposenly leftist “junior partner” is blindly going along with this monstrosity of a government. It’s as if Cameron has a picture of Clegg in a comprimising situation…

    And finaly, Obama isn’t the best president USA has had, but some of his laws I fully agree with, ESPECIALLY the health care. He chose a bad time to implement it though. Democrats cried about Bush upping the deficit, but now they shut up when Obama keeps ramping it up. Strange that, eh? That’s party politics for you.

    Ok, rant over.

  17. I’m currently writing a book called ” As bad As Each Other: Comparing stupidity on boths sides of the fence” – Who made up these arbitrary divisions anyway? Why can’t we vote on every single issue via computer? We have the technology

  18. [also, a note to RealClimate: Larry Bell was absolutely correct about global tropical cyclone activity record lows. You owe him an apology.]

    [Follow up note to Ryan: RC’s apology really doesn’t matter, since nobody is paying attention to them anymore anyway, see below – Anthony]
    _____________________________________________________________

    Not exactly sure what page hits has to do with objective science.

    I mean like why don’t you add YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Conservapedia to your chart?

    The Forbes article strongly implies the Atlantic hurricane season and never mentions “global tropical cyclone activity” per se.

    Here’s a link to the Forbes article, which you left out of this post;

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/23/media-climate-change-warming-opinions-contributors-larry-bell_print.html

    “Record Low 2009 and 2010 (methinks GLOBAL TROPICAL would have been placed right aboot here) Cyclonic Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed”?

    Cyclonic Activity? Tropical? Polar? Extratropical? Subtropical? Mesocyclone?

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

    “Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season?”

    Hurricanes?

    U.S. 2004 season?

    What happened to the proported GLOBAL TROPICAL cyclone activity which isn’t mentioned in this sentence?

    “Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.”

    Hurricanes?

    2010 U.S. landfalls?

    I could have sworn that the Forbes article was aboot GLOBAL TROPICAL cyclone activity (oh, I forgot GLOBAL TROPICAL cyclone activity hasn’t been mentioned, yet, nor will it be for the entire article).

    Not even sure why you mentioned the above two […] which have nothing to do with Kerry Emmanual’s op-ed unless you count the use of the word “hurricane” in the body of the op-ed piece and go off the deep end, like you’ve done here.

    Finally, if this doesn’t get posted, as over half of my posts don’t get through either your “SPAM” filter, your mods, or you yourself, I’ve taken to cutting and pasting everything I do try to post here, just for my own piece of mind, and to thoroughly disprove your specious claims to the otherwise with respect to WUWT vs other climate science blogs proported censorship.

    REPLY: Oh gosh, I’m quaking in my boots! Here’s the deal: you have 241 comments posted on WUWT, you are well represented. You are in the company of many of the half a million comments on WUWT. Yes, like every poster, some of your comments may end up in the SPAM filter due to keywords or excessive links. Some of those get deleted. This has happened to almost everyone here at one time or another. In your case though, since you have been so rude and caustic in the past, every one of your posts now automatically gets flagged for inspection. That’s right, Junior, you get special attention. It boils down to what I’ve written on the policy page.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/

    Welcome to my home on the Internet. Everyone who visits here is welcome to post, but please treat your visit like you would a visit to a private home or office. Most people wouldn’t be rude, loud, or insulting in somebody’s home or office, I ask for the same level of civility and courtesy here.

    So, the question is Junior, would you continue to invite somebody into your living room who insults you every day?

    Sometimes, I’d toss that person out on their ear. My wife would probably beat me to that task. Yes, some posts of yours don’t meet the criteria for civility or content and thus get snipped. Other commenters have met the same fate. Some blogs don’t allow dissenting comments at all.

    There is a light of hope for you though. Commenter Phil. ( a professor too timid to use his name) was placed into the inspection que. After a few months, he learned not to be so rude, and phrased things differently (though he’s still a bit caustic at times) and was put back into the general population, unfettered.

    You can earn that honor too.

    Do I care that you are upset? Not in the least. Will I get into a long drawn out pointless discussion with you about it (like your pixel fiasco) ? No. I’m not going to waste any further time with you on it, my position on moderation isn’t going to change. Will some of your comments in the future not make it? Possibly. It is up to you.

    Behave, be nice, and you’ll always be part of the general discussion. Be rude, insulting, and condescending and you’ll continue with your status quo. There’s an old saying:

    “You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar”

    – Anthony

  19. @Bob of Castlemaine says: January 7, 2011 at 1:45 am

    Yeah. “Emanuel said. “The parallel to that is saying, ‘You won’t buy property insurance unless I can prove to you that your house will catch on fire right now.’”

    As you say – but actually it is even worse. More like “Pay ten times the value of your house as an annual premium but we’ll only pay out when you can prove those pesky pixies have started the fire using their moon-beam guns.”

    And as far as the “right wing brains” piece, they don’t seem to have a result for an analysis of “greenie brains”. Still looking for one?

  20. I also don’t follow the political dichotomy between beliefs about AGW and everything else either. I have friends across the political spectrum who have looked at the evidence and concluded that the AGW panic is confabulated and exaggerated.

    And the converse is also true: because a person has come to the conclusion that AGW is exaggerated and probably false does not dignify the rest of their beliefs. So it is that I’ve also come across AGW skeptics who believe that 9/11 was done by the US Government, that evolution is false, that Barack Obama was not born in the US and/or is a secret Muslim or any number of other conspiracies.

    But the climate realist side does not have a monopoly on crazy beliefs because there are plenty of strange beliefs amongst alarmists and plenty of instances of blatent historical revisionism in order to justify those catastrophist beliefs (and not just William Connelley, Naomi Oreskes, Joe Romm or RealClimate).

    Conspiracy theories abound about fossil fuel funded climate skepticism (despite all the clear evidence of fossil fuel funding of alarmism), and other darker deeds possibly involving the Illuminati which are pretty much mainstream to climate alarmist commentaries. Bizarre pseudo-psychological profiles of climate skeptics as somehow deranged and in need of psychiatric care are reminiscent to me of the time of Trofim Lysenko and later the treatment of dissidents like Andrei Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn by the Soviet regime.

    I tend not to write on posts which are overly political like this one, but I wanted to make my voice heard on this occasion. It does not follow that one’s beliefs about climate change imply any other political or religious belief system.

  21. These days there are lots of people out there claiming to be “conservative” and grabbing the media spotlight in criticizing all the “right-wing zealots” now in the party. “Such wonderful and thoughtful centrists,” we are all supposed to think.
    Kerry is turning into the next James Hansen – a complete political hack and enviro-wacko. There, I’ve said it. .

  22. Neela,

    Your premise is rather juvenile, unless you are saying that there is no liberal who is a AGW skeptic.
    Too, it is a risible notion that one’s skepticism to AGW is based on ones political views – as directly – as you claim

  23. Anyone that can happily say/write: “Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren’t incompatible” has proven that they are not a scientist.

    Perhaps it is because it has so many syllables that ‘anthropogenic’ is always dropped before ‘global warming/climate change/climate disruption’ ?

  24. “Emanuel said. “The parallel to that is saying, ‘You won’t buy property insurance unless I can prove to you that your house will catch on fire right now.’”

    The precautionary principle……..AGAIN! I think history has shown that fire is a real danger. AGW is a fairytale. Why not buy insurance for meterotites hitting your house, or Sasquatch attacking you while you sleep, or sea monsters attacking you at sea. Belief in fairytales has no parallel to provable events like house fires.

  25. I, too, fail to understand the shouty political definitions attached to whether one is sceptical of CAGW or not. As a Kiwi living temporarily in the UK, I am frequently surprised at how thoroughly ‘tribal’ and nastily personal UK politics are and how roughly similar they are to politics as they were back in the 1950s in my country, before we grew up a little as a nation.
    I don’t wish to be a grump or to be hurtful of anyone’s delicate sensibiities, but my elderly mind tries to jump the sprockets of reason when I attempt to follow Ms Thorpe’s soliloquys – does her latest tell us she once defied her parents to take a ‘coloured’ friend to their country club and buy her a drink, and as a consequence daringly changed political ‘sides’ from that of her parents and her dumb but moneyed and priveledged peers ? Wow!
    Like Rhett Butler in ‘Gone With the Wind’, ‘I just don’t give a damn!’.

  26. Christopher Hanley says:
    January 6, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    A person can’t be an “oxymoron”.

    Sure he can’t.

    And to Alexander K, I say: Just claim to be a “climate realist”, take the moral high ground on veracity and truth, and lean not to any political side:

    Politics (from Greek πολιτικος, [politikós]: «citizen», «civilian»), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

    Quite often, “politics” is the very antithesis of good science.

  27. Dr. Emanuel has become the equivalent of a trained monkey in Cambridge and for liberals everywhere.

  28. David L says:
    January 7, 2011 at 3:58 am

    “Emanuel said. “The parallel to that is saying, ‘You won’t buy property insurance unless I can prove to you that your house will catch on fire right now.’”

    The precautionary principle……..AGAIN! I think history has shown that fire is a real danger. AGW is a fairytale. Why not buy insurance for meterotites hitting your house, or Sasquatch attacking you while you sleep, or sea monsters attacking you at sea. Belief in fairytales has no parallel to provable events like house fires.

    You make a good point–and the insurance premium should necessarily be commensurate with the risk. Assessing the risk level of a Sasquatch attack (whether you’re asleep or awake, even) would be so ridiculously low that the premium would also be ridiculously low. The problem is that the “insurance premium” the global warmers are attempting to extract from the world’s population is blown all out of proportion compared to the risk. My pocket change would actually be sufficient to cover the insurance premium for actual climate change risk.

  29. “Not touching this one with a ten-foot pole — just wondering what the motivation is for yet another Emanuel article, which get more and more political.”

    It very simple, really. Consider the timing – a new Congress has been sworn in which will (hopefully) be ending the Climate Ca$h gravy train these guys have been riding for the past decade or more. Academics like Emanuel are getting nervous that government funding for his (and his colleagues) pet projects may soon be curtailed or come to an end. The problem now for people like Emanuel is that we can no longer consider their advice to be unbiased with regards to climate change as they have firmly stepped into the political arena (as have Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, etc.).

    Expect more climate ca$h-funded scientists (and their allies in the leftist enviro special interest groups) to start “speaking out” in more strident and shrill tones as the new budgets are debated in Congress.

  30. “There was never a light-bulb moment but a gradual realization based on the evidence,” Emanuel said. “I became convinced by the basic physics and by the better and better observation of the climate that it was changing and it was a risk that had to be considered.”
    Judging from that statement alone, I can see why there was never a “light bulb moment”. Not enough wattage there to run so much as a Christmas tree light.

  31. Money perverts lots of things, huge government grants to prove what government wants proved is the worst. Something like $30 billion has been given in government grants to make the case that governments must regulate people’s action because of people breathing too much.

    There is a trap there.

  32. It is pretty clear that:

    Kerry Emanuel’s Hurricane Research – is the same as E=MC^2

    It cannot be questioned by anyone and especially by the elected representatives of the people. They are not qualified to ask questions. There are only there to provide money to climate researchers and cheer on their efforts.

    Questioning global warming science is like questioning Einstein or that the Earth is a sphere or all of science in general.

    In fact, you are personally anti-science if you even want to “see” the data.

    Reviewing the publicly available data on your own is, likewise, an anti-science position.

    It should be kept in a secure archive that can be accessed by CO2-based climate models only. It should, in fact, be classified as “top secret”.

    Any other position is anti-science.

  33. Re: Whether a person can be an “Oxy-moron”…

    Yes indeed, they can be! Former Governer of Minnesota, USA – – – Jesse “The Body” Ventura. Definitely an OXYMORON…

    Max

  34. Gee Ryan you really should post a warning to have a vomit bag handy when you post a link to an article like the LA times one. My computer will never be the same.

  35. As an actual conservative (not a Republican), this article had me laughing. The message the author got across to me was “We all know that Democrats are a bunch of idiots and will believe just about anything but look(!), we’ve found an honest to god conservative who believes in it so it must be true, right?”

    Um……… no.

  36. Christopher Hanley says: “A person can’t be an “oxymoron”.”

    Sure they can. Gore is an ox, and a moron.

  37. “As a politically conservative climatologist who accepts the broad scientific consensus on global warming”

    So, as a scientist he believes political propaganda and consensus science. He does not check the science, just trusts the bought and paid for “climate scientists.”

    He also believes that the Republicans are anti-science. No, they are against junk science! Real science supports Republican and, no, science is not political – the Republican just happen to be right in this case.

    Generally, the liberals want things that do not stand up to logical scrutiny and it makes sense that science, which is about as logical as can be, would not support what they want. So, they have to lie to support their agenda.

    There is all kinds of argument about how the energy budget and radiative balance works in the atmosphere and climate. That is good, honest debate. Quite often there are missing pieces, however, as convection and water vapor are not included in the radiation flux discussion. When ALL factors are considered, the effects of changes in CO2 become too small to worry about and man’s contribution is thus inconsequential.

  38. six million dollar man says:
    January 7, 2011 at 1:56 am

    I’m currently writing a book called ” As bad As Each Other: Comparing stupidity on boths sides of the fence” – Who made up these arbitrary divisions anyway? Why can’t we vote on every single issue via computer? We have the technology
    ========================================================

    Because proper government isn’t a popularity contest. Democracy, in the form you describe is “2 wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.” (paraphrasing)

    Write that in your book. More over, if it had come to a vote a couple of years ago, we’d be stuck with cap-n-trade already.

  39. Great the bring out a bunch of posers to convince us they are just like us. No, no they’re not. They still don’t have a clue about what’s driving the skeptical bus.

    They can call themselves what ever they wish. It doesn’t make it so. A repub that voted for Bambi? You probably don’t meet the definition. An evangelical that believes mankind can control the weather? Uhhm, yeh, ok, I buying that. I’m really superman too, I just don’t wear it on my sleeve. ……..whatever.

    They can call themselves whatever, I just want to be clearly separated from them. If he’s a republican that voted for bOwbama, then I’m a libertarian that votes republican. If an evangelical believes man can control the weather, then I’m a Baptist that believes we can’t. Label what you will.

  40. I really like that traffic rank graph. Cutting off the lower bound where you did, Anthony, and leaving RC to spike into view only now and then reminds me of a swimmer in grave danger.

    REPLY: Actually the cutoff was automatically imposed by Alexa.com in the plot they make…you see they don’t plot data fro websites that are below the top 100,000 in rank…hence the blips. However, your point about a swimmer is accurate in this context. – Anthony

  41. “Emanuel said. “The parallel to that is saying, ‘You won’t buy property insurance unless I can prove to you that your house will catch on fire right now.’”

    Where I come from that would class as a direct threat against me, mine and my house. It would label the speaker as a thug with a gallon of gas in his car and a lighter in his pocket. And my next move would be (at the least) to run him off with a shotgun.

  42. “Political views may be hard-wired into people, according to a study that suggests those with right-wing views have a larger area of the brain associated with fear.
    Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond-shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions, London’s Daily Telegraph reports.
    They also have smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life, than those from the opposite end of the political spectrum.”

    Absolutely opposite of the positron brain scan results (UCLA) of “hard core partisians” done in 2004 before the election. The areas of the brain associated with “emotional response” lit up like a Christmas tree when shown pictures of Kerry and Edwards. Fear areas lit up when hard core (Democrats) were shown Bush/Cheny pictures.

    There was “normal brain processing” for images of both Kerry/Bush in the “hard core conservatives”.

    I think I’d trust the “live observations” more than the speculative “brain volume assesments”.

    But then because of the potential “politiziation” of this matter, I’d rather have some “quality assurance” done on the researchers too! (Maybe like vote counting, one Democrat matched with one Republican..)

  43. I am a scientist, and consider myself a good conservative scientist. That means I “conserve” the scientific principle and adhere to its method. The Laws of Conservation of Matter, and so on, state the conservative position. Any scientist who is liberal with these principles may expect apples to fall up one day, and can be led to believe anything any fool tells him. These liberal scientists now seem to believe in a pack mentality that asserts that burning coal and hydrocarbons causes the earth to heat up out of control. This idea, or whim, or hypothesis (not a theory) has been tested and retested repeatedly by many outstanding scientists using the conservative scientific method, and AGW has been summarily falsified. It only took the falsification of one premise, but they all fell!

    My conclusion: a liberal scientist is not a scientist at all. A scientist is by definition, conservative.

  44. Heh – I’m always amused by political generalizations.

    Look, nobody (that I know) ever said that left/right = belief/disbelief in cAGW. What does tend to happen, though, is that the left tend to believe more easily that we mere humans are damaging the planet and (here’s the important part) WE NEED TO CHANGE EVERYTHING TO FIX IT.

    Any discussion about political affiliation is going to deal in generalizations. Not unlike your astrology sign (I’m a Scorpio). I don’t believe that horoscopes can predict, however my personal experience is that people tend to follow their signs, whether they like it or believe it or not. We Scorpios think that way, you see.

    The very definition of left/right varies by region. Different states/provinces/districts of different countries/continents will have a different set of priorities, but overall the left/right difference can be summed up, somehow. Sometimes a group will all be so far off in one direction that the only difference is the degree.

    My personal simplification:
    The left emphasizes feelings and emotions, and collectivism.
    The right emphasizes thinking and self-reliance.

    Obviously, the left feels that they think more than the right, which eliminates their ability to critically analyse that simplification.

    Anyway, the real issue is single-issue. Anyone who defines their belief system and their entire life on a single issue is going to see the world in a bizarre black/white left/right up/down way. One example is gay people, who tend to define themselves more as gay (as opposed to straight) than male/female/white/black/asian/intellectual/artist or whatever else we use to define ourselves.

    I’m firmly on the RIGHT in my political outlook, but it wasn’t always that way. I also recognize that many people who associate themselves with the Right (or conservative, or Republican, or whatever) really have no idea what they stand for. Just because you agree with one or two policies or ideas that you think are “conservative” doesn’t mean you ARE a “conservative”. Heck, I like a few of the things that the left endorse, but I wouldn’t be caught dead associated with any leftist/democrat I’ve yet met.

    Oh, and those who think the zeroBama “health care” thing is a good idea are really not well-informed on the subject (although I think you feel you are). I’ve lived most of my life watching the dismal failure that the canadian system has become. You really don’t want to screw up your country this way. Really.

  45. RE: Larry Bell was absolutely correct about global tropical cyclone activity record lows.

    Hm, it seems what Bell actually said was “Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.” True, global tropical cyclone activity is very low by some measures, but “no 2010 U.S. landfalls” is not relevant, and “average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years” would refer to Atlantic activity, and Atlantic activity was nearly at a record high.

    [RyanM: Bell was lamenting about the lack of media interest in good climate stories: how is he wrong again, and how do you dismiss the record-low global tropical cyclone activity again?]

  46. Mike Haseler says:
    January 7, 2011 at 12:50 am

    “And to be honest, I think when Barack Obama drops the global warming rubbish as he is bound to do (he’s not exactly enthusiastic is he!), he’ll be the best president the US ever had … but then again, he’s not exactly left of centre!”

    I’m not going to argue about all of his policies, but I think it is pretty obvious that Barack is a global warming true believer. He banned offshore oil drilling against the recommendation of a panel of scientists/engineers/whatever and even though he “repealed” that ban under pressure he left in a de facto ban on oil drilling by requiring permits to drill – and then not issuing any permits.

    Add a few other things to the mix like John Holdren (his science advisor) and his views beome quite clear indeed.

  47. six million dollar man says:
    January 7, 2011 at 1:56 am
    I’m currently writing a book called ” As bad As Each Other: Comparing stupidity on boths sides of the fence” – Who made up these arbitrary divisions anyway? Why can’t we vote on every single issue via computer? We have the technology
    ——————————————–
    The USA is a representative republic. Your idea doesn’t seem very compatible with that concept. It also would be susceptible to fraud and manipulation on scale that even the Chicago political machine never dreamed of.

  48. Let’s please use this graphic each time the media tells us how much our current climate sucks.

  49. Christopher Hanley says:
    January 6, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    ‘A person can’t be an “oxymoron”.’

    Yeah, someone who believes that a person can be an oxymoron will also believe that a person can be the truth. I wonder who that could be?

  50. Can’t you see the major down-trend in the WUWT traffic since the very beginning of 2o10? At this rate, WUWT traffic levels will be “under water” within… (well, can we get Mann/Hansen to extrapolate the death-knell rate?)

  51. Benjamin P. says:
    January 7, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Ben, I guess you do not know many conservatives.

    As for the left/right = AGW/Skeptic comparison. That is usually caused by the prominent solutions being proposed to the (non-existent) problem. For conservatives that do believe in AGW (or A any of the other names they have come up with), taxing is an anathema, but taxing is the lifeblood of the left. Conversely, those on the left that are skeptics may very well support another tax – but for purposes of raising revenue, not treating a problem they do not believe is one.

    For those that are well versed on the subject of AGW, ACC, or AGCD, the ancillary issues of taxes or restrictions is secondary to the science. So left and right do not matter in that respect.

  52. EFS Junior said:

    Here’s a link to the Forbes article, which you left out of this post;

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/23/media-climate-change-warming-opinions-contributors-larry-bell_print.html

    “Record Low 2009 and 2010 (methinks GLOBAL TROPICAL would have been placed right aboot here) Cyclonic Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed”?

    Cyclonic Activity? Tropical? Polar? Extratropical? Subtropical? Mesocyclone?

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

    Note first that in your WIkileaks link, it describes Cyclone as such:

    a cyclone is an area of closed, circular fluid motion rotating in the same direction as the Earth.[1][2] This is usually characterized by inward spiraling winds that rotate counter clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere of the Earth.

    The term cyclone refers to BOTH hemispheres. If Bell would have said “Record Low 2009 and 2010 Hurricane Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed”, you and RC might have a point… But he didn’t. He said Cyclone

    Nice bait and switch.

    “Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season?”

    Hurricanes?

    U.S. 2004 season?

    Note that he’s talking about the media brouhaha that occurred that year. I must ask – how many instances can you find in the media where SH Cyclones were specifically hyped, as Al Gore often reminded us “that is a sure sign of global warming”. If you look, I think you’ll find there aren’t many.

    “Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years

    RC noted that this year was busier than usual… OK. But, Bell said seasons, and, with this year being an outlier, not to mention the influence the El Nino had on building up latent heat to fuel the hurricane engine, Bell is correct. And, as RC is so quick to remind us during one cool year, or one (no two, no three) unusually cold winters – one year does not equal climate!

    before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.”

    Hurricane landfall is a game of chance, so this quibble is neither here nor there.

    OK. I’m done. Have to go work now.

  53. Otis Chandler (owner of the LA Times 1960-1980), who dragged the LA Times out of the partisan and yellow-journalism gutter and turned it into a respected world-class newspaper, would roll-over in his grave then rise up and fire the reporter and editor responsible for such a blatantly partisan, non-journalistic piece, which should have appeared, if at all, in the editorial or opinion section.

  54. His lack of understanding about the purpose of insurance and fire risk is so elementary as to make me question his reasoning ability in any area.

  55. I think a person’s political principles will (if a person is logically consistent and has some rational discipline) be based on that person’s ethical premises. The weirdness starts to occur when, for whatever reason, a person does not have consistently rational thought processes; randomness of political affiliation (independent of ethics) would occur then based on emotion, belief systems and/or herd instinct. This weirdness would be the expected case for followers, but not likely for the leaders of an ideology like CAGW. The leaders may actually have relatively consistent ethics and politics . . . does anyone know of an individual leader of CAGW like this? I do not know of any.

    All that aside, a person could also be purposely attempting misdirection (for whatever motivation) regarding their actual ethical and political principles. In my view that is one of the likely cases for some key leaders of an ideology like CAGW; based on the issues surrounding climate science credibility.

    This is all wonderful to consider as we blog about MIT professor Kerry Emanuel. Is he a leader or follower? I think it is likely that he is a reactive follower; leadership does not spring to mind when discussing him.

    John

  56. Actually, my dissertation work involved extratropical cyclones as well. It appears that explosive extratropical cyclones are at a record low as well.

  57. nc says:
    January 7, 2011 at 10:07 am
    Jakers said -but “no 2010 U.S. landfalls” is not relevant- seemed very relevant to Gore.

    Ha ha, talk about “not relevant”…

  58. I’m a Liberal sometimes, I’ve voted for Liberal Prime Ministers in Canada (sometimes). I think CAGW is a follow the money scam, many of my sometimes Liberal friends also think CAGW is a scam (not all of them). CO2 alarmism and skepticism is not politically orientation specific.

  59. And it’s about time the US got a decent health care system which cared for those who don’t have the economic means to look after their health … LIKE THOSE WHO ARE ILL AND CAN’T WORK

    It’s too bad the US didn’t do that when it had a chance, isn’t it? Instead they passed that ObamaCase monstrosity which primarily seeks to redistribute wealth.

    Why is it that liberals think the way to create equality is to tear down other people?

  60. I don’t care if he thinks he is a conservative or not. I am not. Heck conservatives have lots of really dumb ideas too. I have a much bigger problem with referring to Kerry Emanuel as a scientist. We have now long passed the point where a scientist, that is at all current on the issue, can still support a CAGW hypothesis as anything other than a mental exercise.

  61. [RyanM: Bell was lamenting about the lack of media interest in good climate stories: how is he wrong again, and how do you dismiss the record-low global tropical cyclone activity again?]

    dismiss the record-low global tropical cyclone activity? I don’t. Yet Bell never says global tropical cyclone activity. He says “Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season?” Hm, US season. Follows up with “Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.” Is this referring to global tropical cyclone activity? Are there global tropical cyclone activity patterns noted for the past 150 years? And what of U.S. landfalls? Is that relevant to global tropical cyclone activity?

  62. “[Follow up note to Ryan: RC’s apology really doesn’t matter, since nobody is paying attention to them anymore anyway, see below – Anthony]”

    You know Watt? That was just rude! It was also factual and deserved!! 8>)

  63. bubbagyro says:
    January 7, 2011 at 8:55 am

    “I am a scientist, and consider myself a good conservative scientist. That means I “conserve” the scientific principle and adhere to its method. The Laws of Conservation of Matter, and so on, state the conservative position. Any scientist who is liberal with these principles may expect apples to fall up one day, and can be led to believe anything any fool tells him. ….”
    ======================================================

    Worse, as was noted by Voltaire “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

  64. Cynthia Lauren Thorpe says:
    January 7, 2011 at 1:38 am

    I’m a SKEPTIC (on multitudinous levels) and I’m damned proud of being one. It beats the word ‘PATSY’ any day of the week!

    Thank you Cynthia, I think you’ve just given us *the* word to use to describe those who have fallen for the AGW hoax – “PATSY”

  65. Here is a crash course on the difference between liberals and conservatives:

    Conservatives want freedom;
    liberals want control.
    Conservatives want to decide their own fate;
    liberals want to decide everyone else’s fate.
    Conservatives believe in the power of the individual;
    liberals believe in the power of the State.
    Conservatives want laws repealed;
    liberals want laws passed.
    Conservatives believe a higher authority is possible;
    liberals believe THEY are the higher authority.
    Conservatives know agw is a wealth redistribution scam;
    liberals pretend agw is about the magnaminity of a trace gas.
    Conservatives point to historical data as proof that climate change is natural;
    liberals point to gigo computer projections as proof that climate change is manmade.

    Get the picture?

  66. “Well, the data is subject to interpretation. Over the longer term, the planet has warmed. 2010 is the second warmest year on the satellite record. Arctic sea ice is at a record low for the date. There is a reasonable basis to argue that the world is warming, if one is so inclined. And CO2 is increasing. So in terms of philosophy, one could reasonably believe that CO2 is contributing to increasing temperatures.”

    That’s not the issue. The issue is i) whether the change is even material (+0.18 deg C anomaly for December–please); ii) whether change in climate can be reasonably linked to CO2, iii) whether CO2 can be reasonably limited by intervention, and iv) whether the cost of intervenion can produce commensurate benefits. In terms of policy–as opposed to personal belief–there are mountains of uncertainty. There is little basis to undertake material sacrifices now on the basis of the information available.

  67. …waking to coffee (in my WUWT mug, of course) and reading these comments from truly OUTSTANDING ‘Real Scientists’… I keep forgetting to bring along my ‘biro’ (blue Bic pen, for Americans) and writing pad…

    I enjoy scooping up ‘truly life giving & inspiring’ quotes that you guys post. Some from yourselves – some from other truly great humans from the past. Like, Voltare. (I personally enjoy that guy who traveled America and said ‘she is Great because she’s good…’ he was cool because he was HONEST.)

    Do any of you know of a book that ‘in a nut shell’ gives Voltare’s ‘best thoughts’?

    There’s also a plethora of great stuff from Einstein, that most of you know – and over the past few weeks I’ve already read a couple of books on Jefferson because of what ‘Smokey’ shared months ago…

    Geez! Who KNEW that by reading ONE WEB SITE that ‘one’ (being ME in this case) would be privy to such mind expanding stuff? Perhaps (now, this is JUST a Theory – so please cut me some slack…) ‘as individuals’ – when we come together – this…this ‘Synergy’ happens and I leave this computer better off than when I first sat down to it…?

    ‘Wowie Zowie’ she so ‘scholarer-ly’ exclaims.

    No wonder governments in 2011 want to regulate this thing! Does that mean that Cass Sunstein has been wantin’ to keep all this good stuff to himself?

    Com’ on, Cass! (is that short for ‘Cassity’? as in Butch, mebbe? where’s… Sundance?)

    You wouldn’t want the rest of us to go ‘without’ would you??? she ‘skeptically’ inquires…

    I just BET that all of our government’s ‘collective individuals’ so very much need a ‘real boost’ from great places like Watts Up!!! So… I heartily suggest that they log on and read on… but you ‘government-types’… if you do that – AT LEAST promise you’ll keep the Marxist/Behaviorist/Skinnerism-ing crap to yourselves. Jus’ for our continuing enjoyment – you understand. I mean, jus’ cause I like to smoke…doesn’t mean I’m so rude as to blow it in YOUR faces…like you guys foist your secularist garbage in our faces all the time…

    Ohhhh… Why waste a great mood? – I’m currently writing down James Sexton’s quote from Voltare and then goin’ out to tend the sheep… p.s. the weather in the Southeast is overcast and cool… Have any of you thought of getting fellow Scientists
    to just ‘check thermometers outside their homes to ‘accurately’ log this ‘climate change’? …Methinks it’d be a whole lot more ‘accurate’…or mebbe lickin’ one’s finger to test just which way ‘the wind’s gonna blow’…? A Farmer’s Almanac, even…???

    Inquiringly – your lil’ Sis in the Southeast –
    Cynthia Lauren

  68. ooooohhhh….Charles S. Opalek, PE says!!!

    I’ve just swooned again….how do I find my 4-wheeler now…?

    Gotta keep on writing your comments down… THANK YOU CHARLES!

    An Invigorated ‘Thorpie’

  69. A conservative in Cambridge is a Marxist radical when viewed from South Carolina and the most of the rest of fly over country that make the world work.
    His views on Global Warming give you a hint of what the rest of his political views are.

  70. Jakers said:

    He says “Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season?” Hm, US season. Follows up with “Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.”

    He’s discussing the media coverage of 2004, and the lack of media coverage in the years after that. Again, the MSM almost never covers Southern Hemi cyclones, so he can’t criticize them for that. Probably might think about not taking quotes out of contest. That always gets people into trouble.

    And, as I said on my blog-post, RC assumes they know what Bell was thinking. They would have done much better to have, I don’t know, maybe called him, ask him what his sources were, and see if they could write a response for Forbes, instead of being snarky and stupid about it.

  71. Steve in SC says:
    January 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    “A conservative in Cambridge is a Marxist radical when viewed from South Carolina and the most of the rest of fly over country that make the world work.”

    Well, don’t forget that Freeman Dyson has lived in Cambridge for many decades now and he is a terribly nice man.

  72. @ Charles S Opalek, good list, validates what I’ve been saying for years, Republicans can’t be considered conservative.

    @ Cynthia Lauren Thorpe, I think Voltaire would appreciate it if you could spell his name correctly. Not trying to be snarky, just pointing out it has an ‘i’ in it.

    I consider myself a traditionalist rather than a conservative, largely because conservative has become as meaningless as ‘liberal’ or ‘left wing’ these days. People just tend to mean ‘that lot who think differently’.

  73. Oh, an’ to Alexander K the New Zealander ‘in the UK’…

    Sorry if you don’t enjoy my ‘soliloquies/rants’ – I’ve gotten a lot out of yours .

    I’m also currently ‘displaced’. An American business woman learning to live ‘in the Outback’. It’s ‘tough’ at times – culturally speaking. I somehow ‘found’ WUWT which ‘for me’ is a forum within which to read and to conscientiously debate with others on a myriad of germane topics.

    When ‘ranting’ about Country Clubs – I was just demonstrating that I came from a privileged Conservative background (showing I wasn’t just talking ‘outta my a**, you understand) that ‘I knew of which I had spoken’… – and when I sniffed ‘hipocracy’ (which one can find ANYWHERE) – I left and kinda did a young ‘David Horowitz’y thing – became a ‘useful idiot’… till life’s school of ‘hard knocks’ brought a tried and true Conservative into being. That’s all. ‘No Dramas’, Alexander.

    And, now, I’m even a Capitalist, too!!! So, the next time I go into a Country Club it’ll be under my OWN merit…NOT my ‘folks’…and, I’ll bring anyone of ANY COLOR I so choose, ’cause that’ll be ‘my right’ if I am paying ‘the dues’. C apish?

    But, your ‘Gone With the Wind’ thing intrigues me… ’cause I loved Rhett’s character and thought Scarlett embodied all that was truly FATAL in females…

    Be Blessed and KEEP WARM – my Kiwi Bud…

    Cynthia Lauren

    io’debatebate us’ don’t don’t read them.

    [Careful now. Ya gotta watch out for them there “hipocracies” all the time – particularly when making observations about their weight. 8<) Robt]

  74. In for lunch…and need to MAKE IT rather than keep reading…!!!

    Thanks, LB! I stand corrected and I’ll remember.

    Now, do you know of a good book that kinda ‘encapsulates’ his thoughts & life?

    C.L.Thorpe

  75. hahaha….thanks Robert!
    hahaha…gotta make Ian’s ham sandwiches!

    Here he comes now………ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

  76. Sonicfrog says:
    January 7, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    Jakers said:
    He says “Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season?” Hm, US season. Follows up with “Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.”

    He’s discussing the media coverage of 2004, and the lack of media coverage in the years after that. Again, the MSM almost never covers Southern Hemi cyclones, so he can’t criticize them for that.

    OK — so what is Bell criticizing them for, when the Atlantic season was well above average this year?

  77. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    January 7, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Here is a crash course on the difference between liberals and conservatives:

    Conservatives want freedom;
    liberals want control.
    Conservatives want to decide their own fate;
    liberals want to decide everyone else’s fate.
    Conservatives believe in the power of the individual;
    liberals believe in the power of the State.
    Conservatives want laws repealed;
    liberals want laws passed.
    Conservatives believe a higher authority is possible;
    liberals believe THEY are the higher authority.
    Conservatives know agw is a wealth redistribution scam;
    liberals pretend agw is about the magnaminity of a trace gas.
    Conservatives point to historical data as proof that climate change is natural;
    liberals point to gigo computer projections as proof that climate change is manmade.

    Get the picture?

    I get the picture. You. Clueless.

  78. I am a conservative, and simply because Kerry Emanuel says he is one doesn’t mean he is. L.A. Times tends to define anyone to their right as “conservative” even if the one they are describing is a liberal.

    If he is wrong on AGW, it doesn’t matter to me what he is otherwise.

  79. LOL @ “JK”

    Care to expound on your brilliant summation of those facts? Really? Prove any two of those points wrong (I’m giving you that because one is wrong).

  80. bubbagyro says:
    January 7, 2011 at 8:55 am
    … These liberal scientists now seem to believe in a pack mentality that asserts that burning coal and hydrocarbons causes the earth to heat up out of control. This idea, or whim, or hypothesis (not a theory) has been tested and retested repeatedly by many outstanding scientists using the conservative scientific method, and AGW has been summarily falsified. It only took the falsification of one premise, but they all fell!

    My conclusion: a liberal scientist is not a scientist at all. A scientist is by definition, conservative.

    Someone here the other day said a person cannot be an oxymoron, two completely opposite words describing the same, but seems you just found one… liberal scientist!

  81. Understanding the genesis of a Kerry Emmanuel may be helped by the remarks of Richard Lindzen:
    “…I wish to point out some simple truths that are often forgotten by our
    side of this issue. First, being skeptical about global warming does not, by itself, make one a good scientist; nor does endorsing global warming make one, per se, a poor scientist. Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming. The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier.

    “For example, my colleague, Kerry Emanuel, received relatively little recognition until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world (a position that I think he has since backed away from somewhat). He then was inundated with professional recognition….” [from his presentation at the March, 2009 ICCC]

    http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf

  82. @Benjamin P. says:
    January 7, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Benjamin – #1, you know all of those people? (your claim was who you knew)
    #2 – 4 in 10 of ALL Americans. Liberals included. Given their proclivity to believe in anything religious, I would say the AGW crowd is disproportionately represented. But that is just IMHO.

    Links should be used to buttress an opinion, not to add irrelevant information.

Comments are closed.